Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc - 3 of 3September 13, 2010 Citizen Comment: Dana - Proposed Shoreline Master Program Citizen Comment: Young - Proposed Shoreline Master Program Citizen Comment: Riley - Proposed Shoreline Master Program Citizen Comment: Iden - Proposed Shoreline Master Program Citizen Comment: Richards - Proposed Shoreline Master Program CONSENT AGENDA Council Meeting Minutes of 8/16/2010 Appeal: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Nicholson, LUA-10-04l - Renton City Council Minutes Page 267 Continuing, Ms. Simpson stated that even if the Department of Ecology (DOE) sends the document back with required changes the City can propose alternatives to those changes. She noted that the process is complicated, cumbersome, and that DOE expects it to take approximately two to three years. She remarked that Renton's SMP will affect its residents and businesses for decades and requested that Council take the time to understand how the program will affect the community prior to forwarding it to DOE. Buzz Dana (Renton) stated that he owns two properties on Lake Washington and 40 years ago built a bulkhead to protect a sewer line that serves his and adjacent properties. He stated that he has been told that he would not have difficulty obtaining permits to develop his property because that bulkhead protects the sewer line and adjacent homes. Mr. Dana pointed out, however, that as the SMP is currently written, he would have to go through the delay and expense of generating a geotechnical report when redeveloping. He requested that Council consider the coalition's proposed revisions, and take the additional time to fully understand the long-term impacts the SMP will have on the growth of Renton. Gary Young (Renton) stated that he is a shoreline property owner and member of the RSC. He requested that the SMP be referred to the Committee of the Whole so the full Council could consider the legislation before it is adopted. Virginia Riley (Renton) requested that the SMP be referred to the Committee of the Whole so the full Council could consider the legislation, and the concerns of the Renton Shoreline Coalition, before it is adopted. Kevin Iden (King County) expressed appreciation to City officials, staff, and the citizens who spent time working on the draft SMP. He requested that Council avoid making the SMP unnecessarily restrictive because once it is approved it cannot be revised without Department of Ecology approval. Mr. Iden explained that the Shorelines Hearings Board is the ultimate review authority for shoreline-related projects. He requested that Council resolve the coalition's final issues before approving the SMP. Darius Richards (Renton) thanked all parties responsible for shaping and creating the SMP. He stated that he believes the Planning and Development Committee requires more time to review the revisions proposed by the Renton Shoreline Coalition regarding shoreline stabilization structures. Mr. Richards also stated that the requirements for existing bulkheads are more stringent than what State guidelines recommend. He requested that Council delay the vote on this issue until the proposed revisions are fully reviewed. Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Approval of Council meeting minutes of 8/16/2010. Council concur. / City Clerk reported receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board filed by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, LUA-10-041. Refer to City Attorney Department. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: LUA-10-041, ECM, SM, Brad Nicholson v. City of Renton Exhibits: Petition for Review, Declaration of Brad Nicholson, and Exhibits Recommended Action: Refer to City Attorney Department Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required:$ Amount Budgeted: $ Total Project Budget: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Meeting: Regular Council -13 Sep 2010 Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Executive Staff Contact: Bonnie Walton Transfer Amendment:$ Revenue Generated:$ I City Share Total Project:$ Petition for Review, Declaration of Brad Nicholson, and Exhibits filed as an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board requesting a review of the decision to approve Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, LUA-10-041, ECM, SM, by Brad Nicholson, 2302 NE 28th St., Renton, 98056. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 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 27 28 CITY OF RENTON j BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD SEP O 2 2010 CITY f&9f1VED IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ~ ..• -K'S OFFICE: . .t ,'.;i '.;> f'· ,j/l. i-fa,,d cft/1,N,·ed /:,'( A :,dcbds,-., In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial ~ Case No. fo) [E (C ~ ~ ~ IE D Development Permit LUAl0-041, ECM, SM: ) Petition for ReviJ[U AUG 2 6 2010 Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. City of Renton Respondents. Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 425 445 0658 brad827@hotrnail.com Name and address of Respondents: Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee City ofRenton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Pagel of20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE Brad Nichoh:on , .J.o (!_{!,: -;J'a.y f!_oVtfl'j r, 1-arrr Warren Ale)( Pte..fsd. 2 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 3 4 In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No. ) 5 Development Permit LUAI0-041, ECM, SM: ) Petition for Review ) 6 Brad Nicholson, ) ) 7 Petitioner, ) ) 8 ~ ) ) 9 City of Renton ) ) 10 Respondents. ) ) 11 ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 425 445 0658 brad827@hotmail.com Name and address of Respondents: Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee City of Renton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner. Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Page 1 of20 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Proponent: Spencer Alpert Alpert Intemational, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5tAvenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Parties Served: Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 !60thAvenue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 W asbington office of the Attorney General Rob McKenna 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 This is a request for Shorelines Board review of the decision to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit designated LUA!0-041, ECR, SM, issued on August 9, 2010, signed and approved by Renton' s planning director "Chip" Vincent. A copy of the decision is attached herewith. 22 I. JNTRODUCTORYFACT 23 Evidently, Renton's planning priorities are severely misplaced. The decision has the effect of approving 24 of a Shoreline variance even though no evidence of the necessary criteria is present' The attached 25 decision contains a bulleted list that claims to descnlle "each part" of the proposed project while 26 incognizant of the need for a decision balancing the needs of the public. 27 28 1 The burden of proof for a variance RCW 90 .58.140(7) is on the applicant Among other reqniremen ts, the circnmstances must be "extraordinary" to be consistent the with "'!Uirements RCW 90.58.100(5) Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 2 of20 The decision claim that "each part" is included on the bulleted list is very far from being the truth The 2 words "each part" are misleading, hiding many facts of the true nature and contents of the permit. 3 The following provides a description of some of the absent parts with a·bulleted list that is reasonable, 4 truthful, and appropriate: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • On the north of the site, a functionally interrelated, interdependent, connected, non-priority, non- water related, non-pnblic, 100% impervious, 5 story tall pre-approved 173 room Hotel with a spa, fitness center, restaurant, and parking lot named "Hawk's Landing depends on the project. Even though required by the SMA to do so, the true proponents of the permit never sought the necessary Shoreline permits, and never sought the necessary storm water or infrastructure facilities on ano1her segment of the same project uoder a different designation -L UA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H. The project will have around 350,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The Hotel does nothing to further public access or water related or aesthetics interest but instead interferes with those interests. The defective permit is the latest of a series of surprises with regard to how 1he project's water runoff will be handled. At the Hotel's SEPA hearing, they were able to sneak approval of the bogus "Rain Garden" that violates code and isn't a "Rain Garden at all until after SEP A was performed. They said the "Rain Garden" was going to discharge to the "Ditch" Even though it has been improperly decided to designate the only portion of the ''Urban" shoreline that is still uodeveloped, 1he decision is still incorrect and the permit should still be reversed because it does nothing to allow the public to have access to the Shoreline. Some people believe them that there is a "50 foot setback" applicable to the project. On the west, there is a 500 foot long orange scum containing drainage "Ditch" 1hat is obviously contaminated with metals with a very high elevation conveyance ontpnt pipe that ponds the site's extremely large quantity of water ruooff and infiltrates a significant portion of that water runoff to Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. Now they are going to fill the "Ditch", which is the opposite of what the project described in 1he SEPA application for the Hotel project This would be in lieu of the developer's responsibility, evidently because he refuses to mitigate the impacts o the hotel; a "bait and switch" tactic inconsistent with the previous pleas and decisions. Now, they contend 1he "Ditch" should be filled with imported material, uoder the guise that such action is an Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page3 of20 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acceptable continuation of a "cfuect discharge" to May Creek. It is simply not the case and not true. It is not a cfuect discharge to May Creek--it presently significantly infiltrates to Lake Washington. What the natural hydrologic regime would be in a natural enviromnent in the area has been totally disregarded. One thing is clear and that is that they dont know if infiltration wate will impact Lake Washington and Quendall Terminals or not, but it is easy to see (consistent with the other actions pleas) that the decision was made in support of the contention that the area is already degraded, and that since they are doing nothing to exacerbate the issues, the proposal has no impact It is evidently hoped that chances of reversal in appeals that may cite impact to the superfund site cfuectly downstream containing extremely hazardous chemicals would be reduced with the tactic, i.e. they will contend that it has already been decided. The "wet biofiltration swale" is being separately permitted on this project for another project it is intended to service, while both have separate numbers which LS the first indication that there is a problem. Without utilizing precedent for decisions in the KCSWDM, they want to conceal facts so as to affirm the developer's position regarding refusal to dedicate any Land with the hope that the inconsistencies with the City's Shoreline Management Program will go unnoticed. • On the southern 200 feet of the site, there is untouched State Shoreline meeting the criteria for designation as a "Conservation Enviromnent" under Renton's Shoreline Management Plan'. Two regulated wetlands, and a Class one Salmon Stream that should be protected by the Shoreline Management Act and numerous valuable species of wildlife including species listed as 'Threatened" and "Endangered" by the ESA that are cfuectly downstream from the Hotel. At least 10,000 square feet of the site area of the shoreline have been permitted to be bulldozed, and a pit would be excavated and fenced for storm water facilities that are not approved by the Storm water manual' and would violate important regulatory requirements of the SMA, Renton's SMP and Renton's code. It is represented as an "improvement" over existing conditions even though such representation is unsupported by substantial evidence, and while there is no authority in the , The King county Surf,u;e water Design Manual (KCSWDM) 2005 or 2009 edition requires the enhanced basic water quality menu to be used for this project A "wet biofiltration swale" i, a feature listed on the "Basic" menu and therefore is not atlowed. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page4 of20 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 27 28 SMA indicating "improvement" is all that is required. More than an "improvement" is required by the SMA and Renton's Shoreline Management Plan. No restoration has been proposed. • With an ill considered location the experimental non-infiltration drainage facility inconsistent with the impositions imposed by the City in previous environmental review will be directed to May Creek should the permit stand. It thereby increases its flow, inconsistent with Renton's SMP with regard to stream alteration causing unknown downstream damage. Increasing the flow of the Creek might be a way to permit the project without drain to Quendall Ternunals, but no facts are available indicating that such a decision is consistent with SMA are available. Few if no dissolve pollutants will be removed by the "Swale" even though there is a problem with metal according to the 303(d) Map, the KCSWDM, hydrologic survey of the Creek, (see exhibits) transportation estimates in excess of those permitted, and huge galvanized buildings that are dissolving into the Creek that the developer insisted would remain. It was discovered by the applicant during the SEPA hearing that one of the buildings would not be removed. The galvanized building is about 20,000 sq ft. and "straddling" the Shoreline jurisdictional line. • Tue decision inappropriately and unreasonably permits a very large "Mystery Area" of available land straddling the shoreline regulatory limits delineation and that is right down the middle of the project. It has never been articulated what development or use will take place on the "Mystery Area" and thus its reasonableness cannot be determined, but it is sui1able and possible and natural in size and characteristics to support the facilities that are listed on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu or public use elements. If they don't consider that the metals from the building in the "mystery area" dissolve and drain into May Creek, the permitted project violates the City's own code. Considering the public interest nature of the regulations that are intended to protect those interests with specific design criteria suggest only that the permit is saving the "mystery area" with this stab at approval in hope that more tax generating development can be added later. Depending on whether the dissolving zinc warehouse and other pollution generated by the project would be permitted to remain with absolutely no disclosure as to what use the area of land will be put --only that it is proposed to be ccntinnally dissolving heavy metals into the environment and discharging to May Creek---rrntreated is an important issue that has never been addressed. The permit should also be reversed because of the high traffic and high pollution generating nature of Petition for Review Brad Nicholso11 Page 5 of20 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 27 28 1he project. Perhaps the Seahawk's or Spencer Alpert may propose that the use on the 1-2 acre "Mystery area" in the center of the project within Shoreline jurisdiction be described later, on another unlawfully segmented part of the project like was done with the transportation and storm water facilities and previous plans. Originally, Spencer Alpert International applied for this project with the "Rain Garden',4 Whether the current project is the best OT correct course of action is a very important question. It was insisted at SEPA that the project would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, but1his project does not comply with it nor i,; it consistent with the SMP or SMA. This segment of the project is alleged to be only for the transportation and infrastructnre segment of the project inclnding storm water. From the outset there have been so many surprises with regard to the project like the "Rain Garden" and the "filling of the "Ditch" The City i,;sued the p=it to itself. It would certainly be more compliant with full disclosure if environmental review would be conducted on actual projects, or if subsequent segments would be consistent with the previous, OT if the entire true project could be reviewed all at once. The environmental review concluded that the water would be appropriately handled with respect before being discharged to the "Ditch" but now the ditch is proposed to be filled. Surprises like these that include features that have never been fully reviewed will probably continue if this type of procedure is used. The City has segmented the review to include only what is being proposed on each step of what is needed to avoid imposing the Shorelines regulations or impositions on the developer, evidently being driven the idea of securing more economic development. Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to try to convince the applicant there are appropriate and reasonable solutions to the projects shortcomings. Closing their eyes to the obvious need for a variance or exception to the SMA, SMP, or complying with the storm water manual, evidently relying upon mi,;information and mIBplaced priorities instead, the shoddily and poorly planned piecemeal City "revitalization" permit will needlessly tear up the shoreline 'Ever since the surprise discovery that the Hawk's Landing "Rain Garden" was really an impervions perforated pipe conveyance system, petitioner and others have put it in quotation marks and it is continued here. Petition for Review BradNic.holsoo Pag,6 of20 esthetics and disturb habitat, permanently block the area from public access and enjoyment, and discharge 2 its pollnted water into May Creek, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class 1 Salmon stream" 3 4 This appeal seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development 5 ofWaslrington's Shorelines and disregard ofnumerons provisions ofRCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline 6 Management Plan. 7 8 II. BACKGROUND FACTS 9 10 On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International applied for and obtained approval for a 11 Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a 12 fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. Proposing to 13 cut 32 trees and proposing to hydro-seed the Shoreline, the Seahawk's considered the project essential for 14 their football operations-although essentially submitted Mthout lawfully articulated street and storm 15 water improvements or a clear picture of the layout of the entire site plan. Another project that is across 16 the street and downstream of this project is a 20 some acre parcel commonly called Quendall Terminals, 17 that is presently being scoped for an EIS for 800 residential units and a subdivision for "mixed use" retail 18 development and is the subject of an EPA superfund investigation_ No coordinated storm water plan is yet 19 in place for the area. In yet another project, the Seahawk's practice facility next door was able to totally 20 exclude the public from enjoying the shoreline. 21 A Substantial Shoreline development permit was needed for the Seahawk' s Hotel project to proceed to 22 perform deconstruction and storm water work and/or stream alteration work Mthin 200 feet of the high 23 water mark on the State's Shoreline, but during it's SEPA hearing surprise Counsel insisted that the area 24 would not be "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. Placing 25 flower pots on the existing impervious asphalt was mentioned as a possible way to mitigate the 26 distraction_ It looks like the way that the proponent will keep his word now is that Planning director Chip 27 Vincent already approved a Shoreline Permit to the City for the project's construction. Spencer Alpert an 28 his Counsel argued that storm water improvements should be identified at the permit stage of the project Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 7 of20 and appropriate facilities would be detennined at that time. Counsel for Spencer Alpert also argued that if 2 the City does not take action within 45 days, then the project should be approved automatically. 1400 new 3 trips per day were purported to be generated, parking was to be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 4 new surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for "Tesla" electric vehicles. In addition to 5 proposing to construct a "Kai Pond", his bogus "Ram Garden", and installing capillary break building 6 drains to release groundwater just below the sites surface affecting the Hotel, the applicant planned to 7 move 4, 450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil over the top of the existing asphalt. 8 Even though the groundwater is nearly at the surface, it was contended that "best management practices" 9 could be used to protect the environment during construction but none were specifically identified. 10 Perhaps the construction water is proposed be directed to the "wet biofiltration swale" but it doesn't say. 11 12 From a perspective of groundwater flow inferred from test pits and scientific measurements, the "Ditch" 13 water is infiltrating directly upstream into the Port Quendall Superfund site and thence flows to Lake 14 Washington. Port Quendall is severely polluted from past manufacturers of wood preservative products 15 that dumped large amounts of chemicals in numerous areas of the site over decades. In summation, the 16 "ditch" along Lake Washington Blvd is very deep and around 500 feet long, infiltrating a significant 17 portion of its storm water directly to Quendall Terminals. See Massman declaration. 18 19 In addition to not knowing exactly how much water infiltrates and how much runs off, it is not known 20 how much of the superfund chemicals are being forced or "fluxed" into Lake Washington, this recent 21 discovery was after the Hotel's SEP A hearing. See EPA attachment. There are large patches of 22 percolating chemicals at Quendall 4-6 feet thick at significant depth significantly impacting the water 23 quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up Quendall Terminals, there will probably need to be 24 hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on that site. Relevant 25 here, were facts discovered that indicate a significant amount of water from the hotel project and "Ditch" 26 could enter the superfund site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. The remediation plan is 27 presently in progress, being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up of Quendall Terminals. EPA 28 Exhibits. The Dept. of Ecology evidently has given up on it. No facts regarding how the remediation facts Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page8 of20 might affect the project are available. Obviously, the results are not included in any review of the project 2 because they are not available. The questions raised by the results were tbe essence of a previous SEPA 3 appeal. 4 SEGB and Brad Nicholson's SEPA appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner cited the lack of the Hotel 5 projects' compliance with SEPA and the SMA, and lack of a coordinated and compliant Storm water 6 Plan. The entire record of the information contained in the appeal is hereby incorporated into this appeal. 7 The conclusion and decision for the Hotel project indicated that it was normal for the storm water system 8 to remain rm-designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be 9 applied. That is one of the problems. See Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Counsel for Spencer Alpert 10 insisted on splitting the Hotel's hearings into two separate hearings one for SEPA issues and one for 11 substantive site plan code issues. SEGB and Brad Nicholson obtained the testimony ofHydrogeologist 12 Dr. Joel Massman to opine on the issues. 13 14 On reconsideration to the City's Hearing Examiner, Dr. Massman found tbat a significant amonnt of the 15 storm water from the ditch supplies groundwater flow into Quendall T=inal.s and that the groundwater 16 flows to Lake Washington. The downstream area contains cancer causing chemicals impacting 17 groundwater to depths up to 50 feet, such as (PAH) Poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pentaclorophenol, 18 and (BTEX) Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene .. The PAH chemical family and the site 19 contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofuran. They are considered to be extremely 20 dangerous. The groundwater in that zone flows to Lake Washington. It does not flow to May Creek. 21 22 The area was and still is of particular concern because, like May Creek the area is considered prime 23 habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout. EPA exhibits. There are 24 also recreational swinuning areas nearby that pose a threat to humans. May Creek basin and Lake 25 Washington are supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle and numerous other valuable species. 26 May Creek's Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon are ESA listed species. 27 Recently Dr. Massman's conclusion that there is significant gronndwater flow into Lake Washington has 28 Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 9 of20 1 been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington's 2 shoreline as part of the superfund investigations. 3 4 Dr. Massman calculated the Storm water infiltration/runoff from the S eahawks Hotel that should be 5 supported by what was then an unarticulated water quality facility that would comply with the 2005 6 KCSWDM, to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to an annual average 18,000 to 22,500 gallons 7 per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably di 8 not take into account the lack of footing drains on the one building that counsel and Spencer Alpert 9 pledged would "not be touched". At least initially, it is also true that his calculations did not take into 10 account other impervious calculations such as transportation mitigation measures or what a "Rain 11 Garden" consisted of according to Spencer Alpert. With the fractionated review, it is next to impossible 12 for anyone to check the calculations with regard to current project's storm water facility size (even thou 13 it is on the wrong menu) effectively excluding the public from participating in that aspect of the project. 14 IS When asked to reconsider based upon the fact that the very high outlet pipe to May Creek causes the ditc 16 to pond and infiltrate significantly to Quendall Terminals, Renton's Hearing Examiner refused, citing 17 "that there is no need" because he had decided the use of the ''Best Available Science" was a mandatory 18 requirement and requiring that May Creek was "not to be put into jeopardy" would suffice, and then at 19 Spencer Alpert's insistence Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology 20 to the use of"Best Management practices" and that "whatever ''Rain Garden" feature" could be used as 21 long as it would satisfy the 2005 design manual and be discharged to the "Ditch" They never decided or 22 addressed whether more storm water flow would be added to May Creek or not or whether or where a 23 different compliaot feature might be located or what type or size it might be because at the time, no 24 complete plan was in existence. Neither was a Shoreline permit sought at that time. They reiterated that 25 ''best management practices" would be used during the dewater operation needed for construction but did 26 not identify any of them Sometime after the appeal requesting more consideration of the impacts of the 27 project, the City identified State money citing community revitalization ioterests to provide mitigation 28 measures for the Enterprise. This appeal follows: Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 10 of20 1 III. TIMING 2 3 A. This petition is timely filed according to WAC 461-08-340 because it is filed within 21 days of 4 the date the decision was made. WAC 461-08 states that, "A petition for review by any person aggrieved 5 by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state shall be filed with the board 6 within twenty-one days of the "date of filing" as defined in WAC 461-08-305. 7 8 IV. JURJSDICTION 9 lO A. The permit appeal issues are regulated by RCW 90.58.140(1) stating a development shall not be 11 undertaken on the shorelines of.the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the chapter and, after 12 adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelioes, rules, or master program, and RCW 13 90.5 8.140(2) stating, "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state 14 without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this 15 chapter"; 16 17 B. State Law RCW 90.58.180(1) provides that "Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or 18 rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise 19 provided in chapter 43 .2 IL RCW, seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for 20 review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6). 21 22 V. STANDING 23 24 Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who Jives a very sho 25 distance from the site, and uses the May Creek Shoreline and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining 26 the site. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Brad Nicholson has an active interest in the integrity of City of 27 Renton's land use and enviromnental review processes, has actively participated in past land use 28 processes including appeals relating to the site and its shoreline, and seeks to ensure that the City abides Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 11 of20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 its prior decisions and local and state SMA policies, procedures, and mandates and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and is negatively impacted by the improper processing an lack of appropriate designs in connection with this project. As a result of the impacts caused by the permit approval, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased damage to the shoreline quality envisioned by RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline plan, including lower water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington than envisioned by local and State Shoreline policies, loss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids and numerous other wildlife that use these Shorelines that he enjoys. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in appeals concerning water quality and environmental protection of fish and wildlife in the past. As a result of the City's improper segmentation and fractionated review and decision making with regard to the shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed review of a single true project application and the projects lack of attention to design criteria and shoreline management purposes. He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walks, boat, fish, bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of May Creek surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project. See declaration of Brad Nicholson. The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water ruooff to either Lake Washington or May Creek. He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and will be injured by the City's denial of the right to snch a community withont reversal of the Shoreline Permit and consideration of all the fucts that are relevant to this appeal. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Petition for Review Brad Nicholsoa Page 12 of20 1 VI. JOINDER 2 3 WAC 461-08-445 applies in this case. The presiding officer is requested to join parties including 4 permittee, permitting agency and any other interested person or entity in accordance with civil rule 19. 5 6 VII. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Without a variance or exception, Director Chip Vincent erroneously or arbitrarily and capriciously approved the Shoreline Snbstantial Development permit even thoui:h the followini: required design criteria of Ren ton's Shoreline Master Program and 90.58.020 RCW have not been incorporated into the project's design: I. Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations § 5.03.01 (D) reading as follows, 'To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian wa!erfront activities" and, "Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" note: A hotel and parking structure.is not a wa!er-dependent use given priority for shoreline development under RCW 90.58.020 see Gislason v. Town o{FridayHarbor, SHB No. 81-22 (1981); Clifford, et al, v. City of Renton and Boeing, SHB No. 92-52 (1993). Development consisting of a unified structure, such as a connection pipe to a storm water facility servicing the project, wbich is part in and part out of the shoreline with a potential for an adverse shoreline effect, is "within" the shoreline for the purposes of the SMA see Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P. 2d 1108 (1979). Since the pipe is connected and the storm water facilty is intended for the Hotel, it is also "on" the shoreline under RCW 90.58.140(2), and requires a shoreline permit for the entire project. Public access and habitat protection will be needed, as reflected by the master provision, an important value under the SMA. RCW 90.58.020. see Silver Lake Community Council v. City o{Everett. SHB No. 80-04 (1980). Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 13 of20 2 3 4 5 6 Public access and habitat preservation are both part of the public trust values, which inhere in the SMA. see Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn.2d 262 (1987). Because the Decision Maker failed to inhere those values, the permit as approved fails to meet the requirements of both SEPA and the SMA 2. Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Landscape Native Vegetation regulations§ 7.19.01 (A) (1) reading as follows, 'The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" note: Public access is not the only shoreline value protected under public trust through the SMA. The policies of the SMA 7 specifically contemplate "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its 8 vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life... RCW 90.58.020. 9 3. Renton Shoreline Master Program Local Service Utility specifications § 7.19. 04 (D) (I) covering 10 discharges of pollutants reading as follows, "Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground 11 water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental 12 Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge" note: It is necessary for Renton to comply with 13 the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as an MS4 jurisdiction. See Puget Soundkeeper -Stormwater 14 is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urban waterways in the United 15 States. Ex. MUNI-0127, Fact Sheet, p. 8. In December 1999, the federal Environmental Protection 16 Agency (EPA) issued new rules regarding the regulation of municipal storrnwater. Ex. COA-0028, Moore 17 Testimony. EPA finalized the Phase II rules in 2000 (EPA Phase II Rules), which applied the NPDES 18 permit program to certain small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (called MS4s). Ex. MUNI- 19 20 21 22 23 24 0127, Fact Sheet, p. 3. Eormett Testimony. The EPA Phase II Rules provide that the permits must require regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater management program (SWMP) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40 C.F.R §122.34(a). cite, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance; People for Puget Sound; Coalition of Governmental Entities v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation 25 26 27 28 PCHB NOS. 07-022, 07-023 4. Renton Shoreline Master Program Stream Aherationregulations § 7.17.02 (A) (B) reading as follows, "Stream Alteration in unique and fragile areas is prolnbited" and "Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable area of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 14 of20 land is prohibited" note: RCW 90.58.020 'Toe legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among 2 the most valuable and fragile of its natnral resources and that there is great concern throughout tb.e state 3 relating to tb.eir utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation" and "In addition it finds th.at ever 4 increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on tb.e shorelines necessitating increased S coordination in tb.e management and development of the shorelines oftb.e state" and, 'To this end uses 6 shall be preferred which are consistent with. control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural 7 environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline" 8 5. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (A)(l)(2)(3), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (C), Renton Municipal 9 Code 4-6-030 (D)(2), Renton Municipal Code 4-<>-030 (E)(3)(h)(ii) note: Maple Valley Citizens for 10 Responsible Growth v. Ci1y of Maple Valley and Richard and Jill Bruwn SHB NO. 03-014 is 11 distinguished in that the proposal discharging to Pipe Lake was not on the shoreline, not a salmon bearing 12 water, it did comply with the KCSWDM, and they provided money and resources to insure by covenant 13 th.at it would not pollute the Lake. None of those facts exist here. 14 6. KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1.2.8 Core Requirement #8 Water Quality, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 15 1.2. 8.1 Area Specific Water Quality Facility Requirement, KCSWDM 2009 edition Definitions section 16 page 13, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 6.1.2 Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. Note: a "wet biofiltration 17 swale" is not an infiltration feature and not a stand alone enhanced basic feature. 18 7. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020, "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines 19 of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences 20 and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, 21 marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and 22 co=ercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines 23 of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people 24 to enjoy the shorelines of the state" The hotel is not on the list. 25 8. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90. 5 8. 020 design criteria, "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the 26 state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage 27 to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the 28 water" Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 15 of20 9. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58. 020 policy, "The legislature further finds that much of the 2 shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted 3 construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public 4 interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated 5 with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights 6 consistent with the public interest" 7 10. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, 'There is, therefore, a clear and urgent 8 demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local 9 governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the 10 stat.e's shorelinesn 11 12 B. Renton's Planning Director Chip Vincent, by approving the Substantial Development Permit l3 approved a fractionated and piecemeal project in violation of core requirements of the SMA 90.58 14 RCW. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. A proposed development that includes both shorelines and uplands is properly reviewed in its entirety for consistency with the SMA. see Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844 (1973). The SMA review is applicable to those portions of a proposed development that lie within the shoreline as defined under RCW 90.58.030 and those portions of a project than may have adverse impacts on the shoreline. See also Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721 (1979); Allegra Development Company. Inc. v. Wright Hotels v. City of Seattle, SHB No. 99-08 (1999). The reference to "adjacent lands" in the shoreline management act (RCW 90.58.100(2) (e)), is a reflection of the legislative scheme that lands adjacent to shorelines must be considered together with the area extending 200 feet inland from high water in order to achieve the consistency necessary for a systematic and intelligent management of the shorelines. "A single improvement or project of a governmental agency including and having an interrelated effi on both uplands and shorelines caonot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with th provisions of the environmental policy act and the shorelioe management act" cite: Appletree Cov Protection Fundv. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 16 of20 1 The issue applicable here, the piecemeal consideration of environmental impacts from broadc 2 development plans, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "is one which strikes at the very core of both the State Environmental Policy Act and the Shore/in Management Act". Appletree Cove Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 (emphasis supplied) The question, therefore, is whether the City may take a single project and divide it into segments fo purposes of SEP A and SMA approval. The frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compel answer in the negative. The factual situation in Merkel and Appletree cove is remarkably similar to th present case. In Merkel and Appletree Cove, an overall scheme of development existed, but only on piece was submitted for environmental review. In the instant case, an overall Project Master Plan exis and has been reviewed, but at that time only part of the project was submitted for environmental review. Now they are doing the storm water and transportation measures inconsistent with that review. Th fractionated review is why significant questions about shoreline impacts have never been addressed. conclusion that the City has an obligation to conduct a review of its entire Master Plan under the SMA, and lay out.the overall Master Plan of development including a storm water plan, public access wat related use plan, and location of and priorities of the facilities in the context of the Shorelines pe application, prior to proceeding with a permit for one portion of the Plan is in order. At the same time, failing to use that master plan (which is what has occurred) to assess the overall environmental impacts o future development under this permit only leads to preventable damage to the natural environment whic is the right of all citizens of the state. The test that is employed is that, the connection or link must be "dependant" on the other piece. Piecemeal review is impermissible where a "series of interrelated steps [constitutes] an integrated plan" and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases. see Cheney v. Mountlake Terrace, 8 Wn.2d 338, 345, 552 P.2d 184 (1976) also, Murden Cove Preservation and Protection Association v. Kitsap county 41 Wn. App. 515 stating, WAC 197-10-060 (1) and (2) provide in part: (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the presen Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 17 of20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 proposal if: "(a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary operation of the present proposal; or "(b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite future activities. The latest codification is as follows: WAC 197-11-060 (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a sing] course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document. Proposals or parts of propos are closely related, and they shall be discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are implemente simultaneously with them; or (ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as the justification or for their implementation. 13 VIII. GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. The project is reversible as piecemeal because it is related to Hawk's Landing closely enough to be a single project and because it can not or will not proceed unless the other proposal is implemented simultaneously and because it is an interdependent part of the larger proposal and depends on the larger proposal as justification for its implementation" Note: The overarching purpose of the SMA is to protect the state shorelines as fully as possible. Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d at 203, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). Consistent with this objective and the broad regulatory reach of the statute, the shoreline permit application should descnbe the full, unified, and integrated physical project, both within and without the shorelines of the state. The facilities or futllre activity and functionally related work necessary that the project depends on to proceed consistent with the SMA that been ignored by the Decision Maker in this case are as follows: I. A redesign of the project to permit public access to waterfront activities is needed. 2. The project depends on dedication of Land for location of Storm water Facilities in areas where it is possible to locate outside of the native vegetation. A Redesign of the Shoreline with "preference" to Petition for Review Brad Nkholson Page 18 of20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 facilities that would be more representative of that of the natural environment is needed and depends on the entire site plan for its location. 3. The project depends on obtaining additional shoreline permit to remove the zinc galvanized metal warehouse distracting to the shoreline experience and adding pollution. It needs to identify reqnirements for the Hotel project's necessary work to be performed on the shoreline to remove the building. 4. It is necessary to re-do the original application for the Hotel, to disclose and review that the applicant proposes to alter the flow of the Creek by filling the "Ditch'' and requiring the description of the work to be performed on the Development site. They need to include identification of piping and outfall work to be performed on the Shoreline. It depends on whether it is appropriate to issue a permit that has a priority to restore and enhance the natural environment with respect to May Creek water flow. 5. The project depends on additional planning work and additional land dedication necessary to comply with the KCSWDM 2009 edition and Renton's code reqnirements for 1he "enhanced basic water quality menu" The land dedication will need to come from 1he site. The redesign will need to include a design for the project that this permrt is intended to serve, such as Treatment Train, Stormwater Wetland, and Stormfilter CF like is outlined on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu l6 B. The Errors enumerated above are grounds for reversal. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 X. RELIEF REQUESTED A. A declaratory order addressing whether the above Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issued b the City of Renton is consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, the Renton Shoreline Managemen Program and their implementing regulations, ordinances, and statutes in the following respects: Issue no. I: Whether adequate provisions for public use consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, Renton' Shoreline Master program, regulations, ordinances, and statutes have been provided. Issue no. 2 Whether the 'Wet Biofiltration Swale" as permitted is adequate to minimize, "insofar as practical' pollution to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, Renton's Shoreline Maste program, and other code regulations, design manuals, ordinances, and statutes. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Pagel9 of20 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 27 28 Issue no. 3: Whether it is possible and appropriate for the 'Wet Biofiltration Swale" or for that matter any other sto water facility to be located on a location different than where it is. Issue no. 4: Whether a variance should have been sought for any of the issues, and whether a variance should b granted for the project. Issue no.5: Whether the project is a prohibited uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's Shorelines. B. For any and all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this appeal and believe the facts herein to be true and correct Dated this 21" day of August, 2010 Brad Nicholson Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page20 of20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BEFORE TIIE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No: ) Development Permit LUAI0-041, ECM, SM: ) Declaration of Brad Nicholson ) Brad Nicholson, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) V ) ) City of Renton ) ) Respondents. ) ) I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a life resident of Renton, and I have lived about 12 blocks from the above Seahawks Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years. 2. I have a mucb greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton. I created a Washington non-profit corporation specifically for the purpose protecting· amenities that this appeal seeks to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings and monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals. I am the dynamic that inspired ideas that could solve the present design issues for the project. 21 3. I am aggrieved by the approval of the Shoreline substantial development permit for numerous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasons. I want to review information on the whole project at one time not just a number of pieces of the project, like regarding the storm water facilities such as facility size, placement, capacity, and effectiveness, and public access areas. I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the entire proposal because I would like to have my community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton's Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58, and a compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do. I am aggrieved by the Declaration Brad Nicholson Pagel of 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 City's denial of my rights to such a community and aggrieved by the fact that development planning does not appear to be properly prioritized. By ignoring State policy and the procedural and substantial protections ccntained in the Renton Municipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's' decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is ccntrary to the letter and the spirit of those laws. I am aggrieved that practical and reasonable means and methods of protecting water quality and my rights to a shoreline developed consistent with the Laws are not being used or proposed when I know that there has been so much effort by the Department of &o!ogy to assist the City to develop practical measures to protect our interests acccrding to Federal Laws. 1 have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing Salmon and Trout. A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in May Creek I have seen sockeye in the Creek just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we Jive above the May Creek Basin and know that they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to 14 · use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant 15 16 break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I have enjoyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the permit will 17 bulldoze and fence. 18 4. I am injured by the permit decision in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am harmed by the City's 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 improper processing of the application, including failure to study and properly describe all of the project's required physical characteristics and size and feature calculations required by the code. I am harmed by the failure to properly categorize or identify those features, and failure to submit a ccmplete unified design so that I can develop input and be able to review and comment on an honest proposal. The project is riddled with proposals that have not notified me as to what they are really proposing. I am harmed by the City's failure to ccnduct a proper ccnsistency review of the storm water design with the SMA and Renton's program for Shorelines. I will be harmed by the damage done to the State's Shoreline amenities by changes in flow and quality of May Creek. 5. Substantively, I will be injured if the project is constructed in nonccmpliance with the City's code. For example, Renton's past decision and code requires that the storm water features ccmply with the 2009 Declaration Brad Nicholson P,g,2of4 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 27 28 King County storm water manual and certain Shoreline regulations, conform to the Shoreline Master Plan, and Comprehensive Plan's elements, goals, objectives and policies, and must mitigate impacts (such as impacts to threatened or endangered species and opportunity for access to the Shoreline's amenities and protection of native vegetation) as well as clear prohibition on alterations and illicit discharges into salmon bearing streams. The City shonld bear the burden of proof to show the method that will be used to avoid or abate pollution and comply with the above requirements but on this project they have consistently avoided review by submitting segmented and bogus facilities that do not trnly explain the full extent of what they are doing. I will be injured if the plan is not designed by talcing into account what the natural envirorunent shonld be. The City's Shoreline plan requires the City to explain the m.ethods that will be used to mitigate pollution impacts to May Creek and demonstrate the necessity of developing the State's Shoreline but they have not done so. The proposal submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. I am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State. 6. If the project is built on May Creek according to inferior standards for Shoreline protection and means of achieving water quality standards in May Creek while being incompatible with the neighboring superfund site, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project. The urban designations intended to protect my interests should be used and storm water measures to protect my interestsshonld be used to protect my interests but as approved in the city's decision they do not provide the degree of protection to my interests as the code or Shoreline plan does and I wonld want the City to use those measures to protect my interests and the interests of my family. I want to review and comment on a compliant plan or honest effort to formnlate such a plan but I have been deprived of that right because of the applications without them. My opinion is that the developer Spencer Alpert is just plain refusing to perform many of the requirements. I would have to do the design, do all of the design work for them, while specnlating as to the type of facilities or strategies they might contest. In the past, they have allowed applications to be submitted and reviewed even though they are no the real project. They fooled us and Dr. Massman by saying that they were usiog a 'Turin Garden" io the last application, and this time by saying that the flow of May Creek will not be altered. We actually thought :it was a ''Rain Garden" and that wasted a lot of our time and resources. I wonld like to see some effort made to restore natural conditions to the area, which there has not been. Declaration Brad Nicholson Pagel of4 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 27 28 7. I do not have anything against the Seahawk's in general nor do I contend it is likely to be impossible to build a Hotel on the site. But the developer with a great deal more resources than ordinary citizens that come to Renton to have taxpayers like me pay with not only money, but with our Shoreline amenities for the needs of a private enterprise wbile causing the impacts I complain of does not impress me in the least. Most disturbing of all to me, is the fact that it appears it is nothing more than a strategy to disregard the City's Shoreline and to save money by using Lawyers to argue the project permits. In Renton they charge $250.00 for each appeal and it is necessary to take the issues to the Council in most instances. 1bat is $500.00 for each LUA, and double or triple that when it is done in pieces. It looks like they just want to wear people down ..... very few people can afford to participate. I am offended that variances are not being sought with regard to non-discretionary design requirements. If they are able to just approve the project without variances, it is just the same as changing the code in response to the particular application. No other people around the area get to do that either. I think it is impacting the vitality of our Shorelines and Health, our Codes, our Laws, and the SMA and in turn the vitality of our community and economy. What it looks like to frustrated citizens like me that take the time to consider the permits is that the developer is just submitting a "low quality and low budget" proposal to save money and then using the Lawyers to cause so much litigation that anyone would want to just forget about it. I consider that to be very foolish and that it will be tragic to the City's long term future. My neighborhood and community is what is suffering now and what will suffer when the project is built. I will suffer and so will my family. In my opinion, compelling the City and the developer to adjust their priorities and plans with Shorelines Board power is the only thing that will improve the situation and protect my interests, that is why I made the appeal. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. DATED this 21th day of August, 2010. Respectfully, Declaration Page4 of 4 Brad Nicholson 2 J BEFORE 1HE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHJNGTON 4 In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No.: No. ) 5 Development Permit LUAJ0-041, ECM, SM: ) Exhibits ) 6 Brad Nicholson, ) ) 7 Petitioner, ) ) 8 v. ) ) 9 City of Renton ) ) 10 Respondents. ) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) The following exhibits are submitted to support the Petition for Review I. Copy of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2. Project Description 2.1 City Council decision on Hawk's Landing 2.2 Hearing Examiner decision on Hawk's Landing 3. 4 Photos of site 4. 303(d) map 5. Shoreline Master Program and receipt 6. I~ and 2•' Declaration ofJoel Massman 7. KCSWDM excerpts 8. EPA area description and investigation results 9. Hydrologic Stream data (KC) 10. Water Quality data (KC) 11. Photo of"swale" area 12. Photo of "ditch" area 13. Photo of May Creek 14. ERC report Hawk's Landing Exhibit List Pagel of2 Brad Nicholson 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 27 28 15. Graham and bunting study 16. Hearing Examiner Decision -Reconsideration 17. Hawk's Landing TIR 18. Appeals to Council 19. Various pleadings, Original Hawk's Landing appeal and its exhibits DATED this 11th day of July, 2009. Respectfully, Exluoit List Brad Nicholson Page2of2 Exhibits are on file with the Crty Clerk's office_ 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 27 28 CITY OF RENTON SEP O 2 20J[J BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD CITY A1'fi1r.!YED IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON , . -SOFFICE . " ·. ) ;;, /7· ,J,/ H1>r1tl cfd,Jt, <'cl t,y /I · . .dcbc/s ·~ In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial \ Case No. fo) [E (C [E ~ ~ IE D Development Permit LUAl0-041, ECM, SM: ) Petition for RevielDl AUG 2 6 2010 Brad Nicholson, V. City of Renton Petitioner, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _____________ ) Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA98056 425 445 0658 brad82 7@hotmail.com Name and address of Respondents: Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee City of Renton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Ti! 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Page 1 of20 ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE Brad Nicholson ..J-o cJJ : :r a. y (!_ o II i ""J r, /_.afr( Warren fl/e)( P1e.fsd, 2 3 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE ST ATE OF WASHINGTON 4 In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Snbstantial ) Case No. ) 5 Development Permit LUAI0-041, ECM, SM: ) Petition for Review ) 6 Brad Nicholson, ) ) 7 Petitioner, ) ) 8 V. ) ) 9 City of Renton ) ) 10 Respondents. ) ) 11 ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 425 445 0658 brad82 7@hotmail.com Name and address of Respondents: Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee City of Renton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Page 1 of20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Proponent: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 7015tAvenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Parties Served: Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 160thAvenue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Washington office of the Attorney General Rob McKenna 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 This is a request for Shorelines Board review of the decision to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit designated LUAI0-041, ECR, SM, issued on August 9, 2010, signed and approved by Renton's planning director "Chip" Vincent. A copy of the decision is attached herewith. 22 I. INTRODUCTORYFACT 23 Evidently, Renton's planning priorities are severely misplaced. The decision has the effect of approving 24 of a Shoreline variance even though no evidence of the necessary criteria is present 1 The attached 25 decision contains a bulleted list that claims to describe "each part" of the proposed project while 26 incognizant of the need for a decision balancing the needs of the public. 27 28 1 The burden of proof for a variance RCW 90.58.140(7) is on the applicant. Among other requirements, the circumstances must be "extraordinary" to be consistent the with requirements RCW 90.58.100(5) Petition for Review Page 2 of20 Brad Nicholson The decision claim that "each part" is included on the bulleted list is very far from being the trnth. The 2 words "each part" are misleading, hiding many facts of the true nature and contents of the permit. 3 The following provides a description of some of the absent parts with a bulleted list that is reasonable, 4 truthful, and appropriate; 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • On the north of the site, a functionally interrelated, interdependent, connected, non-priority, non- water related, non-public, 100% impervious, 5 story tall pre-approved 173 room Hotel with a spa, fitness center, restaurant, and parking lot named "Hawk's Landing depends on the project. Even though required by the SMA to do so, the true proponents of the permit never sought the necessary Shoreline permits, and never sought the necessary storm water or infrastructure facilities on another segment of the same project under a different designation -LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H. The project will have around 350,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The Hotel does nothing to further public access or water related or aesthetics interest but instead interferes with those interests. The defective permit is the latest of a series of surprises with regard to how the project's water runoff will be handled. At the Hotel's SEPA hearing, they were able to sneak approval of the bogus "Rain Garden" that violates code and isn't a "Rain Garden at all until after SEPA was performed. They said the "Rain Garden" was going to discharge to the "Ditch" Even though it has been improperly decided to designate the only portion of the "Urban" shoreline that is still undeveloped, the decision is still incorrect and the permit should still be reversed because it does nothing to allow the public to have access to the Shoreline. Some people believe them that there is a "50 foot setback" applicable to the project. • On the west, there is a 500 foot long orange scum containing drainage "Ditch" that is obviously contaminated with metals with a very high elevation conveyance output pipe that ponds the site's extremely large quantity of water runoff and infiltrates a significant portion of that water runoff to Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. Now they are going to fill the "Ditch", which is the opposite of what the project described in the SEPA application for the Hotel project. This would be in lieu of the developer's responsibility, evidently because he refuses to mitigate the impacts o the hotel; a "bait and switch" tactic inconsistent with the previous pleas and decisions. Now, they contend the "Ditch" should be filled with imported material, under the guise that such action is an Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 3 of20 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 27 28 acceptable continuation of a "direct discharge" to May Creek. It is simply not the case and not true. It is not a direct discharge to May Creek---it presently significantly infiltrates to Lake Washington. What the natural hydrologic regime would be in a natural environment in the area has been totally disregarded. One thing is clear and that is that they dont know if infiltration water will impact Lake Washington and Quendall Terminals or not, but it is easy to see (consistent with the other actions pleas) that the decision was made in support of the contention that the area is already degraded, and tl1at since they are doing nothing to exacerbate the issues, the proposal has no impact. It is evidently hoped that chances of reversal in appeals that may cite impact to the superfund site directly downstream containing extremely hazardous chemicals would be reduced with the tactic, i.e. they will contend that it has already been decided. The "wet biofiltration swale" is being separately permitted on this project for another project it is intended to service, while both have separate numbers which is the first indication that there is a problem. Without utilizing precedent for decisions in the KCSWDM, they want to conceal facts so as to affirm the developer's position regarding refusal to dedicate any Land with the hope that the inconsistencies with the City's Shoreline Management Program will go unnoticed. • On the southern 200 feet of the site, there is untouched State Shoreline meeting the criteria for designation as a "Conservation Environment" under Renton's Shoreline Management Plan2 . Two regulated wetlands, and a Class one Salmon Stream that should be protected by the Shoreline Management Act and numerous valuable species of wildlife including species listed as 'Threatened" and "Endangered" by the ESA that are directly downstream from the Hotel. At least 10,000 square feet of the site area of the shoreline have been permitted to be bulldozed, and a pit would be excavated and fenced for storm water facilities that are not approved by the Storm water manual 3 and would violate important regulatory requirements of the SMA, Renton's SMP and Renton's code. It is represented as an "inlprovement" over existing conditions even though such representation is unsupported by substantial evidence, and while there is no authority in the , The King county Surface water Design Manual (KCSWDM) 2005 or2009 edition requires the enhanced basic water quality menu to be used for this project. A "wet biofiltration swale" is a feature listed on the "Basic" menu and therefore is not allowed. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page4 of20 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 27 28 SMA indicating "improvement" is all that is required. More than an "improvement" is required by the SMA and Rcnton's Shoreline Management Plan. No restoration has been proposed. • With an ill considered location the experimental non-infiltration drainage facility inconsistent with the impositions imposed by the City in previous environmental review will be directed to May Creek should the permit stand. It thereby increases its flow, inconsistent with Renton's SMP with regard to stream alteration causing unknown downstream damage. Increasing the flow of the Creek might be a way to permit the project without drain to Quendall Terminals, but no facts are available indicating that such a decision is consistent with SMA are available. Few if no dissolve pollutants will be removed by the "Swale" even though there is a problem with metal according to the 303(d) Map, the KCSWDM, hydrologic survey of the Creek, (see exhibits) transportation estimates in excess of those permitted, and huge galvanized buildings that are dissolving into the Creek that the developer insisted would remain. It was discovered by the applicant during the SEPA hearing that one of the buildings would not be removed. The galvanized building is about 20,000 sq ft. and "straddling" the Shoreline jurisdictional line. • The decision inappropriately and unreasonably permits a very large "Mystery Area" of available land straddling the shoreline regulatory limits delineation and that is right down the middle of the project. It has never been articulated what development or use will take place on the "Mystery Area" and thus its reasonableness cannot be determined, but it is suitable and possible and natural in size and characteristics to support the facilities that are listed on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu or public use elements. If they don't consider that the metals from the building in the "mystery area" dissolve and drain into May Creek, the permitted project violates the City's own code. Considering the public interest nature of the regulations that are intended to protect those interests with specific design criteria suggest only that the permit is saving the "mystery area" with this stab at approval in hope that more tax generating development can be added later. Depending on whether the dissolving zinc warehouse and other pollution generated by the project would be permitted to remain with absolutely no disclosure as to what use the area ofland will be put ---only that it is proposed to be continually dissolving heavy metals into the environment and discharging to May Creek----untreated is an important issue that has never been addressed. The permit should also be reversed because of the high traffic and high pollution generating nature of Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 5 of20 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 27 28 the project. Perhaps the Seahawk's or Spencer Alpert may propose that the use on the 1-2 acre "Mystery area" in the center of the project within Shoreline jurisdiction be described later, on another unlawfully segmented part of the project like was done with the transportation and storm water facilities and previous plans. Originally, Spencer Alpert International applied for this project with the "Rain Garden"4 Whether the current project is the best or correct course of action is a very important question. It was insisted at SEPA that the project would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, but this project does not comply with it nor is it consistent with the SMP or SMA. Tiris segment of the project is alleged to be only for the transportation and infrastructure segment of the project including storm water. From the outset there have been so many surprises with regard to the project like the "Rain Garden" and the "filling of the "Ditch" The City issued the permit to itself. It would certainly be more compliant with full disclosure if enviromnental review would be conducted on actual projects, or if subsequent segments would be consistent with the previous, or if the entire true project could be reviewed all at once. The environmental review concluded that the water would be appropriately handled with respect before being discharged to the "Ditch" but now the ditch is proposed to be filled. Surprises like these that include features that have never been fully reviewed will probably continue if this type of procedure is used. The City has segmented the review to include only what is being proposed on each step of what is needed to avoid imposing the Shorelines regulations or impositions on the developer, evidently being driven the idea of securing more economic development. Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to try to convince the applicant there are appropriate and reasonable solutions to the projects shortcomings. Closing their eyes to the obvious need for a variance or exception to the SMA, SMP, or complying with the storm water manual, evidently relying upon misinformation and misplaced priorities instead, the shoddily and poorly planned piecemeal City "revitalization" permit will needlessly tear up the shoreline • Ever since the surprise discovery that the Hawk's Landing "Rain Garden" was really an impervious perforated pipe conveyance system, petitioner and others have put itin quolation marks and it is continued here. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page6 of20 esthetics and disturb habitat, permanently block the area from public access and enjoyment, and discharge 2 its polluted water into May Creek, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class 1 Salmon stream" 3 4 This appeal seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development 5 of Washington's Shorelines and disregard of numerous provisions ofRCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline 6 Management Plan. 7 8 II. BACKGROUND FACTS 9 10 On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International applied for and obtained approval for a 11 Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a 12 fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. Proposing to 13 cut 32 trees and proposing to hydro-seed the Shoreline, the Seahawk's considered the project essential for 14 their football operations-although essentially submitted without lawfully articulated street and storm 15 water improvements or a clear picture of the layout of the entire site plan. Another project that is across 16 the street and downstream of this project is a 20 some acre parcel commonly called Quendall Terminals, 17 that is presently being scoped for an EIS for 800 residential units and a subdivision for "mixed use" retail 18 development and is the subject of an EPA superfund investigation. No coordinated storm water plan is yet 19 in place for the area. In yet another project, the Seahawk's practice facility next door was able to totally 20 exclude the public from enjoying the shoreline. 21 A Substantial Shoreline development permit was needed for the Seahawk's Hotel project to proceed to 22 perform deconstruction and storm water work and/or stream alteration work within 200 feet of the high 23 water mark on the State's Shoreline, but during it's SEPA hearing surprise Counsel insisted that the area 24 would not be "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. Placing 25 flower pots on the existing impervious asphalt was mentioned as a possible way to mitigate the 26 distraction. It looks like the way that the proponent will keep his word now is that Planning director Chip 27 Vincent already approved a Shoreline Permit to the City for the project's construction. Spencer Alpert an 28 his Counsel argued that storm water improvements should be identified at the permit stage of the project Petition for Review Brad Nichofson Page 7 of20 and appropriate facilities would be determined at that time. Counsel for Spencer Alpert also argued that if 2 the City does not take action within 45 days, then the project should be approved automatically. 1400 new 3 trips per day were purported to be generated, parking was to be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 4 new surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for "Tesla" electric vehicles. In addition to 5 proposing to construct a "Koi Pond", his bogus "Rain Garden", and installing capillary break building 6 drains to release groundwater just below the sites surface affecting the Hotel, the applicant planned to 7 move 4, 45 0 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil over the top of the existing asphalt. 8 Even though the groundwater is nearly at the surface, it was contended that "best management practices" 9 could be used to protect the environment during construction but none were specifically identified. 10 Perhaps the construction water is proposed be directed to the "wet biofiltration swale" but it doesn't say. 11 12 From a perspective of groundwater flow inferred from test pits and scientific measurements, the "Ditch" 13 water is infiltrating directly upstream into the Port Quendall Superfund site and thence flows to Lake 14 Washington. Port Quendall is severely polluted from past manufacturers of wood preservative products 15 that dumped large amounts of chemicals in numerous areas of the site over decades. In sunnnation, the 16 "ditch" along Lake Washington Blvd is very deep and around 500 feet long, infiltrating a significant 17 portion of its storm water directly to Quendall Terminals. See Massman declaration. 18 19 In addition to not knowing exactly how much water infiltrates and how much runs off, it is not known 20 how much of the superfund chemicals are being forced or "fluxed" into Lake Washington, this recent 21 discovery was after the Hotel's SEPA hearing. See EPA attachment. There are large patches of 22 percolating chemicals at Quendall 4-6 feet thick at significant depth significantly impacting the water 23 quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up Quendall Terminals, there will probably need to be 24 hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on that site. Relevant 25 here, were facts discovered that indicate a significant amount of water from the hotel project and "Ditch" 26 could enter the superfund site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. The remediation plan is 27 presently in progress, being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up of Quendall Terminals. EPA 28 Exhibits. The Dept. of Ecology evidently has given up on it. No facts regarding how the remediation facts Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 8 of20 might affect the project are available. Obviously, the results are not included in any review of the project 2 because they are not available. The questions raised by the results were the essence of a previous SEPA 3 appeal. 4 SEGB and Brad Nicholson's SEPA appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner cited the lack of the Hotel 5 projects' compliance with SEPA and the SMA, and lack of a coordinated and compliant Storm water 6 Plan. The entire record of the information contained in the appeal is hereby incorporated into this appeal. 7 The conclusion and decision for the Hotel project indicated that it was normal for the storm water system 8 to remain un-designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be 9 applied. That is one of the problems. See Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Counsel for Spencer Alpert 10 insisted on splitting the Hotel's hearings into two separate hearings one for SEP A issues and one for 11 substantive site plan code issues. SEGB and Brad Nicholson obtained the testimony of Hydrogeologist 12 Dr. Joel Massman to opine on the issues. 13 14 On reconsideration to the City's Hearing Examiner, Dr. Massman found that a significant amount of the 15 storm water from the ditch supplies groundwater flow into Quendall Terminals and that the groundwater 16 flows to Lake Washington. The downstream area contains cancer causing chemicals impacting 17 groundwater to depths up to 50 feet, such as (P AH) Poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pentaclorophenol, 18 and (BTEX) Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene .. The PAH chemical family and the site 19 contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofuran. They are considered to be extremely 20 dangerous. The groundwater in that zone flows to Lake Washington. It does not flow to May Creek. 21 22 The area was and still is of particular concern because, like May Creek the area is considered prime 23 habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout. EPA exhibits. There are 24 also recreational swimming areas nearby that pose a threat to humans. May Creek basin and Lake 25 Washington are supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle and numerous other valuable species. 26 May Creek's Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon are ESA listed species. 27 Recently Dr. Massman' s conclusion that there is significant groundwater flow into Lake Washington has 28 Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 9of20 been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington's 2 shoreline as part of the superfund investigations. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dr. Massman calculated the Storm water infiltration/runoff from the Seahawks Hotel that should be supported by what was then an unarticulated water quality facility that would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to an annual average 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably did not take into account the lack of footing drains on the one building that connsel and Spencer Alpert pledged would "not be touched". At least initially, it is also true that his calculations did not take into account other impervious calcnlations such as transportation mitigation measures or what a "Rain Garden" consisted of according to Spencer Alpert. With the fractionated review, it is next to impossible for anyone to check the calculations with regard to current project's storm water facility size (even though it is on the wrong menu) effectively excluding the public from participating in that aspect of the project. 15 When asked to reconsider based npon the fact that the very high outlet pipe to May Creek causes the ditch 16 to pond and infiltrate significantly to Quendall Terminals, Renton's Hearing Examiner refused, citing 17 "that there is no need" because he had decided the use of the "Best Available Science" was a mandatory 18 requirement and requiring that May Creek was "not to be put into jeopardy" would suffice, and then at 19 Spencer Alpert's insistence Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology 20 to the use of"Best Management practices" and that "whatever "Rain Garden" feature" could be used as 21 long as it would satisfy the 2005 design manual and be discharged to the "Ditch" They never decided or 22 addressed whether more storm water flow would be added to May Creek or not or whether or where a 23 different compliant feature might be located or what type or size it might be because at the time, no 24 complete plan was in existence. Neither was a Shoreline permit sought at that time. They reiterated that 25 "best management practices" would be used during the dewater operation needed for construction but did 26 not identify any of them. Sometime after the appeal requesting more consideration of the impacts of the 27 project, the City identified State money citing community revitalization interests to provide mitigation 28 measures for the Enterprise. This appeal follows: Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 10 of20 III. TIMING 2 3 A. This petition is timely filed according to WAC 461-08-340 because it is filed within 21 days of 4 the date the decision was made. WAC 461-08 states that, "A petition for review by any person aggrieved 5 by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state shall be filed with the board 6 within twenty-one days of the "date of filing" as defined in WAC 461-08-305. 7 8 IV. JURISDICTION 9 10 A. The permit appeal issues are regulated by RCW 90.58.140(1) stating a development shall not be 11 undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the chapter and, after 12 adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master program, and RCW 13 90.58.140(2) stating, "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state 14 without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this 15 chapter"; 16 17 B. State Law RCW 90.58.180(1) provides that "Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or 18 rescinding ofa permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise 19 provided in chapter 43.l!L RCW, seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for 20 review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6). 21 22 V. STANDING 23 24 Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a very short 25 distance from the site, and uses the May Creek Shoreline and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining 26 the site. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Brad Nicholson has an active interest in the integrity of City of 27 Renton's land use and environmental review processes, has actively participated in past land use 28 processes including appeals relating to the site and its shoreline, and seeks to ensure that the City abides Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 11 of20 its prior decisions and local and state SMA policies, procedures, and mandates and conducts all project 2 reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and is negatively impacted by the improper processing an 3 lack of appropriate designs in connection with this project. 4 As a result of the impacts caused by the permit approval, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased 5 damage to the shoreline quality envisioned by RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline plan, including lower 6 water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington than envisioned by local and State Shoreline policies, 7 loss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids and numerous 8 other wildlife that use these Shorelines that he enjoys. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Nicholson also has 9 a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in 10 appeals concerning water quality and environmental protection offish and wildlife in the past. As a result 11 of the City's improper segmentation and fractionated review and decision making with regard to the 12 shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed 13 review of a single true project application and the projects lack of attention to design criteria and 14 shoreline management purposes. He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, 15 frequently walks, boat, fish, bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of 16 May Creek surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and 17 wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project. See declaration of Brad 18 Nicholson. The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using 19 inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be 20 impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and 21 water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake 22 Washington or May Creek. 23 He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton 24 Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and 25 will be injured by the City's denial of the right to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline 26 Permit and consideration of all the facts that are relevant to this appeal. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. 27 28 Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 12 of20 VI. JOINDER 2 3 WAC 461-08-445 applies in this case. The presiding officer is requested to join parties including 4 permittee, permitting agency and any other interested person or entity in accordance with civil rule 19. 5 6 VII. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Without a variance or exception, Director Chip Vincent erroneously or arbitrarily and capriciously approved the Shoreline Substantial Development permit even though the following required design criteria of Renton's Shoreline Master Program and 90.58.020 RCW have not been incorporated into the project's design: 1. Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations§ 5.03.01(0) reading as follows, "To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities" and, "Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" note: A hotel and parking structure is not a water-dependent use given priority for shoreline development under RCW 90.58.020 see Gislason v. Town ofFridav Harbor. SHB No 81-22 (1981); Clifford, et al, v. Citv of Renton and Boeing. SHB No. 92-52 (1993). Development consisting ofa unified structure, such as a connection pipe to a storm water facility servicing the project, which is part in and part out of the snoreline with a potential for an adverse shoreline effect, is "within" the shoreline for the purposes of the SMA. see Weverhaeuser v. King Countv, 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P. 2d 1108 (1979). Since the pipe is connected and the storm water facilty is intended for the Hotel, it is also "on" the shoreline under RCW 90.58.140(2), and requires a shoreline permit for the entire project. Public access and habitat protection will be needed, as reflected by the master provision, an important value under the SMA. RCW 90.58.020. see Silver Lake Communitv Council v. Citv of Everett, SHB No. 80-04 (1980). Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 13 of20 2 3 4 5 Public access aud habitat preservation are both part of the public trust values, which inhere in the SMA see Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn.2d 262 (1987). Because the Decision Maker failed to inhere those values, the permit as approved fails to meet the requirements of both SEPA aud the SMA 2. Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Laudscape Native Vegetation regulations§ 7.19 01 (A) (I) reading as follows, "The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" note: Public access is 6 not the only shoreline value protected under public trust through the SMA. The policies of the SMA 7 specifically contemplate "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the laud and its 8 vegetation aud wildlife, aud the waters of the state and their aquatic life... RCW 90.58.020. 9 3. Renton Shoreline Master Program Local Service Utility specifications§ 7.19.04 (D) (I) covering \0 discharges of pollutants reading as follows," Discharges of pollutants into water courses aud ground 11 12 13 14 water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, aud the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge" note: It is necessary for Renton to comply with the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as au MS4 jurisdiction. See Puget Soundkeeper -Stormwater is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urbau waterways in the United 15 States. Ex. MUNI-0127, Fact Sheet, p. 8. In December 1999, the federal Environmental Protection 16 Agency (EPA) issued new rules regarding the regulation of municipal stormwater. Ex. COA-0028, Moore 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Testimony. EPA finalized the Phase II rules in 2000 (EPA Phase II Rules), which applied the NPDES permit program to certain small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (called MS4s). Ex. MUNl- 0127, Fact Sheet, p. 3. Emmett Testimony. The EPA Phase II Rules provide that the permits must require regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater mauagement program (SWMP) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutauts ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality, aud to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Cleau Water Act." 40 C.F.R. §122.34(a). cite, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance; People for Puget Sound; Coalition of Governmental Entities v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation PCHB NOS. 07-022, 07-023 4. Renton Shoreline Master Program Stream Alteration regulations § 7.17.02 (A) (B) reading as follows, "Stream Alteration in unique aud fragile areas is prohibited" aud "Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable area of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 14 of20 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 27 28 land is prohibited" note: RCW 90.58.020 "The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation" and "In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state" and, "To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline" 5. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (A)(l)(2)(3), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (C), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (0)(2), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (E)(3)(h)(ii) note: Maple Valley Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Maple Valley and Richard and Jill Brown SHB NO. 03-014 is distinguished in that the proposal discharging to Pipe Lake was not on the shoreline, not a salmon bearing water, it did comply with the KCSWDM, and they provided money and resources to insure by covenant that it would not pollute the Lake. None of those facts exist here. 6. KCSWDM 2009 edition§ 1.2.8 Core Requirement #8 Water Quality, KCSWDM 2009 edition§ 1.2.8.1 Area Specific Water Quality Facility Requirement, KCSWDM 2009 edition Definitions section page 13, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 6.1.2 Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. Note: a "wet biofiltration swale" is not an infiltration feature and not a stand alone enhanced basic feature. 7. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020, "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state" The hotel is not on the list. 8. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 design criteria, "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water'' Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 15 of20 9. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "The legislature further finds that much of the 2 shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted 3 construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public 4 interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated 5 with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights 6 consistent with the public interest" 7 10. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "There is, therefore, a clear and urgent 8 demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local 9 governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the 10 state's shorelines" 11 12 B. Renton's Planning Director Chip Vincent, by approving the Substantial Development Permit 13 approved a fractionated and piecemeal project in violation of core requirements of the SMA 90.58 14 RCW. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. A proposed development that includes both shorelines and uplands is properly reviewed in its entirety for consistency with the SMA. see Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844 (1973). The SMA review is applicable to those portions of a proposed development that lie within the shoreline as defined under RCW 90.58.030 and those portions ofa project than may have adverse impacts on the shoreline. See also Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721 (1979); Allegra Development Company. Inc. v. Wright Hotels v. City of Seattle, SHB No. 99-08 (1999). The reference to "adjacent lands" in the shoreline management act (RCW 90.58.100(2) (e)), is a reflection of the legislative scheme that lands adjacent to shorelines must be considered together with the area extending 200 feet inland from high water in order to achieve the consistency necessary for a systematic and intelligent management of the shorelines. "A single improvement or project of a governmental agency including and having an interrelated effec on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with th provisions of the environmental policy act and the shoreline management act" cite: Appletree Cov Protection Fundv. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 16 of20 The issue applicable here, the piecemeal consideration of environmental impacts from broade 2 development plans, 3 4 "is one which strikes at the very core of both the State Environmental Policy Act and the Shoreline, 5 Management Act". Appletree Cove Protection Fundv. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 (emphasis supplied) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The question, therefore, is whether the City may take a single project and divide it into segments fo purposes of SEPA and SMA approval. The frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compel answer in the negative. The factual situation in Merkel and Appletrce cove is remarkably similar to th present case. In Merkel and Appletree Cove, an overall scheme of development existed, but only on piece was submitted for environmental review. In the instant case, an overall Project Master Plan exists and has been reviewed, but at that time only part of the project was submitted for environmental review. Now they are doing the storm water and transportation measures inconsistent with that review. Th fractionated review is why significant questions about shoreline impacts have never been addressed. conclusion that the City has an obligation to conduct a review of its entire Master Plan under the SMA, and lay out the overall Master Plan of development including a storm water plan, public access wate related use plan, and location of and priorities of the facilities in the context of the Shorelines permi application, prior to proceeding with a permit for one portion of the Plan is in order. At the same time, failing to use that master plan ( which is what has occurred) to assess the overall environmental impacts o future development under this permit only leads to preventable damage to the natural environment whic is the right of all citizens of the state. The test that is employed is that, the connection or link must be "dependant" on the other piece. Piecemeal review is impermissible where a "series of interrelated steps [constitutes) an integrated plan" and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases. see Cheney v. Mountlake Terrace, 8 Wn.2d 338, 345, 552 P.2d 184 (1976) also, Murden Cove Preservation and Protection Association v. Kitsap county 41 Wn. App. 515 stating, WAC 197-10-060 (1) and (2) provide in part: (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together wi all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the presen Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 17 of20 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 proposal if: "(a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary to operation of the present proposal; or "(b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite to future activities. The latest codification is as follows: WAC 197-11-060 (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a sing! course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document. Proposals or parts of proposals are closely related, and they shall be discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are implemente simultaneously with them; or (ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as thei justification or for their implementation. 13 VIII. GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. The project is reversible as piecemeal because it is related to Hawk's Landing closely enough to be a single project and because it can not or will not proceed unless the other proposal is implemented simultaneously and because it is an interdependent part of the larger proposal and depends on the larger proposal as justification for its implementation" Note: The overarching purpose of the SMA is to protect the state shorelines as fully as possible. Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d at 203, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). Consistent with this objective and the broad regulatory reach of the statute, the shoreline permit application should describe the full, unified, and integrated physical project, both within and without the shorelines of the state. The facilities or future activity and functionally related work necessary that the project depends on to proceed consistent with the SMA that been ignored by the Decision Maker in this case are as follows: I. A redesign of the project to permit public access to waterfront activities is needed. 2. The project depends on dedication of Land for location of Storm water Facilities in areas where it is possible to locate outside of the native vegetation. A Redesign of the Shoreline with "preference" to Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 18 of20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 facilities that would be more representative of that of the natural environment is needed and depends on the entire site plan for its location. 3. The project depends on obtaining additional shoreline permit to remove the zinc galvanized metal warehouse distracting to the shoreline experience and adding pollution. It needs to identify requirements for the Hotel project's necessary work to be performed on the shoreline to remove the building. 4. It is necessary to re-do the original application for the Hotel, to disclose and review that the applicant proposes to alter the flow of the Creek by filling the "Ditch" and requiring the description of the work to be performed on the Development site. They need to include identification of piping and outfall work to be performed on the Shoreline. It depends on whether it is appropriate to issue a permit that has a priority to restore and enhance the natural environment with respect to May Creek water flow. 5. The project depends on additional planning work and additional land dedication necessary to comply with the KCSWDM 2009 edition and Renton's code requirements for the "enhanced basic water quality menu" The land dedication will need to come from the site. The redesign will need to include a design for the project that this permit is intended to serve, such as Treatment Train, Stormwater Wetland, and Stormfilter CF like is outlined on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu 16 B. The Errors enumerated above are grounds for reversal. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 X. RELIEF REQUESTED A. A declaratory order addressing whether the above Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issued b the City of Renton is consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, the Renton Shoreline Managemen Program and their implementing regulations, ordinances, and statutes in the following respects: Issue no. 1: Whether adequate provisions for public use consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, Renton' s Shoreline Master program, regulations, ordinances, and statutes have been provided. Issue no. 2 Whether the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" as permitted is adequate to minimize, "insofar as practical' pollution to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, Renton's Shoreline Maste program, and other code regulations, design manuals, ordinances, and statutes. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 19 of20 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 27 28 Issue no. 3: Whether it is possible and appropriate for the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" or for that matter any other storn water facility to be located on a location different than where it is. Issue no. 4: Whetl1er a variance should have been sought for any of the issues, and whether a variance should b granted for the project. Issue no.5: Whether the project is a prohibited uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's Shorelines. B. For any and all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this appeal and believe the facts herein to be true and correct Dated this 21'1 day of August, 2010 Brad Nicholson Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page20 of20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARJNGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No: ) Development Permit LUAI0-041, ECM, SM: ) Declaration of Brad Nicholson ) Brad Nicholson, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) V. ) ) City of Renton ) ) Respondents. ) ) _____________ ) I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a life resident of Renton, and I have lived about 12 blocks from the above Seahawks Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years. 2. I have a much greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton. I created a Washington non-profit corporation specifically for the purpose protecting amenities that this appeal seeks to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings and monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals. I am the dynamic that inspired ideas that could solve the present design issues for the project. 21 3. I am aggrieved by the approval of the Shoreline substantial development permit for numerous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasons. I want to review information on the whole project at one time not just a number of pieces of the project, like regarding the storm water facilities such as facility size, placement, capacity, and effectiveness, and public access areas. I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the entire proposal because I would like to have my community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton's Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58, and a compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do. I am aggrieved by the Declaration Brad Nicholson Pagelof4 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 City's denial ofmy rights to such a community and aggrieved by the fact that development planning does not appear to be properly prioritized. By ignoring State policy and the procedural and substantial protections contained in the Renton Municipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's' decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is contrary to the letter and the spirit of those laws. I am aggrieved that practical and reasonable means and methods of protecting water quality and my rights to a shoreline developed consistent with the Laws are not being used or proposed when I know that there has been so much effort by the Department of Ecology to assist the City to develop practical measures to protect our interests according to Federal Laws. 1 have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing Salmon and Trout. A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in May Creek. I have seen sockeye in the Creek just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we live above the May Creek Basin and know that they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I have enjoyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the pennit will bulldoze and fence. 18 4. I am injured by the permit decision in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am harmed by the City's 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 improper processing of the application, including failure to study and properly describe all of the project's required physical characteristics and size and feature calculations required by the code. I am harmed by the failure to properly categorize or identify those features, and failure to submit a complete unified design so that I can develop input and be able to review and comment on an honest proposal. The project is riddled with proposals that have not notified me as to what they are really proposing. I am harmed by the City's failure to conduct a proper consistency review of the storm water design with the SMA and Renton's program for Shorelines. I will be harmed by the damage done to the State's Shoreline amenities by changes in flow and quality of May Creek. 5. Substantively, I will be injured if the project is constructed in noncompliance with the City's code. For example, Renton's past decision and code requires that the storm water features comply with the 2009 Declaration Brad Nicholson Page2of4 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 King County storm water manna! and certain Shoreline regulations, conform to the Shoreline Master Plan, and Comprehensive Plan's clements, goals, objectives and policies, and must mitigate impacts (such as impacts to threatened or endangered species and opportunity for access to the Shoreline's amenities and protection of native vegetation) as well as clear prohibition on alterations and illicit discharges into salmon bearing streams. The City should bear the burden of proof to show the method that will be used to avoid or abate pollution and comply with the above requirements but on this project they have consistently avoided review by submitting segmented and bogus facilities that do not truly explain the full extent of what they are doing. I will be injured if the plan is not designed by taking into account what the natural environment should be. The City's Shoreline plan requires the City to explain the methods that will be used to mitigate pollution impacts to May Creek and demonstrate the necessity of developing the State's Shoreline but they have not done so. The proposal submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State. 6. If the project is built on May Creek according to inferior standards for Shoreline protection and means of achieving water quality standards in May Creek while being incompatible with the neighboring superfund site, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project. The urban designations intended to protect my interests should be used and storm water measures to protect my interests should be used to protect my interests but as approved in the city's decision they do not provide the degree of protection to my interests as the code or Shoreline plan does and I would want the City to use those measures to protect my interests and the interests of my family. I want to review and comment on a compliant plan or honest effort to formulate snch a plan but I have been deprived of that right because of the applications without them. My opinion is that the developer Spencer Alpert is just plain refusing to perform many of the requirements. I would have to do the design, do all of the design work for them, while speculating as to the type of facilities or strategies they might contest. In the past, they have allowed applications to be submitted and reviewed even though they are not the real project. They fooled us and Dr. Massman by saying that they were using a "Rain Garden" in the last application, and this time by saying that the flow of May Creek will not be altered. We actually thought it was a "Rain Garden" and that wasted a lot of our time and resources. I would like to see some effort made to restore natural conditions to the area, which there has not been. Declaration Brad Nicholson Page3of4 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 27 28 7. I do not have anything against the Seahawk's in general nor do I contend it is likely to be impossible to build a Hotel on the site. But the developer with a great deal more resources than ordinary citizens that come to Renton to have taxpayers like me pay with not only money, but with our Shoreline amenities for the needs of a private enterprise while causing the impacts I complain of does not impress me in the least. Most disturbing of all to me, is the fact that it appears it is nothing more than a strategy to disregard the City's Shoreline and to save money by using Lawyers to argue the project permits. In Renton they charge $250.00 for each appeal and it is necessary to take the issues to the Council in most instances. That is $500.00 for each LUA, and double or triple that when it is done in pieces. It looks like they just want to wear people down .... very few people can afford to participate. I am offended that variances are not being sought with regard to non-discretionary design requirements. If they are able to just approve the project without variances, it is just the same as changing the code in response to the particular application. No other people around the area get to do that either. I think it is impacting the vitality of our Shorelines and Health, our Codes, our Laws, and the SMA and in tum the vitality of our community and economy. What it looks like to frustrated citizens like me that take the time to consider the permits is that the developer is just submitting a "low quality and low budget" proposal to save money and then using the Lawyers to cause so much litigation that anyone would want to just forget about it. I consider that to be very foolish and that it will be tragic to the City's long term future. My neighborhood and community is what is suffering now and what will suffer when the project is built. I will suffer and so will my family. In my opinion, compelling the City and the developer to adjust their priorities and plans with Shorelines Board power is the only thing that will improve the situation and protect my interests, that is why I made the appeal. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. DATED this 21th day of August, 2010. Respectfully, Declaration Page4of4 Brad Nicholson 2 3 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 4 In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No.: No. ) 5 Development Permit LUAl0-041, ECM, SM: ) Exhibits ) 6 Brad Nicholson, ) ) 7 Petitioner, ) ) 8 V. ) ) 9 City of Renton ) ) 10 Respondents. ) ) 11 ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The following exhibits are submitted to support the Petition for Review 1. Copy of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2. Project Description 2.1 City Council decision on Hawk's Landing 2.2 Hearing Examiner decision on Hawk's Landing 3. 4 Photos of site 4. 303( d) map 5. Shoreline Master Program and receipt 6. 1" and 2"d Declaration of Joel Massman 7. KCSWDM excerpts 8. EPA area description and investigation results 9. Hydrologic Stream data (KC) 10. Water Quality data (KC) 11. Photo of "swale" area 12. Photo of "ditch" area 13. Photo of May Creek 14. ERC report Hawk's Landing Exhibit List Page 1 of2 Brad Nicholson 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 27 28 15. Graham and bunting study 16. Hearing Examiner Decision -Reconsideration 17. Hawk's Landing TIR 18. Appeals to Council 19. Various pleadings, Original Hawk's Landing appeal and its exhibits DATED this I !th day of July, 2009. Respectfully, Exhibit List Brad Nicholson Page 2 of2 Exhibits are on file with the City Clerk's office. EX (j) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION. DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: DATE RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: TYPE OF ACTION(S): August 9, 2010 LUA10-041, ECR, SM June 24, 2010 July 1, 2010 [2J D D Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Permit Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER: APPLICANT /CONTACT: PROJECT LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC-lWN-R: WITHIN THE SHORELINES OF; APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements Vanessa Dolbee, {Acting) Senior Planner City of Renton, City right-of-way, Renton, WA 98057; and Port Quendall Company, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton, WA 98057 City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn: Steve Lee, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 In existing ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N Within the ROW of Sec. 32, Twn. 24, R. 5 E Sec. 32, Twn. 24, R. 5 E May Creek City of Renton The purpose of the project is to install curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to rneet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vie in ity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area, induding the Hawks Landing development. The proposed infrastructure's design expands beyond the existing City of Renton Department of Communfty & Economic Development Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements ===~~====='=aa========-======·~ Shoreline Management Permit LUA10-041, ECR, SM DATE OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 Page2of4 right-of-way(ROW); therefore, a portion of the development would occur on private property located on the east side of lake Washington Blvd. N. The small portion of the project that would occur outside of the existing ROW would be located on the site commonly known as the Pan Abode Site (Tax Parcel# 3224059049, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. NJ. The following list describes each part of the proposed project: • Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk would continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. • Pervious Sidewalk: The sidewalk would be installed from approximately 270-feet north of the May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk connection. The sidewalk is proposed to be 12-feet wide with a 10-foot landscape strip behind the curb and be made of porous concrete. • Stormwater System: The stormwater system would collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharging to an existing stormwater system flowing to May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24-inch storm pipe with a catch-basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. • Wet Bio Swale: The project also includes a wet bio swale, approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) of which, will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. One 20-foot wide gravel maintenance access road is proposed off · of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The landscape strip is proposed to terminate just north of the maintenance access road. • Water Line: The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12-inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. A 1()(). foot portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18-inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. The reach of May Creek n.ear the project site has been designated as an Urban Shoreline pursuant to the City's SMP. May Creek runs through the south end of project area; it flows under Lake Washington Blvd. N into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The downstream portion of the new storm system is within 60 feet of May Creek and the new water line will cross May Creek in an existing 18-inch steel casing located within the May Creek Bridge. Under current conditions stormwater directly discharges into May Creek from the existing road side ditch. After the proposed project completion, discharge would remain in May Creek however, the subject project indudes the addition of a wet bio swale to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into May Creek. Moreover, the subject project would result in improvements in the water quality discharging into the creek. The applicant has indicated that the creek itself would not be disturbed during construction and best management practices would be conducted to ensure the creek is protected from sediment flowing downstream during construction. No fill or dredge is proposed to be placed within May Creek. Oty of Renton Department of Community & Economic DPvelopment Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements DAT£ OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 Shoreline Management Permit LUAl0-041, ECR, SM Page 3 of 4 The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: RMCSection 4-3-090J 4-3-090K 4-3-090L Description Urban Environment General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses Specific Use Regulations Page 3-25 3-26 3-27 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions of State Agencies. 2. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the SEPA Environmental Review for the subject project. This Permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14{7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition{s) hereof. 3. Construction permits shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. I .- C-.2. CJ\ C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Planning Division Date APPEAl5: Appeals of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issuance must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appeals are made by filing a request in writing within the twenty-one {21} days of receipt of the final order and concurrently filing copies of such request with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Attorney Generafs office as provided in section 18{1} of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. All copies of appeal notices shall also be filed with the City of Renton Planning Division and the City Oerk' s office. EXPIRATION: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of RMC 4-9--190, construction activities, or a use or City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements DATE OF PERMIT: /\ugust 9, 2010 Shorf'line Management Permit LUA10-04l, ECR, SM Page4of4 activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Washington State Department of Ecology. DEFINITION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTNITIES: the construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period. Attachments: A. Neighborhood Detail Map cc. Attorney General's Office OWner(s)/ Applicant -Gty of Renton & Port Quendall Company Contact-Gty of Renton Surface Water Utility, Steve Lee Oty of Renton Official Rle (Updated July 6, 2010) PROlEfirC. N UM,BE~t . ____ .. _,:.:'. SM ::JfAlff~f :tt:;1:~:~t:}annddaP~d~;~~n;;:~:l::i1:'.. a .I •~11fi~.'ei\t~l1sion:with\f1:~kecWashington Blvd. N. to 1 t1{. ,.i .(I~r'fo,td;\~'o',lvel\lpllJ~~i\'!f~i,e vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7, 1ij:i~rfy\~¥ilf:l§eit!:\'l'1tpi•\Jhl/j 'ng right-of-way of Lake 1 1 t,toi4$lil)/I, lvct; N,. However, a small , ;l!Jjc~~I!.~ 1 '7 ' ' ·· t-4150 Lake . pbie'/f:B,frt;~li'if 1il'th~;€aitside of ·. PescriptiQm . • ..•. Sa~\h~~~ffih~Ji~t~ki/~iI~lf?lll,%i~lrcY:f~~0 ~:'. ~rproxtmately 0011 feetsouttJ; and .. · • .,• tur:01<;1Dirt:er:•ilt!'clI~I\ileW!\~i)'!nl;:cpntirfui;!1:s~dth · ~n' the east side .ofla ke}Washi~gton . ,;,~)Wht:j.~9:§q~p~tit(o,¥fu11,~~i.sting Qfjdg~ 9v,~r)1ay Cre.ek. The new storm system ... , WOJJ!!;!:i!nsi~,'!)f'~JJ\lrp~miltely.~~QJineal feet,>f. 21-inch storm ,pipe wit~ .~ wtch, , .1:/i!Sl!l :~ll~~(ia\l:~¥~~\'WaAd, the new.,Y'(?~r .1 ine .extensiqp. would consJstof about 1;45Q:f~Qfl:J!~,i~?I:> ,Yij,te.r,,li)l~,in La~e/>_//<1fl/i~9ton Blvd. N. from NE40th St. to NE . 4'1th:Stc'flie/p/9jett.ati;o'inclVdes.awef61osware;;approxin'l'ate1y 140·11deai'feet: The ~ppiicaht h~s.provil'ieq,.stream and wetland studies; a tra(f)b study, a geotechnie<1l ·-·------ieport; and a hydrologicanalysiswiththefr;al'~lication. _____________ i Zone: Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) ·......-,._,__._ ' ----------·-------------------·-··----~-------···-· Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit·-·-·-- Project Man~g~r:' _ lianessa D.olbee, tel:425·43o'•73}.40'mail: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov --··- Applicant/Project I · ' Steve Lee, City of Renton; 1055 S Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057; email: I Contact Person: J-.. --.. ----.-----------slee@rentonwa.gov ··------·------------------- Date of · I/ ~licati~ Notice of CompeteJ[ Ap lication: ---·-·----- Comments ma., be .June-24, 2010 July 1, 2010 -·--···------·---.. ·-·-J July 15, 2010 Map: The map to the _right is for illustrative purposes only. In the event of omissions, errors or differences,J the documents in CED's files will control. Click on map to be directed to the City's GIS Portal. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Project Manager, CED -Planning Division by 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2010. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, ; -------------~-~-contact the Project Manager at 425-430-7314. ____________ _j PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT December 7, 2009 In re Appeal of HAWKS LANDING by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back . · LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M,SA-H (Referred November 16, 2009) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date I z./ 1 /z t1,::, ., t l ~ The Planning and Development Committee ("Committee") heard this appeal on December 3, 2009. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-llOF, the Committee's decision and recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limit~ to, the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions and presentations made by the respective parties. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at.4350 lake Washington Boulevard N. in Renton, WA, and is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of,way for 1-405, and to the south by an underdeveloped parcel that contains May Creek {a Class 1 water body) with at least two associated wetlands (category 2) .. Alpert International llP {" Applicant") seeks to develop 3.07 · acres on the northerly portiof! of the subject site with "Hawks Landing" hotel, a 5 story, hotel that would include retail, fitness center, spa and _a restaurant . . PROCEDURAL HISTORY Applicant submitted a request for SEPA review and Master Site Plan/Site Plan review for the proposed Hawks Landing hotel, The Environmental Review Committee issued a DNS~M with ten (10) mitigation .conditions. Brad Nicholson, and South End Gives Back ("Appellant') timely appealed the SEPA determination. On August 25, 2009, a public hearing was held before ttie Hearing Examiner on the SEPA appeal and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan. Appellant appeared and presented at both portions of the hearing. The Hearing Examiner affirmed the SEPA determination and approved the Master Site Plan and Site Plan subject to ten (10) conditions. Both Applicant and Appellant then filed respective motions for reconsideration. Appellant also submitted a request to include new evidence, to wit, the «second Declaration of Joel Massman" their expert witness. Applicant filed a Motion to Strike this declaration. On October 19, 2009, the Hearing Examiner issued the reconsideration affirming his original decision with a small modification to condition 10 of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling, as it pertains to street trees and landscaping on the remainder of the project site. He also granted the Motion to ,, Strike, denying Appellant's request to have the Second Declaration included into the record. ·Both parties timely appealed both the SEPA and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling to the City Council. Hawks Landing Appeal December •, 2009 Pagc2 RECOMMENDATION DECISION: Having considered the comments made by the respective parties, and having reviewed the submissions, files and evidence in this matter, the Committee recommends that the Hearing Examiner's ruling to grant the Motion to Strike be affirmed, and that the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the SEPA appeal be affirmed. The Committee further recommends that the Council finds that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law in that the Hearing Examiner erroneously required "best available science" as a standard for stormwater treatment. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the following modifications be made to the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision, but otherwise affirm the approval of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan and conditions. Conclusion 5: •.•• Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant must comply with the City of Renton's standards regarding stormwater (the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual). The appliEant ~lle1,de 11se !lest a•1ailallle seienee in tFeating stemPNater llefeFe oonve·fing it te tile reaasiee 8it£h. TheFe is ne reason tli jeeparElile Ma'( EFeek ane/er La!Ee 'Nashingten vAth pell~taAts e,=ea:teEI er ~lleet:eEf eR. t~is 5ite's paY~EI .ertreateEI laAd5e.apiRg areas. Conclusion 6: .... The Master Plan process does include 'master planning' for the entire subject site. While the-applkantis trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will .detract from what appears to be a quality image. TherefeFe, the remaining aereage sl!ewla Ile incerperated at least minimall\1• The Master Plan cannot escape thatthere is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site· east and west of the parking areas. Additielially, tile a1311lieant she1,1ld plant additienal street trees aleRgtf:le i=eFRaiRiRg.bak@ t.JJasl:liRgteA 8e1:1levard :freAtag·e attt:.e· saFRe F3ti8 aAd speGies as eA tt:le Rertl:t ffeRtage. Decision. Condition 9: The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual wse !lest availallle science in treating storinwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The soom1·11ater shall Ile tFeatell W,' whate·1er FReans iAeh:u:liRg •.vat@r FeteRt:ieR1 . Sel:eA~ieA,. er nraiA gafdeR" feat1:1Fe iR erEJer te reduee 11elllltien entering the diteh and then Ma>; Creelf. The de•,elepmeni: shall net jeefjardi:e _Mat; Creel< aAEller lal(e \tJas~iR~eR t.-vitf:I pellutants ereated er eelleete€1 en this site's paved ertFeate!l landseaping areas. Hawks Landing Appeal December "', 2009 Page3 Decision Condition 10: The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan . application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and · west of the parking areas. h!ElitieAall·r, iA tl'le e•.<eAt tl'lat tl'le City aees Rat pl,rnt street trees aleiigtl'le remaiAiAg bal1e 'Nasl'lingten B01,1Jevanl freRtage tl'leR tile applicaRt sl'lall plant SYEll trees at tl'le same ratie aA!'.I S1Je€ies as is JJlaRtea aleAg tile RBrtA frantage. KING PARKER, Chair -Not in Attendance - . cc: Alex Pietsch Chip Vincent Jennifer Henning Vanessa Dolbee Fred Kaufman Appellant Brad Nicholson/SEGB (via Attorney Keith Scully) Applicant Alpert International LLC (via Attorney Jack McCollough) Ann Nielsen REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: RESPONDENT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND LAND USE ACTION: PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back (SEGB) Represented by: Keith Scully Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til September 10, 2009 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Ave S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough City of Renton 701 5t A venue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney File No.: LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North Appeal of SEPA Detennination and request for Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5-story, 60-foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173-room hotel. After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Development Services Keith Scully, Attorney representing Appellant Brad Nicholson and SEGB Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September I 0, 2009 Page 2 Jack McCullough and Jessie Clawson, Attorneys representing Alpert International, LLP The following exhibits were entered iuto the record for the SEPA Appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-Exhibit A: Vicinity Map M, SA-H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA Anneal and Staff analysis. Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Ask Fred what he wrote down! Exhibit No. 2: Notice of Appeal with Attachments A-Exhibit No. 3: Notice of Supplemental Brief and L Attachments Exhibit No. 4: Larger Overview of Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 5: Close-up of Vicinity Map Exhibit D: Existing Condition of Site Exhibit E: Deconstruction Plan Exhibit F: Post Deconstruction Plan Exhibit G: Site Utility Plan Exhibit H: Grading Plan Exhibit I: Dan Mitzel Biography Exhibit .T: Sound Design Group LLC Exhibit K: TIR The Examiner stated that today the Hawks Landing Land Use, LUA-09-060 hearing for a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review, and a SEPA Appeal filed by SEGB and Brad Nicholson, who are challenging the SEPA Determination by the City would be heard. The SEPA appeal will be first followed by the Land Use. The Examiner asked for preliminary remarks: Ann Nielsen stated that in the submissions by the appellant in the initial notice of appeal, along with their supplemental brief, appellants raised an issue in regards to the Master Site Plan, the City and the applicant did respond to that issue. The Master Site Plan and the Site Plan hearing is separate and apart from the SEPA appeal, those issues raised that pertain to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan should be stricken and barred from the SEPA appeal hearing. Keith Scully stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Nielsen, his document should have been titled differently in order to separate the two hearings. It was agreed by all parties to strike the Master Site Plan and Site Plan issues from the SEP A appeal hearing. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North and is a 7.8 acre parcel, however the project site is only 3.07 acres in the northern part of Renton in the COR zone just north of May Creek. It is east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and south and west of I-405. The project proposes to build a hotel on the site that would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa and a restaurant. The building would be 60-feet high and 5 stories. It would be a total of 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms and a 124 space surface parking lot in addition to an underground parking garage. The hotel would be located in the northwestern comer of the project. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 3 There are two wetlands associated with May Creek, both are to the north of May Creek. One wetland is 63 feet from the property line where the development will take place. The other one is approximately 117 feet south of the property line of the developed site. The Shoreline Master Program would have different buffers depending on the use, the Shoreline jurisdiction is invoked if development is within 200 feet of May Creek, all the proposed development is outside of that 200 foot area. Keith Scully, Gendler and Mann asked to submit all the attachments to their Notice of Appeal Hearing Brief and a Notice of Supplemental Evidence. Included within the attachments are Declarations from Dr. Massmann and Mr. Nicholson. They do not need to repeat everything if the Examiner would be willing to accept them in lieu of live testimony. They are present, if there should be cross examination, they would be willing to answer any questions that there may be. Dr. Joel Massmann, 6520 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Dr. Massmann stated that his declaration represented his comments on this pending application. In paragraph 3 on page 2 where it states that 85% of the impervious surface was taken out of the plans leaving the assumption that there would be a potential for a reduction of 4 acres in impervious surface on this site. His analysis in his declaration was based on that potential. The impervious surface over the larger site, beyond the 3.7 acres is actually less than 85%. The assumption was that any land that was currently impervious and it became pervious the recharge onto that portion would become ground water. Rain Gardens would also infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Dr. Massmann stated that 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed and would then infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. If it would be less than 4 acres you could simply divide that ratio by the actual amount of impervious surface. A Rain Garden is a place to collect surface water runoff and store it to potentially infiltrate the water. There may be less infiltration in a Rain Garden due to the plants that would transpire, they are roughly similar to simple surface water runoff, and there would be less recharge in the Rain Gardens because of evapotranspiration. Keith Scully stated that Mr. Nicholson was also present and his Declaration was part of the record. If there were no questions for Mr. Nicholson, he would not be called to testify. There were no questions for Mr. Nicholson. It is their burden to show that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that clearly shows that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been ordered, rather than what did happen when the City decided that there were no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The point of an EIS is to study the exact impacts. One of those is not available, they cannot tell exactly what will happen should this project be developed. They must show that it is more likely than not that it is probable that something bad is going to happen to the environment if this plan goes forward as designed. On SEPA, they are resting on one point and that is the stormwater. It rains all the time in Washington, there is a ton of water that any site must deal with. This particular site is 85% impermeable and currently there are some old warehouses and a bunch of pavement. When you have a site like this, and you take away pavement and permeable surface that rain water can simply go through into ground water rather than landing on and flowing off. Usually that is an unmitigated good thing and usually fights over developments like this in that there is not enough ground water recharge, there would be too much water flowing off the site and flowing into water bodies like May Creek or into the drainage ditch that carries the water off the site. This site is unique and SEPA requires looking at not just how most sites would affect the environment but how this particular site impacts the environment. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal l:'ile No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 4 The goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be, but to create a document that lets the decision maker really understand the environmental impacts of the proposal. The question is, is there going to be a probable significant adverse environmental impact? This is not the case of sample sites described in the Surface Water Design Manual, where more water flowing into the ground is automatically a good thing. Because of where this site is located, there are residential and commercial properties to the south, there are freeways close by, a residential development to the west and close to the site is the Quendall terminal which is loaded with chemicals and toxic soils that move via groundwater to the lake. There are hot spots of environmental contaminants in Lake Washington that have been flushed from the land. With this project, pavement will be torn out, buildings will be deconstructed, Rain Gardens will be added, which will absorb some of the water but not enough, there will be landscaping added and impervious surfaces will be dug up and replaced with a different impervious surface and permeable surfaces. The rain that currently flows on this site is channeled to a drainage ditch and on to May Creek, more of that is going to be going into the ground than previously. With this new construction, all water will now go directly to the Quendall site and add toxins to Lake Washington. An EIS would tell how much of an impact this new construction would have on existing water flow and Lake Washington. In order to begin construction on this site, they will need to dig a de-watering trench to drain the site while they use construction equipment. This ground is already saturated, there would be more ground water flow during the construction. They may need to add catch basins in order to flow water to May Creek without more toxins from the surface. The Appellant is asking for a finding of probably significant adverse environmental impact and asks that this be remanded back for a Determination of Significance and an Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Nielsen waived an opening statement, the City will present their information via a presentation by the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee. She will then join with the applicant in any specific presentation with respect to the stormwater issues. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the City did receive an application from Spencer Alpert of Alpert International, LLP for a SEPA Environmental Review, Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review for the Hawk's Landing Hotel, the applicant did provide all documents required by Renton Code. The SEPA review returned a Determination of Significance -Mitigated with IO mitigation measures. The site is vacant, but used to be the home of Pan Abode Cedar Homes. All of the buildings on the site will be deconstructed with the exception of the one building on the south. That building does have a comer within the 200-foot shoreline. The hotel and parking will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mitigation measures 3 and 4 require the applicant to comply with the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual in addition to providing erosion and sediment control per Department of Ecology during construction. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Ms. Dolbee stated that the white space shown on Exhibit G is in general impervious surface. It is old concrete and other buildings as well as other items left on the site. Discussion was had regarding the materials left on the site, whether the hotel would face those leftover materials. The Examiner inquired as to what was going to happen to the rest of the white space. Mr. Scully continued stating that in fact, the City does not know what is going to happen with all the stuff remaining on the site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Dolbee stated that based on the submittal documents, she believed that the areas not marked "TBR" would not be removed. There is no condition that requires them to leave that area impervious. There also has been no document issued at this point by the City regulating that space outside the development area. A permit would be required to do any type of work on the site. There is nothing in the plans that states what will happen to the soil under the buildings that are to be removed. Mr. McCullough stated that they would defer any opening statement and called Mr. Mitzel to testify. Dan Mitzel, 1111 Cleveland A venue, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that he was developing this site in conjunction with Spencer Alpert of Alpert International. He is the developer for the hotel and has been active in the real estate business since 1977 and active in the hotel business since 1984. About a year ago he got together with Mr. Alpert and starting discussing possibilities of developing this site for a hotel that would work in conjunction with the Seattle Seahawks. An agreement was entered into with the Seahawks to build a hotel that would be considered the official hotel for the Seattle Seahawks, it was very important that they have a hotel that was within close proximity to the VMAC Center and training center. Upon guestioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Mitzel stated that the plan was to remove the buildings, leave the concrete slabs under the buildings and leave the asphalt that surrounds the buildings so that the impervious areas are mimicking the existing conditions in the area outside of where the hotel will occur. There will not be 4 acres of new pervious surface in the area of this new construction. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area unrelated to the hotel development. All buildings are sitting on concrete slabs. The hotel that will be built on this site will have some rooms looking to the east and southeast. Those views would be essentially of asphalt and concrete, there might be a minor amount of general cleanup that happens, the site is not a junk yard, rather a series of buildings that will be taken down, the slabs will be left, the asphalt will be left and that will be the condition they must deal with in terms of the view from some of the rooms, it is not perfect or ideal, but neither is looking at the freeway. They feel it is a condition they are willing to live with and they are willing to take that risk. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Mitzel stated that the entire site is under their control under a real estate purchase and sale agreement. It is one tax parcel. They operate hotels in many different conditions. The premium rooms will be looking at Lake Washington. At this point they have not begun to obtain their demolition permits. There have been no specific conditions about how they leave the area that does not include the project area. Nothing will be removed outside the project area. Pat Severin, Sound Development Group, LLC, 15214 Avon-Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Severin identified a statement of qualifications for Sound Development Group. He has been an engineer in the Skagit Valley for 10-12 years and been practicing engineering since 1989 and licensed since 1995. Mr. Severin was contacted by Mr. Mitzel to provide engineering and surveying services for the project. They addressed storm drainage, utility designs, site layout and grading plans for the site. They worked with the project architect to develop a site plan that was aesthetically pleasing and functions from a utility standpoint. Exhibits E and G are true depictions of the existing conditions and post development conditions of the site. Rain Gardens have a two-fold function, it is a point of collection for stormwater, it provides water quality treatment and in some cases infiltration to actually dispose of stormwater runoff. This site is only using Rain Gardens for the treatment of the water, they do not intend to infiltrate any water in the Rain Garden area. The TIR for this project contained a diagram of the Rain Garden Treatment System. After the water was collected Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 6 in the Rain Garden it flows into the drainage system and out to May Creek where it curreutly discharges. There would be a collection pipe at the bottom of the Rain Garden to receive all the surface water that percolates through the Rain Garden down to the drain rock below. The bottom of the Rain Garden would be lined. Per the King County Manual, they are required to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces, which is primarily asphalt and some concrete surfaces and that is what they are collecting. Roof waters are typically considered not a pollution generating impervious surface, that water will be collected and diverted to the ditch in a separate system. Per the King County Manual, impervious surfaces are actually considered asphalt, concrete and typically graveled surfaces, even if it were all to be removed, which the applicant does not intend to do, it would still be considered impervious. Pre-development to post-development, all the water would be discharged to the ditch much as it is today. The only difference is that they are treating the stormwater runoff and the Raio Garden will provide some flow attenuation from stormwater. They are providing a better water quality than what is there today. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully. Mr. Severin stated that there was no water evaluation on the undeveloped portion of the site other than knowing from the grades in the standpoint that the water would continue to flow like it has done previously into the ditch. He only addressed what they currently were developing. The site slopes more from the east to the west. The area outside of the hotel generally flows to the west and Lake Washington Blvd. and it will continue to flow that way. In the Water Quality Manual there are several menus, there is one that detennioes if it is a high or low use site, which is generated by average daily use traffic. This site was detennined to be low volume traffic therefore, they were required to do basic water quality treatment. They chose Rain Gardens because it is a very attractive technology that is available and is promoted by a lot of the jurisdictions. There are many ways to provide basic treatment, the Rain Garden treatment actually qualifies for enhanced treatment and it does a better job of cleaning the water. Mr. McCullough stated that they have addressed the legal arguments in the briefing submitted earlier and it remains their view that the burden that the appellants face in the SEPA appeal is a burden under the applicable case law of actually producing evidence. That has not been seen today, the only evidence that has been submitted is the Declaration of Dr. Massmann and he testified here that he clearly made two fundamental assumptions to reach the conclusion that he did: 1. Four acres of the larger site would be converted from impervious to pervious surface and 2. He assumed the Rain Garden feature would be a stormwater element that would provide for the infiltration of stormwater. It has been clarified in their response/presentation that both those assumptions are absolutely inaccurate. There will be no conversion of impervious to pervious as a result of the deconstruction and the Raio Garden is a water quality treatment feature. There is no likelihood of any increased infiltration of any material amount in this ground. There is no evidence in support of this SEPA appeal. Any change would be subject to review and there are no plans to change the impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed in their burden to show error and therefore asks the Examiner to uphold the SEPA Detennination. Ann Nielsen stated that the applicant more than complied with all the necessary application materials and documents in his request for a SEPA review to the ERC. The ERC had all the necessary information before them that they needed to make an adequate SEPA assessment, in doing so they came to a DSN-M with specific mitigation measures. The Appellant has done nothing to show that there was any significant adverse environmental impact that was not contemplated or could not be mitigated by the conditions that were put upon by the ERC committee. The City would request that the Examiner find that the appellant has failed in their burden to show clear error and that the SEPA detennination should be upheld. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECP, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Scully stated that the specific evidence they have pointed out is what happens if you do remove all the structures and impervious surfaces. They learned today on the record that they are not going to be doing that. That is not a condition of mitigation and not a part of their application. Contrary to what Mr. McCullough said the fact that it is in the record in front of the Examiner means nothing for the future. The fact that they said they were not going to do it, does not bind them from proceeding with separate projects. It does not prevent them from getting a separate permit, it also does not prevent them from doing things that do not require a permit. There is a glaring omission on what is going to happen on the majority of the site. At a minimum they ask that the Examiner require a mitigation condition that what is currently impervious outside the development area should remain impervious. Today there is not enough information as to what is going to happen to the rest of the site and an EIS should be required. The Examiner stated that if by imposing an additional condition the parties would agree to retract their appeal that is something that the Examiner is entitled to do. By taking the appellant's concerns under advisement and the applicant's willingness at this point to say they are not going to do any of that action without permitting of the City. A 10 minute Break was taken LAND USE HEARING began at 10:49 am The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Hawk's Landing Land Use Hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file. LUA-09-064, ECF, SA-Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map M, SA-H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA Anneal and Staff analvsis. Exhibit No. 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Hawk's Landing Site Plan Exhibit No. 6: Site Dimension Plan Exhibit No. 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landscaoe Plan Exhibit No. 9: Site Utilitv Plan Exhibit No. 10: Grading Plan Exhibit No. 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 13: S & E Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No.14: N & W Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No. 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit No. 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: Roof Plan Exhibit No. 21: Building Sections Exhibit No. 22: Demolition Plan Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEP A Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 8 Exhibit No. 23: All Exhibits entered during the SEPA Aooeal for the Hawk's Landing Hotel Exhibit No. 25: Traffic Impact Analvsis dated 5/2009 Exhibit No. 27: Wetlands Report Exhibit No. 29: Detail map showing hotel site to VMAC location Exhibit No. 24: Reinart Statement of Qualifications Exhibit No. 26: Pat Bunting Qualifications Exhibit No. 28: Mel Maertz Qualifications Exhibit No. 30: Map showing the area around the proposed site from WSDOT plans for 1-405 The hearing continued on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10:49 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. This portion is the hearing of the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner did ask for additional time in preparing his decision due to the length of the material presented. Vanessa Dolbee stated that she is the project manager for the Hawk's Landing Hotel for the City of Renton. The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review. The City of Renton did receive some Capital Improvement Funds during the 2009 Legislative Session; Staff is currently working to identify how those will be expended, although it has to be approved by City Council, which has not approved the expenditures at this time. Some of the items on the table that do have a direct relationship to this project would be a water line extension on Lake Washington Blvd and the extension of a trail along May Creek and some storm drainage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd that may include some impervious sidewalk improvements. Review and permitting of this would happen at a separate time. The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes, to the northwest is VMAC, the home of The Seahawks, to the west are Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminal and to the south is May Creek. The parcel is 7.88 acres in size and the project area is 3.07 acres. There is a small triangular parcel of land at the far north end of the site which is currently owned by the City of Renton. A vacation request has been made by the applicant to acquire that parcel under file #V AC-09-001. It has been approved with some conditions associated with the approval. The hotel is proposed to be 60-feet tall with 5 stories, 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms, with retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. Access to the site would be from Lake Washington Blvd via two locations; first is north located in the existing vacation area, which with approval would become a part of this parcel and would be limited to right-in/right-out only, the second access is to the center of the larger parcel and would provide access from both directions. There would be parking in an underground garage as well as surface parking, with 231 parking stalls total, 107 in the garage and 124 surface stalls. This project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, its elements, goals, objectives and policies. Lot coverage for the COR zone is 65%, the building footprint has a 22% coverage. Setbacks for the COR zone are determined through the site plan review, the applicant has proposed a 20-foot front setback from Lake Washington Blvd, a 60-foot setback from the north side of the property line, a 480-foot south setback and a 129- foot setback from the rear property line along I-405. The COR zone requires portions of the building which exceed 50-feet in height would include upper story setbacks at a minimum of JO-feet from the preceding story, the building should include vertical and horizontal modulation on roof lines and facades at a minimum of two feet and an interval minimum of 40 feet. The fifth Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September JO, 2009 Page9 story of this hotel would be subject to these requirements. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standard. The landscaping is determined through site plan review, perimeter landscaping has been proposed in widths from 6-feet to 25-feet, screening around the refuse and recycling areas, ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance with a Koi pond and a pedestrian bridge crossing. Street trees would be planted along Lake Washington Blvd. This landscape plan further complies with the City's parking regulations. There are no specific standards for landscaping refuse and recycling for hotel developments. This proposal would improve the character of the site, new access would be provided and street frontage improvements provided. Landscaping would be provided that would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties. The scale of the structure is larger than the Barbee Mill but smaller than the VMAC. This hotel does provide a much needed transition from the existing residential and I-405. The hotel would be more compatible with the surrounding residential than the former industrial site and the impacts to the surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings are appropriate for the site and would be compatible with surrounding properties. If and when the remainder of the site is developed, it would need to be compatible with the hotel. The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. In addition to access and parking on the site, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks are proposed along the street frontage which would provide safe pedestrian access throughout the site. The applicant would be required to provide a 12-foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd with a JO-foot landscaping strip for safety. The single building would not have an impact on the site's light and air circulation. There would be minimal noise impacts from the increased traffic, although the noise would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of I-405. The Fire and Police Departments for the City of Renton have indicated that their existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. Impact fees have been required as a mitigation measure of the SEPA. Redevelopment of this site would help prevent deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. It would actually increase the quality of the subject site and the project is expected to contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. This site is located in Design District C, which is an overlay design district and it is in compliance with most of the requirements of the Design District, except for the following: The west elevation of the building has some blank walls and Staff has requested that the west side be re- designed at that portion to feature a pedestrian oriented fa9ade. Design District requires that all sides and top of refuse and recycling areas be enclosed. Having a top enclosure would not function well with garbage collection, they have asked for a modification to not put a top on the enclosure. The proposed surface parking Jot is not intended to be built into a structured parking at future phases of potential development. This site is constrained by access off of one road and the internal circulation of the site is vital for future potential development and this parking lot would serve as that internal vehicular circulation. The applicant should submit new site plans indicating the entire pedestrian pathway throughout the parking lot as differentiating materials or texture from the adjacent paving. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 10 The applicants have proposed to provide canopies along the fa,ade fronting Lake Washington Blvd that exceed the minimum width standards, although they do not meet the minimum length standards they have proposed them along 38.5% of the fa,ade, which pertains to approximately 60 linear feet. The hotel design also provides modulation as it fronts Lake Washington Blvd, some portions of the hotel are set back and not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. As such, the design requirement of the overhangs would not be achieving their goal in some of those areas, therefore the 60-feet of linear canopy coverage. There are some additional requirements if the project is located in the COR zone, which this proposed project meets. Hearing was adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am ... Back on record at 1:00 pm Pat Severin, 15214 Avon-Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that they had taken a look at the site with the existing conditions and constraints from elevations in the roadways and they came up with a grading plan that actually would grade the entire site towards the surface areas of the Rain Gardens from the entrance road and from all the parking areas towards the Rain Gardens. All this water would be collected in the Rain Gardens, treated, and conveyed to the discharge point down through the bottom of the ditch. Any of the water around the hotel would be picked up with downspouts and/or yard area drains directed to the same discharge location. He did not believe that any flow control would be required on this site per an exemption in the King County Manual. Some flow attenuation would happen with the Rain Garden. They do not have an approved construction document at this time, it is only a planning document. The next step would be to receive site plan approval and then proceed with the construction documents where they would finalize their design depending on comments from the City Staff. The Rain Gardens have not been approved as a design feature and in fact when the approval comes through it might not include Rain Gardens but some other feature. There are a number of features that would provide the same level of treatment to choose from. The final plan would need to comply with the City's Code. This 3.07 acre site is not within the 100 year flood plain, a portion of the south boundary just crosses the 100 year flood plain. Geralyn Reinart, PE, 159 Denny Way #1 I 1, Seattle, WA 98109 stated she is a self employed traffic engineering consultant specializing in the preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses. She was responsible for the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. The analysis included a review of the existing conditions adjacent to the project including the operations of three intersections.along NE 44'', the northbound and southbound ramps to I-405, along with the Seahawks Way intersection. This included a review of the number of accidents along Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44"' Street. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts completed for the project were also used in the analysis, along with a review of the site accesses at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. Looking at the site accesses, the existing Pan Abode driveway should be limited to right turns in and out due to its close location to the ramp interchange. The main access to the site is located towards the southerly end of the hotel portion of the property. In looking at the future volumes at that intersection left turns into the site were recommended. Build out of the hotel could generate over 1400 daily trips, 97 during the AM peak hour and 102 during the PM peak hour per the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The future trip Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 11 volume projections at the intersections mentioned earlier included pipeline trips from the adjacent Barbee Mill development that is ongoing currently plus a 2% annual growth rate in the traffic volumes, which is consistent with prior studies that have been completed in the area. The project trips were added into the future values to analyze the impacts from the project itself. The trip assignment for the hotel was based on prior work that was done in the vicinity and specifically the Port Quendall analysis of the I-405/NE 44 ~ Street interchange project access report prepared by WSDOT. There were some adjustments made to that report since this road was going to be serving Seahawks visitors, some of that traffic was redistributed up to the Seahawks facility. The critical movement at the intersection of Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd near the northerly access to the site is currently moving at Level Service D during the peak hours. Future increases would drop that level of service to E with or without the hotel. The other critical intersection operations would be the north and southbound ramps to I-405, some of the movements are operating at Level Service F during the AM peak hour and the delay on those movements would continue to increase over the next few years with or without the hotel project. All of these intersections are within the WSDOT limited access area, they are also subject to review as part of this project. Measures to raise the level of service at these intersections was reviewed by both agencies and included the installation of traffic signals for the ramps and then some restriping of lanes and construction involved with lane additions. WSDOT did concur with these measures and requesting that the applicant participate in a proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, which are being proposed by WSDOT. Pat Bunting, 3643 Leg Road, Bow, WA 98232 stated that her firm, Graham and Bunting, is an environmental and land use service. She was one of three on the project team that was assigned to go to the site and look for critical areas that could possibly be anywhere from the site down to May Creek. They found two small wetlands off site by May Creek, they are Category 2 wetlands. There was May Creek, a Class 1 stream, there is also a ditch alongside Lake Washington Blvd which is a Class 5 stream. The hotel would be more than 200 feet from May Creek. The small wetlands were offsite and so are not buffered, they are well out of the range of the project site. Checking the habitat of the stream requires walking up and down the stream banks and looking for habitat including large debris, downed logs, vegetation, ripples and pools places where fish can spawn and feed, they looked at the classified ditch as well for that reason. May Creek is a habitat for fish. The wetlands were so small, their habitat value was found to be over winter when there would be water, and there might be some winter habitat. But there was not much there, the wetlands were not even wet at this time of year. Each one is less than 500 square feet. This project, as proposed, meets all requirements for the City of Renton. Mel Maertz, 16921 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98037 gave a brief description of his qualifications. His role in this project was to help programming and master planning of the project. He worked on the design of the hotel. The site plan for the hotel is oriented to Lake Washington, taking advantage of the views, they planned this hotel so it would not affect the future development of the remainder of the site. They tried to accommodate the pedestrians and the traffic, it was important to look at the Seahawks facility and the connectivity between the two facilities. Parking to the back and easy access to the underground parking were very important. The hotel was designed with a Northwest Craftsman look and incorporated materials like those used in the Seahawks facility as well as the Barbee Mill community across the street. They are trying to create a sustainable building that would be a leader in the community. Vanessa Dolbee responded to an earlier question by the Examiner regarding refuse and recycling. Renton Municipal Code requires for multi-family developments one and a half square feet per dwelling unit and three square feet for recycling and three square feet per dwelling unit for refuse. The office analysis was based on two square feet per 1000 gross building square feet for recycling and four square feet for refuse for 1000 gross Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 12 building square feet, which results in for recycling the 244 square feet and refuse at 488 for the office requirement. Looking at the multi-family requirements the recycling (hotel rooms as dwelling units) 259.5 square feet for recycling and 519 square feet for refuse, which is actually an increase from the office calculations. Keith Scully, Attorney representing Brad Nicholson 1424 4"' Ave, Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that they had submitted some written comments as part of the Notice of Appeal. They learned a fair amount today and so would modify some of those comments. There are some greater concerns but also some reduced concerns with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A drainage plan is required under Renton Municipal Code as part of a Master Site Plan or Site Plan application. There is an exception to that requirement which allows the City to make a determination that if the proposal will not substantially alter the drainage pattern and/or it will not adversely affect the drainage pattern, then the City can waive that requirement. There has been no formal request for that and no formal waiver made and based on what they learned today that waiver is not applicable. This proposal does substantially alter the drainage pattern. They are going to grade the entirety of the site and route it into the Rain Garden. Currently water flows into the creek, this will adversely impact water quality because of flowing over what is undeveloped impervious surface, and it will be flowing over an active parking lot. The Drainage plan is a document that is reviewed by the Examiner and determines if what is proposed is compliant with Renton's code and with Renton's incorporation with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. What you have is a conceptual outline of what they might ask the City to approve as part of their building permit. This does not comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is nothing for the Examiner to rule on, they don't know if they are going to be doing the Rain Garden plan or something else. They are planning to deal with flow control and toxin removal through a Rain Garden treatment system, although they disagree with them, however they do admit that they need to do something to control the toxins that will come off the parking lot. A Rain Garden would be okay for this proposal, but what they have called a Rain Garden, includes an impermeable surface layer. A Rain Garden is something that has plants in it and lets water infiltrate the ground. There is an infiltration component to every single Rain Garden design, this impervious liner makes this not a Rain Garden. The water that is flowing off the parking lot now flows through a little bit of gravel into a pipe and straight to May Creek. What they are actually proposing is a thing called a perforated pipe collection system, which is a box with some gravel in it and a pipe at the bottom. There are no flow control credits for it, and that is because it does not work as a pollution control plan. He disagreed with the comments made by the wetlands specialist that you don't buffer something off site. If the property line stops and there are no critters on your property, you are done with the evaluation. The habitat and the impacts on the habitat should be studied, not just the impacts on your property. There are fish in the creek, birdlife in the vegetation, and all the stuff that comes with a small conservancy designated wetland. The hotel is far from the wetlands, but the blank space in an unknown at this point. What do they intend to do with it? It appears that it is currently being used as overflow parking for the Seahawk's games, is it going to be lit with the lights shining on what may be song bird nesting habitat, what is the flow going to be like when cars are parking on it, are they going to be putting heavy equipment on it for some later project. No one knows what is going to happen. They have less of a concern on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. If any part of this one project goes within 200 feet of May Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed. They have been told today that no part of this development will be within 200 feet of May Creek. If the south building is left untouched and no work done in that area, then they do not need a SSDP. They would ask for a special condition to be added that no work incur in that area within 200 feet of May Creek. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 13 Kayren Kittrick, Dev Engineering Supervisor, Community and Economic Development showed a map of the project site, she marked the site with an "X". Directly across to the northwest is the entrance of Seahawk Way and the VMAC building, it further showed the location of Barbee Mill development. This development has triggered improvements to the intersections including stop lights. The start of a LUA file is only preliminary discussions, included in those preliminary discussions is a preliminary drainage plan, it is required. The final construction plans takes in things brought in during the hearing, things added as conditions, best management practices plus changes they find on the site during construction. The Rain Garden design is very interesting, it seems closer to a bioswale design and that is one of the acceptable items. It will have to be studied to see if it works, if it does not, the applicant must find another method that is acceptable within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The hotel and hotel parking could change anything that might affect the final calculations of what they have to treat and what has to be released. The standards are not relaxed, a preliminary design is presented, and that is what we know at this point based on specific calculations. Conditions can be made, ERC could have made a condition, plus once it gets looked into and they find it does not meet the King County Surface Water Design conditions or standards or doesn't do what they think it is going to do, the City runs their own calculations and checks on everything. Even under an EIS it is still a preliminary design subject to change. Any soils that are removed from this site would be checked for contamination and treated as deemed necessary. Vanessa Dolbee stated that Mr. Scully had been referring to a habitat management plan, the City code does not specify a habitat management plan, and they have a habitat assessment and a habitat data report. The habitat data report was waived (which is the same thing as the habitat assessment). It was waived because there was a Fish and Wildlife habitat section within the wetland and stream study that provided sufficient information to the City to determine that the habitat assessment report could be waived. Keith Scully stated that he believed that Renton's policy is to allow a preliminary drainage plan but that is wrong and now seems like the time to fix it. RMC 4-60-030C says that persons applying for specific permits or approvals would submit for approval a drainage plan for their application or request. Further on, drainage plan is defined in the same section 4-60-030F stating that the drainage plan will be prepared in conformance with the department's construction plan drafting standards and contents and the design criteria contained in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nothing in the code section about the start of a conversation or a preliminary plan, which means the final thing and they need to make a determination that it does or doesn't that the Hearing Examiner can then repeal. Jack McCullough stated that the only lingering issues have to do with the drainage plan. The testimony from Mr. Severin and the City stated that a drainage plan was submitted. The confusion here is that the comments from Mr. Scully on behalf of his client suggest that it is the Examiner's position in this proceeding to pass judgment on approved drainage plan. That is not the case. Sub-section G of the Code section referenced by Mr. Scully, Review and Approval of Plan, it indicates that the decision on the plan is reserved to the approval of the Development Services Division. In the second sentence of sub-section G 1, it says that if no action is taken by the City after submission of the Final Drainage Plans within 45 days, then such plan is deemed approved. In Sub-section G3 it indicates under additional information that the permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. This is the process that Ms. Kittrick outlined, there is an additional submittal, it's not just a conversation, a report has been issued showing the process and treatment that is anticipated to take place. At this point it is incumbent on the Examiner in review of this information only to determine that the plan, in its current state, is feasible on the property. What has been heard from Ms. Kittrick and Mr. Severin is that there will be comments and they have not passed judgment on the acceptability under the manual or the City's Code. Mr. Severin testified that there are alternates that can easily be employed that qualify under the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 14 manual. Once the process of comment is completed then you arrive at what G 1 refers to as the Final Drainage Plan. Then the Administrator has 45 days to take final action. 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 2:07 p.m. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants, South End Gives Back (aka SEGB) and Brad Nicholson, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M) that the City issued for the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. The appellants filed the appeal in a timely manner. 2. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, hereinafter applicant, applied for a Master Site Plan and a Site Plan review for a hotel complex that would include a 173 room hotel, retail space, a fitness center, spa and restaurant. The project would be developed on an approximately 3.07 acre portion of a larger 7.8 acre site located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a proposed "rain garden' which is designed to handle stormwater collected on the subject site. 3. The subject site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard on the west and I-405 on the east and is almost directly south of the on-ramp for I-405 at NE 44th Street. 4. Lake Washington itself is located west of the subject site separated from the subject site by Lake Washington Boulevard, the Barbee Mill subdivision and the Quendall Terminals site. The new Seahawk' s Training Center (Virginia Mason Athletic Center) is located a bit further north. May Creek and associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. 5. The subject site was the location of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes manufacturing site. The site is developed with old, now vacant warehouses and almost the entire site is covered with pavement. There are approximately 75,214 square feet of warehouses and impervious surface covers approximately 85% of the subject site. 6. The applicant will be removing pavement and warehouses, "deconstructing" in terms used by the parties, from the north portion of the subject site, the approximately 3.07 acres that will be developed with the hotel and associated surface parking and landscaping. 7. May Creek and Lake Washington are both shorelines of the State and are both subject to the criteria of the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant has designed their demolition and redevelopment proposal to avoid any work within the 200 foot threshold of the Shoreline Master Program 8. The ERC imposed ten (10) conditions. Four of those conditions related to geotechnical issues, wetland/stream issues, in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and erosion control under Department of Ecology regulations. Those four conditions are: I. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 15 "Gcotechnical Investigation -Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study -Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham-Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. 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 Stonnwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. " 9. The appellant calculates that if there is 85% impervious surface that subject site will generate storm water in the amounts of 10 to 20 acre feet of water or between 900 and 1800 gallons per day.Based on the applicant's submissions the appellant calculates that there will be approximately 38,866 square feet of landscaping. They also calculated the change in impervious surfaces. From those calculations the appellants deduce that "a reduction in impervious surface would dramatically increase the rate of groundwater recharge." (Appeal page 3) 10. The appellants then explain that based on topography, measured groundwater at the site, and hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels that groundwater will flow to the west, down and toward Lake Washington through the Quendall Terminals site. Since these groundwaters are inferred to flow toward the Quendall Terminals property the appellants anticipate that these groundwaters will pick up or increase the rate of contaminant discharge from Quendall to Lake Washington. The appellants allege contaminants entering the lake will have a deleterious impact on fish and people who use the lake. 11. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. That means it has been found to be significantly contaminated and is listed by the Federal Government due to the levels and nature of the contaminants found at the site. Past practices on the site released or produced dangerous hydrocarbons and toxic materials such as arsenic as part of the creosote and tar manufacturing and pole treatments produced on the site. 12. The appellants noted that "rain gardens are 'excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide storage, treatment, and infiltration of stonnwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth."' (Notice of Appeal, Page 2). Relying on the definitions found in the 2005 King County Manual, the manual referenced by the ERC to govern stormwater management on the subject site. 13. In summary the gist of the appellants' arguments are that the applicant will be using the rain garden and or other aspects of the proposal to infiltrate stonnwater into the soils under the subject site. This will recharge or supplement the groundwater which will flow toward the west and the Quendall Terminals Superfund site. This will increase the contaminants leaching to Lake Washington from beneath the Quendall site. The toxics in turn will affect the health and safety of the lake for both humans and fish and animal populations. 14. The appellants base much of the appeal on the declaration of Joel Massmann in particular, the following paragraphs: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 16 "7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site of Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site." (Declaration of Joel Massmann) 15. The applicant's submissions and testimony indicate that the feature called a "rain garden" will be installed. The applicant's "rain garden" is designed as a water collection system which captures and treats stormwater collected on the subject site and then conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has been conveying stormwater from the site in the past. Therefore, even if the above numbers are correct, the fact that the applicant proposes capturing most of the stormwater and conveying it to the existing ditch and then into May Creek, makes the numbers and probably the conclusions of the Massmann declaration inconsequential. If much of the stormwater is captured then it will not be entering or recharging the groundwater and will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants into the lake from the Quendall site. 16. There was some confusion or disagreement over whether the applicant's proposed rain garden installation would function to cleanse or treat pollutants. It may not meet the normal definitions for a "rain garden." If a review shows the proposed design is not suitable for its intended purpose than it should not be used. The applicant is still bound by the 2005 King County manual for detention, retention and treatment. The appellants also attempted to appeal the Master Site Plan as part of their original submission. There was no Master Site Plan decision issued when the appeal was filed. As a matter of fact, one of the land use decisions for which the SEPA appeal was filed was for a review of the Master Site Plan by the Hearing Examiner. CONCLUSIONS: l. The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate error. 2. The Determination of Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 17 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affinned. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (I) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity .. .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City's detennination. The proposal will undoubtedly create impacts to the community but they are not substantial, at least, not on the issues the appellants have raised. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the ERC made a mistake. The applicant will be capturing stormwater water and conveying it in a manner similar to how it was previously conveyed from the subject site. Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment. The storrnwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate into the underlying soils. It will not travel the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake. The post development groundwater quantities suggested by the appellants' evidence is unsupported by the facts. The ERC did not err in its review. 7. The reviewing body has to determine if this proposal would have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. This office is not left with any doubt about the reasonableness of the underlying decision. The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 18 below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. 8. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: I. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, filed a request for a Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Envirorunental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is the vacated Pan Abode factory site located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. I-405 is east of the site and its NE 44th Street access ramps are located north of the subject site. 6. 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. 7. The subject site is currently zoned COR (Commercial, Office, Residential). In addition to being located in the COR Zone, the subject site is governed by the Urban Design District "C" overlay regulations. The COR requirements also require all development to undergo both Master Plan and Site Plan review. The Master Plan review is an overview of a project to determine the overall project concept and how the project meets the City's goals. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. 9. The applicant proposes developing approximately 3.07 acres of an approximately 7.8 acre site. The subject site is generally trapazoidal in shape. The south property line is approximately 732 feet (east to west). The western, Lake Washington Blvd frontage is approximately 800 feet long. The eastern and northeast property lines together are approximately 900 feet long. At the north end of what appears to be part of the parcel is City of Renton property abutting the 1-405 ramps. The applicant has requested a vacation of this property. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal file No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 19 I 0. The south portion of the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. The applicant proposes an estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill for construction. 11. May Creek, a Class I shoreline of the state, and at least two associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. Any development within 200 feet of May Creek would be subject to the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit and Shorelines Management regulations. The applicant's proposed development will be outside of the 200 foot threshold and staff determined that it is not subject to those regulations. A drainage ditch along the City right-of-way runs along the west side of the property. The ditch is a non-regulated stream with associated non-regulated wetlands. (Wetland and Stream study for the project). 12. The tree inventory showed 32 existing trees. The applicant proposes replacing those with 73 new trees and other landscaping (see below). 13. The applicant will be demolishing the existing warehouse structures that cover the 3.07 acres proposed for the hotel. The applicant will be retaining the other building on the remaining 4. 73 acres. There will be no development or demolition within 200 feet of May Creek. 14. The applicant proposes developing a 5-story hotel on the north portion or 3.07 acres of the site. The 173 room hotel building will be 60 feet tall and contain 122,000 square feet of interior space. It will have a footprint of approximately 29,336 square feet. The complex will also contain retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. There will be underground parking. 15. The hotel's footprint will be L-shaped. The long leg of the "L", oriented north to south, will face Lake Washington Boulevard. The short leg will be oriented east to west along the north end of the parcel. A plaza with water feature will be located in the crook of the "L". Parking will generally be located east of the building. 16. The applicant will be using a variety of materials for the exterior of the building. It will contain stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding and metal roofs. There will be "northwest" style overhangs and trusses. The appearance is intended to complement the development of the Barbee Mill plat west of Lake Washington Boulevard. The COR Zone and the Urban Design District require both vertical and horizontal modulation a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of 40 feet to add interest and quality to the project. Additionally, there is to be a building setback of 10 feet for buildings over 50 feet in height. The plans show that the building does meet the horizontal and vertical modulations and that the top story observes an approximately 12-foot setback for most of that story and varies from zero feet to 39.5 feet. Staff has suggested that does meet the intent and with the variety of eaves, trusses, bump-outs, balconies and differentiated materials it more than meets the spirit of the "guidelines." 17. The entry from the east side or parking areas will be set off by the water feature that contains a Koi pond and pedestrian bridge. The Lake Washington entry will have a canopy. 18. Landscaping in the COR zone is developed as part of the Site Plan review process but is also governed by landscape requirements for surface parking lots. Along with the 73 new trees replacing the 32 that would be removed, the applicant proposes approximately 39,000 square feet of landscaping. New landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the subject site, around the perimeter of the hotel building and in and around the parking lot. The landscaping will be confined to the 3.07 acres that the applicant proposes developing with the hotel. Street trees will be planted along Lake Washington Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 20 Boulevard and will be spaced 30 feet on center. A large variety of other landscape plants will be used throughout the site. The applicant did not submit the necessary irrigation plan. Parking lots with 100 or more stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per stall, a minimum of 5 feet in width, I tree per 6 stalls, 5 shrubs per I 00 square feet and landscaping within 50 feet of parking stalls. Staff calculated that the submitted plans meet the minimum requirements. 19. Staff has calculated the required parking based on use as a minimum of 223 and a maximum of 235 stalls and the applicant proposes 231 stalls, meeting code. There would be I 07 stalls in the parking garage, and 124 surface stalls including 6 ADA stalls and stalls for five Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Staff noted that for parking lots of this size 7 ADA stalls are required. Staff noted that both parking areas meet code for dimensions and compact stalls. 20. Lot coverage permitted in the COR zone for a building with surface parking is 65 percent. The proposed 29,336 square foot building covers approximately 22 percent of the 3.08 acres proposed for the hotel complex. The setback from the freeway is a required IO feet whereas other setbacks are determined during site plan review. The applicant proposes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington Boulevard, its apparent front yard, 60 feet from the north property line, 129 feet from its eastern, freeway property line and 418 feet from the south property line (including the acreage outside of the 3.07 acres). The zone permits buildings of 125 feet or 10 stories whereas 60 feet and five stories are proposed. 21. The applicant will provide access to the subject site via two locations. One driveway will be located along the north boundary of the subject site. The second, main driveway will be a more formal, two- lane gateway driveway at Lake Washington Boulevard located south of the hotel building. 22. Garbage and recycling areas are detennined by use but hotels are not specifically identified. Staff evaluated the use as an office use that would require approximately 732 square feet of space and considered the fact that the applicant will be using a trash compactor in detennining that the proposed 379.52 feet was adequate. The applicant has requested that this refuge complex not contain the roof required by the minimum standards since it requires dumpsters be moved out for collection since the dumpsters cannot be raised to trnck level with a roof enclosure. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 1,400 trips. There will be approximately 97 a.m. trips and 102 p.m. trips. The City's estimate of 1,413 trips matches the numbers predicted by the applicant. 24. As part of the development of the subject site the applicant proposes raising the grade of the site to match Lake Washington Boulevard. This will expose the hotel to the general public and allow the public to enter the site from surrounding sidewalks and trails. 25. Staff in its matrix chart has identified compliance, partial compliance or failure to meet the District C Design Guidelines minimum standards as well as suggested guidelines. That matrix is adopted by this office and incorporated into this report by reference. Particular reference is made to lighting for safety and not spilling off the site, facade treatment along the Lake Washington frontage lacking character elements to break up blank or rather unadorned lengths of facade, pedestrian paths in the parking areas and sufficient to provide both a trail link and pedestrian link around the site and connecting to the May Creek and King County paths and trails. 26. No Planned Action Ordinance was adopted for this site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 21 27. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to what tbe applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and then conveyed to an offsite ditch tbat runs along the west side of tbe site. The ditch conveys water to May Creek and then Lake Washington. As discussed in the SEPA Appeal decision issued with this project, the proposal will not be using infiltration and tbe stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State and Federal regulations regarding discharges from the subject site. 28. Sewer and water are provided to the subject site by the City. CONCLUSIONS: I. The project is subject to both Master Plan and Site Plan review as well as review under the District C Design Guidelines and the COR special considerations. The fact that only one building is involved in this proposal makes consideration of Master Planning for the subject site mirror tbe Site Plan review standards. While the building will contain a mix of uses including a restaurant was well as the much larger hotel, these various uses are included in the one facade scheme. It would make more sense to invoke the Master Plan review when the remainder of the 7 .8 acre site is developed to make sure it is well coordinated witb tbis current hotel complex. 2. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by tbe following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of tbe proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 3. The Comprehensive Plan's designation for tbis area is for the development of larger scale commercial, office and residential uses befitting what are some of the larger parcels in the City. Many COR parcels were used for industrial production that dedicated larger swaths of lands for those purposes. As some of those industrial uses have moved away, the land is available for larger projects. The proposed hotel, especially in conjunction with the Seahawk's training complex is such a large scale project. The hotel is a kind of mixed use -temporary residences for patrons while a commercial operation. The hotel will also integrate a restaurant and retail uses into the mix. The proposal is compatible with tbe goal of transforming old industrial sites into high quality development. 4. The proposal in the main is compatible with tbe Zoning Code. It meets the height and setback Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 22 requirements of the code. It provides the complement of parking required. It meets the design details for modulation and articulation found in the Code and in the District C Design Guidelines. The top floor does not completely abide by the suggested setbacks from lower floors but on average exceeds those setbacks and greatly exceeds those setbacks on many of the top floor's facades. Staff found it was an appropriate design. Similarly, staff found that the proposal meets the code requirements for garbage and recycling and in comparison to the overall size and bulk of the facility and it appears staff is correct. This office does have some problems with the fact that the roof required appears to conflict with actual pickup services by garbage/recycle handlers. Staff and the City need to review these issues. Compliance with actual Building and Fire Code provisions will be verified when appropriate detailed permits are submitted. 5. The building will be taller than the former warehouse uses on the subject site but it certainly is more graciously designed. It will be taller than the residential uses west of Lake Washington Boulevard but shorter than the nearby training center. It will provide a buffer from 1-405 and a transition from the freeway interchange to the residential uses located along Lake Washington Boulevard. The State has asked for mitigation and that is incorporated into the ERC's conditions. Tum lanes should mitigate impacts of traffic along Lake Washington Boulevard. The nature of the trips will also be different from the former industrial use of the site. An appeal was filed of the ERC's decision. That appeal was directed at minimizing the potential impacts of converting a large area of impermeable surface to a new hotel facility. There was a misunderstanding of how storrnwater would be handled. The appeal was denied but issues raised in that appeal can be further clarified in the Site Plan review. The site will still be conveying its storm waters to May Creek and Lake Washington. Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. 6. The proposal will replace old warehouses with a modem hotel with substantial exterior appeal. The building will use a variety of materials to break up the apparent bulk of the building and will add appreciably to the landscaping on the site as well as along Lake Washington Boulevard. The longest facade treatment along Lake Washington Boulevard has a number of horizontal and vertical breaks providing an interesting appearance. Coupled with the variety of materials, wood, hardie board, veneer treatments as well as roof trusses all add to the visual variety the building presents to the public. Staff has noted that additional opening in what are considered blank walls will be needed along this facade to comply with code and provide the visual interest of the building. There will be perimeter landscaping added around the hotel and around the general site. The applicant will be providing street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard for the extent of the development proposal. The applicant should provide landscaping along the remainder of Lake Washington Boulevard and along the eastern and southern perimeter of the parking areas. The Master Plan process does include "master planning" for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 23 7. The redevelopment of this now underutilized site will help increase the tax base of the City and the removal of old warehouses should conserve if not increase property values. Obviously, there will be more general hubbub and traffic than a vacant warehousing site produces. These were anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were enacted for this site and this area. Redevelopment of this site is a vital element of the City's objectives for this area. 8. The internal circulation and the pedestrian paths seem generally appropriate. Distinctive marking to provide visual separation of pedestrian routes from vehicular crossings may need better definition. As indicated by staff, this site connects trails in the vicinity and the applicant should make appropriate provisions for trail users as well as general pedestrian traffic. Staff's recommendations on path width are appropriate. 9. While the building and bulk are larger than what is on the site, clearly the proposed 60 foot height is substantially less than permitted in the zone. In addition, the generous setbacks provided as well as the width of 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard will aid in letting air and light penetrate the subject site as well as surrounding properties. 10. As noted, there will be more comings and goings from this site than the community is used to but development has occurred to its west and that has already introduced more urban tumult. There will be the usual but temporary constrnction noise and 1-405 already adds to the ambient noise levels in this area. 11. There are available urban services including sewer and water. The applicant will be paying a Fire Mitigation fee. 12. The redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents. The project looks very well-designed and should be an asset to the community and City as a whole. 13. The project is also required to comply with the COR Zone special review criteria as well as the District C Design Guidelines. As discussed above, this office has adopted staff's analysis and recommendations regarding compliance with those numerous criteria. Some of the thematic requirements overlap the broad review of the Site Plan criteria. Specific requirements were covered by the Staff review and are incorporated into this report. They are attached to the end of this report. 14. The special criteria for the COR zone 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 Comprehensive Plan designation. c. 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. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 24 f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 15. No Planned action ordinance is involved in this review. The property does not lie along Lake Washington. The height of the building should provide views of the lake and view corridors might exist between the homes on the west side of the boulevard. The project will accommodate the trail as well as retail shops and a restaurant open to the public. The Koi pond, bridge and paths as well as the prominent entry and facade features provide a focal point. Transportation fees as well as accommodations to the State and turning lanes will provide reasonable access to the subject site. At the moment, public transit does not travel this route. The applicant has expressed a willingness to accommodate such access. 16. In conclusion, the proposed use complements activity that has been occurring in this area. It is hoped that the development of the north portion of this site will spur redevelopment of the southern portion. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4- 4-080.I.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file# VAC-09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian-oriented fa;;ade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12-foot sidewalk widths and a JO-foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September JO, 2009 Page 25 review and approval at the time of building permit review. 9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating storm water before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. I 0. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage. ORDERED THIS 10th day of September 2009. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS I 0th day of September 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Adntinistrator Alex Pietsch, Econontic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Comntission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 24, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Exantiner 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 Exantiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Exantiner 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 Departtnent, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .• September 24. 2009. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September IO, 2009 Page 26 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, !h!l executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or tinal 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. a. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District 'C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: (a) uminimum standards'' that must be met, and (b) uguidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: M=Met NM=NotMet PM= Partially Met NA= Not Applicable N p M A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: M M Ill A Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehide circulation; and provide service to businesses. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 27 Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks. {d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian-oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian-oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian- oriented streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian-oriented streets shall contain pedestrian-oriented uses. Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian-oriented fai;:ade Staff Comment: The majority of the fafade facing Lake Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side of the fafade is not designed to meet this standard. This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian- oriented fafade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development for review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval. _J LJ LJ :?sJ :J LJ LJ z:J .· . l _J :?sJ . l I _J :?sJ I ~ _J ~ _J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 28 Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street-level residential uses and single-purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: If buildings do not feature pedestrian-oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1DOE7c). Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street-oriented facade. Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. S. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste I _J C8: l)C ,J _J . ~ IXI . > l _J LJ u __j __j ~ u LJ __j ~ __j LJ u ~ 2sl u LJ I ~ 251 LJ u :..J ~ cJ LJ __j _J _J LJ ~ Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 29 receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high- volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090. Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095. Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self- closing doors (see illustration, RMC4-3-100E7f). Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on all sides with the exception of a roof The applicant hos indicated that if a roof was provided then the dumpsters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty it into the truck. In order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.E7h). Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; e. Identifying building form; ~LJ LJ _J ~:.J :.J _J _JLJ ~ _J . ~ I ~ ~ ~ ....cl 2SJ LJ LJ _J ~:.J_JJ ~ :.J _J _J ~ _J _J _J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 30 f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on-street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off- street parking and vehicular access. (b) On-street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 44-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On-street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection FSa of this Section). Staff Comment: The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,500 feet of perimeter area. In addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot would remain with full build out of the subject site. Lake Washington N p \I M M M ' _j LJ LJ 6 XI 1 I _J I • ~ I . 1 ~ ~ Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 31 Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. In order for there to be sufficient internal circulation at a future date, this surface parking lot would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed. Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building fa~ade. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian-oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSb). Staff. Comment: See section G. "Ughting" below. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian- Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4--3-100.FSc). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non-Pedestrian-Oriented Streets: ' ~SI )ii; .. ··. ·· 1 ..J ~ ')( \I ..J __J I ~ ~ )(I I c...l ,a.;.._ .I L I ~ . •· ~ I I ..•. I c...l ~ . l I .-1 i6i I I ..J :gJ <I .•·.\l r l i Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 32 (a) Parking structures fronting non-pedestrian-oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian-oriented facade shall be set back at least 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre-cast decorative panels; (6) Vine-covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.FSd). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian-oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings ~ LJ LJ ~ . _J __J ~ -' I _j LJ 2Sl -'-' _j _J _J ~ . r> -125 . ' ·.•. l _J ~ I _J ~ I _J ~ ~DIEJD Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 33 or from non-pedestrian-oriented streets when available. Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian- oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). Staff Comment: The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking Jots would be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there ore some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lat as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior ta building permit approval. This site plan shall be DDD!ZJ I I c.J 125: l',I ~ II M M M ' 'x1 I _J _J z.g _J _J _J 2,J LJ LJ _J ~ LJ LJ _J _J 61 _J _J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 34 reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall .include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC--4-3-100.G4d). Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 10-feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9-feet in width. As mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital Improvement Funds, which potently would fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel. In order for this trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near VMAC, the City's Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area have enough width to accommodate a multi-use trial in addition to a traditional sidewalk. Hate/ patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk; in addition, trail users would be utilizing this sidewalk to connect to the grater King County trial system. Based on the anticipated number of users in this location, 10-feet would not be appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 12-faat sidewalk width and a 10-foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval. (bl To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shaH be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 -12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 -6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. _J ~ LJ __J __J LJ LJ ~ ~ LJ LJ __J ~ LJ LJ _;J ~ __J __J :.:J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 35 Guideline: Through-block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through-block connections is mid-block (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4e) Guideline: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, through-block connections should be at least 6 feet in width Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through-block connections should be at least 12 feet in width Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum 0.25 mile apart Guideline: As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian-scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Guideline: Mid-block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Staff Comment: As proposed, canopies along the fm;:ade fronting Lake Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided for approximately 38.5 percent of the fm;:ade or approximately 60 liner feet. The 60 feet of the far;ade where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building that would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard. Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this far;ade that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coveroge. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of ~ LJ LJ 61 I LJ LJ ~ ~ _J LJ LJ ~ _J 2..l LJ ~ _J LJ LJ ~ • LJ _J ~ -' .J LJ _J ~ _J LJ LJ 61 _J LJ ~ LJ XI (l \] . 1 Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 36 durable, vandal-and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade- mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground-related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian-oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.G4f). D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian-oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.H3a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, l:X1 l _J '--'-' IX 1 _J :. L...cJ ': I I XI I • ~ l:XI ol lJ ! ' ~ II ~ II M 1,1 1,1 ~ XI I _J ...:::. IXI "' l lJ · .. "-' ·. l l :.J ~ r'l(i I :.J ·:.-·i LJ ~ 8 _J . L.J . ~ l:J Lill Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 37 Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Staff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental shrubs are not proposed ta be planted. The proposed raingardens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is "green". The raingardens ore calculated into the landscaped area and therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area; as such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number Minimum Required Landscape Area* of Spaces 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum xi LJ LJ _J __J :.J 2s) __J xi LJ LJ _J __J ~ LJ __J ~ [J [] =i ><I ,, ·.JI __J ~ IM :.ti kB Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September I 0, 2009 Page 38 height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. {5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. {6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. {7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. Guideline: landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought-resistant landscape material is encouraged. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather-resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Guideline: landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian-oriented streets particularly at street comers. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall z$J LJ LJ _.J I , ,./ . L ~ - >< . ..• . . >< ,, "' ~ c.:.:.... ~ ~ _.J ~ LJ w VI _.J :.:..., )i;J . •. 1 _.J -' VI ' _J ' -' X •• _.J _J I ~ _.J )cl .. _J _J ~ D ',_, _J :...J Ll :.J ill ~ Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page 39 be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian-oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-oriented space Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian-oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; ..J LJ LJ 2Sl _J _J _J zQ I . I _J ~ J >I _J ~ X1 I _J .J 'l(l . I _J .J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page40 (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and Staff Comment: See comment under G 0 Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian- oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian-oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian-oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security -such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian-oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian-oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian-oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian- oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro-climatic conditions. Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated pedestrian-oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian-oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3f). l2SJ _J _J L.J l2SJ LJ LJ ~ _J LJ LJ ~ ~ _J _J _J _J _J _J ~ _J 8 ±l ~ Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September JO, 2009 Page 41 Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visual.ly interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISa). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (bl Window treatment; (cl Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISb): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (bl The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (cl The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character. XI I LJ ~ . ·. I _J .2[,J VI N ' ~ M VI \ ~ _J _J - ~ _J _J ~ _J LJ LJ .2[,J _J LJ ....J ~ :gj ·•··. I .·.I A Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page42 Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.ISc). 2. Ground-Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or {b} Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See staff comment Section A.2. "Building Location and Orientation" above. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.ISd): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian-oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian-oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. _J 12$] LJ LJ 12$,1 :c.J :J _J _J ~ > .· )< ~ ·. £ '-'-~ _:J LJ LJ .61 ~ ...J ...J ...J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page43 (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are prohibited. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.1Se): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) aerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground-level detail. Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or all of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.ISf): (a) Extended parapets; _J LJ LJ ~ _J LJ LJ X Xl l LJ ~ XI ·. I LJ ~ _J ~ LJ ' ' - . XI _J _J IX . l _J _J Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page44 (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof-mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC4-4-09SE, Roof-Top Equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof-mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast-in-place concrete. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap-tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. f. SIGNAGE: X1 1 LJ L--' -- XI I LJ .. LJ X I LJ ~ IX' I LJ I - :61 _J __J __J ~ LJ . LJ _j :61 LJ LJ _J 2sl LJ LJ - Xl I LJ ' ~ ij ':; 251 ::.1 - ·.·. :1 251 LJ ~ ...J _j _] MN ~ M Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H September 10, 2009 Page46 Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets. (see staff comment above) G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, lighting, Exterior On-Site. Staff Comment: Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4--4--075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. Minimum Standard: lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian-oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. LJ LJ LJ 2ll N D N M M M II. ,.<.I I [z;J _J .·. I ;,sJ I ~ ·.1 z;;J .;..., __J :.J ;,sJ :.J _J d zg d rx (i) M a p Output ··~. i ), / I .. , \ ' '. ·-\· \ . \ ,. ~ \ .. Page 1 o f 1 lege nd ~ Cate g o ry 5 Se d ime nts • Ca tegory 5 Wate r s • Categ o ry 5 Wa ters /V Categ ory 5 Waters m Su perfund S ite5 . H ighw ays ~ St.lie l hghw.,y r1 US 11 ,ghw.>y r1 lnl ar,t,,fo . -County l -· T o wns hi p/Range/Section E stua ry Na mes Wate r Bodie s D Re~rvo1r D Gbctc-r • ~,:irsh D o.,m D R<><=k D P oor/.Jclly D lm.poundmon1 D Island D \\I .lie r /\.·/ Streams http://a pps .ecy.wa.gov/ser vl et/com .es1i .esrimap. Es rim ap ?Ser viceN am e =s ta t e_ov&Cl ie nt Ve... 7/9/201 0 ifjliCash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 D Check No. ____ _ Description: Funds Received From: i:s( Copy Fee D Appeal Fee Name ~o-6 V\~~Y\ Address City/Zip Receipt N~ 1637 Date ff/JO} /D D Notary Service o _________ _ Q4m,~ ~ ff 7 (p Amount $ l C '?:fJ}µ_, " · 0 · ';' · @2Bb !-• ~t~\r0t~:~:-~-;(.~. '~)t~f:~,'·,j;~""----,_ : O ~'~!f~Fs,}i~,3'~~~ · ,,,,., ·N· m--··,;., .. -/,' ,-,·{~y-· •.;., ,~ -·~· , .... "/J;, ,,--~-•• ' ".;..~· "<; ·:.;,i \ --,,__. ~~-? ·. \/~<-;- ' -~ ·. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 2 PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 SHORELINES OF THE CITY 4 GOALS AND POLICIES 5 ENVIRONMENTS 6 GENERAL USE REGULATIONS 7 SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS 7.01 Airport -Seaplane Bases 7.02 Aquaculture 7.03 Boat-launching Ramps 7.04 Bulkheads 7.05 Commercial Developments 7.06 Dredging 7.07 Industrial Development 7.08 Landfill 7.09 Marinas 7.10 Mining 7.11 Parking 7.12 Piers and Docks 7. 13 Recr.eation 7.14 Residential Development 7.15 Roads and Railroads 7.16 Signs 7.17 Stream Alteration 7.18 Trails 7.19 Utilities 8 VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES 9 DEFINITIONS LIST OF FIGURES (MAPS) 3-1 City of Renton SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT of 1971 5-1 City of Renton ENVIRONMENTS (URBAN) PAGE 1 8 19 24 33 39 43 44 46 47 48 50 5 1 54 55 56 57 58 59 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 73 77 22 38 -1- INTRODUCTION -2- SECT I ON 1. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Background For several years there has been growing concern among citizens, local government and state government about the in- creasing pressures affecting the utilization of the shorelines within the state. In general, shorelines are of limited sup- ply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for ~uch traditional uses as ports, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as new demands for recreational subdivisions, private housing, commercial and industrial uses. More people, higher incomes, more leisure time, and general business growth have combined to create a heavy use of the shorelines. In the Fall of 1970, the Washington Environmental Council circulated an initiative petition known as the Shorelines Protection Act, or Initiative 43, and gathered enough signatures to certify it to the legislature meeting in 1971. Iniative 43 placed the primary responsibility for the planning and imple- mentation of the act with state government. The legislature then had the choice of accepting Initiative 43, passing a sub- stitute measure, or taking no action whatsoever. They chose the second option and enacted engrossed substitute House Bill #584, which was called the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and it subsequently became Initiative 43B. Initiative 43B called for local control of planning and implementation of the act. In November of 1972, both measures were placed on the ballot, and the state's voters selected the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90,48). This act is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted develop- ment of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piecemeal development of our state's shorelines. -3- 1.02 Requirements of the Shoreline Management Act Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have the primary responsibility for initiating the planni~g program and administering the regulatory requifements of the act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a suppor- tive and review capacity. As set forth in the provisions of the act, local governments must fulfill the following basic requirements: 1.03 1. Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development on wetlands of designated water bodies. 2. Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which in- cludes a survey of natural characteristics, present land uses and patterns of ownership. 3. Development of a master program to provide an objec- tive 2uide for re2ulating the use of shorelines. Compliance in Renton The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 directs all local governments to develop a master program for the management of all shorelines lying within its corporate limits. This master program has b~en prepared to comply with the requirements of that act and to formulate guidelines which will regulate the future utilization and development of the shorelines lying within the corporate limits of the City of Renton. Specifically, this master program affects the shore- lines of Lake Washington, Cedar River, Green River, Black River, Springbrook Creek and May Creek, and any other shoreline later coming under the jurisdiction of the act. In compliance with the first requirement of the state act, and as part of this masterprogram, the City of Renton is estab- lishing a permit system, under which a permit would have to be obtained for any substantial development proposed within afore- mentioned shorelines, within the city limits of Renton. Sub- stantial development, according to the law, means any develop- ment on which the fair market value exceeds $1,000.00, or any development which would interfere with the normal public use -4- of the water or shorelines. As part of that permit system, the following are considered general exceptions to the per- mit requirement: 1, Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures. 2. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences. 3. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 4. Construction of barns or similar agricultural buildings. 5. Construction or modification of navigational aids. 6. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or con- tract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level. 7. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the non-commercial use of the owner of a single family residence, the cost of which does not exceed $2,500.00. However, any development which occurs within the city's shore- line, as defined by the act, whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent with the intent of the state law. Under the shoreline permit system herein established, administrative responsibility lies with the Planning Depart- ment, but the permits are reviewed in the event of dispute by the Planning Commission which has the authority to approve or deny permit applications. Liberal provisions for appeal of permit decisions are also provided. In compliance with the second requirement.of the act, the Renton Planning Department conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the city's shoreline. The inventory was compleied in October, 1972, and provided a substantial basis for the development of this master program. The environments and specific use regulations reflect the local conditions that are documented in that inventory. -5 - In compliance with the third requirement of the act, the City of Renton, with the help of its local citizens, has developed a shoreline master program to serve as a guide for regulating use of the city's shorelines. Included therein is a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations, and provisions for variances and conditional uses, that were enacted as part of an overall plan which will regulate the future utilization and development of the shore- lines lying within the corporate limits of the City of Renton. 1.04 Development of the Master Program The Shoreline Management Act requires that Renton's Shoreline Management Program serve as an objective guide for regulating use of the city's shorelines. As defined by the act, the master program is to be general, comprehensive, and long- range in order to be applicable to all of Renton's shorelines for a reasonable length of time under changing conditions. "General" means that the policies, proposals and guidelines are not directed towards any specific sites. "Comprehensive" means that the program is directed toward all land and water uses, their impact on the environment and logical estimates of future growth, and it also means that the program shall recognize the plans and programs of other governmental units, and adjacent jurisdictions. "Long range" means that the program is to be directed at least twenty (20) to thirty (30) years into the future, look beyond immediate uses, and follow creative objec- tives rather than a simple projection of current trends and conditions. The basic intent of this master program is to provide for the management of our city's shorelines by planning for and fos- tering all reasonable and appropriate uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote and enhance the best interests of the general public. This master program has further been formulated to protect the public interest in the city's shorelines and, at the same time, to recognize and protect private property rights consistent with that public interest. The goals and policies of this -6- master program are formulated so as to enhance the public use and enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public use is consistent with, and does not impair, private property rights. It is recognized that the shorelines of the City of Renton are located within a major urbanized area and that they are subject to ever increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines. An attempt has, therefore, been made to present a planned, rational and concerted effort to increase coordinated and optimum utilization of the shore- lines of the City of Renton. Additionally, this master program has also been formulated so as to provide for uses of our shorelines in the following order of preference: 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on shorelines of state-wide significance; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines; 3. Result in long-term over short-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 shorelines; 7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary. It should also be noted that the Department of Ecology has designated Lake Washington as a "region" for the purpose of shoreline planning, and has appointed a Regional Citizens Advi- sory Committee to formulate goals and policies affecting Lake Washington's shorelines. The goals and policies adopted by the Regional Citizens Advisory Committee have been considered in the formulation of this master program. This master program should be read in its entirety and be considered as a whole. The goals and policies and specific uses of this master program were developed in an attempt to pro- vide long-range planning which would govern the future -7- utilization and development of our shorelines. Although it is anticipated that this master program will need to be revised from time to time as additional shorelines are annexed and become subject to the provisions of this act, as planned unit developments are established and as additional experience is gained working with this act during its initial implementation period, it is felt that the general goals and policies of this master program provide the general guidelines under which future utilization and development might occur. We feel con- fident that these final guidelines are expressive of the con- cerns of the citizens of the City of Renton for the management of their shorelines. This master with the spirit of optimism, with program has been written the hope that our legacy of natural grandeur in the City of Renton will be more wisely used in the brief period of time it is entrusted to us, so that succeeding generations might have it to enjoy. -8- PROCEDURES 2. 0 1 SECTION 2. -9- PROCEDURES Information Prior to Submitting Application Prior to submitting an application for a substantial development permit or an exemption from a substantial development permit, the applicant should informally discuss a pro- posed development with the Planning Department. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with the requirements of this Master Program, Planning Department procedures, and enforcement procedures. 2.02 Substantial Development Permits 2.02.01 Application Forms and Fees No substantial develop- ment shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a "substantial development permit" from the Planning Department. Applications for such permits shall be made on forms and in a procedure prescribed by the Planning Department. Application forms may be revised from time to time by the Planning Depart- ment without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed to obtain for the Planning Department such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified. Applications shall be made by the property owner, or his authorized agent, lessee, contract purchaser, or other person entitled to possession of the property, and except for applications filed by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agencies, shall be accompanied by a receipt issued by the Finance Department showing payment of the applicable fees which are hereby imposed as follows: FEE VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT $50 $75 $100 $150 Less than $10,000 $10,000 but less than $50,000 $50,000 to $100,000 More than $100,000 2.02.02 Publishing and Posting The applicant shall cause to be published notices thereof once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation -10- in the area where said development is proposed; provided, ho~ever, that the Planning Department shall have the right to require additional publications by the applicant in a newspaper .of general circulation in a neighboring jurisdiction if it appears that the proposed project may affect the environment of such neighboring jurisdiction. Three (3) copies of the notice shall be posted prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places within three hundred (300) feet thereof. Each said notice shall include a statement that any person desiring to pre- sent his views to the Planning Department with regard to said application may do so in writing to said Department and any person interested in the Planning Department's action on an application for a permit may submit his views in writing or notify the Planning Department in writing of his interest within thirty (30) days from the last date of < publication of such notice. Such notification or submission of views to the Planning Department shall entitle said per- sons to a copy of the action taken on the application. The applicant shall submit proof of publication to the Planning Department within ten (10) days after the last date of publication. An affidavit of publication by the newspaper shall be sufficient. 2.02.03 Review Guidelines Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional use permit provisions of this master program, no substantial development permit and no other permit shall be granted unless the proposed develop- ment is consistent with the provisions of this Master Pro- gram, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology thereunder. 2.02.04 Burden of Proof on Applicant The burden of proving that the proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall be on the applicant. 2.02.05 Conditional Approval Should the Planning Director find that any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed by the Master Program and the Shore- -11- line Management Act of 1971, he may deny such applica- tion or attach any terms or condition which he deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and ob- jective of this master program. 2.02.06 Administrative Appeals Where an application is denied or changed, per 2.02.05, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or changing a "substantial development permit" to the Planning Commision. The Planning Com- mission shall have the final authority to interpret this Master Program for the City of Renton. See Section 2.10 for appeal procedures to the Shoreline Hearings Board. 2.02.07 Notification of City Departments It shall be the duty of the Plapning Department to timely furnish copies of all applications and actions taken by said department unto the Public Works Department and City Clerk, and such other officials or departments whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed develop- ment. 2.02.08 2,. 0 3 2.03.01 Bonds The Planning Department may require the applicant to post a bond in favor of the City of Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on any substantial development permit. Said bond shall be in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated. Exemptions Exemptions from Permit System The following shall not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master Program: A. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW; B. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $1,000, if such devel- opment does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. C. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. -12- D. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. E. Emergency construction necessary to protect pro- perty from damage by the elements. F. Construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure on wetlands. G. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. H. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter. I. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the non-commercial use of the owner of a single-family residence, the cost of which does not exceed $2,500. (Senate Bill 2833) J. Any development on Shorelines of the City included within a preliminary or final plat approved by the City prior to April 1, 1971, if: (1) The final plat was approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary plat was approved after April 30, 1969; or (2) Sales of lots to purchasers with reference to the plat, or substantial development in- cident to platting or required by the plat, occurred prior to April 1, 1971; and (3) The development to be made without a permit meets all requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this Master Program; and (4) The development does not involve c'onstruction of buildings, or involves construction on wet- lands of buildings to serve only as community, -13- social, or recreational facilities for the use of owners of platted lots and the buildings do not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level; and (5) The development is completed by June 1, 1973. 2.03.02 Exemption Certificate Procedures Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of this Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section may make application for a no fee exemption certificate to the Planning Department in the manner prescribed by said department. 2.04 Review of Application 2.04.01 Review Criteria The Planning Department shall review an application for a permit based on the following: A. The application; B. The environmental impact statement, if one is re- quired; C. Written comments from interested persons; D. Information and comments from other City departments affected; E. Independent study by the Planning Department. F. Evidence presented at a public hearing, should the Planning Department decide that it would be in the public interest to hold a public hearing. The Planning Department shall have powers to prescribe rules and regulations for such hearings. 2.04.02 Additional Information The Planning Departmerit may re- quire an applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that contained or required in the applica- tion forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed development by another agency, the Planning Department shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit, when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement. -14- 2.04.03 Administrative Standards In addition to the criteria ' hereinabove set forth in this section, the Planning Department may from time to time promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective, when reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology. 2.05 Application to the Permit System to Development Undertaken Prior to June 1, 1971 2.05.01 Permit Required Substantial development undertaken on the shorelines of the City, prior to June I, 1971, shall not require a permit except under the following circum- stances: A. Where the activity was unlawful prior to June 1, 1971; B. Where there has been an unreasonable period of dormancy in the project between its inception arid June I, 1971; C. Where the development is not completed prior to June I, 1973; D. Where development occurred prior to June I, 1971, on a shoreline and continued on to a different lake, river or tributary after June I, 1971, a permit shall be required for the substantial devel- opment undertaken after June I, 1971. 2.05.02 Phasing Substantial development undertaken prior to June 1, 1971, shall not continue without a permit until other phases that were not an integral part of the development being followed at the time construction commenced. 2.06 Time Requirements for Substantial Development Permits 2.06.01 Construction Commencement Construction of a project for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years after the approval of the permit by the City, or the permit shall terminate. If such progress has not been made, a new permit shall be necessary. 2.06.02 -15- Construction Completion A permit authorizing construc- tion shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years; provided however that a project for which a permit has been granted has not been completed within five (5) years after the approval of the permit, the Planning Department shall, upon such expiration, review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may extend the permit for a period up to one (1) year, otherwise said permit shall terminate; provided, however, that no permit shall be extended unless the ~pplicant has requested such review and extension prior to the expiration date of said permit. 2.06.03 Review Period No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until forty-five (45) days from the date of final approval and grant of the permit, or until all review proceedins are terminated is such were initiated within forty-five (45) days of the date of final approval by the Planning Department. 2.06.04 Transferability of Permit If a parcel which has a valid 2.07 2.08 substantial development permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit may be transferred io the new owner upon proper application to the Planning Department. The Planning Department may transfer said permit provided there will be no change in the proposed development. Rulings to State Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it be an approval or denial, shall concurrently with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant, be filed with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the Planning Department. Enforcement All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforce by the Public Works Department. For such purposes the Public Works Director or his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer. 2.09 Rescission of Permits 2.09.01 Non-compliance with Permit Any substantial development permit issued by the City under the terms of this -16- Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Public Works Department of the City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the per- mit. If the holder of the permit chooses, he shall be entitled to a hearing before the Planning Commission, 2.09.02 Notice of Non-Compliance Such rescission and/or modi- fication of an issued permit shall be initiated by serv- ing written notice of non-compliance on the permittee which notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the application, or to such other address as the appli- cant or permittee may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as provided by law. 2.09.03 Posting In addition to such notice, the Public Works Department shall cause· to have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one (1) posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit, 2.09.04 Public Hearing Before any such permit can be rescind- ed or modified, a public hearing may be held at the permittee's written request by the Planning Commission. Such written request must be made by said permittee not later than 14 calendar days following service of notice upon permittee. 2.09.05 Final Decision The decision of the Planning Commission shall be the final decision of the City on all applica- tions. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the City. 2.10 Appeals Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit on shorelines of the City, or by the rescinding of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the Shorelines -17- Hearing Board by filing a request for the same within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final order, and by concurrently filing copies of his request with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's officM as provided in Section 18 (1) of the Shorelines Managem~rit Act of 1971. A copy of any such appeal notice shall likQ- wise be filed with the Planning Department and the City Clerk of the City of Renton. 2.11 Penalties 2.11.01 Prosecution Every person violating any of the provis~6ns of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act 2.11.02 of 1971 shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding five hundred ($500) dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each days' violation shall constitute a separate punishable offen~oe. Injunction The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions, as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines within the City in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 2.11.03 Public and Private Redress Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected -18- by violation, the Court shall make provision to assure th~t restoration will be accomplished within a reason- able time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. 1.12 Amendments The City initially shall review this Ma~ter Proiram within three (3) years from its effective date and thereafter as necessary. Any amendments to this Master Program shall be reviewed first by the Planning Commission, which shall conduct at least one (1) public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council, which shall hold at least one (1) public hearing before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with Section 19 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. -19- SHORELINES OF THE CITY -20- SECTION 3 SHORELINES OF THE CITY 3.01 Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By state standards, the Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of State-Wide Significance and comprise approximately 5.8 miles of the shorelines of the City of Renton. In addition, the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines within the City. Each of these 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable resource not only to the City of Renton but also to the Seattle Metropolitan Area of which Renton is an integral part. 3.02 Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which make it valuable and preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of priority (as es- tablished by Chapter 90.5.020 RCW): 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest for shorelines of state-wide significance; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines; 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shore- lines; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; and 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. 3.03, In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act: 1. Cedar River, 2. Green River, 3. Lake Washington, 4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31 Street in the southeast quarter of the -21- southeast quarter of Section 32-24N-SE WM down- s~ream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington, S. Springbrook Creek north from S.W. Grady Way to the Black River, 6. Black River. The above information is illustrated in Figure 3-1. 3.04 The jurisdiction of this Master Program includes shorelines and wetlands as defined in Section 9. • • ' I I ! FIGURE 3-1 CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 ; i I -22- -r{ .. I I I I I QJl ' I --1 I I I I ------: ----. -l I I I . I I ---------1 i • I -24- GOALS & POLICIES -25- SECTION 4, GOALS AND POLICIES 4,01 Shoreline Uses and Activities Element 4.01.01 4.01.02 Goals: A. Shorelines of the City are to be planned and coordinated to afford best use of the limited water resource. B. Shorelines of the City are to provide natural amenities within an urban environment. Policies: A. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and activities should be planned for. (1) Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relation- ship to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. (2) Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance the natural ameni- ties of the shorelines and which depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines. (3) Planning, zoning, capital improvements and other policy and regulatory standards should not increase the density or intensity of shoreline uses or activities except on a dem- onstrated need considering the shorelines and then only in accordance with the policies con- tained herein. (4) Plans should be developed for shorelines par- ticularly suited for water-dependent uses or activities. (5) Multiple use of shorelines should be planned where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. (6) Aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. -26- B. Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water related should be encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline. C. All shoreline developments shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners. 4.02 Conservation Element 4.02.01 Goal: The resou,~es and amenities of all shorelines situated in the City of Renton are to be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. 4.02.02 Policies: A. Existing natural resources should be conserved. (1) Water quality and water flow should be main- tained at a level to permit recreational use, provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life and to satisfy other required human needs. (2) Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, if feasible, in- creased. (3) Wildlife habitats should be protected, im- proved and, if feasible, increased. (4) Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation. Access and use should be restric- ted if necessary for the conservation of these areas. B. Existing and future activities on all shorelines within the City of Renton should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the environment. C. The City of Renton should take aggressive action with responsible governmental agencies to assure that the discharges from all drainage basins are considered an integral part of shoreline planning. (1) -2 7- Soil erosion and ~~dimentation which adversely <\. :-. affect any shorelin6\.within the City of Renton '\\ should be prevented or\controlled whenever \ possible. (2) The contamination of existing watercourses should be discouraged. D. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educa- tional or scientific value should be identified and protected. (1) Public and private cooperation should be en- couraged in site preservation and protection, (2) Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined. E. Festivals and temporary uses involving public in- terest and not substantially or permanently impair- ing water quality, water flow or unique and fragile areas may be permitted. F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of PAI 405 should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. (1) Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would per- mit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. (2) The existing waterway of May Creek east of PAI 405 should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible. 4.03 Economic Element 4.03.01 Goal: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water related are to be encouraged. 4.03.02 Policies: A. Economic uses and activities which are not water related should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted -28- reasonable public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. B. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficieni manner. (1) Economic uses and activities should minimize and cluster that water-related portion of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not re- quire a water's edge location. (2) The length, width, and height of over-water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions. (3) Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic view. C. Multiple use of economic developments on the shore- line should be encouraged to provide public recrea- tional opportunities wherever feasible. D. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible. (1) ·Commercial <lockings and marinas shall meet all health standards. (2) Marinas and other economic activities shall be required to contain and clean up spills or dis- charges of pollutants associated with boating activities. E. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. F. Containment and clean-up of pollutants ~hall be re- quired of all economic activities on the shorelines. 4.04 Public Access Element 4.04.01 4.04.02 Goal: Increase public accessibility to shorelines while preserving or improving the natural amenities. Policies: A. Public access should recognize and be consistent -29- with private property rights. B. Just compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. C. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with public safety and preservation/ conservation of the natural amenities. D. Regulated public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas. E. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property or sought by ease- ment. F. Future multifamily, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments shall be required to provide regulated public access along the water's edge. G. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall not be denied to owners of property contiguous to said corridor. H. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures, multifamily, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and indus- trial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the water's edge if physically feasible. I. Views of the shoreline and water from shoreline and upland areas should be preserved and enhanced. Enhancement of views shall not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation. J. Both passive and active public areas shall be de- signed and provided. K. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking shall be provided at fre- quent locations. L. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of -30- shoreline areas to which public access is pro- vided, including the trail system. 4.05 Recreation Element 4,05.01 4.05.02 Goal: Water-related recreational activities avail- able to the public are to be encouraged. Policies: A. Water-related recreational activities should be encouraged, (1) Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved. (2) Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number. (3) Areas for recreation of special interest should be developed. (4) Both passive and active recreational areas shall be provided. B. Recreational fishing should be supported, main- tained and increased. C. The public should be encouraged to buy shoreland as it becomes available for sale based upon an established plan declaring public intent. D. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development and mainten- ance of waterfront areas. E. Subject to state and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster recreational aspects. 4.06 Circulation Element 4.06.01 4.06.02 Goal: Minimize future motor vehicular traffic and en- courage pedestrian traffic within the shorelines, Policies: A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible and should be restricted to exist- ing rights-of-way. B. Public transportation should be encouraged to -31- facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas. C. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including pro- visions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. (1) Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. (2) Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines. (3) Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in publicly financed trans- portation systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety. D. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be discouraged, but if permitted, should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. 4.07 Residential Element 4.07.01 Goal: Existing residential uses are to be recognized but future residential development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines, consistent with private property rights. 4.07.02 Policies: A. Residential uses over water shall not be permitted. B. Residential development should be discouraged in unique and fragile areas. C. New residential developments along or impinging upon the shoreline should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available. D. Multi-family structures near the shoreline should be reasonably set back from the water's edge. E. Future shoreline sub-division and planned unit developments (P.U.D.) should permit regulated public access to and along the water's edge. F. Low density development should be encouraged in future residential developments along the shoreline. -32- G. New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. H. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI 405 should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. (1) Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. (2) The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI 405 should be left in an undeveloped state as much as possible. -33- ENVIRONMENTS -34- SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTS 5.01 Two Environments Two environments, Conservancy and Urban, shall be designated to provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. The environmental designation to be given any specific area shall be based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for development and the goals and aspi- rations of local citizenry. Shorelines have been categorized according to the natural characteristics and use regulations have been designated herein. 5.02 Conservancy Environment 5.02.01 Designation of the Conservancy Environment A. Objective The objective in designating a conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and manage exist- ing areas with irreplacable natural or aesthetic fea- tures in essentially their native state while providing for limited use of the area. The conservancy environ- ment is intended to provide a pleasant break in the sur- rounding urban community. This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton. B. C . Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment (1) Areas of high scenic value. (2) Valuable areas for wildlife habitat. (3) Hazardous slope areas. (4) Floodprone areas. (5) Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. (6) Areas with unique or fragile features. Acceptable Activities and Uses Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a conservancy environ- ment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a conservancy environment are low density residential, passive agricultural uses -35- such as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation. i.02.02 Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment A. Commercial Uses Commercial uses shall be limited to home occupations, which shall be contained wholly within the dwelling unit. B. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations Any such activity shall be allowed only by the Planning Commission. C. Industrial Uses All industrial activities are prohibited in a conservancy environment. D. Recreation Uses In the conservancy environment recreation uses shall be limited to passive recreation. (1) Permitted Uses (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (2) Us es (a) (b) Public hiking and bicycle trails. Quiet public fishing. Public wading and swimming spots. Public areas for nature study. Public picnic areas. Allowed by Planning Commission Public overnight camping areas. Eating/drinking establishments. E. Residential Uses (1) Permitted Uses Low-density single family residences. (2) Uses Allowed by Planning Commission Multi-family residences of two (2) to four (4) units. (3) Prohibited Use Multi-family residences of five (5) units or more. F. Utilities (1) Local Service Utilities The necessary local service utilities shall be permitted for approved activities and uses within the conservancy environment. (2) Major Utilities Major Utilities may be allowed only by approval of the Planning Commission and only if they cross the conservancy area in the shortest feasible route. 5.02.03 Jurisdiction That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that portion of the south bank of the Cedar River 2,500 feet east of FAI-405 shall be designated conservancy -36- (see figure 5-1). 5.03 Urban Environment 5.03.01 Designation of the Urban Environment A. Objective The objective of the urban environment is.to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. B. C. D. High-intensity Land Use The urban environment is an area of high-intensity land-use including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. Shorelines planned for future urban expansion should present few biophysical limitations for urban activities. Water-Dependent Activities Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-dependent .·<"' industrial and commercial uses requiring frontage on shorelines. Public Access In this master program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the urban environment. Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for per- manent public access to the water in the urban environ- ment shall be accomplished through the master program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities. Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths. -37- 5.03.02 Use Regulations in the Urban Environment All uses shall be allowed as indicated by Section 7 of the Master Program. 5.03.03 Jurisdiction All shorelines of the City not designated as conservancy are designated as urban (see figure 5-1). Figure 5-1 ·crTY OF RENTON i:NV IRONMENTS --URBAN ,- •••• coNSERVANCY 1 i I I 111 -3&- ·... I \tJTi i --~------1 .I I -39- GENERAL USE REGULATIONS -40- SECTION 6 GENERAL USE REGULATIONS 6.01 Applicability: This section shall apply to all Shore- 6.02 line uses whenever applicable. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in Section 7, Specific Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all permits. Environmental Effects 6.02.01 Pollution and Ecological Disruption: The potential 6.02.02 effects on water quality, water and lanµ vegetation, water life and other wild life (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natu- ral habitats, and feeding) soil quality and all other environmental aspects must be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility which may have detrimental effects Burden on Applicant explain the methods on the environment. Applicants for permits must that will be used to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects. 6.02.03 Erosion: Erosion is to be controlled through the use 6.02.04 of vegetation rather than structural means where feasible. Geology: Important geological factors -such as possible slide areas -on a site must be considered. Whatever activity is planned under the application for the devel- opment permit must be safe and appropriate in view of the geological factors prevailing. 6.03 Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects 6.03.01 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: A. View obstruction: buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights and other structures; B • C. D. E. -41- Community disturbances: noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic and other structures and activities; Design theme: architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns and other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be a uni- form or coordinated design, planned for the pur- pose of visual enhancement as well as for serving a useful purpose; Visually un:eleasant areas: landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public view any area that may impinge upon the visual quality of a site, for example, disposal bins, storage yards and out- door work areas; Outdoor Activities Work areas, storage and other activities on a site in a residential area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonable possible to reduce distractions and other effects on surround- ing areas. Outdoor activities of commercial and in- dustrial operations shall be limited to those neces- sary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor areas shall not be used for storage of.more than minimal amounts of equipment, parts, materials, products or other objects. 6.04 Public Access 6.04.01 Where possible, space and right-of-way shall be left available on the immediate shoreline so that trails, bike paths, and/or oth_er means of public use may be developed providing· greater shoreline utilization. 6.04.02 Any trail syste~ shall be designed to avoid conflict with piivate residential property rights. 6.04.03 No 'property ·shall be acquired for public use without just co~pensat{oi to the owner. 6.05 Facility Arrangement -Shoreline Orientation 6.05.01 Where feasible; shoreline developments shall minimize and clustir the water-dependent portion of their -42- developments along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge locatioa. 6.07 Landscaping 6.07.01 General The natural and proposed landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and shall be compatible with the Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. 6.08 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. -43- SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS -44- SECTION 7 SPECIFICUSE l<tGULAtrbNS 7.01 Airport -Seaplarie Bases 7.01.01 Location: 7.01.02 A. B. Airports A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline. However, an air- port already located within a shoreline shall be permitted to upgrade and expand its facilities provided such upgrading and expansion would not have a substantial detrimental effect on a shoreline. Seaplane Bases 1. Private Seaplanes may be permitted in residen- tial areas. 2. Commercial New commercial seaplane bases may be allowed in public and industrial areas pro- vided such bases are not contiguous to resi- dential areas. Facilities A. Airports B. 1. Future hangers shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet to the water's edge and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from the area along the water's edge, 2. Tie down areas shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet to the water's edge, for landbased aircraft. Seaplane Bases 1. Docks for the mooring of seaplanes are permitted. Seaplanes may be stored on the dock, or rampf. 2. Tie down areas may be provided on seaplany ramps. 7.01.03 Landscaping A. Landscaping shall be required arou~d parking ara1s in accord with city ordinances. B. The landscaping shall be compatible with the activities and characteristics of aircraf~ ln th•t it -45- should be wind resistent, low profile and able to survive under adverse conditions. 7.01.04 Services Services of aircraft shall conform to FAA standards which includes fuel, oil spill, clean-up, safety and fire fighting equipment, and vehicle and pedestrian separation. 7.02 Aquaculture 7.02.01 Location -46- A. Aquaculture operations may be located on streams and rivers. 7.02.02 Time Facilities shall be allowed on a temporary basis only. 7.02.03 Design and Construction A. All structures over or in the water shall meet the following restrictions: 1. They shall be securely fastened to the shore. 2. They shall be designed for a minimum of inter- ference with the natural systems of the water- way, including for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic plant life. 3. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as swimming and/or boating. 4. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses if potential conflicts exist. -47- 7.03 Boat-Launching Ramps 7.03.01 Site Appropriateness and Characteristics 7.03.02 7.03.03 A. Water and Shore Characteristics (1) Water depth should be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats. (2) Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for ramp activity. B. Topography: The proposed area should not present major geological or topographical obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Severe methods should not be necessary to adapt the site. Dimensions and Location The ramp should be designed so as to allow for ease of access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface. Surface and Construction A. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or other hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders should not be used. The material chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions: (1) Soil characteristics, (2) Erosion, (3) Water currents, (4) Waterfront conditions, (5) Usage of the ramp, (6) Any other pertinent factor or local condition. B. The material shall be permanent and non-contaminating to the water. 7.03.04 Review: Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the appropriate city department. -48- 7.04 Bulkheads 7.04.01 General: All bulkheads are subject to the regulations 7.04.02 set forth in this master program, except that bulk- heads common to a single-family residence are exempted from the permit system set forth in this Master Program. Bulkhead Permitted A bulkhead may be permitted only when: A. Required to protect upland areas or facilities; and B. Riprap cannot provide the necessary protection; and C. The bulkhead design has been approved by a licensed engineer, and the design has been approved by the Renton Department of Public Works. 7.04.03 Bulkhead and Fill A bulkhead for the purpose of creat- ing land by filling behind the bulkhead shall be per- mitted only when the landfill has been approved. The application for a bulkhead shall be included in the application for the landfill in this case. 7.04.04 General Design Requirements A. The burden rests upon the applicant for the permit to propose a specific type of bulkhead design which has been approved by a licensed engineer. B. All approved bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize damage to fish and shell fish habitat. In evaluating the application for a proposed bulkhead, the Planning Department is to consider the effect of the bulkheads on pub- lie access to publicly owned shorelines. Where possible, bulkheads are to be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. C. Bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize alterations of the natural shore- line and to minimize adverse effects on nearby beaches. -49- D. In cases where bulkheading is permitted, scienti- fic information suggests a rock riprap design should be preferred. The cracks and openings in such a structure afford suitable habitats for certain forms of aquatic life. However, consid- eration must be given to the fact that such cracks and openings above the water line may pro- vide resting sites for rat populations. -50- 7.05 Commercial Developments 7.05.01 Location of developments 7.05.02 A. New commercial developments are to be encouraged to locate in those areas where current commercial uses exist.· B. New commercial developments on Lake W~shington which are neither water dependent nor water related will not be permitted upon the shoreline in the absence of a showing of strict economic necessity by the applicant. C. Where possible, commercial developments are to in- corporate recreational opportunities on the shore- line for the general public. D. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed com- mercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit 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. Setback A commercial building shall be located no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to the water's edge, however, the Planning Commission may reduce this requirement for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the water's edge. -51- 7.06 Dredging 7.06.01 Definition The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 7.06.02 Permitted Dredging Dredging is to be permitted only when: A. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes if a definite flood hazard would exist unless dredging were permitted. B. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of materi- al distribution and water quality when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas. C. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as to decrease the intrusion into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. Thi~ type of dredging may only be allowed if the following con- ditions are met: (1) The water of the dredged area shall not be stagnant or polluted. (2) The water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting aquatic life. D. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shoreline to which the public is provided access. Dredging may where additional public access is be permitted provided, and/or where there is anticipated to be a significant im- provement to fish or wild life habitat; provided there is no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake. E. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability. 7.06.03 Prohibited Dredging A. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas. B. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill -52- or construction material, which dredging is not directly related to those purposes permitted in Subparagraph .02 above, is prohibited. 7.06.04 Regulations on Permitted Dredging A. All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by a licensed engineer. An approved engineering report shall be submitted to the Renton Planning Department as part of the application for a shore- lines permit. B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposed dredg- ing operation. c. The responsibility further rests with the applicant to demonstrate that there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and/or on recreational are as. D. The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has minimal impact or interfer- ence with fish migration. E. Adjacent bank protection: (1) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks. (2) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the appli- can~ to propose and carry out a method of res- toration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosian and siltation. F. Adjacent properties: (1) The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate a method of eliminating or prevent- ing conditions that may: (a) create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity; -53- (b) damage property in or near the area; (c) cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the area; or (d) endanger public safety in or near the area. G. The applicant shall demonstrate a method to con- trol contamination and pollution to water, air and ground. H. Disposal of dredged material: (1) The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing of all dredged material. (2) In no instance shall dredged material be deposited in a lake or stream. (3) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a wetland area. (4) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall pro- pose and carry out a method of disposal that does not contaminate or pollute water, air or ground, -54- 7.07 Industrial Development 7.07.01 7.07.02 Industrial developments are to be permitted only when: A. They are water related or they provide reasonable public access to and along the water's edge; and, B. They minimize and cluster those water-related portions of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which are not water dependent; anq, C. Any over water portion is water dependent, is limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is approved by the Planning Commission; and, D. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view; and, E. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability exists to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial development, Industrial structures are to be permitted only when they are located on land parcels where industrial uses currently exist or where they are set back more than twenty-five (25) feet from the water's edge. -55- 7.08 Landfill 7.08.01 Landfills shall be permitted only in the fo.llowing cases: A. For detached single-family residential uses when the property is located between two (2) existing bulkheads the property may be filled to the line of conformity provided the fill does not exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet in length along the water's edge and thirty-five (35) feet into the water and provided the provisions of Section 8.02.01 through 8.02.05 are satisfac- torily met; or, B. When a bulkhead is built to protect the existing perimeter land, a landfill shall be approved to bring the contour up to the desired grade; or C. When in a public use area, landfill would be advantageous to the general public; or, D. When repairs or modifications are required for existing bulkheads and fills; or, E. When landfill is required for flood control pur- poses; or, F. Justification for landfill for any other purpose than those listed in subsections A through E above will be allowed only with prior approval of the Renton Planning Commission. -56- 7.09 Marinas 7.09.01 Definition: The term "marina" shall be a use pro- viding mooriges for pleasure craft which also may include boat-launching facilities, storage, sales and other related services. 7.09.02 Marinas shall be permitted only when: A. Adequate onsite parking is available commensurate with the moorage facilities provided. B. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities provided. C. The location of the moorage facilities is conve- nient to public roads. 7.09.03 Design requirements 7.09.04 A. Marinas are to be designed in the manner that will minimize adverse effects on fish and shell fish re- sources and be aesthetically compatible with adjacent areas. B. Marinas utilized for overnight and long-term moorage are not to be located in shallow-water embayments with poor flushing action. C. Applications for permits for marina construction are to be avaluated for compliance with standards promulgated by Federal, State and Local agencies. D. Marinas and other commercial boating activities are to be equipped with receptacles to receive and adequately dispose of sewage, waste, rubbish, and litter from patrons' boats. E. Applications for development permits for the con- struction of marinas must affirmatively indicate that the marina will be equipped to contain and clean up any spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. Location of Marinas A. Marinas shall be permitted only upon Lake Washington and on the Cedar River between its mouth and the Logan Street Bridge. Marinas must provide adequate access, parking, and surface water area in relation to the number of moorage spaces provided. -57- 7,10 Mining 7.10,01 All mining, including surface mining, shall be pro- hibited. 7.10.02 Surface mining shall mean all or any part of the process involved in extraction of minerals by re- moving the overburden and mining directly from the mineral deposits thereby exposed, including open pit mining of minerals naturally exposed at the surface of the earth, mining by the auger method, and production of surface mining refuse. The sur- face mining shall not include reasonable excavation or grading conducted for farming, onsite road construction, or onsite building construction. -58- 7.11 Parking 7.11.01 Public Parking A. In order to encourage public use of the shore- line, public parking ls to be provided at fre- quent locations. B. Public parking facilities should be discouraged along the water's edge. C. Public parking facilities are to be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent lands and upon the water view. 7.11.02 Private Parking A. Where possible, private parking facilities are to be located away from the water's edge. 7.12 Piers and Docks 7.12.01 Purpose -59- A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or float- ing upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas where scen- ic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. The following permits for construction of piers or docks will be allowed: (1) Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. (2) Community piers and docks in new major water- front subdivisions. (3) Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront property owners. (4) Private single family residence piers and docks. (5) Water-dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of al 1 piers and doc.ks shall be approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Design Criteria for Single-Family Docks A. Pier type (1) All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction, except that floating docks may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: -60- a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. c. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feas- ible to install piling. B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. c. Dock Size Specifications (1) The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend thirty (30) feet into the water or until a depth of eight (8) feet is reached provided the dock length does not exceed one hundred (100) feet. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. (2) Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Planning Commission for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. D. Dock Location and Spacing (1) No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. (2) Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate a joint dock facility on either such property provided there are appropriate restrictive covenants filed for record run- ning with the land. 7.12.04 Multifamily Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage (1) Moorage at the docks shall be limited to resi- dents of the subdivision, apartments, condo- miniums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. 7.12.05 7.12.06 -61- B, Maximum Number of BerthinB Spaces (1) The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a fraction less than one. Use of Buoys and Floats A, Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage should be encouraged as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks, Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation. Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: (1) Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction there- over, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached; the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet, (2) The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. (3) If feasible the dock is to be parallel to the water's edge. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. -62- 7.13 Recreation 7.13.01 Definition: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreation- al experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 7.13.02 Public Recreation Public recreation uses shall be permi~ted within the shoreline~ when the following criteria are considered: A. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided; and B. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of the local community; and C. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property acquired for the public use; and D. It is designed to avoid conflicts with private pro- perty rights and create minimum detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and E. It provides parking spaces to handle the designed public use and it will be designed to have a mini- mum impact on the environment. 7.13.03 Private Recreation Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the following standards are met: A. There is reasonable public access to and along the water's edge if necessary to have access to such uses; and B. The primary proposed facility is water dependent; and C. The secondary proposed facilities are water oriented; and D. The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on adjacent parcels; and E. Adequate, screened and landscaped parking facilities that are separated from pedestrian paths are pro- vided. -63- 7.14 Residential Development 7.14.01 Residential developments shall be allowed only when: A. Adequate public utilities are available; and B. Residential structures are set back inland from the water's edge a minimum of 20 feet; and C. Density shall not increase beyond the zoning density outlined in the Renton Urban Area Com- prehensive Plan. 7.14.02 No floating residences are to be allowed. -64- 7.15 Roads and Railroads 7.15.01 7,15.02 Location A. Major highways, freeways and railways are to be located away from shorelands, except in indus- trial areas, in order that shoreland roads may be reserved for slow-moving, recreational traffic. Design requirements A, Where possible, shoreline roadways are to be scenic boulevards and are to be restricted to existing rights-of-way. B. Roadways located in wetland areas are to be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion and to permit natural movement of ground water. C. All debris and other waste materials from con- struction are to be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body. D. Road locations are to be planned to fit the topography where possible in order that minimum alteration of existi~g natural conditions will be necessary. -65- 7. 16 Signs 7.16.01 Design requirements A. Visual access to water and shoreline from vistas and viewpoints is not to be impaired by the placement of signs. Where feasible, signs are to be constructed against existing buildings or structures to minimize visual obstruction of the water and shoreline, B. Outdoor advertising signs are to be limited to areas of high intensity industrial and comm.ercial use, are to be stationary, non-blinking, and of a size commensurate with the structure to which they are fixed. C. Off-premises and non-appurtenant signs are pro- hibited on the shoreline. D. Illuminated or free-standing signs, or any signs extending above rooflines, are prohibited on the shoreline except. for required navigational aids. 7.16.02 Design standards A. Sign restrictions are to conform with the standards set forth on the Renton City Sign Code, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Master Program except as provided in 7.16.01. -66- 7.17 Stream Alteration 7.17,01 Definition: Stream alteration is the relocation or 7.17.02 change in the flow of a river, stream or creek. A river, stream or creek are surface water runoff flowing in a natural or modified channel. Prohibited Stream Alteration A. Stream alteration is prohibited in unique and fra- gile areas. B. Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarg- ing the developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of land is prohibited. C. Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels. 7.17.03 Regulations on Stream Alteration A. All proposed stream alteration shall be designed by a licensed engineer. The design shall be submitted to the Planning Department as part of the application. B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposal, C. The timing and the methods employed will have minimal adverse effects on acquatic life. D. Pollution is minimized, including during construction. E. The project must be designed so that the low flow is maintained and the escapement of fish at low water is possible. F. No permanent overwater cover or structure shall be allowed unless they are in the public interest. -6 7- 1.1$ Trails "I . 1 il' .. U! Definition: For the purposes of the Shoreline Master Program, trails are a non-motorized trans- portation route designed prima,rily for pedestrians and bicyclists. 7,11.02 Permitted uses Trail uses shall be permitted within the Shoreline when the following standards are met: A. Provisions for maintenance operation and security have been provided. B. They link water access points along the shore- line or they link water access points along the shoreline with upland community facilities. C. They are designed to avoid conflict with private property rights and to create the minimum objec- tionable impact on adjacent property owners. D. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property to be acquired by the public. E. They insure the rights and privacy of the adjoin- ing property owners are protected. F. Overwater structures required by the trails are determined to be in the public interest. G. They are designed with a surface material which will carry the actual user loads and will have a minimum impact on the environment. -68- 7.19 Utilities 7.19.01 Landscaping A. Native Vegetation 1. The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible. 2. When utility projects are complete in the water or wetland, the disturbed area shall be restored and landscaped as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new land- scaping is determined to be more desirable. B. All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough to withstand the travel of service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs. C, Site Screening_of Public Utilities When a public utility building, telephone exchange, sewage pump- ing operation of a public utility is built in the shoreline area, the requirements of this Master Program shall be met and the following screening requirements shall be met. If the requirements of section 7,19,0lA Native Vegetation and the require- ments of this section are in disagreement, the requirements of this section shall take precedence. 1. If the installation is housed in a building, the building shall conform architecturally with the surrounding buildings and area or with the type of building that will develop due to the zoning district. 2. An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not conform with (1) above, shall be sight screened with ever- green trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to forman effective and actual sight barrier within five (S} years. 3. An unhoused installation of a dangerous nature, such as an electrical distribution substation shall be enclosed within an eight (8} foot -69- high open wire fence. Such installations shall be sight screened with evergreen trees, shrubs, ancl landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance gate(s), within five (S) years. 7.19.02 Special Considerations for Pipelines A. Pipeline~ Installation and operation of pipe- lines shall protect the natural conditions of adjacent water courses and shorelines. 1. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of marine life nor shall water quality standards be violated. 2. Native soils shall be protected from erosion and natural conditions restored. WAter course banks and bottoms shall be protected, where necessary, with suitable surface treatment. 3. Petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff valve at each side of the water crossing. 4. All petro-chemical or toxic material pipelines shall be constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Washington State Transpor- tation Commission and subject to review by the City Engineering Department. 7.19.03 Major Utilities --Specifications A. Electrical Installations 1. Overhead High Voltage Power Lines a. New overhead power lines are prohibited in scenic areas, recreational areas, public roadways and right-of-ways. Overhead power lines may be permitted in sensitive wetlands, when undergrounding is not possible, b. Structure of overhead power lines shall be single pole type or other esthetically compatible design. B • 2 • -70- Electrical Distribution Substations Electric- al distributions shall be at a wetland location only when there exists no feasible site out of the wetland area and when the screening re- quirements of section 7.19.0lC are met. Communications This section applies to telephone exchanges including radar transmission installa- tions, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, and any other facility for the trans- mission of communication systems. Communication installations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area and when the screening re- quirements of section 7.19.0lC are met. In an aesthetic interest, such installations shall be located as far as possible from residential, recrea- tional and commercial activities. C. Pipeline Utilities All pipeline utilities shall be underground. When underground projects are com- pleted on the bank of a water body or in the wet- land of a shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original configuration. Under- ground utility installations shall be permitted only when the finished installation shall not im- pair the appearance of such areas. D. Public Access All utility companies shall be encouraged to provide public access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to the public. Where utility rights-of E • way are located near recreational or public use areas, utility companies ~hall be encouraged to provide said rights-of-way as parking or other public use areas for the adjacent public use area. All-Inclusive Utility Corridor When it is neces- sary for more than one (1) major utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a -71- single utility right-of-way is strongly encouraged, When feasible, it would be desirable to include railroad lines within this right-of-way also. 7,19.04 Local Service Utilities, Specifications A. B • c. Waterlines Sizes and specifications shall be de- termined by the Public Works Department in accor- dance ~ith American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines. Sanitary Sewer The existence or use of outhouses or privies is prohibited. All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no sep- tic tanks or other onsite sewage disposal systems. Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer system. During construc- tion phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed. All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton Public Works Department and Metro. Storm Sewers be required. A storm sewer drainage system shall Pre-treatment of storm run-off or diversion to sanitary sewers may be required to keep deleterious substances out of neighboring water courses. Storm sewer sizes and specifications shall be determined by the Public Works Department in accordance with A.P.W.A. guidelines. D. Discharges of Pollutants and Petroleum Products 1. Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environ- mental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge. 2. Oil Separations -these units shall be required at sites that have oil waste disposal into sanitary or storm sewer. These units shall be built to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 3. -72- (METRO) or State of Washington Department of Public Ilealth specifications. Petroleum Bulk Storage and Distribution Petroleum facilities shall receive special design to reduce their impact on shoreline management areas. Petroleum facilities shall install equipment and employ handling tech- niques that will eliminate oil and petroleum pollutants. These facilities must obtain per- mits and are subject to review by the State De- partment of Ecology, the Federal Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency, the local Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and City of Renton Planning and Engineer- ing Departments. 7.19.05 All-Inclusive Utility Tunnels For the distribution of local utilities, utility tunnels under the street right-of-way are recommended to carry all local utility services. For new development, the tunnel could be built at the time of road construction. The tunnel would include all utility services, both public and private, necessary for use in the public right- of-way, such as wiring for street lighting and water lines for fire hydrants, and all utility services necessary for the private uses of the area. -73- VARIANCES & CONDITIONAL USES -74- SECTION 8 VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES 8.01 Variances and Conditional Use Permits The Renton Plan- ning Commission shall have authority to grant conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master Program. The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be utilized in a manner which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a fair and equitable manner. It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the time the Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use and maintenance and restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit. Both variances and conditional use permits are forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office for approval or denial. 8.02 Variances Upon proper application, a substantial devel- opment permit may be granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteri~ established in the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unneces- sary hardship or practical difficulties. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a vari- ance. The Planning Commission must find each of the following: 8.02.01 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applying to the subject property or to the in- tended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.02 The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.03 8.02.04 8.02.05 -75- The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity, The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. The public welfare and interest will be pre- served; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each p~operty owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his lands as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the provisions of this Master Program. 8.03 Conditional Use Upon proper application, a con- ditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scope of uses can be expanded to include many uses. Uses classi- fied as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit will be granted subject to each of the follow- ing conditions: 8.03.01 The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. -76- 8.03.02 The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. 8.03.03 Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master Program. 8.03.04 The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Master Program. 8.04 Time Limit Conditional Permits and Variances shall be deemed to be approved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of mailing to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office unless written communication is received by the applicant and the· City indicating other- wise. -77-, DEFINITIONS -78- SECTION 9 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Master Program, certain terms and their derivations shall be construed as specified in this section. Words in the singular include the plural, and the plural, the . singular. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory; the word "may" is permissive. 9.01 Act The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW. 9.02 Activity A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a specific action or pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not limited to fish- ing, swimming, boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting, or discharging of materials. Not all activities necessarily require a shoreline location. 9.03 Aquaculture The culture or farming of aquatic animals and plants. 9.04 Boat Launching Ramp A facility with an inclined surface 9.05 extending into the water which allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers. Breakwater A protective structure, usually built off- shore for the purpose of protecting the shoreline or harbor areas from wave action. 9.06 Building Any structure having a roof intended to be used for the. shelter or enclosure or persons, plants, animals or property. 9.07 Bulkhead A wall or embankment used for holding back earth. 9.08 Buoy A floating object anchored in a lake, river, etc. to war.n of rocks, shoals, etc. or used for boat moor age. 9.09 Circulation Those means of transportation which carry passengers or goods to, from, over, or along a corridor. 9.10 Corridor A strip of land forming a passageway between two otherwise separate parts. 9.11 Development A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; -79- bulkheading, driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any other project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any state of water level. 9.12 Dock A fixed_or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. 9.13 Dredging The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 9. 14 9. 15 9. 16 Economic Development A development which provides a service, produces a good, retails a commodity, or engages in any other use or activity for the purpose of making financial gain. Flood Control Any undertaking for the conveyance, con- trol, and dispersal of flood waters, Floodplain The area subject to a 100-year flood. 9.17 Hearings Board by the act. The shorelines hearings board established 9,18 Landfill Creation or maintenance of beach or creation of dry upland area by the deposit of sand, soil, gravel or other materials into shoreline areas. 9.19 Licensed Engineer A professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Washington, 9.20 Marina A use providing moorages for pleasure craft which 9.21 9.22 also may include boat launching facilities, storage, sales and other related services. Master.Program The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton, and the use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in Section 2 of the act. Moorage Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage, but which is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are docks or buoys. -80- 9.23 Multiple-Use The combining of compatible uses within one development, of which the major use or activity is witer dependent. All uses or activities other than the major one are directly related and necessary to the major use or activity. 9.24 One-hundred Year Flood The maximum flood expected to occur during a one-hundred (100) year period. 9.25 Open Space A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by buildings, paved areas, or other man-made s~ructures. 9.26 Pier A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. 9.27 Planned Unit Development Special contractual agreement between the developer and a governmental body governing development of land. 9. 2 8 Public Access A means of physical approach to the shoreline available to the general public. also include visual approach. and along This may 9.29 Recr~ation The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational experi- ence may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive ~uch as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 9.30 Residential Uses Developments where persons reside in- 9.31 eluding but not limited to single~family dwellings, apart- ments, Ind condominiums. Shorelines All of the water areas of the City of Renton, including reservoirs, and their associated wetlands, togeth- er with the lands underlying them, except: A. Shorelines of state-wide significance; B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less, and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and C. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. -81- 9.32 Shorelines of State-wide Significance described in Section 3 of the act. Those shorelines 9.33 Shorelines of the City The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide significance" within the City of Renton. 9.34 Structure A combination of materials constructed or erected on the ground or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground or water. 9.35 Subdivision A parcel of land divided into two or more parcels. 9.36 Substantial Development Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds one thousand (1,000) dollars or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the shoreline. 9.37 Substantial Development Permit The Shoreline Management substantial development permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58.140). 9.38 Unique and Fragile Areas Those portions of the shoreline which (l} contain or substantially contribute to the main- tenance of endangered or valuable forms of life; and (2) have unstable or potentially hazardous topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes, marshes). 9.39 Water-Dependent Referring to uses or activities which necessarily re4uire a shoreline location as a major and integral part of that use or activity. 9.40 Water-Oriented or Water-Related Referring to uses; activi- ties or facilities which are not necessarily water-dependent, but still incorporate in their design some kind of advan- tageous use of the water, for example walkways or view windows. 9.41 Wetlands or Wetland Areas Those lands extending landward for two hundred (200) feet in all direc~ions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the mean high-water line and all marshes, bogs, swamps, floodways, river deltas, and floodplains associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the act. T have reviewed the following documents related to the proposed project at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N.: Environmental Review Committee Report, City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development, dated June 29, 2009. Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09- 060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, City of Renton, dated June 30, 2009. Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated February 6, 1991. Geo technical Investigation -Draft Report prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc., dated June 4, 2009. Fact Sheet, Quendall Terminals, Renton, prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program dated August 4, 2005. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quendall Terminals/I. H. Baxter Site, Washington State Depatiment of Ecology Publication No. 91-e39, May 1991. Well logs for Sections 29 and 32, Township 24N, Range 4E compiled from the Department of Ecology database (http://apps.ecv .wa.zov/wclllogl). Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of these documents include the following: l. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 2. Under the proposed project, 3.07 acres would be developed with a hotel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site except for the deconstruction of existing warehouse buildings and site cleanup work. A total of75,2 l 4 square feet of buildings (I . 73 acres) will be deconstructed and removed from the site. 3. Approximately 4 acres of impervious surface may be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. This estimate is derived assuming 6.6 acres of impervious surface under existing conditions and 2.6 acres under the proposed development scenario. The estimate of 2.6 acres under the proposed development scenario is derived assuming 85% impervious surface and 3.07 total acres. 4. Under current conditions, stonnwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration, it is estimated that the total storm water runoff from the 7 .8-acre site may be in the range of 10 to 20 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 9,000 to 18,000 gallons per day. 5. Stonnwater runoff is currently directed lo a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater to an existing 24-inch culvert which discharges to May Creek. 6. The project site is relatively flat and near-surface soils at the site are comprised of sands and silty sands. Depths to groundwater at the site have been observed in the range of 1.3 feet to 9.5 feet. 7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately I to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructcd. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 9. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 10. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminant.s are also impacting area ground water to depths ofup to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: 1. I am a consulting civil engineer and formerly Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington. I received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the Ohio State University and a Ph.D. degree from the University of British Columbia. 2. I have worked extensively on problems associated with hydrology, surface water and groundwater interactions, and surface water and groundwater water quality. I have taught courses in civil engineering at the University ofWashington, the University of Illinois, and Michigan Technological University. These courses include graduate and undergraduate courses in hydrology, environmental modeling, contaminant transport, and hydraulic engineering. 3. I have extensive consulting experience on water issues. This experience includes work for the U.S. Department of Energy, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, the LOTT Alliance, Elf Atochem Company, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and the Portland Oregon Water Bureau. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 17 1h day of July 2009, Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. J. Massmann Resume, page 1 of 4 JOEL MASSMANN, Ph.D, P.E. Principal Engineer and i\1anager Kela Waters LLC, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Joel@J(etaWaters.com; (206) 236-6225 Dr. Massmann has over twenty years of experience as an engineering consultant and works with a wide spectrum of public-and private-sector clients, including industry, government agencies, tribes, and environmental groups. Dr. Massmann received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the Ohio State University and the Ph.D. degree in from the University of British Columbia. He has taught courses in civil engineering and groundwater hydrology at the University of Washington, the University of Illinois, and Michigan Technological University. Dr. Massmam1's work on environmental and water resources issues has received national recognition, including the Rudolf Hering Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineering in 1990 and the Presidential Young Investigator Award from the National Science Foundation in 1988. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board and has served as a consultant to the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. He was appointed to the Fate and Transport Subcommittee of the Washington Department of Ecology Science Advisory Board (1996-2000) and assisted them in developing risk-based clean-up standards at contaminated sites. He also served on the Washington Department of Ecology Technical Advisory Group charged with establishing the standards for review of applications for aquifer storage and recovery projects (2000-2002) and is cmTently a member of the Mercer Island Utility Board. Academic background Ph.D. Hydrology M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering Professional history University of British Columbia The Ohio State University The Ohio State University 1987 1981 1980 Principal Engineer and Owner, Kcta Waters LLC, Mercer Island, Washington, 2002-current. Associate Professor with Tenure, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1993-2002. Visiting Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1997-98 (sabbatical leave). Assistm1t Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1992-93. Assistant Professor, Departments of Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, 1990-92. Assistant Professor, Department of Geological Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, 1987-90. Senior Project Engineer, Hart Crowser, Seattle, Washington, 1985-87. J. Massmann Resume, page 2 of 4 Selected Professional Society and Other Service Appointed to U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, Consultant, 1992-1997. Appointed to Environmental Restoration Priority System Panel, National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 1992-1994 Appointed to Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment Peer Review Committee, 1995-1997 Appointed to Washington Dept. of Ecology, Science Advisory Board, Fate and Transport Subconunittee, 1996-2000. Appointed to Washington Dept. of Ecology, Technical Advisory Group on Aquifer Storage and Recovery, 2000-2002 Associate Editor, Water Resources Research, published by American Geophysical Union, 2000-2002. Appointed to Mercer Island Utility Board, 2004-2008; 2008-2012. Professional licenses Professional Engineer #36101, State of Michigan Professional Engineer #74912, State of Oregon Professional Engineer #40749, State of Washington, Water System Distribution Manager #9819, State of Washington Water Treatment Plant Operator, #9819, State of Washington Professional Society Membership American Geophysical Union American Society of Civil Engineers Environmental and Water Resources Institute American Water Works Association Selected Refereed Jonrnal Pnblications and Book Chapters Sixteen articles published in refereed journals and five book chapters related to groundwater hydrology. List provided upon request. J. Massmann Resume, page 3 of 4 Table 1 -Summary of selected projects and services. Client Years Location Brief description of project and services provided by Dr. Massmann Washington 2009-Provide technical analysis and advice regarding remediation of Department of ongoing Tacoma, WA groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Occidental Ecolom• Chemical Company site near the Hvlebos waterway. Water for 2007-Malawi, Evaluate water supply systems in rural areas along the shores of Peonle 01woirn7 Africa Lake Malawi and advise on activities to imnrove these systems. LOTT 2006-Olympia, Perform hydro geological investigations necessary to evaluate the Alliance/Brown ongoing WA groundwater recharge potential of sites that may be considered for and Caldwell groundwater recharne facilities for reclaimed water. Squaxin Island 2006-Shelton, WA Provide hydrogeologic conditions and water rights evaluation Tribes onooing services 2005-Assist the Tribes in developing, negotiating, and implementing Tulalip Tribes ongoing Tulalip, WA strategies to protect and develop water rights. Includes testing and evaluation of existirn! 2:roundwater wells. Suquam.ish 2005-Suquamish, Provide bydrogeologic conditions and water rights evaluation ~-Tribes mrn:oine WA services. Muckleshoot 1995-Provide technical analysis and advice related to groundwater Indian Tribe ongoing Auburn, WA resource development and interactions beti.veen groundwater and surface water. City of Camas, 2007-Camas, WA Assist in obtaining new groundwater rights. WA 2008 Friends of the 2007-Friday Review and evaluate groundwater pumping tests and groundwater San Juans 2008 Harbor, WA model developed to assess impacts of a proposed development on San Juan Island. 2007-Bremerton, Development of the Illahee Creek aquifer protection plan. The Port of Illahee 2008 WA objective of this project was to identify specific measures to protect and enhance groundwater resources in the Illahee Creek watershed. This study was aimed at identifying the types ofhydrogeological Cascade Water 2007-Bellevue, conditions or scenarios that may result in significant improvements Alliance 2008 WA to in-stream flow and temperature conditions through seasonal oausing of groundwater extraction from wells. Muckleshoot 2000-Auburn, WA Provide technical analysis and related potential impacts of the Lake Indian Tribe 2008 Tanns Reservoir Water Rioht. University of 2007 Seattle, WA Provide technical assistance to estimate nitrate loadings to Hood Washini:rton Canal via groundwater discharge. Squaxin Island 2006-Shelton, WA Develop 3-dimensional MOD FLOW model for simulating flow in Tribe 2007 the Woodland Creek watershed. Muckleshoot 2006-Assess feasibility of water supply from Coal Creek Springs. Indian Tribe 2007 Auburn, WA Involved evaluating existing spring collection facilities and U.S. EPA providing recommendations for locating new wells to increase vield. Washington Provide peer review of a groundwater flow model for the Spokane Department of 2006-Olympia, Valley Rathdrum Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer. The SVRP Aquifer 2007 WA Study is a cooperative effort between the State of Idaho, Ecology Washington and the United States Geological Survev. Work with Tribal personnel and Indian Health Service to improve Tulalip Tribes 2005-Tulalip, WA the water supply system for the reservation. This project involved 2007 evaluating existing supplies, recommending modifications to the existino svstem, and designing new water sunnly wells. J. Massmann Resume1 page 4 of 4 ----------- Client Years Location Brief description of project and services provided by Dr. I\iassmann ------ Squaxin Island Develop a groundwater flow model and derive opinions about the 2006 Shelton, WA relationship between surface water, groundwater, and water Tribes withdrawals in the Woodland Creek watershed Provide technical support to help plan strategic and operational Gila River 2004-Gila River, delivery of water to meet agricultural, municipal, and industrial Indian 2006 AZ uses. Assist in developing a groundwater model to simulate both Co1mnunity quantity and quality of groundwater resources, including potential ~-effects of salt build-up due to irrieation oractices. Shared Strategy Olympic Instream Flow Assessment Pilot Project aimed at assessing human for Puget Sound 2005 Peninsula, impacts on stream flow and sahnon populations within sub basins of WA the Stillaguamish Watershed. 2004-Seattle-Provide peer review of the groundwater flow and transport models Port of Seattle 2005 Tacoma, WA developed for the Port of Seattle to assess contaminant migration at the SeaTac aimort Swinomish 2004-La Carmer, Evaluate groundwater-surface interactions in the Lower Skagit River Indian Tribe 2005 WA basin, with particular focus on effects of exempt wells on flow in tributaries to the Skagit River. City of 2003-Milwaukie, Provide technical analysis, advice, and expert testimony related to Milwaukie, 2005 Oregon groundwater contamination which has affected the City's municipal Oreeon water suooly system. State of Provide technical analysis, advice, and expert testimony related to a Washington 2003-Olympia, groundwater and surface water contamination site in Spokane, WA. Attorney 2004 WA General Pubhc Utility Evaluated projects related to groundwater storage and District #1 of 2003 Bellingham, groundwater/surface water interactions, including converting surface Whatcom WA water diversions to groundwater withdrawals and augmenting flow Countv. with groundwater. Evaluate the risk of water shortages in the Lower Peninsula, Virginia, including a review of future water use in the service area U.S. Anny Corp 2000-Norfolk, VA of a consortium of water utilities representing Newport News, of Engineers 2001 Hampton, Poquoson, Williamsburg, York County, and James City County, Virginia. It was my responsibility to review and evaluate studies aimed at estimatine the eroundwater vield for these utilities Nestle Waters of San Evaluate the hydrogeology and groundwater flow systems at several North America 2000-Francisco, sites that provide spring water. Assessed compliance with (Penier Water) 2001 CA regulations established by the Food and Drug Administration for soring waters Portland Water 1998-Portland, Provide technical advice related to assessing the vulnerability of their South Columbia Wellfield to surface contamination. This is a Bureau 1999 Oregon 100 MGD system that is located beneath an industrialized area. l have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton dated September 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009 hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall. These minutes include the following information that was not previously provided to me: 1. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area related to the hotel development. 2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the storm water plan for the site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water. 3. The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces. Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September l 0, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration dated July 176, 2009 include the following: 1. Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality treatment BMP or option. 2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 4. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 5. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at the site may be in the range of 20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. 6. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for Hawk's Landing Crown Plaza Hotel," The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. 7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. 8. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydro geologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. 11. Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. 12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. 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 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ------------~) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION !, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows: I. I am an attorney with the law firm of Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above-captioned action. I make this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of GR l 7(a)(2). 2. The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman. 3. I have examined the document, detennined that it consists of five (5) pages, including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION -1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 -------------~-------- I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: 1. I am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back to assist in addressing storrnwater and other site development issues related to the proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. 2. I provided a previous declaration related to this project dated July 17, 2009. 3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items I through 3 in my First Declaration, dated July 17, 2009. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 22"d day of September 2009, Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to R treat the runoff from those new and replaced pollution-generating impervious surfaces and new E c, pollution-generating pervious surfaces targeted for treatment as specified in the following sections. ; These facilities shall be selected from a menu of treatment facility options specified by the area-specific facility requirements in Section 1.2.8.1 (p. 1-67) and implemented according to the applicable WQ implementation requirements in Section 1.2.8.2 (p. 1-75). Intent: To require an efficient, cost-effective level of water quality treatment tailored to the sensitivities and resource protection needs of the dovmstream receiving water to which the project site drains, or, in the case of infiltration, protection of the receiving groundwater system. Other Important Information about Core Requirement #8 Core Requirement #8 is the primary component of an overall water quality protection strategy required by this manual. Other requirements include the following: • Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Spill Control Provisions, Section 1.2.4 (p. 1-55)-This provision generally applies whenever a project constructs or replaces onsite conveyance system elements that receive runoff from pollution-generating impervious surfaces. The provision requires that runoff from such impervious surfaces be routed through a spill control device prior to discharge from the project site or into a natural onsite drainage feature. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-64 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY • Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Gronndwater Protection, Section l .2.4 (p. l-55) - This provision requires that ditches/channels be lined as needed to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination when they convey runoff from pollution-generat.ing impervious surfaces that comes into direct contact with an outwash soil. • Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4 (p. l-81)---This requirement applies water quality source controls from the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual to commercial, industrial, and multifamily projects. • Special Requirement #5: Oil Control, Section 1.3.5 (p. 1-82)-This requirement applies special oil controls to those projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high-use site. D EXEMPTIONS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT#8 There are five possible exemptions from the requirement to provide a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement #8: 1. Surface Area Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PG/Sthat is not fully dispersed will be added, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be created as part of a redevewpment project, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed transportation redevewpment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) The total new impervious surface within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PG!Sthat is not fully dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redevewpment project on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) The total valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPSthat is notfully dispersed will be added. 4. Soil Treatment Exemption A proposed project or any drainage area within a project is exempt if the runoff from pollution- generating impervious surfaces is infiltrated in soils that meet the II groundwater protection criteria11 outlined below, except areas within one-quarter-mile of a sensitive lake.43 43 Sensitive /eke is a designation applied by the County to lakes that are particularly prone to eutrophication from development- induced increases in phosphorus loading. Such lakes are identified on the Water Quality Applications Map adopted with this manual (see map pocket on inside of back cover). 2009 Su:rface Water Design Manual 1-65 1/9/2009 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 119/2009 Groundwater Protection Criteria: The first 2 feet or more of the soil beneath an infiltration facility must have a cation exchange capacity44 greater than 5 and an organic content45 greater than 0.5%, AND must meet one of the following specifications for general protection of groundwater: a) The soil must have a measured infiltration rate 46 of less than or equal to 9 inches per hour, except in groundwater protection areas where the measured rate must be less than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour, OR b) The soil must be composed of less than 25% gravel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve, and the portion passing the #4 sieve must meet one of the following gradations: • At least 50% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 2% must pass the #100 sieve, OR • At least 25% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 5% must pass the #200 sieve. 44 Cation exchange capacity shall be tested using EPA Laboratory Method 9081. 45 Organic content shall be measured on a dry weight basis using ASTM 02974. 46 Measured infiltration rate shall be as measured by the EPA method or the Double Ring lnfiltrometer Method (ASTM D3385). For some soils, an infiltration rate of less than 9 inches per hour may be assumed based on a soil texture determination rather than a rate measurement. For more details, see the "Groundwater Protection" requirements in Section 5.4.1. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-66 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY 1.2.8.1 AREA-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY FACILITY REQUIREMENT Projects subject to Core Requirement #8 must provide a water quality treatment facility selected from a menu of treatment facility options identified in the area-specific facility requirements and exceptions for ~ the WQ treatment area in which the proposed project or threshold discharge area of the proposed project ~ is located. These WQ treatment areas are listed below and their requirements and exceptions are detailed 1 in the following subsections: ~. E "'· e, N T A Basic WQ Treatment Areas B. Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas C. Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas. Intent: To apply an appropriate level of water quality treatment based on the sensitivities of receiving waters for the drainage area in which the project lies. These drainage areas are identified as WQ treatment areas on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual. In addition to a minimum basic standard, which applies broadly to most geographic areas, special menus are provided for land uses that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater and for sites within the watersheds of sensitive lakes, and sphagnum bog wetlands. A. BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS Basic WQ Treatment Areas are designated by King County where a general, cost-effective level of treatment is sufficient for most land uses. Some land uses, however, will need an increased level of treatment because they generate high concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff and acute concentrations of metals in streams are toxic to fish. The treatment facility requirements for Basic WQ Treatment Areas provide for this increase in treatment. Basic WQ Treatment Areas are delineated on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual (see the map pocket inside the back cover). Any unincorporated areas of King County not shown on this map shall be assnmed to be Basic WQ Treatment Areas. A more detailed delineation is available on the County's Geographic Information System. Note: For projects located at or near the delineated boundary of the Basic WQ Treatment Area, site- specific topography or drainage information may be needed to verify that the project or any threshold di.scharge area of the project is within the WQ treatment area. Any threshold discharge area is considered to be within the Basic WQ Treatment Area if the threshold discharge area drains to a waterbody or drainage system that is clearly within the mapped Basic WQ Treatment Area. The only exception to this is if the threshold discharge area also drains to a sphagnum bog wetland larger than 0.25 acres in size as described in Subsection C, "Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas" (p. 1-73). in this case, the threshold discharge area is considered to be located within a Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Area and is subject to the facility requirement of that area only (i.e., required treatment menu, target surfaces, and exceptions). Required Treatment Menu Within Basic WQ Treatment Areas, a treatment facility option from the Basic WQ menu shall be used to treat runoff from the surfaces listed under "Target Surfaces" below, except where such treatment is waived • or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection and except where the Enhanced E Q Basic WQ menu is applicable as follows. If 50% or more of the runoff that drains to any proposed Y treatment facility is from one or more of the following land uses, then the Enhanced Basic WQ menu : shall be used in place of the Basic WQ menu for the design of this facility, except if such treatment is M waived or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection: • N T I. Residential subdivision development in which the actual density of single family units is equal to or greater than 8 units per acre of developed area, 2. Commercial, industrial, or multifamily land use. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1-67 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 1/9/2009 A road with an expected average daily traffic (ADI) count of 2,000 or more vehicles or expected to serve 200 or more homes. Note: those roads defined in the King County Road Standard, as urban subaccess streets, rural subaccess streets, urban minor access streets -residential, rural minor access streets -residential, urban subcollectors, and rnral subcollectors all serve less than JOO homes by definition. Treatment Goal and Options The treatment goal for facility options in the Basic WQ menn is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff. 47 TSS is the general performance indicator for basic water quality protection because it is the most obvious pollutant of concern. The Basic WQ menu includes facilities such as wetponds, combined detention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, filter strips, and sand filters. See Chapter 6 for specific facility choices and design details. The treatment goal for facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is 50% reduction of total zinc. Zinc is an indicator of a wider range of metals typically found in urban runoff that are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu includes options for use of a basic-sized stonnwater wetland, a large sand filter, or a combination of two facilities in series, one of which is either a sand filter or a Stonnfilter™ (leaf compost filter). See Chapter 6 for specific facility options and designs. Intent The Basic WQ menu is intended to be applied to both stormwater discharges draining to surface waters and those infiltrating into soils that do not provide adequate groundwater protection (see Exemptions 4 and 5 from Core Requirement #8). Overall, the 80% TSS removal objective, in conjunction with special requirements for source control and high-use site controls, should result in good stormwater quality for all but the most sensitive water bodies. Increased water quality treatment is necessary for developments that generate the highest concentrations of metals and for developments that drain to sensitive lakes and sphagnum bog wetlands. Facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu are intended to remove more metals than expected from those in the Basic WQ menu. Lower metal concentrations reduce the risk to fish of exposure to both chronic and acutely toxic concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc. As the toxicity of metals depends on their concentration, this standard is most effective for project sites with a larger proportion of pollation-generating impervious surface like roadways and medium to high density subdivisions. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is intended to apply to all such project sites that drain by surface flows to a fish-bearing stream. However, projects that drain entirely by pipe to the major receiving waters listed on page 1-37 are excused from the increased treatment and may revert to the Basic WQ menu because concentration effects are of less concern as the overall flow volume mcreases. Target Surfaces Facilities in Basic WQ Treatment Areas must treat (either directly or in effect) the runoff from the following target surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the facility is required: 1. New PGIS that is not fully dispersed per the criteria on Page 1-46. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new PGIS shall be assumed based on expected driveway size as approved by DDES. 2. New PGPS that is not fully dispersed and from which there will be a concentrated surface discharge in a natural channel or man-made conveyance system from the site. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new pervious surface shall be assumed to be the entire 47 For evaluation purposes, typical concentrations ofTSS in Seattle area runoff are between 30 and 100 mg/L (Table 1. "Water Quality Thresholds Decision Paper,w King County Surface Water Management Division, April 1994). 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-68 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: W J\ TER QUALITY lot area, except the assumed impervious portion as specified in Chapter 3 and any portion in which native conditions arc preserved by covenant, tract, or casement. 3. Existing impervious surface added since January 8, 200 l that is not fully dispersed and not yet mitigated with a County-approved water quality facility or flow control BMP. Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 4. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a transportation redevel.opment project in which new impervWus suiface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of the existing impervious surface within the project limits. 5. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. Exceptions The following exceptions apply only in Basic WQ Treatment Areas: I. The facility requirement in Basic WQ Treatment Areas as applied to target PGPS may be waived altogether if there is a good faith agreement with the King Conservation District to implement a farm management plan for agricultural uses, or DDES approves a landscape management plan48 that controls solids, pesticides, and fertilizers leaving the site. 2. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.4. 3. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is discharged directly, via a non-fish-bearing conveyance system, all the way to the ordinary high water mark of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more (at the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acres or larger. 4. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for treating runoff from a commercial land use may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu if all of the following criteria are met: a) No leachable metals (e.g., galvanized metals) are currently used or proposed to be used in areas of the site exposed to the weather, AND b) A covenant is recorded that prohibits future such use of leachable metals on the site (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q), AND c) Less than 50% of the runoff draining to the proposed treatment facility is from any area of the site comprised of one or both of the following land uses: • Commercial land use with an expected ADT of 100 or more vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. • Commercial land use involved with vehicle repair, maintenance, or sales. 5. The facility requirement as applied to replaced PGIS may be waived if the County has adopted a plan and implementation schedule for fulfilling this requirement using regional facilities. 48 Landscape management plan means a King County approved plan for defining the layout and long-term maintenance of landscaping features to minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and to reduce the discharge of suspended solids and other pollutants. Guidelines for preparing landscape management plans can be found in Reference Section 4-A. Submittal requirements are detailed in Section 2.3.1 .5. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 11912009 1-69 DEFIN!T]()f\S SECTION Lcachahle materials, wastes, or chemicals mean<; those substances which, when exposed to rainfall, measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff; cxampks include erodible soil, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, garbage dumpster leakage, etc. Leaf compost filter (a.k.a. StormFilter1 M) means a patented treatment device that uses a specially prepared and patented compost product to remove pollutants from stonnwatcr. Level pool routing means the basic technique of storage routing used in King County for sizing and analyzing detention storage and determining water levels for ponding water bodies. The level pool routing technique is based on the continuity equation: Inflow -Outflow~ Change in storage. Local drainage system means any natural or constructed drainage feature that collects and concentrates runoff from the site and discharges it downstream. Lowest floor means the lowest enclosed area (including basement) of a structure. An area other than a basement area that is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that the enclosed area meets all of the strnctural requirements of the flood hazard standards. l\laintenance means those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of currently serviceable structures, facilities, equipment, or systems if there is no expansion of the strncture, facilities, equipment, or system and there are no significant hydrologic impacts. Maintenance includes the repair or replacement of non-functional facilities and the replacement of existing structures with different types of structures, if the repair or replacement is required to meet current engineering standards or is required by one or more environmental permits and the functioning characteristics of the original facility or strncture are not changed. For the purposes of applying this definition to the thresholds and requirements of this manual, DDES will determine whether the functioning characteristics of the original facility or structure will remain sufficiently unchanged to consider replacement as maintenance. Major receiving water means a large receiving water that has been determined by King County to be safe for the direct discharge of increased runoff from a proposed project without a !low control facility, subject to the restrictions on such discharges set forth in Core Requirement #3, Section 1.2.3. A list of major receiving waters is provided in Section 1.2.3.1. Major receiving waters arc also considered safe for application of Basic WQ treatment in place of otherwise required Enhanced Basic WQ treatment (see Section 1.2.8. l ). Mass wasting means the movement of large volumes of earth material downslope. Master Drainage Plan (MOP) means a comprehensive drainage control plan intended to prevent significant adverse impacts to the natural and man-made drainage system, both on and offsite. Maximum extent practicable means the use of best management practices that are available and capable of being designed, constructed and implemented in a reliable and effective manner including, but not limited to. consideration of site conditions and cost. MONS means a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance per SEPA (see "DNS" and "mitigation"). Mean annual storm means a statistically derived rainfall event derived by dividing the annual rainfall in an area by the number ofstonn events per year, as defined by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program studies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program," 1986). Metals means elements, such as mercury, lead, nickel, zinc and cadmium, that are of environmental concern because they do not degrade over time. Although many are necessary nutrients, they are sometimes magnified in the food chain, and they can be toxic to life in high enough concentrations. Metals problem means a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (I) currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Water due to excccdance or concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g.1 copper, zinc, lead, mercury, etc.) as documented in the state's latest published Clean Water Act Section 303d list (an electronic map of these waterbodies is posted at http://apps.ccy.wa.gov/wqawa/viewer.htm), or (2) is currently designated by the County as a metals problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedancc of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper. zinc, lead, mercury, etc.) as documented in the latest published list of King County-Identified 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Definitions 1/9/2009 13 DEFil\'ITIONS SFCTIO"l WQ Problems (Reference Section 10) posted al http://www.kingcounty.gov/cnvironmcnUwateranclland/stonn\vater/documents/surface-wa1£r-dcsign-manual.aspx. Mitigation means an action taken to compensate for adverse impacts to the environment resulting from a development activity or alteration. Modified site improvement plan means a limited or simplified "site improvement plan" used for some projects in Targeted Drainage Review and/or where major improvements are not proposed. Monitor means to systematically and repeatedly measure something in order to track changes. Monitoring means the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purposes of understanding natural systems and features, evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrologic, and geologic elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of mitigation measures imposed as conditions of development. Multifamily project (or land use) means any project or land use that requires or would require a commercial building permit or commercial site development pennit for development of residential dwelling units that are not detached single family dwelling units. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the part of the federal Clean Water Act which requires point source discharges to obtain permits. These permits, referred to as NPDES permits, are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Native Growth Protection Easements (NGPE) means an easement granted to the County for the protection of native vegetation within a sensitive area or its associated buffer. This term was used prior to December 1990 when it was replaced with "sensitive area." As of January 2005, the term "sensitive" is replaced with "critical area;" thus, all references to critical areas in this manual also apply to sensitive areas and native growth protection easements. Native growth retention area means the area of native vegetated surface set aside by a covenant, easement, or tract for purposes of implementing a flow control BMP. Native vegetated surface means a surface in which the soil conditions, ground cover, and species of vegetation are like those of the original native condition for the site. More specifically, this means (1) the soil is either undisturbed or has been treated according to the 1'native vegetated landscape11 specifications in Appendix C, Section C.2.1.8; (2) the ground is either naturally covered with vegetation liner or has been top-dressed with 4 inches of hog fuel consistent with the native vegetated landscape specifications in Appendix C; and (3) the vegetation is either (a) comprised predominantly of plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and that reasonably could have been expected to occur naturally on the site or (b) comprised of plant species specified for a native vegetated landscape in Appendix C. Examples of these plant species include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big-leaf maple and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. Natura] channel (see "channel, natural") Natural discharge area means an onsite area tributary to a single natural discharge location (see "natural discharge location"). Natural discharge location means the location where surface and storm water nm off leaves ( or would leave if not infiltrated or retained) the site or project site under existing site conditions. Natural onsite drainage feature means a natural swale, channel, stream, closed depression, wetland, or lake. New conveyance system elements means those that are proposed to be constructed where there are no existing constructed conveyance elements. New impervious surface means the addition of a hard or compacted surface like roofs, pavement, gravel, or dirt; or the addition of a more compacted surface, like paving over pre-existing dirt or gravel. New pervious surface means the conversion of a native vegetated surface or other native surface to a non-native pervious surface ( e.g., conversion of forest or meadow to pasture land, grass land, cultivated land, lawn, 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Definitions 14 6.1.2 6.1.2 ENHANCED BASIC WATER QUALITY MENU ENHANCED BASIC WATER QUALITY MENU Where applied: The Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu3 is applied where an enhanced level of treatment is required for those development sites or portions thereof that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff and drain by surface flows to a fish-bearing stream. Acute concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc in streams are toxic to fish. For precise details on the application of this and other water quality menus, refer to Section 1.2.8, "Core Requirement #8: Water Quality." Note: The Enhanced Basic menu is a stand-alone menu. It integrates the Basic menu level of protection and the additional measures needed to achieve a higher level of metals removal. When this menu is required in Basic WQ Treatment Areas per Section J.2.8. I-A of Core Requirement #8, it is intended to replace the Basic WQ menu on development sites or portions of development sites that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff. When this menu is required in Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas per Section 1.2.8.1-B, it is intended to be combined with the Sensitive lake Protection Menu such that a facility design option common to both menus must be used Treatment goal: The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is designed to achieve 50 percent total zinc removal for flows up to and including the WQ design flow or volume (defined in Section 6.2.1, p. 6-17).4 Basis: The treatment goal is expressed in terms of total zinc removal. Although zinc is not the most toxic metal in stormwater, it is usually present in significant amounts, making it a practical and reliable indicator of overall performance. Many metals are readily adsorbed onto particulates in the runoff, usually the finer fraction of the particulates. Facility combinations that remove more of the particulate load than the Basic menu, including the finer fraction, are specified by the Enhanced Basic menu. Facilities providing organic binding sites that enhance metal adsorption are also specified. IJ ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 1 -LARGE SAND FILTER This option includes use of a large sand filter, large sand filter vault, or large linear sand filter. Sizing specifications for these facilities can be found in Sections 6.5.2 (p. 6-104), 6.5.3 (p. 6-123), and 6.5.4 (p. 6-129), respectively. Note: A presett/ing cell is required if the sand filter is not preceded by a detention facility. IJ ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 2-STORMWATER WElLAND Provision of a stormwater wetland (see Section 6.4.3, p. 6-89) or combined detention and stormwater wetland (see Section 6.4.4, p. 6-95) satisfies the 50 percent zinc removal goal without additional facilities. The large amount of organic material in the stormwater wetland provides organic binding sites and is considered very effective in removing metals. IJ ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 3-lWO-FACILITY TREATMENT TRAIN This option uses one of the basic water quality treatment options listed in Table 6.1.2.A (p. 6-8) followed by a basic sand filter (see Section 6.5.2, p. 6-104), sand filter vault (see Section 6.5.3, p. 6-123), linear sand filter (see Section 6.5.4, p. 6-129), or StonnFilter with CSF™ leaf compost media (see Section 6.5.5, p. 6-134). 3 The Enhanced Basic WQ menu targets different pollutants than the lake or bog protection menus. It does not necessarily provide a higher level of treatment except for the target pollutant, metal contaminants. 4 This goal assumes total zinc concentrations for untreated runoff are between 0.10 and 0.25 milligrams per liter (m'L). For projects that are expected to generate higher levels of metals, such as a mining operation, a higher treatment goal may be appropriate. 2009 Smface Water Design Manual 11912009 6-7 SECTION 6.1 WATER QUALITY MENUS l/9/2009 First Basic WQ Facility: Biofiltration swale (Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3) Filter strip (Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5) Linear sand filter (Section 6.5.4) Basic wetpond (Section 6.4.1) Wetvault (Section 6.4.2) Basic combined detention and wetpool facility (Section 6.4.4) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Sections 6.5.2 or 6.5.3). A presettling cell is required if the sand finer is not preceded by a detention facility. StormFilter with ZPG (Section 6.5.5) 6-8 Second WQ Facility: Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Linear sand filter (Section 6.5.4) with no presettling cell needed Filter strip (Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 5.5.2 or 6.5.3) or Storm Filter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) StormFilterwith CSF (Section 6.5.5) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual http ://vvww .eria. qov / su perfu nd/sites/ n pl/11ur1745. lltrn Last u~~ated on Moncay, May 10, 2010 National Priorities List (1\JPL) You are here: EPA Home Superfund Sites National Priorities List (NPL) NPL Site Narrative for Quendall Terminals QUENDALL TERMINALS Renton, WA King County 8th Congressional District ty) Site Location/Size: Quendall Terminals is the site of a former creosote manufacturing operation. The site is located on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington, It is about 23 acres in size and is relatively flat . .:i. Site History: The facility began operating in 1917 as the Republic Creosoting Company, which became Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation in 1956. Creosote was manufactured onsite for about 53 years until 1969. This creosote manufacturing facility refined and processed coal tar and oil- gas tar residues. The tars were purchased from the Seattle Gas Company on Lake Union and were shipped or barged to the site. The tars consisted of polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, phenolic compounds, light aromatic compounds (including benzene, toluene, and xylenes) and other organic compounds. At the facility, tar distillates were refined to creosote and other chemical products. Releases of tars and creosote products to the environment occurred in portions of the site where the transport, production and/or storage of the products were performed. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. I Site Contamination/Contaminants: The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene, These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. t1tt Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site. -J:i Response Activities (to date): http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/narl 745.htm 7/7/2010 1 ·•.ir L 01Lc 1'-:u11c1.u vc 1u1 vue11uu11 1 enr1111a1:; 1.1'\/auuI1a1 rnunues LISI U'.J r LJ I u ~ t.r f\. rage LOIL The Washington Department of Ecology initially was the lead regulatory agency for overseeing the cleanup, but in May 2005 the Department of Ecology requested EPA take the lead for overseeing the cleanup at the site. EPA assumed the role as the lead regulatory agency at that time. No removal actions have taken place to date. Quendall Terminals has completed a Remedial Investigation report and a draft Risk Assessment/Focused Feasibility Study. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422- 8737. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/narl 745.htm 7/7/2010 fact Sheet &EPA Quenda/1 Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 June 2007 Study Will Guide Cleanup Plans Altino Properties and J. H. Baxter & Company, two of the Responsible Parties of the Quendall Terminals Superfund site, have begun a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RIIFS) to better understand the site contamination and to develop a cleanup plan. The study will look at soils, groundwater, and lake sediment along the shoreline of the site. EPA expects to complete the RI/FS and select a cleanup plan in about three years. Earlier studies showed that contamination at Quendall Terminals could pose a risk to people and the environment. How You Can Be Involved EPA is developing a community involvement plan to involve the public in the Quendall Terminals cleanup, and we want to hear from you. If you would like to provide suggestions for this plan, please contact Suzanne Skadowski, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, at 206-553- 6689. We will be conducting community interviews this summer, and the resulting plan will be available for public review. An EPA technical assistance grant (TAG) is available to eligible groups whose members may be affected by this Superfund site. Most of the grant funds must be used to pay an independent technical advisor to help people in the community understand site-related technical information and participate in cleanup decisions. To receive more detailed information about TA Gs and qualifications, please call Sally Hanft, EPA Region 10 TAG Coordinator, at (206) 553-1207. Site Background Quendall Terminals is located on the south- eastern shore of Lake Washington at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton, Washington. The former creosote manufacturing facility has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other Lake Washington -Cum!nl Shorrine --fcrrne,r May Creek Channel Port Ouendall Company • ,. (Former Baxter Site) .§ N • ProJ)Orty Lina :f'. i /1 .' ~-// <'t.., ! . (. Quendall Terminals Conner Homes (Former Barbee Mill) (continued on back page) &EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, ETPA-081 Seattle, Washington 98101-1128 Quendall Terminals Superfund Site Renton, Washington June 2007 Site Background continued hazardous chemicals.In 2006, the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) added Quendall Terminals to its National Priorities List of contaminated sites targeted for cleanup. The Quendall Terminals site was used for over 50 years for manufacturing creosote and other coal tar products. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used to store crude oil, waste oil and diesel. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. For More Information, Contact Suzanne Skadowski EPA Community Involvement Coordinator 206-553-6689 skadowski.suzanne@epa gov Lynda Priddy EPA Project Manager 206-553-1987 priddy.lvnda@epa.gov Quendall Terminals website: http:llwww.epa.gov/r10earth! Click on Index A-Z, then on Q for Quenda/1 Terminals. @ Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper Pre-Sorted Standard Postage and Fees Paid U.S. EPA Permit No. G-35 Seattle, WA Public access to the Quendall Terminals site and to the lake from the site is currently prohibited, due to health concerns. If you did not receive this fact sheet at home and would like to be added to EPA s mailing list for the Quendall Terminals site, please contact Suzanne Skadowski (see below). Information about the Quendall Terminals cleanup is also available at the following locations: EPA Region 10 Superfund Records Center 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA Please call 206-553-4494 for an appointment. Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue South. Renton, WA 98057 Call 425-430-6610 or visit the webpage: http://rentonwa.gov/livlngldefault.aspx?id=842 ! ~ If you need materials in an alternative format, please • contact Suzanne Skadowski. TTY users please call the ! _______ Federal Relay Service: 800-877-8339 Region I 0: the Pacific Northwest Serving the people of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Native Tribes Recent Additions I Contact Us Search: C All EPA E Region I 0 • You are here: EPA Home • Region 10 • Environmental Assessment Page • Investigations • Dive Investigations -------·------ Investigations Quendall Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, WA What: The EPA Region 10 Dive Team conducted a hydrogeologic and habitat survey of the site in April and May of 2009. Why: A survey was needed to determine if shallow groundwater with known, significant PAH contamination, had the potential to discharge into Lake Washington, where contaminant loading may need to be assessed. Typical habitat was also reported with observations, photos, and video. Where: Quendall Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, WA. When: Dive surveys took place in April and May 2009. How: Diver investigations included video transects and seepage meter installations. See figures below. Seepage meters were later checked to determine if substantial groundwater flux was recorded. Results: It was shown that shallow groundwater does indeed discharge into Lake Washington at the Quendall Terminals site. Further study is recommended to determine the flux rate at which contaminants may be migrating into Lake Washington to help design cleanup options. More Details: Ouendall Terminals Superfund Site website. Video: Seepage meters on the bottom (1 minute, Total file size: 41 MB, Quicktime format) Contact: Bruce Duncan (206) 553-0218, Duncan.bruce@epa.gov , ,~ ., ·.,-p.:-:r~~,<li!~i : . -:;.,:,;::i"J' !0 1:i~.:::; ;:;::',~~-::hid, i !is open during installation '.locations from May 2009 survey collection with a hose 'Photo showing milfoil typical of areas offshore. 1 Diver transects and photo land closed for sample •off~!f~rm:r:_~~e-nd_a_l_l _f~c~l-ity_._J:l~,:ii_p_. ________ ·------·---------·-·---______________ J C X 9 Custom Graph Iii Always at your service Hydroiogic Information Center I About .-Data Search r ··-····-··-··· .. Map I. ---· ··-··----··-· SeaTac Precip I R~d;,:;~-~d:B-;;;icreek Groundwater I .. -··-··--·-······ -·-·--······· Flood Warning Center .··--------·-· ----·· Streams Water Quality I·-. -·-·------ Links For questions about the King County Hydrologic Monitoring Program, please contact David Funke, Hydrologist For questions about the HIC Web site, please contact Daniel Smith KING COUNTY HOME I NEWS I SERVICES I DIRECTORY I CONTACT Hydrologic Information Center King County Water and Land Resources Division You're In: Hydrologic Information Center» Map Search " Hydroloqic Data Download » Hydrologic Graphs Site 37a -May Creek @ Mouth Stream Gauge(Recording) daily 'Discharge (els)' results for 11/23/1988 to 4/30/201 O http://green.kingcounty.gov/WLR/Waterres/hydrology/CustomDataGraphs.aspx Page 1 of3 - 7/14/2010 Custom Graph Page 2 of3 660 . . . . . . . . I 640 620 . . I 600 • 580 I 560 · ] 540 520 . I 500 I 480 I 460 I 440 : I 420 I 400 · I ~380 --·-I ~360 ·.. I 8i340 ·, 1320 I .~ 300 ·' I 0 280 . 260 . I 240 I 220 · '. ---· -~-I 200: "('. - 180 I 160 .. If I 140 120 . . I, ii . • l I 100 · . J ~I I 1L. ... L --.. j 80 I l 60 40 · 20 j Jan/99Jan/9QJan/91 Jan/92Jan/93Jan/94Jan/95Jan/96Jan/97Jan/98Jan/99.Jan/OClJani01 Jan/0:aJan /03Jan/04Jan/05Jan/06Jan/07 Jan108Jan/09.Janfl O TO TOP Updated: 7/13/2010 8:52:00 PM Hydrologic Information Center I About I Data Search I Map I SeaTac Precip I Redmond~Bear Creek Groundwater I Flood Warning Center I Streams Water Quality I Links King County I http://green.kingcounty.gov/WLR/Waterres/hydrology/CustomDataGraphs.aspx 7/14/2010 Custom Graph News I Services I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. Terms of Use I Privacy Policy © 2009 King County http://green.kingcounty.gov/WLR/W aterres/hydrology/CustomDataGraphs.aspx Page 3 of3 7/14/2010 ~ King County Atwa}'S rN your servtce Stream Monitoring Program l!;;g;~~;H,st~ry · __ ... I Water Quality Monitoring Location Map I Water Quality Monitoring Location List I viat;r Q~;~lity Tr~~ds · .----·-·----········· ... Water Quality Index I t :!tt:i~::~itoring I ......... -·-··· .... . Glossary --... -----. ----------------- For questions about the King County Streams Monitoring Program, please contact Deborah Lester, Program Manager Page 1 of 11 KING COUNTY HOME I NEWS I SERVICES I DIRECTORY I CONTACT Stream and River Water Quality Monitoring -King County Water and land Resources Division You're in: Stream Monitoring Program » Data Map » Metals Charts~ May Creek Site 0440 Streams Metals -May Creek Site 0440 Metals Sampling Metals Standards Metals Sources Metals Charts Metals vs Standards How do you read metals graphs? The lighter colored symbols on the chart are the calculated values for all King County stream locations and are presented here to the results of this particular stream. h tip:// green.kingcounty. gov /w 1 r/waterres/ streamsdata/MetalsCharts. aspx?Locator=0440 7/14/2010 Arsenic 30 ··r---,---------~---,------,---~---------'--, 28 26 · 24 22 20 · 18 -~ 16 " " s114 12 10 8 6 4 2 • {} ii" ' i', • R "'<< o ,._,I ---,-___,__,.....,_,-...: :) .·,/ V '.' <r .(· .. -~ ., <) '<;> * {l&:0 \' ----" -•·------- ... t., ...... 'I> ..... . \..> ""¢ . -~ 1217/1993 121711995 12/611997 12/611999 121512001 121512003 12/412005 12/412007 ;·-, arsenic total all sites + arsenic dissolved <) arsenic dissolved all sites + aresenic total http:// grecn.kingco unty. gov /w lr/waterres/ streamsdata/MetalsCharts.aspx ?Locator=0440 Page 2 of 11 7/14/2010 1 0.95 ,' o.9 I -·1 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 ., 0.6 -I - ~55- 2: 0.5 " ,W.45 (f) Silver !·' 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 · • t ., •.. ~ C f :u{SIX)'f{Z;:iX;Ce--- ,/ . ' -~ ·····---~ •1••:•••··*·••. 005 J ••• ue + 0 .f+.:.~j 0 -. 1217 ti 993 121711995 12/6/1997 12/611999 12/512001 12/512003 121412005 1214/2007 silver total all sites + silver dissolved ~ silver dissolved all sites + silver total http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/streamsdata/MetalsCharts.aspx?Locator=0440 Page 3 of 11 7/14/2010 Caclmiu,m 4 ·r--~~~~~-,--~,--~~~~~,--~~~~~~~~~~~'---~~~ 3.8 3.6 3.4 -, -- 3.2 .("•,, •' (;.,- ,-:·--; 2.: ,~~~!1~11 ~ +:>_: .. · <> ...... -¢-----•----~: -----------------<;> .. 2.6 - '.;i' 2.4 ~22 E 2 · _;;! -5 1.8 ~ 1.6 - 1.4 - 1 .2 1 0.8 0.6 - 0.4 - -> ---<>· ., --,·' 0 <>' .. •' 0.2 .• -,:;-• 0 .. ,, ' <) ',/,¢, ~ -,, .. , o ll., .--,-,-~==-'"';":;-;J;;;;-:;-'" 121711993 12/711995 12/S/1 997 12/S/1999 12/5/2001 12/5/2003 12/4/2005 12/4/2007 cadmium total all sites + cadmium dissolved ,$-cadmium dissolved all sites + cadmium total http:// green. king county. gov /w lr/w aterres/ streamsdata/MetalsCharts. aspx ?Locator=0440 Page 4 of 11 7/14/2010 Chromium ::: : ·::: -:.::::~:-:~:)·}/~-::_ ·:·1: : ·: · _, ____ s ~-v::J:;;::r., (,, v~ {:;_) ' ~ , ;; .¢ 00 ::lii~iislitLi~ , ..;/y ' --,/ '·/ ~(> : V : \." <}. ~ : ::i'2A -· -----· ·;i ·---oS :JJ -~,,-\--<>----·-·+<><>---J----~·->-',) "' 1 vc ~-,. ~ ;.;-/0 .{} , ye, ~" (>-,> 3 2.2 "'"'"'< -,'--A-----~" t:·M'"· ~-G,. ____ -" ---<..:,;.;,. -"T • <'> ''°' 0 ,\,9 ,• J:::«3-.) ~ () ,-,·/> , ' {i V .. E 2. ' ,, ~ 4--::(-~ "' ;-'""'.-/) : ;,_). u.':, <1-----<"x'"/-f':--I -~ ,:-, ;_<• -0 <> ·; ,v ·.¥> . .) 44'<' i } ··31.) 0 1.8. 6<.,,. <'> 'i -l'-<, «>8'<>.,_ -------.. ,-......-, .. --.( _E --/ t) ¢:{)y 9l> .(' '/(>'vi) ( ~ <?<-,<> t .-.,;--.<(/~> ,\Vi u 1.6 -<>--.. <..{:+ €:"v~<.}fl/ttx\-(§>-4'i, f '-+, ... -v -, --~r.(-P ·<W (:, ' ...:'i,,';:+<' • ' , ¢: 0,,~ 'y\ ._.. ' 1.4 . 1.2 0.8 · 0.6 0.4 0.2 <) ~-,{ • ,,;, <c ~-•. • ; ~~x . \, ;", ' ~ -> '. 9. ·.. <> 4 ~'.<. . ,,,; ii;;._ ~-' fl il'" . .r.: .. --·-._)---/',.:.-~ ,,, &,,::· '" ..,.;, , l> ,k5. \ -. ·-.-:.o....,.,-Yi",-. ~ . ~ ~ ... , ...... ''·.-.·· .• " .. ' ..,., , -,<. 1·· ·• .. t/&;c··f&·.J·Y·,0 '(· ;% ~~ii'.¢-~~=<§\'~: •z-1 - -. ! • -- 0 ..,.....,.......,.....,.....,.... ___ ....,.....,......,.......,.......,.... __ _; • 121711 993 121711995 12/611997 12/611999 1215(.2001 1215(.2003 12/4(.2005 12/4(.2007 chromium total au sites + chromium dissolved .,_ chromium dissolved all sites + chromiLJm total http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/streamsdata/MetalsCharts.aspx?Locator=0440 Page 5 of 11 7/14/2010 44 42 40 · 38 36 +---- 34 32 30 28 :J26 · ~24 Q) 22 Cl. g. 20 l <, ·C/ .• u 18 16 14 12 10 .; 8 6 4 ;r- ' 2 0 _f.):,s_ -(/ /) << • •A ;x)· .. <> -\~:;;; ;:': -{) , 8: c) Copper -<>-- <> . ·,:) --· <\ -, • -·-> --_ .-.·:_"-5:lY:. <) ·- .. ;t <>. B_ <) (:. 121711993 1217/1995 12!611997 12!611999 12/512001 .. --------6- <)(·' </·: •.• A._. V ·~· 0 ., ..... ,, -0 <~ >v ~j -<>- <) ·-("'," <,.,;-,. -<~-~- 2~ ~s -~ ....<>O ~-::._<:-,..-\.v'·','· .ti iP;? ~~t 12/5/2003 12/412005 1214/2007 copper total all sees + copeer. dissolved 4 copper dissolved all sites + copper total http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/streamsdata/MetalsCharts.aspx?Locator=0440 Page 6 of 11 7/14/2010 Page 7 of 11 Mercury : all streams 0.5 ·.-------------~-----------'-------~ 0.45 · • "'""·r 0.4 • 0.35 · ... :;)° 0.3 . ....... ~ a ~ 0.25 ::, ~ • E 0.2 ......... 0.15 0.1 · • •• * ··•· ....... , ........ • • I • • • I i Jt • f ! • .. ~;~·*l i*r 0.05 -. 12/711993 121711995 12J13n997 121611999 12/512001 12/5/2003 12/412005 + mercury total CV AA + mercury dissolved CV AA + mercury total CV AF <> mercury diss.9lved CV AF http:// green. king county. gov /w lr/waterres/ streamsdata/MetalsCharts. aspx?Locator=0440 7/14/2010 60 55 50 45 40 ~35 "a. ..330 " ~ " ·c 25 . ·<> <> : <'-:<) .;.:;. J ;;· : !, . {/. '' 20 ~--1:~ .. ~ .,.. • $. ~· " " f <>•· < :i "1 /-, • X' --~ r; ;6 ~: :;) <> 1-) (;-·; '.~> < , ..... ,, 0 ·:,.; 15 · 10 ; .. .. ,;;, Nickel <> <> "<> /\ /• . ..~ +<''* .,, tl ; /~-? .. E. . --~ t;; <X .-''-:. ~--%1 ...... /··. ,, ;t, • C} ¥ ,•(,:f,? ' . \ V (' Y, ,-.,... ¢ ·,,c;(?- 0 I ,, ~rrtz --5 1217 /1993 121711995 12/611997 T 12/6/1999 0 {} .. ~- • <~ ~~·· ~ ~ s: (_) 1215/2001 1215/2003 ') nickellatal all sites + nickel dissolved ~ nickel dissolved all sites + nickel total http:// green. king county. gov /w Ir /waterres/ streamsdata/MetalsCharts.aspx ?Locator=0440 j·? ' ; (;· • ... ·o. v· 12/4/2005 .. -<i· <} 0 •;.) (' <> i>::'-<~>V V 12/4/2007 Page 8 of 11 7/14/2010 50 40 -1 .. ··--<> /•,' ";., : -0 .. -.. V <>: ("\<> ·,y-·(, - {; ' : ' <> . /', ~ 30 tatC~-%JIMI ·~••+ ···~~- "' 3 ] _J 20 10 0 <>: ,;:: (.> t -~~ • ;; ,,.- ·Y -;:> -. <~-(> ,, : <> $, ·v·g <) <> .,,,, h {) <.j <> Leact· ;v ) <.> ----~·> . ,t;' 1.r•·~- .. , <> y ;;: ' >--.. \.·· -··+ ..... ~ .. o• <>p <> ., <> '.} • 9: T <) .~ <> ,:,. <> --0 <> <> i ·----.:!:.,;;. {> • <..,> <> <> ; <~ -(> ' y 0 . -··· __ '?:.('>. .. {-· r 1217 ti 993 1217 /1995 12/6/1997 1216/1999 1215/2001 1215/2003 121412005 12/4/2007 lead total all sites + lead dissolved <i> lead dissolved all sites + lead total http:// green. king county. gov /w lr/waterres/ streamsdata/M etalsCharts .aspx ?Locator=0440 Page 9 of 11 7/14/2010 200 - 190 -·I· 180 170 - 160 150 140 130 120 ~ 110 '" 3100 0 ·~ 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TO TOP Zinc·· 0 • • . --·1 -<">._ /"? ' ,> ' <} .• . '-.. <> _____ {z 0 ---•---- <>- s.:--.-;--~: (} /• .. '\.) <> {( "i <>-.v···-;r ')!;--· ···<)" <>f <> :::,,;,·· <> /'. ------~¢--• ·). ,:: ~:, f-s··- y ·(>--;· ····0--()' ""/\ --·· .,,,__, ,. ,, ..••.. "-/C- C<, A5'-----<» "-/V V 121711993 121711 995 12/6/1997 12/611999 1 215/2001 1215/2003 12/4/2005 1214/2007 zinc total all sites + zinc dissolved ~ zinc dissolved all sites + zinc total Updated: 5/4/201 O Page 10 of! I Stream Monitoring Program I Program History I Water Quality Monitoring Location Map I Water Quality Monitoring Location List] Water Quality Trends I Water Quality Index j Sediment Monitoring I Report Library I Glossary King County I News I Seivices I Comments I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. Terms of Use I Privacy Policy http://green.kingcounty.gov/wlr/waterres/streamsdata/MetalsCharts_aspx?Locator==0440 7/14/2010 Page 11 of 11 © 2009 King County http:// green.kingcounty. gov /w lr/waterres/ streamsdata/MetalsCharts.aspx? Locator==0440 7/14/2010 i}-• .,._,_ . ·~-,-_'t ',:-:,;/ ~-:!· f?,,, . ' ~:??~-. ·~. ·:~~·: .. _ ,/~ .;,:-: . i~i~t,t~~>~ ~'--------~-----------------------------~ ERC REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: Project Name: Owner: Applicant/Contact: File Number: Project Manager: Project Summary: Project Location: Exist. Bldg. Area SF: Site Area: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT June 29, 2009 Hawk's Landing Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5-story, 60-foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173-room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard North at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100-year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. North 75,214 SF (to be demolished) Total Site: 7.8 acres Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): Total Building Area GSF: 29,336 SF 122,000 SF 122,000 SF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance · Mitigated {DNS-M). ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com, ity & Economic Development E, Jnmentaf Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 2 of 16 ERC REPORT 09-060 Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Com, )ty & Economic Development E1 .::mmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 3 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA). Master Site Plan Review, and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60-foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173-room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site for the exception of the deconstruction of the existing warehouse buildings and site clean up work. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. All the existing buildings on the subject site are proposed to be removed, which would result in a total of 75,214 square feet of buildings to be deconstructed and removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department ofTransportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the east the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5-stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com, ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING WA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland. Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces. Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. In addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that approximately 38,866 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation -Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study-Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham-Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Sea hawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated ERC REPORT09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 E. onmentol Review Committee Report LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 5 of 16 existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall provide a left-turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right-in right-out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 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 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 Neighborhood Detail Map Existing Conditions Overall Site Plan Master Site Plan Site Dimension Plan Landscape Plan L-1.0 Site Utility Plan Grading Plan Tree Inventory Plan East and South Exterior Elevations West and North Exterior Elevations East and South Elevations Graphic West and North Elevations Graphic Lot Coverage Landscape & Parking Analysis First Floor Plan Wetland/Stream Study Attachment A Wetland/Stream Study Attachment B C. Environmental Impacts 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 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: With the project application the applicant submitted two Geotechnical Reports; "Geotechnical Engineering Study" (1991 Report) prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991 and "Geotechnical Investigation -Draft Report" {2009 Report) prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009. The 2009 Report references two historic Geotechnical Reports, the previously mentioned, 1991 Report and the "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study-Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared for the Rainer Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., Dated October 8, 1985 {1985 Report). The 2009 Report indicated that the subject site is relatively level, increasing in elevation from 30 to 38 feet from north to south. Steeper slopes occur along road embankment fills along the periphery of the site adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and adjacent to 1-405. Pursuant to the 1991 Report the subsurface conditions on site comprised mainly of loose ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development EJ Jnmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING WA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 6 of 16 to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt surface and fill, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt was encountered to depths of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. This report also indicated that the soils on-site do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The 2009 Report concluded that the recommendations contained in the 1985 Report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project. The 2009 Report concludes that the loads for the proposed hotel structure would be between those contained in the 1985 Report and the 1991 Report. The 2009 Report concludes that the applicants proposed aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations may be a viable solution for this site. The 2009 Report indicated that ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during their investigation. The report indicated that ground water infiltration would affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. The 2009 Report approved of a proposed dewatering trench as an appropriate means to mitigate for the dewatering problems that may be encountered during and after construction. Furthermore, the 2009 Report references the 1991 Report and the 1985 Report for recommendations and information about the site. Based on the potential for seismic and geological impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant complies with the recommendations within all three geotechnical reports, the 2009, 1991, and 1985 Reports. In the SEPA checklist the applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards offill would be imported for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation -Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study-Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicants submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham-Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. The submitted study identified two streams, and two wetlands within the vicinity of the project site. The first stream is May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). May Creek is located on the parcel to the south of the subject site; from there it flows into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The provided Wetland/Stream Study identified that no salmon ids or resident fish species were observed during their site investigation, although May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Furthermore, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout are also known to utilize the creek. The setback for a commercial building from May Creek, as established under the SMP, is SO-feet. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends 200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM; as such, the subject project would not be subject to SMA or SMP regulations at this time. In addition, the proposed development is compliant with the required minimum SO-foot setback as identified by the SMP. Although, if/or when future development occurs on the subject site within ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek, additional SEPA review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit May be required. Page 7 of 16 The second stream, which is also a drainage ditch located along Lake Washington Boulevard, was identified to be a Class 5 stream. This drainage ditch is located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Pursuant to the provided Study, flows for this stream are maintained by stormwater runoff from the north and the subject site. The City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations identify Class 5 waters as "non-regulated non salmonid-bearing waters ... ". GBA also met with the Area Habitat Biologist from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 to provide guidance and further observations of this ditch. WDFW concluded that the ditch was a man-made feature, and that work within the trench would not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Work on the outfall of the ditch to May Creek would require an HPA, and proposed improvements to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch. Based on the consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist and observations gathered during the site investigation GBA determined that the drainage ditch is a non-salmonid bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicated that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and the existing Pan Abode facility. As such GBA concluded that Criterion (a) of RMC 4-3-050.L.1.a.v. Streams and Lakes Class 5 waters is satisfied and therefore the subject Class 5 water would not be regulated. Within the drainage ditch, GBA also identified wetland characteristics. Based on the City's definition of Regulated and Non-regulated Wetlands GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a non-wetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a non- regulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. It should be noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. No comments were received from DOE indicating an interest in taking jurisdiction over this wetland. The provided study also investigated wetland it two locations; 1) The subject property and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. GBA identified two wetlands during their investigation, identified as Wetland A and Wetland B herein. Both Wetland A and Bare small wetland located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. These wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. GBA categorized both Wetland A and B as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands require a standard buffer of SO-feet. These wetlands are located off the subject site by 117.4 feet (Wetland A) and 63.8 feet (Wetland B). Based on these distances the subject development would be outside of the required buffer area. Overall the provided study concludes that the subject project proposal would avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and the Shoreline Master Program. Based on the potential for indirect impacts to the steams and wetlands within the vicinity of the subject site, as a result of the project, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to complies with the recommendations within the provided "Wetland/Stream Study". Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham-Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: A Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Sound Development Group, LLC, dated April 28, 2009 was submitted with the application materials. Pursuant to the provided TIR the project is located in the May Creek watershed basin. Under current conditions stormwater £RC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department af Com, .ity & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 E. on mental Review Committee Report LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 8 of 16 from the project site sheet flows to the north and west The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or within an existing on-site storm system and then discharged into the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24-inch culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site is proposed at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch and then through the existing culvert to May Creek. The existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) drainage system onsite would be relocated to the public Right-of-way of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems would be demolished and/or removed. The provided TIR has indicated that flow control would not be required because the project site within the work limits is currently, almost completely impervious surfaces; approximately 85 percent impervious. The TIR contends that the developed project would provide a maximum of 85 percent impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed conditions would be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that there was not enough information within the provided TIR to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. The applicant shall be required to provide and complete the TIR with the submittal of the civil engineering plans that includes all the information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Rain gardens have been proposed as a part of the site development plan to treat stormwater runoff. The TIR has indicated that the rain gardens would meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that Rain Gardens cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. Furthermore, comments from the City's Development Services Division indicate that flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system improvements would be required. Storm water impacts are anticipated for the proposed development as such, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The provided TIR indicated that an erosion/sedimentation control plan would be provided to prevent sediment-laden runoff. In addition, to an erosion control plan the applicant has indicated that maintaining the existing surfaces on the site, where construction would allow, would help to reduce erosion during construction. Based on the potential for erosion and sediment runoff during construction, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. ' Pursuant to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) a small portion of the overall parcel, the 7.8 acres site is located within the 100-year floodplain. Although, the proposed development located on the northern edge of the 7.8-acre site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. Pursuant to the FIRM the 3.07 acres proposed for development is located in zone X, which is associated with areas know to be outside of the SOD-year floodplain. Mitigation Measures: 1. The project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. ERC Rt:PORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr. ity & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 Er. Jnmental Review Committee Report LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 9 of 16 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, DOE Stormwater Management Manual 3. Wildlife Impacts: The applicant submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham-Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. This report also evaluated wildlife within are vicinity of the subject site in addition to wetlands and streams. Minimal wildlife exists on the 3.07 acres site to be developed with the Hawk's Landing Hotel, although located south of the project site within the riparian area of May Creek, small mammals and birds were observed. The submitted report indicated that such wildlife as voles, blacktail deer, short tailed weasel, and a pair of Osprey were observed within this area. In addition to common species such as song sparrow, house finch, American crow and gull species were also observed within the riparian area. As mentioned above under Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes, the proposed development would be no closer then 248 feet to edge ofthis area as such, impacts to the habitat for the above mention species is not anticipated as a part of this development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: NIA 4. Aesthetics Impacts: The highest point on the 5-story, 60-foot high proposed hotel would be approximately at an elevation of 98.833 Mean Sea Level (MSL). 1-405 is built at the approximate elevation of 44 feet MLS and the nearest single-family neighborhood, east of the project site, within the view corridor of the proposed hotel starts at an approximate elevation of 160 feet MLS. As such, staff does not anticipate aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed hotel. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: N/A 5. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historically the Lake Washington and May Creek areas are more likely to be sites where significant historic and/or cultural resources would be found, and the subject development has indicated that site grading would be conducted. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant and/or developer to stop work and immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found. Mitigation Measures: If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Transportation Impacts: Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 fr unmentol Review Committee Report LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 10 of 16 structured parking lot and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Hawk's Landing project by Geralyn Reinart, P.E., dated May 2009. The provided TIA assumed 2011 for the completion year for the proposed Hotel. This year was utilized throughout the study in order to evaluate traffic impacts resulting from the hotel's development. The TIA concluded that build-out of the Hawk's Landing could potentially generate just over 1,400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak hour trips. The intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Seahawks Way are currently operating at a level of service (LOS) "D" or better during the peak hours, although the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the proposed hotel. The 1-405 ramps at NE 441h Street currently operate at a LOS "F" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these ramps may increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. The provided TIA recommends six mitigation measures for traffic impacts, which are as follows: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. 4. Installation of 100-foot southbound left-turn storage lane (or two way left-turn lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. 5. Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. 6. Right-in/right-out only access at the northerly proposed site access point (the existing Pan Abode access). The TIA concludes that the above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Comments received from the City's Transportation Division indicated that the provided study is acceptable. In addition, comments were received from WSDOT that indicated that the mitigation measure proposed by the TIA are acceptable. Although, it should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures "l.-3." (above) are not within the City of Renton's jurisdiction, but are within WSDOT's jurisdiction. The recommended mitigation measures "l.-3." not only mitigates for the proposed development but also existing conditions. The anticipated existing LOS "F" condition for the development completion year of 2011 should be resolved by WSDOT not the applicant, as such the terms "participation and share" shall be defined in a quantitative manner to determine what percentage of the impacts the proposed development shall be mitigating for. As such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant coordinate with WSDOT and the City of Renton to determine the applicants contribution for the recommended mitigation measures "l. -3." By means of a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, that can quantify the applicant's impacts to the existing LOS "F" condition. Proposed mitigation measure number "5." (above) is required by Renton Municipal Code, for commercial developments within the City of Renton. The applicant would be required to provide street frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. With regard to the recommended mitigation measure number "4." (above), the City's Transportation Division would prefer the two-way left-turn lane over the left-turn storage lane. The proposed hotel is anticipated to increases traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard, as such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure th.at the applicant provide a left-turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. The last proposed mitigation measure (number "6." above) to permit only right-in/right-out access at the northerly site access point shall be a mitigation measure for the subject project; because of this access points' spacing from the 1-405 southbound ramps. A right-in/right-out restriction for the northerly access point would increases safety along Lake Washington Boulevard. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com, ity & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 E1 on mental Review Committee Report LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 11 of 16 Comments received from the City's Parks Department, indicated that bike lanes would be required along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently there is an existing bike lane located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to issuing the building permit, which is estimated to be $105,975.00. Mitigation Measures: l. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: a. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. b. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Sea hawks Way and the southbound ramps. c. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a left-turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. 3. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right-in right-out traffic movements. 4. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100 7. Fire & Police Impacts: The proposal would add new commercial square footage to the City that would potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $0.52 per commercial building square foot (excluding the square footage of the parking garage) prior to building permit issuance. The fire mitigation fee is estimated to be $63,440.00 (122,000 sq. ft. x $0.52 ; $63,440.00 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 2913 D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text ofthis report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." ,I" Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Comr. ty & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 £1.. 1nmentol Review Committee Report WA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 12 of 16 Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, July 17, 2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. 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. 2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review -Water: 1. Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 2. Installation of a 12-inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12-inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 3. New fire hydrants along Lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 4. Installation of a portion of 12-inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 5. Installation of on-site looped water main (10-inch to 12-inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 6. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 7. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building). ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development E1 .1nmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 13 of 15 8. Domestic water meter required for each building [meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). 9. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 10. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot-Box". 11. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 12. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. 13. System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. 14. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. 15. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. 16. The maximum available capacity (in GPM) at 20-psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM. Plan Review -Sanitary Sewer: 1. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. 2. Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. 3. The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. 4. System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Storm Drainage: 1. The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. 2. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area [roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre-developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100-year peak flows and the pre-developed (existing) 100-year peak flows using the KCRTS hydro logic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. 3. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement #3 of the 2005 KC 5WDM. The project ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com, ity & Economic Development E, Jnmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 14 of 16 falls under Conservation Flow Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100-year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100-year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.C of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100-year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100-year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. 4. The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase II NP DES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100-year peak flow and the pre- developed (existing) 100-year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 5. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 6. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 7. A compete TIR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. 8. It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100-year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100-year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1-foot above the FEMA 100-year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted ( Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). 9. The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. 10. The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development E1 Jnmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, fCF, SA-M, SA-H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 15 of 16 Plan Review-Street Improvements: 1. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. 2. Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. 3. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. Plan Review-General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. 4. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Building Department: 1. The soils report should be brought up to date for consistency with IBC Parks Department: 1. 5-foot bike lanes along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard would be required. Fire Department: 1. The preliminary fire flow cannot be determined at this point. Additional information is needed such as total ground floor square footage, number of stories, and type of construction. An additional question I have is the 58,000 square feet for the restaurants part of the 180,000 square feet or is it separate square footage amount. The minimum fire flow for structures in excess of 3,000 square feet is 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. The number of required hydrants is based on the size of the structure and the size of the required fire flow. At this time, the Fire Department cannot determine the required number of hydrants as additional information is needed. The minimum number of hydrants for structures in excess of 3600 square feet is 2. However, additional hydrants may be required based on spacing, which is based on sound engineering practices. All hydrants for this project shall be required to be equipped with a 5-inch Storz fitting. 3. The primary hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the structure. All other hydrants shall be located within 300 feet to the front of the structure. A Hydrant shall be required to be within 50 feet of the Fire Department connection. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C105.1 or the 2006 International Fire Code. 4. Fire apparatus access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. 5. Fire Sprinklers are applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Sprinkler system. 6. The fire Sprinkler Riser Room shall be accessible through a dedicated exterior door. The Sprinkler Riser Room shall be located with heat and lighting. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com, ity & Economic Development HAWK'S LANDING Report of June 29, 2009 E, _Dnmental Review Committee Report LUA09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Page 16 of 16 7_ A Class Ill Standpipe with a valve and a single 2 Y, inch fitting located on each floor landing may be required should the building exceed 3 stories. 8. A total coverage Addressable Fire Alarm system shall be required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Alarm system. 9. Building exceeding 30 feet in height shall be provided with approved fire access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the fire department aerial apparatus access roadway. 10. High rise requirements as set forth in the 2006 International Building, Fire Code and Local Fire Code amendments shall be applicable tot his building if 7 stories or greater. 11. In buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above a level of exit discharge, at least one required accessible means of egress shall be an elevator complying with Section 1007.4 of the 2006 International Fire code. It is requested that this elevation have an interior dimension capable of accommodating a standard size emergency medical services patient stretcher in the laid flat configuration. ERC REPORT 09-060 IN A PORTION OF SECTIONS 29 & 32, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANCE 5 E, WM 3.07 ACRES /.: LO / I = I . -; II • <(, ~I§ ~ ~ ~ic~II~ q i J ;\O ojlz , -~~I r j . __ ,. 4/J--,c-.. :100~ ~~ NORTH 0 DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RFNTON MAY 2 i 2009 RECEIVED ~ i'"c.>\Lt48 i-i6URs-:1 _,,________ 1\., ... Sound Development Croup \iH/fr~!"/QI :o~r. p:;1; ffO/ITT HAWK~s LAND/NC a,:'::~ ', BEFORE YOU OIGI. .,J·-1°. ENON!flllNC.SWVF>IH(;&WIDOM!.OPMflnStGWCFS NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP OE0:11!,r fSf';Vllf'I FOR 1mSMJUCcb-ll H00·424,_ssss ! I 1t2•a ;;;';}":.,,:.,~'.;. ·:~~,~....,,.,.,.,~,.., '"'" ,o: R£W8(){)tf,ia ALPERT INTERNATIONAL 9ltrT I.. -~····e-------,i--~ l_t;i:.._ r.1-Jao-<0<-.M,o f'o,.J,o-,o,-201J £>.ii! "<-<rlQQll ,,u0,,.,,.,.,...<1<"1U<r-...,.,,,.,.,,,..,,,_.......,.H,..., ,""""!_..,... 10F1 EXHIBIT 1 0 2 l i! !I I, i! ~ii j1i1 11! 2_ -filr ! "" 'i ; ;i i " •! 2-c !, ., l•' ! ' ' • ii •• ii·" I I 1· 50 :· !;l~1; i I .. ~ ;; ='i §:il! · i' f-,! ,,,,.. ·-· i I '1 1 'ij11•' ! ! a..2 i' ,i.,1 1 1,, ,1 I 1' !, ,,·: 1 !,11 1--Lt; I ·<If 'Ii ,., I I ii ·,•,+ •!•j • I 2u: !.LJLL i• ,ilj1!1 fodlj!:1 . i' ! lii;i1J i!!!:il ! ::.o z §r: ~ Jst ,. u•11,I l!I ii ! r.,rs1!§ ?1•i~r : ;j ~ I r.,r ! • ~ ll ~ ~ "!" • t r • ~ 1h ,,Im, i:,M, Ii · !11 :,•,,•11· "···,i · _,_ LJJO , 'l•i>·l "!iii!! ! ·1 1:1,,1,,, !'•'• .. ! > • j!i l·MII ;1,r:11i1i I j:i 11i:i:1:l,ii:!::i 1 LU • ' :1,• i1-,i !IT' • , ""-'11!"!1111· ' C · -~I ~~ e" ij •9•~~1 ~~ 9• ~; ·!! :ill!l:·l:m., Ip ! ; i!! 'll'U!:1'l i ill ! ~ 1 !11 1111:i!Mmhhi! 1 i ,111!1b1111hmm 1 ~ $ cc' "' ./ t'.j 2: S'. "' i .,. " ~ "' i 2 __ -_-::., 0, § "" -..... >-~ / / / Q tu > --w (.) llJ Cl: / 0 " ~ " " ' C ~ " / / I f- ~ 0 z / N I--co -:c >< w // / // """"'.!!!~""""'a , ~'J~..,~::.'.,:!';""'o.....,.,.,"""°"""",..."'° """"'''"'"'""..,.."''m"'n""""""''.....,.,." ,.,,,,,_..,,,., ...... ~"' .. c,,"'""'" .... -"'~ <"'"'"'"0·-· / / /~· /4-9 If /rP ;4" /! ;f ._P {> / / /cf ,:.:? '"' /i? """'""'""''"""".,_ 1ow ...... ""1',ar / I =,·-\r "N·\-~~ HAWK'S LANDING SITE PLAN ~-s EXHIBIT 3 ~ ' ~ 1; l~ -~ I~ Di±VE.LOP(ij!ENT PLANNING CIT\1 ©F RENTON MAY 2 1 2009 RECEIVED • ~ irrru M2 ARCHITECTS AIIO-lrll'CTU<!e "-f'l...'.NMN~ '""" '"""""""\1/ffl-"""'" --.a. ... ,.,.. ,.,_,...,,~""° , ....... ,,, ..... I'S I I ''-':'3"_J HAWK'S !ANDING <l5" W'.l WA!H•OOTON BL\1J N. 1(NTON, WM,,INGToN ~----'!?<».! ~-----~ ~-----91 ~--~ ~--ru"~ /UL'i/"""'°"" ~I.!!!.~,,.--- ------ 0\/ERAU. SITE PLAN A-1.1 lE'i~ < " • I ' • l 1' '[!!1, ~i : ,, 1 ~~ ~. t ! 1 p : ! 1· t,J "' -'! C ' !:30 ' ----~~ ~. ' " ~ ~ ,, :;, ~ ·~. ---. ·11 / I 'i I i I , : 11 I ,1 ·/ ~ J ! I I I 11 ~· ~ ,' l f1 ~ l1 .! I I I I i ; l'i r~ ! • """ ,_ -(D -:c X w ' 1 I I I I I 'Ill ••·1 Ii ,i,1 ,, :1,·• 1· '/I ;,II f ,11 :/;I ,'/:'I' "' 1 11.I fl I' -I' -,· -i:I ~ ,'" ' ' ' ,::/ I J •,1, ' J ,,, I ,r-------c--j I :1 1 , ' ' I' l,,-f '" ,a Ji/'/ I /J,6//f,', I ,111 ,,:J I ' I : I 'l•.;/1 ,'~ ' , d '~ I . ] 11 I.,, ·z I " rj1 . .",1·1 ice: I :1 , ,11 I I ,:.'i,,I. ,'u.i 1 ' - I I ;}l:I :/: I I ':'/iii /tr: I . i: i''::,1 Q : , ,1 i'r I , 11 ,;/• 'I.' ."-/ ' ' I · r -.;.; ,r :z 1 1 / ·' I ,c,. 'I'' :o I ': I 1,>' ', ,J-I .'.' I ) f/ :? _;~ I ii:· · ~ ,/f ;(' i :.3 .'J 1,111 ,:i.:: ):~ I I I :, I' I ,11 I I, 'I I ,,.r, I,,:,' 1 ;II I :i": 1 /,: / ·/: I :,.1 1' I:: ·:u I ):, J !· I .'; I/ ---f I :: ·' .·: ~ . ,., rr, :, 1::: : : ! ·1'" 1·, J.i-r--, '· w, ,'. · I 1 • I ~ ·11 1'; ,,,'./ ',, < I ii ,:!/, ~-' CJ I ;/:''-1fj_+l1 ', ____ , 1·1, / '.' I ' I ---I ,1r , , I I '/. I I'· I :.:, ,, '· I I 'jl" : ,'1;/ 1' .'1 I / Ii I , 1 1 ,\, / ;I, I so o so~ 50,LE 1"'" SO' NORTH TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANCE s E, WM \ ~\ /~ ;\\~\ \ \. \ ' . ----\. 'y\ ,..';:."' ,.\ ' ., \ ·,·' ;;,\\'\ /, I < \, \\_ .. ____.)~. "'\' \ """ .\.:r ~ ¥\ ~ \, '\ .A '\'. \' 1>u' \ \ -,.).. ::\ '\ \,'' "',, \ \ ~ ,,, \ 'l._ \ \\ \\ \\\\ \ ' \ . ' \ \ \ \\ \\ ~----...,.,C'T \\ •, -~ \ ') -J'' ~<· .Ai_AY CR£[/( - ----~ ~ --' ------.... \ \ DEVELOPMENT P!ANtvJNC, crrv OF S!-=1\IT01,i \ MAY 2 1 2009 ~ -1'1,. );T,.o y~. •'t~ f' r,1-,, ·"'' ,/, .. ; ; ~~·V,.,..,,'" ,.:...,....,_ ~ -~ liili Sound Development Croup 1=~ fHOl/1IllJN(;, 51.«\.ffl\/G JUND Ol\11.0>'M'NT SWV.U, oa ·--"'"' ..... n----· ........ ""'"'"" SITE DIMENSION Pl.AN ---~["" I "'" {JtAwi,,r w.u HA WK/5 LANDING ms ::; ;: FOR 00::1:ZmWM =room~ M<I'~ ~ww,_,1J,£'Ji/i[.Jt:£[fBt'/;.4.JIO"JA.L,,_ 1 dJ: 1 PO iJo< 1705 • "" 0----....... _ -·•· .. , "°""' v,mor. ~~ ••nJ ,,.-'6<'--•0•-,o·o '<• .Tao-•n<-eo,., EXHIBIT 5 en = = "" .- "" ~ :::E a w 2= w u w a: (0 1--OJ -::c X w /i / I I I I TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANCE S E, WM. I ' / ' ' /'' '' ' ' \ \ . -.-"'y'.· /< .. ;-r\:~;,;.r" ._, . / .. .,, .... / \/ -~f{f i11 _ __._ ,, "' ,m, ... _,,,, . jjlj;g --~~{;\~:;:: --· _.,,,~~ ' 1, . ;.>, '1' . J). 7" "' \ so ? so~ SCALE: 1" = 50' ' ' <J , __ , _"-1A Y CR.ff!( - -----·---NORTH (IT::::, Sound Development Croup ,~,m"-lJlllllj ~~"~~:~.:".~~"'::":.~:m SfTE UTILITY PLAN .0,<1. 80¥ '70> • ,,r1 D·-·-,_ .. ,,. , .... •- "'"'""' V.,,,,on, WA '"2}J ,., )~o-w,-i,,,o Fo,, ,oo-•o+-zo,; EXHIBIT 7 ( '\ I I ' ' I ' ' l \ ' ' \ . \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ . ' \ "" OOlfWJt oeilmfDI~ =~ H!W~AC(' M\' ' \ ' ' \ \ \ \ ' ' \ \ ' \ \ \. \ 1'=51/']no,ITT '~" \ ' \ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 1 2009 \\RECEIVED ~ ~ HAWK'S LANDING FOR """ = ----ALPERT INTERNATIONAL -PJEV~IN ·-· w,= ~~~'!!-'fCm'O"~~"'"'-"""""'~--~It'-_ 1 OF 7 /,..,../'( I ,'if :1':i • j ' 1 Ir :11 , I I / ',' ~ •1.'i i • I/ illl :,1!/ ' I '\, /i !? i i \ , /1 JI.: ! \:nf-i/rlf/ · .. I 111 ''.·.I ' I 1 '11 ;l:r I '; I ,,, -'1'1 ·!!' ' I ' li!i )ii //,, ' ri' .. ~Iii< V 11r, :1 ,1/)'i,.?, •. !~ ·- TOWNS/-1/P 24 N, RANCE 5 E, WM. / ,, so ? so~ SLllE: Y -50' NORTH ~ //:.-~t?t::·" /t// -r,;;\ / ----\ .f {f E~ \?\.~ ·-. ·."1_Ay CREEK -·----- ii , . . c:.,-:zJ ~ Sound Development Croup 1'ITT 00 "'"'" ~/HG, 5U11Yfl1M'.;" d 1,11,,() DfIB./)fWfNT SGW(fS _,_____, PO"'°' ·•a1. "" ,:e.,.,..,,_,. ,,,.,,., ""'" ,01 GRAD/NC PLAN """"' ,.,,,M, "' ,euJ =· -,.,.Joo-,u,-,ow ,., J>u-w,-2uu EXHIBIT 8 ( I ' ' I ' ' I I l 'o 0' '\ ' ' \ \ \ \ 5C@ DMW/llr -~ (}/f(JWI~ HUI)IK)()(lfACZ ~· ' ' \ ' ' \ GENERAi NOTES, .. ,,.,, '-"'""" '""-,.,.,.. ""''" ''""""'""'""" ~-::.:..::!;..~~~ \ ' ' \ \, \ \ DF.VEtopMEilJT P. LANNING , Ci ry OF RFrvror, 1 ' \ "1AY 2 l 2009 rk-,-,~,. tit:;1 ,t.,.rd.![f::r-i I..,. .• ,, ,:; """<i {/,,,f, ' \ ' ' '!"•NJ ,wm '~" fSNfll.11' /-IAWK'S LANDING f.Sf'Vfi/.lN FOR ALPERT INTERNATIONAL ~ ~ ~ I ,.~ -==---"""t )(JQ9 INA-m,,/0('"°"""~"'1,.,n;QJ~,V,« ·~~ 7 OF I 11,~,, ii I/ / . .---.:-· ./~ .-·:.'.'' / IN A PORTION TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANCE 5 E, WM. ',, -r:fri\ , ··-. \1 .. ·~-... , .. , ~. ,;:~ \\ . /\-Vif ~: ®op 1 "fd_>.~aj!,/ \y,~ ,---... .,., " "~':f'Eli!t \\ \ --· >-"-., ;\/ /)\ .,tP \\. '1-.A ' ~ \ fc --.. -. \ "' 7-" "' 'o O' ' \ ~-t.:T\;-'- \\ \\ '-.\ \ \ \ \ \_ \ .-OROINAAY HIGH W,',TER LINE OF OlHK. OP & WOV.ND 'A' K-O::ISTINC -433 S.f. ~~ DP~ CATEGORY '3' - Sound Devel, I INQNED/11«i,S!!ll'll11NC&~O£;nOJNll,ff>111<1m ! . ~1.:,,!"'....,,:~:.. '::',,~"""""' .... , ... s,.,,,. 2~2 ===:=-c'"cc'-c..c' · ,pment Croup EXHIBIT 9 = <ltHfN'St ~~ 0£alljJy f/B£JWOMA<Z ~· '· \ SURVEY NOJ.E; """"' ___ ,, ... _,,,..,......,., .... __ , ~"'-...:;:::"""""""""' ........ """"""""""'""'-""' GENERAL ~.QJ___s; "'""'-- DEVELopMENT PLANNING C/Ty OF /ClE~ITON MAY 2 1 2009 \. \ fi -"",=;II ,11:D'" ntv .• 1 t I!;; ,,.-jij we P~EY9./N ,~ \_ \. \ -S~r.,,. ). SO' 50(1) NORTH HAWK'S LANO/NC ro, ALPERT INTERNATIONAL ~· "~ -w== ~ "" #',Y_2(1W_ "'~~Cl'-m.lllt>l+Ni<>'MI\-L<Ha<(WM -~ I OF 1 '-I , ,,-1.i ;;::w::•m /I;;::::-::. //;;;_,_ . , ; . ./. ~-~! ' --. __ ~. !1 , c~~~)~ ·1 :;T·111_1 :+::l:u '.·e1.n ti .. .,;l_tii ''""''1 n ~~-+ ij ~rn SOUTH ELEVATJON ·~ .... ,,,,,., .. '\- '"'""""° ~~""'"' ~ ,,_,,_ r .,. !,iw1·····~- TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATIONS SCN.Olm'•l'-:J" EXHIBIT 10 ,r-"o"',._ I -...,.,o.,,.._....,.,,..,, """"""-cot""""'~ ;;-::~=--1 r __ _ '! ;:,_,_ EAST ELEVATION !CAl.l.l/Jr••'<r DEVELOPMENT PLM.!~JING CITY OF RFeffQ~1 MAY 2 1 2009 E'S\ '''{'l::•H!t"'"·, f1 t~ ,,,.,? L. ~ V f:. /1,J ±E (' m~ M2 ARCHfTEC 1',RCHJTECTU~E '-"'-'\NNI >run,...,,~"""-""""·""" ~""""""'-'""'""' Y«.,ou .. ,,.,o •=•>~'1., = "'"'~ \'!I""-' I ,,,~-oc::::..I ·------· HAWK'S LANDIN" •J'IO!.'J<fWA.SMN!iTONEILIII Rl:f;ION.WJ\Si-llNr.TOH ~---- -~---' S-HM:~____j ~---~ -·- ~llrlJl.&<~ EAST AND SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION A-3.1 CEI ' • i i ! ! L ' .. ! ! I ' I' • ·· I .,,, 8 n I:;; ~ I: g H < • .s,t-.« ' 1, I 'f ill ~~ i " ' ·..---T~ I '1 .Y ~5 <( :a: ::c ::s ' r11 l ~ I ~ • ~ ~ 'I I I j. !l~illJ !i I •' ,, ;I ~i I I ! ' l ! ! i ' . ' " l l i j ~~ ii II I ; ~ ' I ! " 0 ' ~ ' . ~ N I 0 rvi z 0 I I I I I z Q <( ~ ~ I ' r I I I I " T"" T"" I- m :::c: >< w 8 ''<.;''. ,,..,......, in) HAWK'S LANDING RENTON. WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 12 DEVB.OPME:NT PLANNING CITY Ct=-REJ,!TO!\\ MAY 2 1 2009 ~,--.~'-1r'll"'"..,;1!"'-f~'t--'.\ ri b t,.-1:: ft ~ U EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION S. & E. ELEVATIONS SCALE 3132" a 1' -O" APRIL 13, 2009 6i) HAWK'S LANDING RENTON, WASHINGTON M' A~CHllECl.\ EXHIBIT 13 DEVELOPMEN1 PL:'\MNING CITY OF 8ENTON MAY 2 1 2009 f~ :'·' if-"' :r-' ~ "ii i! h""' ~ ?. t"t~·-\.,.,-t:~ 'I:~~) :~ ·:~ .. ·~·· ···~ Ii'~"';_, .T-4£::_~ WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION N. & W. ELEVATIONS SCALE: 3/32" • 1' · O" APRIL 13, 2009 ( ~i '!I ~ ·; di li! e~ 6 • I ' ! ~ i ' I! I[-, • 11 !I',, · -'lr ~ -' -·- ! I l / "' ,,, 2 §6 ..::"" ::c s 1 l ! I : , 111 fi ~ /': ! rr11, ~ ~ II ~ "' ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ' J ! J I I J I I i'l ls LJ L § "; e; ~::; I I : I I • --------.. -------__ SQt, AYffiHSIIH 31V1S~3lN/ -----~-.------·----·-- z 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 5 2 ~ 5' ~1: T"" ~~ ~] I--al :c >< w @I ! 1~7 ii ni ' ,,\ C..--'i~ j ~-J, 1- ·• ' ___ J r 1'1 P: 1 i r •i i1Ji]1.,.j !IIJ!IJ IL ; I I I I I I ! ! "' ... - 1 ! • I--co -::c >< w lWO OOHA\..L.j TO 11-IE°.:" y'1-.r..,;+ WNVl!."-fS UJ.JTl26'-ife'.o 6TP~\,,/......,.t;j . ""'1"'1 F-".-.:.M Dor t:. 'i'A~l'..H...t(>, ~ ,11• 'I' ~,,i/1 :,/ I/ ',·' ~' :1'/ OE.o-Jt4A.~~IGI+ ' ' ·. 11>\e;~.' (~"'-'M) o>' D.'fC ://i/l C<AS5· s w~~f'-, / , ,, ' · 'r 1' I ;;:;: ', I: .: ·1 .'/1.:;!} I ·, / ._:_; '1, TWN 24 N., RAN.CE 5 E, WM. ~ '\· ""'" . ...,,_,, / / ~E~t .. V ~"~:,:', ·,.,:.~/ . ,,,·~.,,~ F,1-'(E.C-, \ ~ .· \ ").. \<:;, \~ / -9/ \ -Yi /·'· ( ' ~!Tff:J!/,! '.'1-Ji ',"1 ''1%~~i,?)'f/;~1t)'fli}b~§ijttc.::=~~= •1,~··;J,'1/11 I/.J'i..11,t! r,I 1/! "' I ///,'i ,;/' /1,ilffe / 1 1/; if/,I, J' ' '' .,, :,<;/;, ·<ii'!li/!llll'i/h!j'11,/!l 1 i/l; :;-:..i.\ '~~~ .:,: • ' ' 'I ,, I/ (,,1, ''I, ,·:11/ 1, 1 ,1111',' I I I I Ii I ~ \' ,, ' , -. .,, ,,;w•' ,,. , . ~-.,_,_,;;,-; ', ,__ ' ,,,, ,O .~·i ~~ ,I\ / ---~--~ " -=--,) \ ~ l ........ • -r---.. =-·:=:__ "-~-.-------~ ~ .. , · ' •oi:~· --:-:-•-,:-::_•" -.. ~ 'i\ ~ ~ '.!':: -~ OED _-==-,,~· .~ ', .., ~' ,. •on 0 ,_':""-'s <oe£SC!cD "" ==i=· , , ' ___ _,, ' "=----" ,_ ~ ' -,"-. ""=' """""""" L ____ /',' .., ct~ EXIST INC ,::.:-......'-...._ WETV.ND '8' ""'-.... -"" S.F. ... . · '-..... <~OROIN CAHGO" ,, '-. ... wm, "'' HIGH I ._ me< w.o, o, ~ '-_ "'-., --D'° "lmNG -A " --WIT~ND ,, -..'vrAy --/ o" ms, A -----CR£ ----. ' CATEGORY '1' ---Ek -C'--A, ---.......... ----~.t~ ... ---::::::, <: -----... __ _ ------~- Legend <D d {!:) DP= Wetland Data Point Delineated Wetland Existing vegetation a' 50 1od SCALE: 1"' = 100' (~) NORTH [ii Sound Development Croup = DLIIINI~ r.u,u HAWK'S LANDING· CROWN£ PLAZA HOTEL1· "'""'["'"' W~rl•od Oelinnhon & S1tr~o, S1udy rr,p•r•d by: Wetland Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan lNONfWJ./C, J1J.t\1\1....c .a. u'JJO OfllROl'MINT JU\'laJ P<i. 6w 1705 . I r1 I C.• .. '"'1d '"'"""· '"''• 202 ""uol """""· ~A 9"27J r,1 Jio-,o,-;,oia r ... J&o-,o+-io1J ~" a«U(J ·~ === ~~;z FOR 1' HAWK'S LAN.DING, LLC UHIOI<~ I -~_I!__ --u;y !,_~ Graham-Bunting Associates Environmental & Lll!ld Use Services 3643 Legg Rd., Bow, WA 98232 Ph 360.766.4441 h· 360 766 4443 EXHIBIT 16 ~ Attachment A I I I I L'7~ &.3L J'WN L4 !'"-,, K~NL/: .'..> t:.~ WM 'I A portion of the ditch is proposed to be filled to ollow for B sidewalk along Lake Wa.s;hington Boulevard. I ;I ·, '1/ u ii , I '11 i ,, lY 1; ··._ 1/. !ii,: 1~ 1· L, ,,.,· ' :z; O· ;~, 1U! ,i~·. Construction Limil Lint -~--'~ ,'~ --" I \'\, End of construction "1-i tr, . -' 7--' "' 'o sf' w,m = H ,,:.;; DITCH -A .< o, ' C•y -\\ : /' ·\}1 ''j ' !I ii~-~ • ··1 OOO.l.·NMY HIC (•~:-~. ~Di55 "" kATe~ ';. ' .. ~) .. -. 'x· ' ' 4" " "\ ,, '.,'--. ' -' -~, ,•,/-ll ' .. ~-· . 1 : I l .-==:-~ -oo _.,, / .._ _ _./ : I, a " .. ""~" ' -»--.,. ~ ~ \ ,,j ' r •o" -.==c-···-,o._...c] ~: I '.!?'~ --a=·.·-' ·'-'I; ,oi::-: .,::i: "' I ."' n, ;! ',: ! . ' ' •• , ••• -p·-:1 :/ ,/ ,I ;I !I ,/ I ,I 'J '-. ___ ..-J ' I -~ '--1 _______ , ' ... I ~ISTINC ' "'- ·. I 1· ' ' WffiANO .,. "-' ' ""' ' "'-~--ORDlNAR .. 1,f r·· CATICO<Y ,,, "-' w,m y HIGH '· ' ' ""' -,o, I I "-----MA;:;---... _, CR __ _ --fEk ----·Cu.s., ---... ---.1. ""4n..' ---~..:.e.. .............. ,....___ __ ;iCEXISTING WETLAND',',' ~~.M66RY ·2· . =------ d. (til 'J6T l1l5(11'00N !soil· Sound Development Croup ~a.:.,,~ -ll!.-U..$n-riw J64J~Jlm4Bow-, WA~) l'l>J61J.1"".+UJ h.:U0,7&6.#IJ fNGNEfl!NC, WRITT/NC & W./D DtYE!OfM!/'{f SERl1C!S PO 80, 1;,,;, • J//1 Cl,volooO , ... nu,, fol< 201 llouol V.mon. "" ~NJ r.~ Jfo-<G<-MJO ra,: Jso,,o,-zorJ PROPOSED CONDITIONS EXHIBIT 17 UAl+Nlr: a&:NDtr: =~ fflf)KXJlHAa rue Note: This is a redL1ced site plan ofthe proposed project. The original drawing should be consulted for any detai!ed information. o ~6 ,oo~ SCALE. 1~ = 100'·-I NORTH I Attachment B J , __ I"'"' l'J..Au HAWK'S LANDING· CROWN£ PLAZA HOTEL P.sNERtN FOR HAWK'S LANDING, !;LC'""""" P.$N£J(tN M.0'7,JOO!I """ ffl> "'""""' ~ - Wetland/Stream Study: Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel Prepared for: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Prepared by: t Graham-Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Ph.360.766.4441 Fx. 360.766.4443 May 12, 2009 Table of Contents Section/Subsection Page Project Summary---------------------------------------------------------11 I . 0 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------- 2.0 Existing Conditions ----------------------------------------- 3 .0 Project Description------------·--------------------------------3 4.0 Existing Infonnation ---------------·---------------------3 4. l National Wetland Inventory ------------------------3 4 .2 Soil Survey of King County ---------------------·--4 4.3 May Creek Basin Action Plan----------------------------5 4.4 Barbee Mill (BA)---------------------------------5 4.5 Fawcett Property Wetland Delineation------------------5 4. 6 Forest Practice Activity Map ------------------5 5. 0 Stream Study ----------------------------------------5 5. I Riparian Functions ------------------------------------5 5 .2 Ordinary High Water Mark -------------------------7 5.3 Stream Classification and Regulations--------·-------8 6.0 Wetland Study-------------------------------------9 6.1 Methodology--------------9 6.2 Findings-------------··-----------------IO 6.3 Data Summary Table------------------------11 6. 4 Data Digest --------------------··----------------11 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations------·· 12 7. 0 Regulatory Sunnnary and Mitigation Measures ----------13 7. I May Creek -------------------------------------------13 7 .2 Drainage Ditch (Class 5 Water) -----------····--·--------14 7.3 Wetlands A and B -·····-··-----··--·-----------14 7.4 Drainage Ditch (nonregulated wetland)·-------·----14 7.5 Water Quality -------··-----------··--------····------14 8.0 Closure-·-----------·--------·---------·---------· 14 9. 0 References ---------·-·-·-------------------------------I 5 Attachments Wetland Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan ---Attachment A Proposed Conditions ---···-···-----··-------------··-----·--------·-··-·-Attachment B Wetland Field Data Forms ----------···-------··---·----------------·----·-Attachment C Graham~Bunting Associates flawks Landing Mav 2009 Environmental &Land C~-e Sen,ices PROJECT SUMMARY Project: Project Site: Project Location: Project Proponent: Methods: Field Dates: Streams & Wetlands: Proposed Mitigation: Project Staff: Oraham-Bunting Associates Hawks Landing Mav 2009 Construction ofa 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel including underground parking and ground level parking. The project site is a 3.06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7. 8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44th Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 111 I Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Wetland -Routine On-Site Methodology, 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-97- 1) -Corps Interim Regional Supplement, April 2008 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March l 997, Ecology Publication #96-94 City of Renton Critical Area Regulation: RMC 4-3-050 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program: RMC 4-3-090 March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009 May Creek -Class l Water, Shoreline of the State Drainage ditch -Class 5 Water/Nonregulated Wetland Wetland A -433 square foot Category 2 Wetland Wetland B -48 l square foot Category 2 Wetland Subject proposal will avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Patricia Bunting, Wetland Ecologist PWS Oscar Graham, Wetland Ecologist ii Environmental & land Use Seniices May 12, 2009 Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Graham-Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Ph.360. 766.4441 Fx. 360. 766.4443 Stream/Wetland Study (Portions of Section 29 & 32 Township 24 north, Range 5 East, W.M., Renton, WA) 1.0 Introduction At the request of Hawks Landing LLC, Graham-Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the following report addressing streams and wetlands within and adjacent to the site of the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel. The report addresses the stream and wetland study requirements established under the City of Renton 's Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, summary of existing information sources and a narrative description of our investigative procedures and findings. The report includes plan sheets prepared by Sound Development Group depicting existing and proposed site conditions. 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject prope'.;l is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44 Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. 1l'el~c;;;rir, ., _ . d·. Figure 2 -Microsoft CoIJ).: Virtual Earth (2008) The project site is a 3. 06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7. 8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. An administrative office is also located on the site. The buildings are constructed on a fill pad surfaced with crushed rock and asphalt. The site has been fully developed for industrial purposes. Graham-Bunting Associates Hawks LandingAssessment (5//2/09) I Environmental & Land Use Services Little native vegetation exists within the subject property itself. The eastern and western perimeters, predominantly within the right of ways ofl-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibit a mix of native and invasive plant species. Trees consist of red alder (A/nus rubra), paper birch (Betzi/a papyrifera), black cottonwood (Popu/us balsimifera) and Western red cedar (Thuja p/icata). Shrubs are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rub us discolor), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and sword fem (Polystichum munitum). An open drainage ditch located between the project site and Lake Washington Boulevard exlnbits a small community of cattail (Typha latifolia) and a thick mat of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The parcel located south of the subject property includes lower May Creek and its associated riparian corridor. The distance from the subject property to May Creek varies from 235 feet in the east (adjacent to the on-ramp to I-405) to 58 feet in the west (adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard). A mature deciduous forest consisting oflarge black cottonwood (16" -36" dbh), alder and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) dominates the riparian corridor. The understory includes vigorous colonies of invasive blackberry and Japanese knotweed, sahnonberry (Rub us spectabtlis), reed canarygrass and sword fem. A small community of slough sedge (Carex obnupta) was observed in col\iunction with a wetland identified along the right bank of May Creek. Photo 1: View north along eastern right of way of Lake Washington Blvd. showing perimeter vegetation adjacent to drainage ditch. Photo 2: View east showing typical plant assemblages within riparian corridor of May Creek. The subject property is predominantly flat, however, the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the entrance of the existing Pan Abode facility, resembles a bowl shaped depression designed to receive stonnwater runoff from multiple catch basins located along the southbound on-ramp to I- 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard. Stormwater runoff from the catch basins is transmitted to the northern portion of the subject property and discharged to the northern end of the open drainage ditch, located along the eastern right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Stonnwater from the subject property is also collected and discharged to the ditch at this location. The open ditch extends approximately 500 feet to the south where it enters a buried 24-inch corrugated plastic pipe that flows an additional 60 feet south before discharging to May Creek. Additional drainage enters the ditch from the subject property near the entrance to the buried pipe. May creek flows into Lake Washington approximately .25 miles southwest of the subject property. (Attachment A: Existing Conditions Site Map) Graham-Bunting Associates 2 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LandingAssessment (5/12109) Photo 3: View south showing drainage ditch and inlet to buried pipe 3.0 Project Description Photo 4: View west showing outfall of buried pipe at May Creek (right of figure). The proposal is to demolish the existing structures associated with the Pan Abode facility and utilize approximately 3. 06 acres of the subject property for construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel. The proposed Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will consist of: • One level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls • Ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square feet, 2,152 square feet, and 3,360 square feet for retail, spa and restaurant facilities respectively • Four levels of guestrooms • A total of approximately 126 surface level parking stalls, including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)) • Two access points along Lake Washington Boulevani • Storm water facilities including rain gardens • Sanitary sewer, water and other utilities Preliminary designs indicate that the hotel will maintain a maximum height of 60 feet. Required land use permits include site plan review, environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), building permits and a street vacation. All d\lvelopment including required infrastructure will be located a minimum of 277 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OH.WM) of May Creek. (Attachment B: Proposed Conditions) 4.0 Existing Information The subject property has been addressed under a number of existing studies. These information sources have been reviewed and synthesized to assist GBA in characterizing the subject property. The sources are sll.llll11llrize as follow: 4.1 National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NW!) is compiled by the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. NWI relies upon visual aerial photo interpretation of wetland indicators including hydrologic, vegetation and topographic signatures. NWl does not identify wetlands within the vicinity of the subject property. It should be recognized however; that the forest canopy associated with the riparian corridor of May Creek would likely obscure the indicators upon which NW! relies. GBA utiiiz.e NW! only as a generalized map indication of the possible Graham-Bunting Associates 3 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LandingAssessment (5/12/09/ presence and extent of wetlands. Reconnaissance and delineation procedures are always based on an on-site assessment. 4. 2 Soil Survey of King County. Area Washington The Soil Survey is compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and includes mapped soil units registered to detailed descriptions of soil characteristics. The survey identifies one soil unit within the subject property boundaries. The map unit appears to include the entire floodplain associated with lower May Creek. No-Norma sandy loam is a poorly drained soil typically found on floodplains with slopes between O and 2 percent. The parent material is alluvium. Minor components include Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils. Nonna sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil under criteria 1., 2. b) (3) and 3. 1. All Histosols except folists 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are: b) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (3) water table equal to I. 0 feet from the swface during the growing season if penneability is less than 6.0 mches/hour io any layer within 20 inches. 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. Digital fv!Hr>,1_)•~ia; Ii Figure 3. -National Wetland Inventory http://wetlandsfws.er. usgs. gov/ ) Site • 4.3 May Creek Basin Action Plan {April 200 l} The May Creek Basin Action Plan was funded by King County and the City of Renton outlines a set of actions addressing the threat of flooding, facilitation of stonnwater conveyance to stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The plan is intended to prevent existing problems within the basin from becoming worse in the Graham-Bunting Associates 4 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment (5/J 2/09/ future. The plan provides baseline information relating to conditions in the basin including a map sheet reflecting the approximate location and extent of wetlands. It 1s noteworthy that the wetland map identifies a small wetland in the vicinity of the drainage ditch described under existing conditions. 4.4 Biological Asses;,mcnt: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (August 2002) Racdke Associates, Inc. prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to evaluate potential effects of the proposed subdivision on federal and state listed species. The BA includes a characterization of May Creek and Lake Washington, documents species use, and identifies mitigating conditions to ameliorate project generated impacts to listed species. The Barbee Mill development is located just west of Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the subject property. 4.5 Wetland Delineation Repon: Fawcett Property (December 2000) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prepared a Wetland Delineation Report addressing a portion of the area located south of the subject property. While the contiguous area south of the subject property is under the ownership of Dr. Greg Fawcett, the delineation focused only on the area south of May Creek. The report includes observations relating to May Creek and hydrology, soil and vegetation within the riparian corridor. 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map The Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps and classifies waters of the state pursuant to WAC 222-16-031 on the Forest Practice Stream Type Maps. The maps were reviewed to assist in characterizing the project area. May Creek is identified as an S (Shoreline) Water of the State. Type S waters are defined as: "All waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as 'shorelines of the state' under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands No additional Waters of the State were identified on the Stream Type Maps. 5.0 Stream Study May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly approximately 8.6 miles to Lake Washington. The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agricultural, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure del!'.eloprnent including runoff from I-405. The stream reach located south of the subject property lies between the I-405 bridge crossing in the east and the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge crossing in the west. Titis reach of May Creek is identified as Reach B and characterized in the City of Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis as relatively unaltered (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008) 5. l Riparian Functions Observations gathered during our site investigation, conducted during the early spring of 2009, indicate a high level of in stream and riparian corridor functions. The stream is low gradient(< 8%) and displays a complex of low velocity pools mixed with swifter moving riffles and runs. In stream structure is provided by naturally recruited large woody debris (LWD) consisting of native deciduous species and installed habitat features including anchored root wads and cabled logs Riparian functions are closely linked to vegetation along the stream bank and adjacent floodplain. Graham-Bunting Associates 5 l:J1vironmenta/ & Land Use Services f[awks Landing Assessment (5/11109) L WD Recruitment -While large conifers are generally the preferred source of LWD, the presence of mature deciduous species throughout the stream reach provides an ongoing source for recruitment of woody material into the stream. LWD promotes complexity within the stream and provides holding areas fur salmonids and resident fish species. Bank Stability -The three strata vegetation community along the riparian corridor promotes bank stability through establishment of deep root systems. The anchored roots help hold the sandy loam of the floodplain intact and minimize the forces of erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity. Reed canarygrass, often viewed as an undesirable species, is very effective in promoting bank stabilization. Unfortunately it also may colonize aggressively reducing the diversity of native plant species. Shade -The deciduous tree canopy provides shade during low flow summer months and helps to maintain cool temperatures and maintain dissolved oxygen levels required by salmonids and resident fish species. Water Quality -Emergent vegetation including vigorous communities of reed canarygrass contiguous to the OHWM provide for the filtering of sediments and pollutants. Reed canarygrass is viewed as an invasive species; however, its dense mat like quality provides an excellent filtering function that helps prevent delivery of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters. Photo 5 -View upstream (east) showing L WD and riparian vegetation south of subject property. Photo 6 -View of installed habitat feature consisting of root wad (right) anchored to rock (left) witb chain located near I-405 bridge. Fish and Wildlife Habitat -While no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during our site investigation, May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon. Winter steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Sa/mo clarki clarki) are also known to utilize the creek (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008). Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon are listed as a candidate species under ESA. May Creek does not have a self sustaining Chinook run. Chinook observed in May Creek are likely strays from the Cedar River (Lucchette 2002). Coho are known to utilize Lake Washington and May Creek. Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production (Raedeke 2002). Puget Sonnd Steelhead have utilized May Creek on a historic basis and may remain present in depressed numbers (Salmonscape 2009). A Grqham-Bunttng Associates 6 Environmental & Lar,d Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment (5/12109) review of pertinent literature relating to Lake Washington salmonid stocks indicates a high degree of uncertainty as to the genetic origins of salmonids utilizing May Creek. It is possible that individuals from the Puget Sound and Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Units (ES Us) utilize the habitat provided by the creek. The riparian area provides excellent feeding and cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passcrine species. Small mammals such as voles utilize uplands within the riparian area for burrowing. GBA observed blacktail deer (Odocoi/eus hemionus co/umbianus) droppings and hoof prints within the riparian corridor. Common snipe (Capella ga/linago) were flushed during several site inspections at a location near the bridge crossing at Lake Washington Boulevard. A short tailed weasel (Muste/a erminea) was also observed burrowing in the rip rap near the bridge abutment. A pair of Osprey (Pandion ha/iah,s) was observed perched on a nest platform near the mouth of May Creek. Additional species were observed during our site investigation including: song sparrow (Melospiza me/odia) house finch ( Carpodacus mexicanus) black-capped chickadee (Poeci/e atricapilla) hairy woodpecker (Pico/des vzllosus) spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) mallard hen and drake (Anos platyrhynchos) unidentified huteo (Buteo sp.) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) gull species (Larus sp.) 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark GBA reviewed the location of the OHWM as identified and flagged in the field by David Evans Associates (DEA) in 2006 and Sound Development Group (SOO) in 2009. The guidance contained in the statutory definition was utilized in confinning the location of the OHWM. "The Ordinary high water mark on all lakes, streams and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continues in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June I, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water." In addition, the definition contained in the Renton Municipal Code under 4-11-0 IO was also considered. Review was aided by a series of high water events occurring during the late winter and early spring of 2009. These one to two year flows generally correlated with the physical evidence observed along the bank of the creek. The OHWM was identified based on scour and drift lines, sediment deposits, topographic features and vegetation transitions located at or near the top of the right bank. rt was not deemed necessary to adjust any of the flags placed previously by DEA and SDG. The OHWM as flagged was surveyed and is depicted on the map sheets accompanying this report. Graham-Bunting~-lssociales Hawks f.anding,-lssessment (5/12:09) 7 Environmental & Land Use Services Photo 7 -View upstream (east) showing the OHWM located at the landward extent of a sandbar and transition to persistent vegetation. 5 .3 Stream Classification and Regulations Photo 8 -View upstream showing the location of the OHWM at the top of a cut bank along the line ofvegetation. The City's Critical Area Regulations RMC 4-3-050 classify May Creek as a Class 1 water. Class I Waters are perennial salmon bearing waters classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Subsection L. Streams and Lakes: 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply stipulates that the City's critical area regulations do not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations. Subsection 4-3-090, 5, d. establishes the standard setback for commercial development as follows: "A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50') to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process fur good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the waters edge." All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM of May Creek. The subject proposal is located outside of the 200-foot jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and is therefore compliant with the required 50-foot setback requirement. The drainage ditch located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in light of the City's Critical Area Regulations and identified as a class 5 water. RMC 4-3-050 L. Streams and Lakes: I. a. v. (a) (b) establishes the criteria fur Class 5 waters as follows: "v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constmcted channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M. of this section." Graham-Bunting Associates 8 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment (5112/09) GBA conferred on site with the Arca Habitat Biologist from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WOFW) on April 24, 2009 who provided the following observations and guidance: • The ditch is a man made feature • Work within the ditch itself will not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW • Work on the outfall to May Creek would require an HPA • Any proposed improvement to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch Based on observations gathered during our site investigation and consultation with the Arca Habitat Biologist, GBA have determined that the drainage ditch is a non-sahnon bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicate that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from I-405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility. GBA have determined that the drainange ditch satisfies Criteria (a) as a Class 5 Water and is therefore not regulated under the City's Critical Area Regulations. The ditch will be discussed further under the following Wetland Study. 6.0 Wetland Study The following discussion addresses the procedures and methods utilized in our wetland investigation and provides a summary of our findings. 6. I Methodology GBA utilized the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is a revised version of the 1987 Cams of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) in the preparation of this report. The Ecology Manual (along with the recent Corps of Engineers regional supplement, April 2008) represents the accepted standard for identifying and delineating wetlands fur jurisdictional purposes under the Clean Water Act. GBA considered the new interim regional supplement in the assessment of field data. The Ecology manual has been adopted for use by the City of Renton for use in conjunction with the Growth Management Act mandated Critical Areas Ordinance. Both the Ecology and Corps manuals incorporate the Clean Water Act Definition of Wetlands as follows: 'Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." The City· s Critical Areas Ordinance stipulates additional defining elements as follows: "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches. grass lined swales, canals, <:letention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July l, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction ofa road, street or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands." Graham-Bunting Associates 9 Environmental & land (Jse Services Hawks Landing.fasessment 15/12·09) TI1e definition requires that three interrelated defining clements or parameters be established \\hen identif\ing wetlands. These parameters are wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland Hydrology Water is the driving force, which creates and sustains wetlands. The 1987 Manual and subsequent Corps guidance identifies wetlands as areas where soils are inundated or continuously saturated for a minimum of 5% of the growing season (approximately 12.5 days for Western Washington). When direct observation of the water table cannot be made, hydrology is determined by relying upon hydrologic indicators such as hydric soil characteristics, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns. Hydric Soils Wetlands exhibit hydric soils. These are soils which are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. These are conditions where no free oxygen is present in the upper soil horizons. Typical field indicators of hydric soils are the presence of a thick organic layer, or in predominantly mineral soils such as found on this site, a low chroma matrix (gray color) and/or bright mottling. Soil chromas are determined by comparing soil samples with color chips in the Munsell Color Charts. Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has classified wetland vegetation according to its frequency of occurrence in wetlands: Obligate wetland species (OBL) occur in wetlands greater than 99% of the time. Facultative wetland species (F ACW) occur in wetlands greater than 6 7% of the time. Facultative species (FAC) occur in wetlands 34o/o-66% of the time. Facultative upland species (FACU) occur in wetlands less than 34% of the time. Upland species (UPL) occur in wetlands less than I% of the time. Generally the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is satisfied when greater than 50% of the species present at a data collection point have an indicator status of OBL, FACW and/or FAC; when two or more dominant species have observed morphological or known physiological adaptations for· occurrence in wetlands; or when other indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are present. 6. 2 Findings GBA conducted the site investigation on March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009. Observations were collected over a period of a month during weather conditions that transitioned from cold and wet to sunny and seasonable. Little plant growth was noted during our initial site visit, however, by mid April plants were exhibiting active growth. Indian plum, salmonberry and elderberry were rapidly leafing out and Japanese knotweed colonies along the bank of May Creek was emerging from dormant rhizomes. GBA consider the timing and weather conditions of our investigation to be optimal for the identification of wetlands. Two areas were investigated: l) The subject property (Pan Abode facility) and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. Both areas were traversed and visually inspected for indications of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The ordinary high water mark of the drainage ditch was identified and flagged on site. A single data point (DP- 7) was established along the top of the bank A second data point (DP-2) was assessed just cast of the ditch along the southern boundary of the subject property. Three rough transects were established in an cast/west aspect between May Creek and the subject property. Six data points GrahamaBuntingAssociates IO Environmental & land (}se Services Hawks Landing t!ssessmenl /5/12109) (DPs 1,3,4,5,6,8) were assessed in the floodplain or riparian corridor of May Creek. Soil evaluation pits were excavated to a uniform depth of 21 inches. Hydrology, soil and vegetation were assessed at each data point. Data collected on site was recorded on data forms and field notes. Photographs docwnented appropriate visual images. Data collected is swnmarized in the following table. (Attachment C: Wetland Field Data Forms) 6.3 Data S v Table DP Hydrolouv Soil •oxidized •sandy loam 2.5Y rhizospheres -4/2 -rhizospheres - I fac neutral -sandy redox gecmorphic aosition no indicators gravelly loam - 2 IOYR4/3 no indicators silt loam -IOYR 3 3/3 no indicators silt loam IOYR 3/3 4 no indicators silty clay loam 5 IOYR2/2 *water table @ 8" •silty clay loam 6 -saturated to 2.SY 3/1 -10% surface mottles 7 .SYR 4/6 Saturation @ 15" gravelly silt loam 7 IOYR 2/2 saturation below sandy loam 2.5 Y 8 20" 4/4 •wetland parameter satisfied 6.4 Data Digest Dominant Ve~etation Status *Populus balsamifera FAC (20%) A/nus robra FAC (20%) Cornus stolonifera FACW (50%) Wet Carex ohnupta OBL (80%) *A/nus robra FAC (2%) Rubus discolor FACU (25%) Phalaris arondinacea FACW (95%) Up Popu/us balsamifera FAC (30%) Rubus discolor FACU ( I 00%) Un *Populus balsamifera FAC (10%) A/nus rubra F AC ( I 0%) Phalaris arondinacea FACW ( I 00%) Up A/nus rubra FAC (60%) Rubus discolor FACU (100%) Un *A/nus robra FAC (60%) Rubus discolor FACU (60%) Wet Ruhus snectahi/is F AC (30%) *Populus balsamifera FAC (80%) Rubus discolor F ACU (20%) Up Rununculus renens FACW (5%) *A/nus robra FAC (20%) Rubus discolor F ACU (20%) Cornus stoloni(era FACW (20%) Up Based on the above data swmnari.zed above, two regulated wetlands were identified: Wetlands A and Bare small depressional wetlands located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. The wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. The wetlands are distinguished from the surrounding uplands because they are distinct topographic features, exhibit saturated soils and are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland A is a deep depression with observable hydrology at the soil surface. Soil displays a very dark matrix chroma accompanied by mottles. Vegetation is dominated by a mix offacultative plant species. Wetland B is a gentler depression which exhibits only secondary indicators of wetland hydrology with saturation present well below the soil surface. Soil is sandier and lighter by comparison and vegetation includes a vigorous community of slough sedge (OBL). In addition to Wetlands A and B, the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in accordance with the wetland identification/delineation methodology. Although a data Graham.Bunting Associates II Environmental & land Use Services Hawks landingAssessmenl (5/J}i09) point was not assessed within the ditch itself, the area within the flagged OHWM was determined to satisfy wetland parameters. Standing water was present in much of the 500 linear foot ditch. Soil was silty and likely consists of stormwater sediment from surrounding development. Vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass. Data point 7, established at the top of bank approximately 20 feet west of the existing Pan Abode facility was assessed to characterize the area lying between the ditch and subject property. No sur:face water was observed although saturation was present at a depth of approximately 15 inches from the soil surface. Soil consisted of a gravely silt loam, possibly fill from the development of the Pan Abode facility. The soil exhibited a dark matrix chroma (I OYR 2/2) but was not accompanied by redoximorphic features. The subsoil was a very light silty sand (2.5Y 6/6). Vegetation was dominated by a mix of facultative trees, shrubs and herbs. Because the hydrology and soil parameters were not satisfied the data point was determined to be upland. Photo 9 -Vlew of soil profile and test pit assessed at data point I. Note sandy soil and relatively light matrix chroma. 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations Photo 10-View ofa portion of the 481 square foot Wetland B. Note shallow depressional topography and sedge plant community. Wetlands A and B were classified in accordance with the criteria contained under Subsection 4-3- 050 M. I. a. ii. of the City's Critical Area Regulations as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands that meet one of the criteria listed under (a) through (d). Wetlands A and B were found to satisfy criteria ( d) below: "(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such a di.king ditching or channelization ... " The majority of the floodplain, including Wetlands A and B, located landward of the right bank of May Creek and south of the subject property has not been subject to human related alteration. The wetlands contribute to the riparian functions discussed under the stream study earlier in this report including L WD recruitment, bank stability, shade, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. The wetlands functional value, however are limited by their small size which represents a combined area of only 914 square feet in a floodplain parcel totaling over 110,000 square feet. RMC 4-3-050 M. 6. c. establishes the standard buffer width required for Category 2 Wetlands at 50 feet. Required buffers are to be maintained in their natural condition. Buffers are required to be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Wetland A and B are located offsite 117.4 and 63.8 feet south of the subject property respectively. The area between the Graham-Bunting Associates 12 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LandlngAssessment {J/12/09/ wetlands and the property line remains in a natural condition and is vcg,tatcd primarily with native species. RMC 4-3-050 M. l. e. i. establishes the basis for regulated and non regulated wetlands as follows: "i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands -General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project arc regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July I, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction ofa road, street or highway. The department administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements or other evidence." GBA followed the guidance provided above in assessing the regulatory status of the drainage ditch. The following findings were considered • The Pan Abode facility was constructed on a fill pad during the mid 1950s • The fill pad appears to extend to a point near the road right of way at the top of ditch • The soil profile assessed at data point 7 displays rock typical of pit run commonly utilized as a fill base • The 2: I bank profile of the ditch is typical of an excavated stormwater conveyance facility • The hydrology that charges the ditch is composed primarily of stormwater runoff from I - 405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility • Unaltered areas within the floodplain south of the subject property do not include natural linear features similar to the ditch • National Wetland Inventory does not identify the ditch as a wetland Based on the above findings GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a nonregulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. While the wetland may not be regulated by the City, the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. 7.0 Regulatory Summary/Mitigation Measures The following buffers and setback requirements are registered to proposed project actions: 7.1 May Creek May Creek is a shoreline of the state regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton 's Shoreline Master Program. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends two hundred feet landward of the OHWM. The closest point of proposed project actions to the OHWM is 277 feet. The setback for commercial buildings from May Creek is currently established under the SMP at 50 feet. The subject property itself is located entirely outside of the required shoreline setback area. The mature deciduous forest located on the parcel south of the subject property varies in width from 64 feet in the west to 235 feet in the east and provides a full range of protective functions (see subsection 5.1 Riparian Functions). Because the riparian corridor is outside of the Graham-Bunting~·1ssociates 13 Environmental & land Use Services Uawks landing Assessment (JIJ ]109/ sub.1ect property boundaries and is not owned bv the applicant, GBA have refrained from characterizing the area as a buffer. 7.2 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is classified as a Class 5 water. It is a non regulated non salmon bearing water within an artificially constructed channel where no natural!y defined channel previously existed. 7.3 Wetlands A and B Wetlands A and Bare Category 2 Wetlands which require 50 foot buffers. Both wetlands are located offsite south of the subject property. Wetland A is 117.4 feet south of the subject property boundary and Wetland Bis 63.8 feet south of the subject property. The area between the wetlands and the subject property consists of a mature deciduous forest. A.lthough the uplands surrounding the wetlands are not characterized as buffers, the deciduous forest provides a high level of buffer functions. 7.4 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is a nonregulated wetland created from a nonwet!and site for the purpose of conveying stonnwater. 7.5 Water Quality In addition to the distance of project actions from the regulated stream and wetlands, rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with the project's drainage plan. The site will be designed consistent with the King County Stonn Water Design Manual guidelines for stonnwater management. It is anticipated that the water quality of drainage leaving the site will represent an improvement over the existing conditions associated with the aging Pan Abode facility. 8.0 Closure GBA employed currently accepted methods of delineating wetlands and characterizing aquatic features on the site. In addition we utilized the guidance provided in the City of Renton' s Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program in identifying appropriate regulatory requirements. Consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducted to determine fish use of May Creek and the drainage ditch and to determine potential hydraulic project approval requirements. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report, however, represent our best professional opinion. Concurrence should be obtained from agencies of jurisdiction prior to initiating land use actions or construction. The report will also provide a sufficient source of information in the event that a jurisdictional determination is-requested from the Corps of Engineers. Please call either Patricia Bunting or myself with any questions relating to this report. Sincerely; (n .1;1 1 .LJA--IJ~~~ Oscar Graham Principal Ecologist/Project Lead Oraham-BunlingAssociates Hmvks landing,lssessment (5//2,-09) 14 Patricia Bunting Wetland Ecologist/PWS Environmental & Land Use Services 9.0 References Associated Earth Sciences. Inc., December 7, 2000. Wetland Delineation Report Fawcett Property; Renton, WA. Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, E. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hitchcock C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 730 pp. King County, April 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Munsell Color. 1994 revised. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Pojar J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington. Oregon. British Columbia & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing. Vancouver B. C., 528 pp. Raedke Associates, Inc., August 26, 2002. Biological Assessment, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. Reed, PB, Jr. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Northwest (Region 9) National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008. Sound Development Group, LLC. April 28, 2009. Technical Information Report; Hawks Landing -Crowne Plaza Hotel. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W .. Lichvar, and C.V Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vepraskas, Mike. Technical Bulletin 301. 1999. Redoximorphic Features fur Identifying Aquic Conditions: North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences33 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Activity Map, I.HW~{b2.}~-~~~ Ili !.f~ a gm· .:11th'-! JJ~.B__s_P_~_nu_Lt.s/To[J i c~/f (l.f~ltP1;1ni~.:s;\ Pl~ tit;~! t.i~ u1s_ Washington State Department offish and Wildlife, l1ttp'ifo.\!J}u\a.,i,":"'"l'Jling;\alni,1_,1scap_c Personal Communications Fisher, Larry. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries. On site discussion relating to drainage ditch along Lake Washington Blvd. April 24, 2009. Severin, Pat P .E. Project Engineer, Sound Development Group. Project Meetings March through May 12, 2009. Graham-Bunting.Associates Hawks landing Assessment (5112109/ 15 Environmental & Land Use Services Wetland Field Data Forms Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains1 Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: 3/23/09 Applicant/Owner: Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: DP-1 lnvestigato.r: Pat/Oscar/Jeromt City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, Range· S29T24NR5E State: WA LancHorm (hlllslope. terrace, etc) Floodplain Slope(%) ().1 Local reltef (concave, convex. none) concave Subregion {LRR) A I Lat tf 7 ...... -; _ .... Long_/./.?, i'1 v:<'. · / Datum ,' ·, son Map Unit Name: No, Norma I NWI classification: None Are climatic/h)'drologic conditions on the slle typical for this time of year? m Ye, c8J No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstances· present on the site? Ye, No Are Vegetation D, Soil, 0. or Hydrology D significantly dJS!lJrbecl? No Are Vegetation D. SOIi, 0. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain eny answera in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site maa showino samplinn noint locations, transects, imrviortant features, etc. Hyctrophytlc Vegetation Present? 00 Yes 00 No fs this Sampling Point within a Wetland? []i;t'f Yes [gj No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarl<s:717;_:, 0 ,,,-, '-i.,•: /1 ,c-C,r; ),a'/_/ 4' , J.,f v(<.--/4rl /J.'?/~.-:-Sfa.-:;(7 h,·//1:,/·'l /;-:<-:(,·:.f1·~1·J /. ~-. ... ., .. . -" 7/zg fl,:'{!·'/t, lu,i. a/r/&;?i ,./l.'i-1/ k,:·, , /-, . ·-lj;~ r,· i ' .L-1 i6i!Nij pa.-1! ftn .d,-~;.::,.,,,.·, c, ' n;,;.?; i /1,; I -IA,· Sc,l 11icll:' .·1 /1:, :S ,. ..• ,. LC ..... f • • •• ( 11 tr:' ;1. /;. , vffGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Pfot size 20 ft R I Absolute% Dominant tndicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover SN>ries? Status 1 ,--,,,r,. I ,,., 11.,.f,. •• ;,J.:,/;.-. .., / ,/Yr, .,. ,-.,:.,c_, Number of Dominant Species tf 2. ,., (~ , r ,,., I, nr, ,.., /J••h. T [;,,.J-1 (!~ that are DBL. FACW, or FAC: (A) ,. Total Number of Dominanl t/ 4 Species Across All Strata: (BJ '-f {..J ~-"Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species (._tJt? q.;; that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 10 ft. R__J 1. ,' A,'11/;5, C10/C/'ld:r-tic;_ R() . ,:, ' FHLk/ Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 TOia! % Cover of MyltiJ;il:t !li ,. < ..., 'lt-'l '/C't"t; t;e ,;-a l Ct:',. ; 'f": "-I --II OBLspecies x1- 4. ., I . ' FACW species x2:: 5. /?if( 'I /t,<, 11,,-,~--; flt,1,,J L I I a u L.J.T I I FAC species x3- '<./ ' .s .L '• "'Total Co11er FACU species x4- UPLspecies x5- Herb .:Stratum (Plot size 5 ft R ) Column totals (A) I (81 1 f ~/? f' ,P "-. lJ 1· ")/ . .(...[ 17~ rll'> "(_\ r 1)11'" 1/ 2. I ' Prevalence Index w B / A = 3 4. Hvdrouhytlc Vegetation Indicators 5. ,,.._ Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is s 3.0 * 7, Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting B. data iri remarks or on a separate sheet) •• Wetland Non-Vascular Planbi • 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation * (explain) 11. rJ O 7A == Total Cover • lndicatora of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be ...... sent, uruess disturbed or oroblematic Wnnt1V Vine Stratum /Plot size ' 1. 2 HydrophyUc VegetatJon Yes )s, No D ='Tole! Cover Pment? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: /I'd c'""(,,: .1;; A, , {rl . . ., r<-1: ~ ... ef,t <'. ~ j/1"( l ! ' "/;'·' •" ' . .,. .;,,~-.. r I ~~ //! ;.{_ 1 "· .,) t V ( US Army Corps of Engineef5 Westem Mountains, Val~ys, anef Coast -lnlenm Version SOIL Sampling Point DP-1 ProHle Desert 'ltlon: (Describe to the de.ath needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features tlnchest Cdor(moist) % Color tmoistl % T= Loe" Texture Remarks ,.., -"' /() TV .3,/..:i,_ /t"<. ... ,~ -, ,;;i -/'O ~._,. .. ,,, Jtn_:i -, IJr ;?.~ .,)fir ~t <. ·...-.;itdi• . .-r. ,~ ,f:, .. ' '"'~~ U. I • 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=RedLiced Matrix, CS=Govered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL;Pore Lining, M=Matrix 1:8 rlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LR' unless Olherwi .. """"'-l tndlcators for Problematic Hydric Soffs3 Hislosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) ll 2cm MUCk (A10) ,._Q_ HisOc Epipedon (A2) S"1Jped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2} ~ Blaek Histlc {A3) _Q_ loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (e-:wcept MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) :£: Loamy Gleyed Matrix {F2) ___Q_ Depleted Befow Dark Surface tA.11) Depleted Matrix (F3) ~ lndfcatora of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must D Thick Dark Surface (A 12} .....Q_ Redox Dark Sufface (F6) lJ: Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1} D Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _g_ Sandy Gleyed Malr1x (S4) tI[ Redox Depressions (FS) be p~sent, unless disturoed or problematic RestrlctiYe Laver (if Df'esent): Type: Hydr1C sotl prnent? I Yes ~1 I No Cl I Depth {incites): / Remar1<,. lffjd11":!.. !:..~. ,-ud,f.,77,:,r.S ar": IYJ111 1,na-(', /r'eclax la,,;,;,:,::; ,q,~--lue<'vfs. ;..:t11e. G:x.:/' 0 4,v.,/-1],.-,..s a,c. 0a1'f&r·d ScnJe. s-2-0,;;le,; /Jfi.d cl/,.,,.,.,,a,,,.: '.3 /11s1-t1'h-:i r./ IA~ i< 1t:C/.'t4 -.:-, ,. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndlc:ators: Primary 100/catars (minimum of one required: check all that apply): 5eeondary lndbt~ (2 or more requil'Bd): Surface water (A 1) Spersety Veg elated Concave Surface (88) High water Table {A2) t:lO watar-Stalned'l.eaves (except MLRA t, 2, 4A & 49) (89) W--Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1. 2, 4A & 48) Oralnage Pattems (B10) Saluralion (A3) Sa1tCrust(B11) Water MiirkS (B1) 0 Aquatic: Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Oder (C1) D,y-Season Water Table {C2) Saturation Visit'Jte a, Aerial Imagery (Ce} GeomCJlllhic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhlzospheres along Living Roots (CJ) Shallow Aqultaffl (03} Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced lnJo (C4) Iron Oeposf!S {B5) Recent Iron Redudlon in TIiied Solla (C6) Surface Soll Cracks (B6} Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A} Inundation Visible on Aerial O otf:ier (explain In remarks) Imagery (87) FleldOboermlono Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation ?resent? (includes capillary fringe) Yes I No Yes No Yes No Oeplh {in): Depth (ln)c / U) 1 I Oeplh (in)c 7 z.. C, FAG-Neural Test (05) Raised Ant M>unds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Wea,nd Hydrology Preoenl? Yes I No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, morjtoring well, aerial photos, previous inspecllons), If av all able: -7 ~" MM:? 6La .... -,1-, oj US Army C-Orps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coa.st-mtenm Veraion Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Hawks Landina, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: PaUOscar/Jerom}". City/County: 529T24N R5E State: 418/09 DP-2 Renton/Kina WA Landrorm (hUJslope, terrace. etc) (t ':.'.'}_y ' ,7,: 4 (' r Slope(%) Local relief (concave, convex, none) ( __'.t;; 1:!tl /"(._, Subregion (LRR) A ' I Lal 47.5338 Long-122.19487 ! Da1um SoJf Map Unit Name No, Norma I NWI classification: None Are chmatidhydrologic conditions on me si1e typical for this time of year? t±:l Yes cB:1 No (lf no, explain in remarks.) Are· Normal Circumstances' present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation D, So~. 0. or Hydrology D significantly disturt>ed? No Are Vegetation 0. Soil, 0. or Hydrology D natu.rally problematic? No (If needed, wq>lain any answers in Remarlo;s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site maD showina samclina nnint locations, transects, imPQrtant features, etc. Hydrophytie Vegetation Present? &J Yes Effl No la thie Sampling Point within a Wetland? [ill Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No [ll_No Remarks: VEGETATION-Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum (Pio! size 20 ft R I Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cove, Srmr'ies? Status 1 ,.I.I IJ/{5, //.L.-rrl A , '7. -;;: ... ~ , ... , -Number or Dominant Species 2 that are OBL. FACW, or FAC: C) 3. Total Number of Dominant 3 4 Species Across AH Strata (A) IB) L. -/{J = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species -9;, --ti0%(A/B) that are OBL, FACW. or FAC: .; ~ Sapllng!Shnti Stratum (Plot size 1Q_ ft R_) 1. J:'t{ hut; , r ,::, _.,_. ~r.o T F-Pl'.•11 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. To'"'% Cover of Mullig!t bt 3. OBL species x1= 4 FACW species x2= 5. , FAC species x3= ,...~:--1"7'1 = Tolal Cover FACUSJ)edea x4- UPL species X 5 =: Harb Stratum (Plot size~ ) , Column lolals (A) I (8) 1. .£-?·u11~ ·:s /J1u11rL,-1,,? ,::.:..· !'I ..., ... '" T rn ./ 2. A • Prevalence Jndex = B /A= 3. F/Jl!_ •. t::~i, /i ~Hl'I t"J t ,J,;1 l,I. I -_., ,-, ., ,, 4. --Hvdroll hvnc Veaetadon Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% 6. Prevalence test is :s: 3.0 • 7. Morphological Adaptations " (provide supporting '· data In remarks or on a separate Sheet) 9. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation • {explain) 11. -. .,,. ,., = Total Covar "lndicatora of hydric soil and wetland hydrnlogy must be nrAQenl unless disturbed or nmblematic w~· Vine Stratum {Plot size l 1. ,. HydrnphytJc Vegetation Yes ),( D -l otel Cover ·-Present? No --··-- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Reman<s: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Samp ing Point DP-2 Profllo Description: fO&scrfbe to the deoth needed to document the indicator or connnn the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features finches\ Color !moist) % Color rmoisU % woe Loe" Texture Remarks 1------~---------'-----'---------~---~----~---~-----~------___ .,._._ 1 Type: C=Concentration, O=Depletion, RM::Reduced Matrix, CS=Govered or Coated Sand Grains ~drfc Soll Indicators: !AppUcab/9 to all L~ unless otherwise noted.J ~ ~::c;~~on (A2) B ::~=~~~6) 0 Black Histic (A3) cc= Loamy Mucky Mineral {F1) (Hee-pt MLRA 1) =:Q Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) !""'~r-Loamy Gleyed Matrix {F2) ....Q. DepJeted Below Darir. Surface (A 11) ~ Depleted Matrix (F3} ~ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ~ Redox Dari< Surface (F6} :a :~:=::!(~~) _ =:=:a~~Brl) Restrictive Laver (if oresenO: Type, ____________ _ Depth (inches): HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndtcators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one requfrf1!!_: Cl1eck all that apply): Surface water (A1) 0 Spareely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) 1 Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix tndlc:ators l'or ProblemaHc Hydrfc Sol1s3 00 2cm Muck (A 10) Red Parent Material (TF2J Other (explain in remarks) 3 lndicalors 01' hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. unless disturbed or problematic Hydr1c aoll present? I No XI < High water Table (A2) Water-Stained Leaves (exc:ept MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (89) Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (811) ~ fndicalrn (2 or mo,e required): water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & ..SJ Drainage Pattems (010) Dry...$eason Water Table {C2) D Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfi1e Odor (C1) 0 Geomo,phic Position (02) Orirt Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheras along Uldng Roots (C3) Shallow Aqullard (03) FAC-Neulral Test (D5) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Presence of RtlWced Iron (C4) Jron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in TIiied Soils {CB} Surface Soil Cracks (86) 0 Stunted or Streued Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation VISlble on Aerial D Other (e:icplaln in remarks) Imagery (B7} Ffeld Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturalion Present? (lneludes caplUary fringe) US Army Corps of Engineer., Yes ~No Yes Na Yes No Depth (In); Depth 1;n), 7 Z.0 Depth Qn), / 20 Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Fro5t-Heave Hurrmocks Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye, D No Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: ApplicanUOwner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range· WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE WeUands Delineation Manual Hawks Landin~. Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: Hawks Landin9, LLC Sampling Point: PaVOscar/Jerom1 City/County: S29 T24N R5E State: 4/8109 DP-3 Renton/Kina WA LandfOrm (tliflslope, terrace, etc) t,.,,, y.· ln r,.1:', Slope(%) 7"r,; Local relief (concave, convex. none) / cn(!a t'-C- Subregion (LRR) A I I 1 · Lal 47.5338 Long-122.19487 I 0atum Soi/ Map Unit Name No, Norma \ NWJ classification: None Are climatlclh)'drologic conditions on the srte typical for this time of year? CD Yes tB:J No {If no, explain in remarks.) Are ·Normal Circumstances~ present on the Site? Yes No Are Vegetation D, Soit, 0, or Hydrology D significantty dlstLHtled? No Are Vegetation D. Soil, O. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No (It needed, explain any answers In Remarh.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach situ mao showlna samotina nnint locations, transects, lmaortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? fill Yes llJ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [QJ Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No [gj No Remarks: VEGETATION-Use scientific names of nlants. Tree Stratum {Plot size 20 ft R I Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet .~ , Cover s,.._,1es? Status 1. J .. /Jlll.(,.{{t..[ /),l/;:"~-:;;,;J:.1.7· .. 1 :J/) "?;",.., -, ,_...., C, Number ot Dominant Species I 2 ' ~ that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant r.-· Species Across All Strata· Q 4. ...,,,. J " Total Gover Pettenl of Dominant Species 5,:)1!.> that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size 1Q)t R_J 1. P, ~. ' o/.s.,,. ./J/ tJ r /,()/~' ... /') ~ '1 Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. ........ a, % r:over nf Myl!ig!'.I:'. by 3. OBLspedes x1= 4. FACW species X2- 5 FAC species x3= IOI.I = Total Cover FACU species x4= UPL species xS= Herb Stratum (Plot sfze ~ ) Column totals (A) I 1. 2. Prevalence Index= B / A ~ 3. 4. Hvdro r1vrfc Veaetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% ' Prevalence rest is :s: 3.0 • (A) (B) (AIB) (8\ 7. Morphological Adaptations• (provide supporting • data in remarks or on a separate sheet) ,. Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation • (explain) 11. ' ' -Total Cover • Indicators of hydric soil and weuand hydrology must be nresent unless disturbed or oroblema!ic W.-.n.1tu Vine Stratum (Plot size I 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetauon Yes D No )( = Tolal Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remafks:/1! f.1 .~ .' /1,, ,"/, ;, ,{-"-~. . / i--f.,, .-r .-? .· J t:fj))il'J:.., j/ ,.J.;{' ·/ ' 1,: 'f .-Jnrl t, . ~ /·· . ':,'-' f.' ·-·. c'c'"·, { n, .:, It,,, c:; .............. . ( ~-~·. ,,.,,. ' ( . US Army Corps of Engineers Wes/em Mountains. Valleys, and Coast-lntenm Version SOIL Samolino Poi_nt DP-3 Profile Descrl on: IDescrlbe to tho deoth needed to document the lndlcator or conHnn the absence of indicators. -- Depth Matrix Redox Features 'inches' Color (moistl % Color fmoisll ~ T L"" Texture Remarks 6 I/ /V Y!7. '512 '7Yll IC: •J,fh,•'r\. I I-;,;: ,.,. j ... ,/ .... ""' h .,,12....,,,~,,, ~ (;":;., LO ,. '-,,'t l.i.1,, fl " A1"1 ~ - -------'--·-·~ . 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Collered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrtx ----.!::!)'dr1c_ SoU Indicators: fApplJcabJe to all LRRs, unJN:s otharwiae noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils] .._Q H1stos.ol (A 1) tfr Sandy Redo,: (S5) ;J 2cm Muck IA10) 0 H;stic Eplpedon {A21 Sbipped Mel/ix {S6) Red Parent Material (TF2J to Black Hlstic (A3} ~ Loamy MuekyMineral (F1) ~except MLRA 1) Other (explain In remants) ,_Q Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) B Loamy Gleyeo Mal/ix (F2) t:B Depleted Below Oalk. Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Redox Dari< Surface {F6) 3 lndieators of hydrophytic Yegetation and wetland hydrology must tB Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ta Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be piesent unless disturbed er problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) Restridive Laver (If oresent\: Type: Depth {inches): H:ydr1c soil pn,sent? I Yes D/ I No £1 Remancs: 11j,:,',,c1 . .;5~;/ /.11:f,<"(t?:>.-.! ,:;,, Ii,-/ ,PN .s,,, 1 ·/ ' ' , HYDROLOGY Wetland HydrOlogy Indicators: crary fndicarors (minimum of one 19QUi'!!f_.PlecJ< all that apply): secondary lndJcators (2 or more required}: Smface -{A 1) 0 Sparaely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) 1-t Water~Slalned Leaves (BQ) (MLRA 1, 2, .fA & -48) 0 High Water Table (A2) .. Water-Stained leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B} (99) ~ DralnegePattem:i (B10) ~ ~~ Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811) Dry-Season Water Table {C2) ~ Weter Marks (B1) Aquallc Invertebrates (B13) Saturation VISfble on Aerial Imagery (C9) ~ Sediment Deposits (82) r r Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 0 Gecmorphic Posttion (D2) ~ Drift Deposits (63) -~r Oxklzed Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquilard {03) ~ Algal Mat or Crust (84) -~r Presence Of Reo.Jced Iron (C4) FAC-Neub'al Test (05) r Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction In TIiied Soil& (CS) ~ Raised Ant Mounds (D8) (LRR A) Surface Soif Cracks (86} -stunted or stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hunwnocks Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explaln in remarts) -Imagery (B7) ~ Flald Observations Surface Waler Presen1? ~Yes ;No Depth (in): , I Water Table Present? Yes No Depth c;n): ';1-61/ ;/ Wetiand Hydrology Present? I Yes D I I No )d Saturation Present? Yes No Depth On): Z./ (includeS caplllary fringt;i) Describe Recon:ted Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous lnapectiOns), If available: Remarks: /tJd/d11/ 1yr1e1h'{JtJ 1i?d1r'11 7 , ;..f au n,-.f ,,-31·1.4-t ' US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. valleys, arta Coast-lnlerim Ve,sion Project Stte: ApplicanUOwner; investigator: Section, Township, Range: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Hawks Landing. Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: Hawks Landino, LLC Sampling Point: Pat/Oscar/Jeromt City/County: S29T24N RSE State: 4/8/09 DP-4 Renton/Kina WA Landforrn (hillstope, terrace. eh:) ,:.11-·<J,:,_; -t")'O. t.-·, -.. Slope(%) 2-Local relfef (concave. convex. none) {7(); JC, Subregion {LRR) A . ' I Lat47.533B long -122. 19487 I Darum Soll Map Uni! Name No, Norma j NWI dassification: None Are cllmatiClhydrologic conditions on the sitB typical l'or this time of year1 CTj Yes tttl No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances" present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation 0. So0, 0, or Hydrology O significantly disturbed? Na {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) Are Vegetation D. Soi. 0, or Hydrology O naturaUy problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site ma int locations, transects, Im nt features, etc. Hydrophyttc Vegetation Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is this Sampling Point within a Wltttand? []TI Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size ~2o=n~R~--~> Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet . Co"Uer S""""ies? Status //, ' F l'i l' Number of Dominant Species 3 -~ ' that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 · rtC<;h,; l.k'atn. !·,,, " Ji, """ 2. /#1-n1•r l'U/Pt~ A ,1 .,1i;f1 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 3. 4. "'Tolal Cover Percent of Oomlnant Species /OD thal are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size JQ_ ft R___J 1. Prevalence Index Worksheet 2 =%~-~ Muf1iply by 3. OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species X 2 = (A) (8) (AIB) t--'-· ------------------------,===~------+-sFacA~C""'sp~ec=ies=-+-------t-:'cc"cc-:---·----"' Tola! C!lVflf FAGU species x 4 - Hert, Stratum (Plot size .[JU! ) 1. 'A/{{' d~/(1.,17.d.rA'kJ(!r..(!,.__ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. •• 10. 11. w,wv1u Vine Stratum (Plot size -Total eo~ar ' UPL species x 5 - Column totals (A) / (Bl Prevalence Index= 8 /A= -dronnUTfc Veaetatlon Indicators Dominance lest Is ;,, 50% Prevalence lest ts :!o 3.0 • Morphological Ada,Dtations • (provide supporting data in remar1<a or on a separate sheet) Wetlam:J Non-VasCJ/ar Plants .. Problematic Hydrol)hytic Vegetation • (explain) • 1nc1Jcators of tiydric sol! and wetland hydrology must be nresent unless disturbed or D1t1blematic 1-'2~. ---------------------~~~------~ HvtfrophytJc Vegetatkm "'Total Covar Present? No D % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Vttt,', t...i 1ct:t' a?~..:.. j (,/ •. i ;,) //? a I I (!_.e.,., US Army Gorps of Engineers Western Mounfams, Valleys, and Coast-lntenm Version I l SOIL Sampllna Po nt DP-4 Profile De-acriotion: mescrlbe to the deoth needed to document the Indicator or con ft rm th& abSBnce of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features 11nches) Color tmolst % Color (moist\ % T·-· L"~ T xture Remarks t'}-J/ ,,,...,. ,? ,;,/ r;,,,I -s:·1 L rn ,, '7 "1vn'(/.;, 71'· "'/,r::v-v .. ., .,, v~ ,n . .5,: i c . ..1a.~ ... .f01 I,~ ; .. ?,l._-Y C, IL.J { u,-, ,, "·"· ., .. ' I 1Type: C=Concentratlon, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sana Grains 2Loc: PL=Pare lining, M=Matrix te rte Soll lndlcatOf'!I: {Applicable to aJI LRRs unless otherwise notsd.) Indicators for Problematic Hydrfc So1fs1 Histosal {A1) EB Sandy Redox (S5) 00 2cmMuck(A10) ...Q HlstJc Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parant Mater1a! (TF2) tE' Black Hlstic (A3) ~ Loamy Mueky Mineral (F1} (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 0 Loamy Gleyed Matmi: {F2) £ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11} tQ: Depleted Matrix (F3) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Thick Dark Surface (A12) D Redox Oark SUrface (F6) ....Q Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) ~ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ._Q Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) rn Redox Depressions (FB) Restrictive Laver (if oresentl: JNo~ I Type: Hydrtc soll present? I Yes rl I Depth (Inches): Remarks· /71j,:-/rJ G I . , -, 6c. / //)1.':'/1,t ()/.'1, f dtr I I( I /lr), f , HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndlcalora: f;Jjmary Indicators (minimum of one required: check a/J lhat apply): Seoondary JnGJcat<Jfs (2 or more requiledJ: t-0 Surface weter (A 1) ra Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) f-Water.Stained Leaves (B9) (ML.RA 1, 2, 4A & AB) Hlgtl Water Table (A2) Waler-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (B9) f-Drainage Patterns (B10) 1-Saturation (A3) D Salt Crust (E11) ~ Ory-Season Waler TaD!e {C2) f-Water Marks (B1) 0 AqUatt lnv81'1ebrates (B13) ~ Saturation Vlsible on Aerial lrnager)I (C9) Se<liment Deposits (B2) .. Hydrogen Sulfide Odof (C1) .. ~ Geomorphic Position (02) ~ Drift Deposits (B3) .. ,_ Oxidized RhlZospheres along Living Roots (C3) f-ShaHow A!JJ/ta!d (03) .. ~ Algal Mat or Crust (B4} f-l'lesence DI Reduced Iron (C4) FAC-N""""1 Test (D5) ~~ Iron Deposits {85) Recent lmn Redt1cti0n in Tilled Soils (CB) Raised Ant Mound$ (06) (LRR A) ~ Surface Soll Cracks {86} Siu-or Stressed Plant, (01) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial • Other (explaln in remarks) ~ Imagery (87) - Field Olnlarv.Uon• ~ Surface Water Presenl'i' ~Yea No Depth (in): li~ WaterTable Present? Yes No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Pntsent? I Yes D I Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (In): ?,;2/ I I (Includes capillary fringe) Deselibe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous lnspecttonsJ, tf available: 4t-n,,. -.Y~ J.</,,., ("./'JnJ,) ,S..(_A Ct:,'j, .- Remarks: ,,. V (.) US Anny Corps of £:.ngineer.s Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: 418109 Applicant/Owner: Hawks Landin~. LLC Sampling Point: DP-5 -Investigator. PaVOscar/Jeromv City/County: Renton/King Section. Township, Range: $29 T24N RSE State: WA landform (hillslope, terrace, etc} Slope{%) Local relief (concave, ronvex, none) Subregion (LRR) A I ,., 47.5338 long-122.19487 I Datum Soil Map Uni! Name No, Norma / NWI classificatlon: None Are cilmabcll'lydrologlc conditions on the site typical for this Hme of year? ITJ Yes l£j No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normar Circumstances· present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D. or Hydrology D signil'icantty diSlurbed? No _Are Vegetation D, Soil, 0, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampllnn point locations, transects, imnortant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? I Yes ij No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? [m Yes ~No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ~ · WeUand Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks: V EGET 0 ATI N -Use scientific names of olants. Tl'9e Stratum (Plot size 20 ff R I Absolule % Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet . ' Cover s-ies? Status 1. r.U )Ut::.. /Jdr, ·"'-,!.JC., t[,._-.,;.,c:. • f'A(-) ..,, ,,. ,v , Number of Dominant Species I 2. that are OBL. FACW, or FAC: 3. Total Number of Dominant 'J_ 4. Species Across AD Strata; . e:,·:, ;') "' Total Cover Peit:enl of Dominant Species 8) that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Sapllng1Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1 O fl R_l 1. P,., ,~ • .s ,../, ~ ,,.,, ,(,,,... Q,:-~'"'7"/1 ' -~ ,, Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. TOIAI % Cover of ~ 3 OBL species x1= ,. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= &::r{, ·-,: = 1 otal Coller FACU species ,•- UPLspecfes x5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size .[1!_fi ) Column totals (A) I 1. 2. Prevalence Index= B / A :::. 3. 4. Hvdrnr 11RIC Veaetation Indicators 5. X Dominance lest is :.. SO% 6. Prevalence test is s a.a • ·-·- (A) (B) (AIB) fB) 7. Morphologltal Adaptations* (provide supporting 6. data in remarks or on a separate sheet) •• Wetland Non.Vaseular Plants• 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetati011 • (explain) 11. .. rote.I Covar .. Indicators of liydric soil and weUand hydrology musl be r'lresent unless disturbed or oroblematic W<WVh• Vine Stnltum (Plot size ' 1 2. Hydrophytic Vegel:lltJon Yes D No ~ = To1al Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Reman<s//': ,,/ ~ ( / v~5. dJ~·/ ,; :1!'.etiJ a·. /).,1,·'4J.·-· ! , (.,._} ( /.: (·• . : (1 ... . • ,,~ ... /. ··-~i .... ' I'-·· I US Army Corps afEngineet"3 Western Mountains. Valleys. and Coaso'-fnlerim Version SOIL Sampling Point DP·5 Profile Desc Hon: I Describe to the deoth needed to document the Indicator orconfinn the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color moisf '" Color rmotst1 % r,ne Loe' T•"'"re Remarks f") -11' /P, ,t;../ ~'~ /t,y, :z; u~ ',,.:,~VIC.. ~ /Lf '..! ~ n· :. ~Jt-~ / . ..,. 7,"' .. ., II -A n , .J , 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Ree1uced Matrtx, CS=covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Lg rl<: Soll lndicaton,, (Applicable to all LIB un,..s otherwise noted.) lndfcaton for Problematlc Hydrlc Soils~ Hiatosol {A1} Sanciy Redox {S5) 112cm Muck (A 10) ~ Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) =a Black Hislic (A3} .Q Loamy Mucky Mineral {F1) (except MLRA 1) other (e:w:ptain in remarks} Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) ...Q_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix {F2J ~ Depleted Bekm Dark Surface (A 11) ..Q Depeted Matrix (F3) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology mus1 Thick Dane Surface {A12} ..Q Redox Dal'k Surface {F6J Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _..Q_ Depleled Dark Surface (F7} be present, unless disturbed or problematic :::ii Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _..Q_ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver rif oresentl: INo~I Tw,, Hydr1e ,011 present? I Vas DJ Depth (inches): Remarks: llilI~'f,:_., 50.1·(1/ l,.,t;-~,a ·/~~r·s (/ '1 re n u-1-nU-i HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum otone required: check Bit that apply): Seconda,y Indicators (2 or more ,equire!IJ: 0 Surface water (A 1) Sparaely Vegetated concave Surface (88) High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained leaves (axcapt MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 49) (B9) Saturation (AS) Saft Crust (811) Waler-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (81 O) Water Marks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} Drift; Deposits {83) Oxidized Rhlzospheres along Living Roots (CJ} Algal Mat or Crust (B4) P~senoe of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (BS) Recent Iron Reduction in Ttlled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Craeks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1 J (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aelial other (explain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Field Observations Surface Water Preserit? Yes Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes Dry-Season water Table (C2) Sab.Jration Visible on Aeriat Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAe-.Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hurnmock.s ~ ~: )ff' Depth (in), Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D I No Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (in)· f l:f;;, I/ (includes capUtary fringe) Describe Reco~ Data {stream gauge, monitoring well, aeilal photos, preVlous inspections), if available: Ktuitt-'11 u) G.!<1 Jc,i,. Remarks: US Anny Corps of Engineers Western MountainS, V8/lo13, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Stte: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel / Sampling Date· 418109 ApplicanUOwner; Hawks landing, LLC Sampling Point DP-6 Investigator: Pat/Oscar/Jeromv City/County: Renton/Kina Section, Township, Range: S29T24N R5E Slate: WA Landform (hllfslope, terrace, etc) ·/ .• : .. -;, .,, S!ope (%)di: -Local refief (concave, convex, none) e,.:,.11 ;, :_'I/·( Subregion (LRR) A I Lat47.5338 ' Long-122.19487 / Datum Soll Map Unit Name No, Norma ! NVVI dassificallon: None Are <::fimatiCJhydrologfc conditions on the srte typical for this time of year? [Rj Yes c±!:J No (If no, explain in remarks.} Are ~Normal Circumstances" present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation 0, Soil. D, or Hydrology D significantly disturbed? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks) Are Vege!ation O, Soll, D, or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site mao showino samolina point locations, transects, important featuntS, etc. Hydropl1ytic Vegetation Present? 11 Yes 00 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? ~ Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No WeHa.nd Hydrology Present? Yes No OJ No Remarks.: /1; ://-,1, ,,r,/ ,-;·, /-_,. ,,-· .-:/1 .. , ,..-~-f,'' (,,,f..,..",f I .< ! • ' -' L •• '. • It, I• :.,· j / _Yi: <'l ;,, ,-.. ;··" , . :-" r / VEGETATION-Usa scientific names of Dfants. Tree Strab.Jm (Plot size 20 ft R I Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover s~1es1 Status 1. rr.r/,,,o __ ,;_ v"" .. lrJll ..1 /".'Fi";"'"_,,.: y ,.,.,,,, Number of Dominant Species ;)_ 2 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) • Total Number of Dominant 3 4. Species Across All Strata: (B) =TotalCoVflr Pement of Dominant Specie& 7/ (& 9{ that ere OBL, FACW, or FAG: 12: (A/8) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1 o ft R_t , 1. P, "··' A/r:.,...,..,{·1" r,')~J-:J~ ~ Fff ,/J Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. -,,n1,,.. s " -. ..:C!: I· ~ -~ / ..., ,·, '" ro,,,., % cover of !,!y!!!m,J,:1 • , OBL.species x1= 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species X3 = = Tota! Covar FACU species x4 ~ UPLspecies x5=- Herb Strab.Jm (Plot Size 5 ft R ) Column totals (A) I (BJ 1. 2. Prevalence Index -== B I A = 3. 4. Hydro 'MffU"O VenatatJon Indicators 5. ,7'.. Dominance tl!!st Is> SOC'.4 6. Prevalence test is s 3. D * 7. Morphological AdaptaUoos ~ (provide supporting B. data In remerlcs or on a separate sheet) •• Wetland Non-Vascular Planr.s • 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation • (explain) 11. -Total Cover • Indicators ol hydric soil and weuand hydrology must be l'lt"PotAnt, unless disturbed or Dftlblematlc Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size l 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation --= Total Cover Present? Yes X No 0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum JI)% Remarl<s IJr;,1··,,1._),,;'., I,,~ 11c,:,1. ,:.1,~l-cr;/:-, dtl;Jli )11.,1 ·'17~!.;.___ {_£.{ 1 is (;1, l{:_t • " ' u ' ·-.. · .. ' ) Wes/em Mountains. Valleys. and Coast -Interim Vernion ' SOIL Samplina Point -6 -DP r Profile-Descrl tion: 'Describe to the decth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. ' Depth Matrix Redox Features 'inches' Color lmoisn % Color 1moist1 % T e' Loe' Tex!ure Rematics r;,c, , -~·.J.: '/' ~ ..,. ,,, </C, 7, '$''Yf '((:!-lJ, > /0,, .D ~ -- 1Type. C:Concentratlon, D=Oepletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Loe: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ~ nc Soil Indicators: (Appllcable to aH LRR11, unless otnerwlse noted.) fndtcators for Ptoblematic Hydric Solt&3 :B Hlstoso! (A 1} JJ Sandy Redax (S5) 00 2cm Muck (A 10) Histic Epipedan (A2) __Q_ Stripped Matrix (SS) Red Parent Material (TF2) ffi Black Hlstic (A3) ;§:; Loamy Mucky Mineral (f1) (&xcept MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4J Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2} Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix {f3) ..Q Thick Dart Surface {A 12) D Redox Dafk Surface (F6) 3 indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetlMd hydrology musl tB Sancty Mueky Mineral (S1) ffi Dep!eled Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy G!eyed Matrix {S4) Redox Oepresaions (FB) Restrictive Laver fif oresentl: l!r:1 Type: I Yes I No D I Hydrtc &OJI present? Depth (inches): Remarks: lr}jd11;:_, St'i.· , .I t ·, C " • :_:-~ r '/ -":1 ~ ( • -/,· J./ fr_:. I::_ t?)~--~ , I .. '' , , J ,j HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required.· Cflecl( aH that apply): Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) igh Water Table (A2) Water..Stalned Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) Seconda,y Indicators (2 or more required}: water.Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (810) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (81) Aqualic Invertebrates (813) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Vislble on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Posit.ion {D2) Drift Deposit, {83) Oxidized Rhlzospfleres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (03) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (95) Recent Iron Reduction In TIiied Soils (C6) SurfaOB Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01 J (LRR AJ lnuoc;latlon Visible on Aeria! Other (explain In remarks) Imagery (87) Fteld Obsarvauona SLirface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (indudes capillary fringe) US Army Corps of Engineer:s Depth (In): Depth on>: B '' Depth (in): :;:,,,./f,,1.(c;,?_ FAC·Neutra! Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost.Heave Hummcx:ks Wettand HydfOlogy Present? Yes k't No /..._ /.1.,.,~,7, ... DI We:;:tem Mountain:;:, VaHeys, and Coast-Interim Version Project Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Section, Township, Range· WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands OelineatJon Manual Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Ho.tel Sampling Date: Hawks Landin9, LLC Sampling Point PaUOscar/Jerom~ City/County: S29 T24N R5E State: 4/J'{/09 DP-7 Renton/Kina WA --- Landfarm (hlUslcpe, terrace. etc) srope {%) Local relief (concave. con1Jex, none) Subregion (LRR) A I Lat 47.5338 Ln,9-122.19487 J Datum Sou Map Unit Name No, Norma I NWI classification: None ·- --~ Are climatlc/hydrologlc conditions on the sile typical ror this time of year? l±J Yes cBJ NO (ff no, explain in remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstances· present on the Site? Yes No Are Vegetation 0. Sail, 0, or Hydrologv D significantly dislurbed? No (If needed, explain any answera In Remarks.) Are Vegetation 0, Soil, D, or Hydrology D naturaUy problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site maD ahowtnD samDlina Point locations, transects, lm.,.,rtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 00 Yes 00 No IB this Sampling Point within a Wetland? rnJ Yes ~ No Hydric Soils Present'7 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 20 ft R I Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cove, Soecies? Status 1. .r. .. ,{~'U-t',,. r J-·,-!'<'A J; !/.ti :)-1 ,.,__ ..,., Fl"t::, Number of Dominant Species ;;).__ 2. I tflat are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 3 Total Number of Dominant 5 4. Species Across A£/ Strata: (B) -c,;,· ' = Tote! Cow:ir Percent of Oominant Species 7,/ (t~; "'( that are OBL, FACW, or FAC; -;, • (A/B) SapUng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1Q._ft fl.___) 1. K' II l•Wf •": A,., .,.,.,,,t.1r ;.; {) , " ' ,v • Prevalence Index Worksheet 2. . Igtal ~ ,.. -· ·-r nf Myltif2lX b~ 3.1,~.,·r1u (' . ..:V:·!~:11( ;1 t, L ( ,~ .., 1-HC·~' OBL species X 1.., 4 FACW species x2= ,. FACspecies x3 = 7/h..,. "' Tota! Cover FACU species x4= UPL species x5= Herb 3tratum (Plot size 5 ft R ) Column lotals (A) I (8\ 1. u --,,,11 ii '" .,.._ ·'1/'" .,., ~ '"'-,,, 7 rt[ ft I 2. ' ' Prevalence Index= 8 /A= 3. n1!'l1a,,i-:.., ,:1,·1n}(?l rd Pt,·,· I w,, LI 1--,.f'W 4. , Hydronhytic Veaet.ation Indicators 5. 70Yf;.J<.Ci(/_JilJ)J I",~.: ,',r:~!A.#lr.' ,t_ I •:::; ~I r:-e.J( r1 >< Oom1nanc:e test Is > 50"/., 6. Prevalence test is .s 3.0'" 7. Morphological Adaptations• (provide supporting B. data in remarks or on a separate sheet) .. Welland Non.vaseular Plants• 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation ~ (explain) 11. -, , -, ,, = Total Cover • Indicators of h)'dric soil and weuand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or ........ blernafic Woodv vtnit Stratum (Pio! size I 1. 2. Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes ;,( No D I • .?' Co,~ t. , Preaent? 7'.?9a (,. ;r-f.· . ' ' ·' ' ' % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum , ra.,,,,.1,,,1,. "- Remarl<s /) , ; ~/ ,: J: /. , ' v, , I.. s 1 ,, =-.,, , .. (; ; ! , I ~:: . J c7';,.'J. -~ ,' ~-~~,:_,, .;., ( • ' US Army C~ of Engineer.; Western Mountains. Valleys. and Coast -lnten'm VBrsion SOIL Sampling Point DP-7 Profile Descrl tlon: IOeacribe to the de needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicator&. Depth Matrix Redox Features finches\ Color /moist\ % Color cmoistl % T= Loe' Texture Remarks / 1~. I I -'O ~ IZ. -I'[,(· ,/, F. (/_1· •1{ ----' -, L ?.C:., .. (4'//,-, fr;)· ,. -•.>,-,) ,,.if 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduce1 Matrix, CS:Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2 Loc: PL =Pore Lining, M=Matrix .J1Y: r1e Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRR& unless otnerwlae noted.) Indicators for Problematic f+Jdrle Solh1? _Q Histosal (A1) 0 Sandy Redox (S5) 00 2cm Muck (A10) 0 Histic Epipedon (A2) ! Stlipped Matrix. (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) tE Black His tic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1 J Other (explain In remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) I Loamy Gleyed Matri, (F2) =E Depleted Belew Dall< Surlace (A 11 J Depleted MatliX (F3) Thick Dall< Surface (A12) Redo>< Dall< Surface (F6) 3 lndica!Ors of hydrophytic 1/egetation end wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral {$1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ...Q. Sandy Gleyed MatriX (S4) _g_ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver lif oresentl· Type: I Yes 01 I No ~, Hydric soil present? Depth (inches): Remarl<s: f!Jd-'i t! :;: ...... ,. -~ , ! J Jr.,...(.,:~ /'.'_l/i,,_,i £2/C ric-: ,?Jl.:..·:", HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary lndicato~ (minimum at one required: ell eek all that apply}' Secondary Indicators (2 or~ required): Swface waler {A 1) O Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) water-Stained Leaves (except NLRA 1, 2, 4A Iii 48) {89) 0 Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A& 48) Drainage Patterns (B10) Ory.Season Water Table (C2) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (811} Water Mams (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide ooor {C1} Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Cruat (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4} Iron Deposits {85) Recent Iron Redudion in Tilled SOils (CS} Surface Soil Cracks {B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) tJ Inundation Vislble on Aerial D Other (e><plaITT In "'mall<s) Imagery (87) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes Depth {in}: Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery {C9) Geomorphlc Position (D2J Shallow Aquitard (D3} 0 FAG-Neutral Test (05} Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks ~ !No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No ~ > l'o ,, Satun;ition Present? Yes No Depth (ln): {includes capillary fringe) Oe_Wib~ Recorded Pf!a (strea~ gauge, monitoring weU, a~rial photos, preViOus inspections], if available: /'(tu.lfJI.-t:.t,kl -,,;'i; A ) ""Ji 1 Vr te.S,. ; , (,-:; I {ilfti '.,[7:,)·,· >~.J. I J . , -""- US Army Corps at Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys. and Coast-Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys1 and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Sile: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: '-1 ·· / :./~·cf? ApplicanUOwner: Hawks Lendina, LLC Sampling Point -L;J~8 Investigator: PaUOscar/Jeromy City/County: Renton/Kina Section, Township, Range: S29 T24N R5E State: WA Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc) j'/t _ii·,'} :,(1 ,: Slope(%) I ___ "/ Local relier (concave, convex, none) ,:,",:( Subregion {LRRJ A [ Lat47,533S Long -122, 19487 I Datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma I NWI c1asslficat1on: None Ara climatic/hydrologiccondllions oo the site typical for this time of year? ITj Yes l::B:i No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are ·Normal Circumstances· present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation O. Soil, 0, or Hydrology D slgnificanuy dlsturoed? No Are Vegetation D, Soil, D. or Hydrology D naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site mao showina samDlina noint locations, transacts. important features, etc. Hydrophyllc Vegetation Present? 00 Y;,es': I NNN 0 o 0 Is this Sampling Polnl within a Welland? [QJ Yes Hydric: Soils Present? WeUand Hydrology Present? Remarl<s: t,-1:,A.{1.,,.,;:;~I:' ''{ i VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tree Stratum (Plot slze 20 ft R ) Absolute% Cover ,, { ff f1!J.:', J/1,)r;J _ --.,l/J7.-, 2. 3 '· . ' / /17'~~. Sapling/Shrub Stratum {Plot size .1.Q • ..fl R___J ' ' '' , .. ,,. .A,.,..-· ?.!1,,,r,, ,,.1..n ., t ,• ,' I " Dominant lndicalor Dominance Test Worksheet S=jes? Status -,-, I-;.)t..., Numtier of Domlnanl Species that are DBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: :::: Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species ·1.;~ that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~ 1-l_ I f.l Prevalence Index Worksheet ;)_ 3 (Q!o % ' ' u< r,)1,·1111 ,;,1;·(11 ~~ ,; C Total % cover of MultiD!~l:1~ 3. -',, n.:oi .. ;·1;Y} , 0 I 1,ifj ) ""· :vh; /,J • ',,.-1 OBLspecies x1= ' " -~·'' < I ·i-'f, /,_I•/, (:'.' ,., ,~.-1.: I L C.,-1 FACW species x2== ' ' FAC species x3= LJ ·1 "7,!j -Tolal Cover FACU species x4- UPL species x5- HerfJ Stratum (Plot size~ ) Column totals (A) I 1. 2, Prevalence Index== B /A= 3. 4, Hvdroi:: hvnc Ver»1tatlon Indicators 5, >< Dominance test is :,, 60% 6. Prevalence lest is s 3.0 • (A) (B) (AIB) !Bl 7. Morphological Adaptations • (provide supporting •• data ln remarks or on a separate sheet) Q, Welland Non-Vascular Plants• 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation• {!!)(plain) 11, = Total Cover • Indicators or hyclnc sail and wetJand hydrOlogy must be oresent. unless disturbed or i:nublematic Woodv Vine Stratum !Plot stze l 1. 2. Hydropbytic Vegetation Yes ~ No D = Total Cover Present? r· % Bare Ground in Hert Stratum ,,, f/i Remarks· fa,,:_·' I --.: . .-t,?· :> Su-:: /0/(7, It·/ j ·,' ~ , .:-i ~1 / ' I , [ (! I I ~ ( ~ /?) 1r ,_ ,t'·:,,. " _, ' I i t I US Army Corps of Engineer5 Western Mountains. Valleys. and Coast -lnten·m Version SOIL Sampling Point DP·8 Profile DescriDtion: fOescrlbe to the denth need~ to document the lndlc:etor or confirm the absence of lndicatora. Depth Matrix Redox Features /inches\ Color {moist % Color rmoistl % T Loc:L Texture Remarks n-t.; ..;i, :.it .,)/(, ire -(" .,,·,.' t. j !,'~ , ... I '-1 ~ I '-1 I 1../ 1/·t ~ ,. '-:, • / .r-, ) . J-, ~ 'Z_ L .-, l ;;>) •J f ,;". ' _. <,.. .. ~J --.. I., f-----+--------+------l-----------+---+------1---+-----+-------------- 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Dep!eHon, RM"'Re<ltJced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains ~dl1c SCIII Jndlcaton: fAppllcable to all LRRa unlna othe-JW/se noted.) ....Q Hlstosol(A1) & SandyRedox(S5) ~ Histic Epipedon (A2) ~ Stripped Matrix (_S6) ~ Black Hlstie (A3) 0 Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _g Hydrogen Sulfide {M) Loamy Gleyed Matrtx {F2) E8 0 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix (F3} Thick Dark Surface (A12) ~ Redox Dark Surface (F6) Sandy Mudty Mineral (S1) ~ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ~ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) :.... =::.... Redox Depiessions (F8) Restrictive Laver (If c,esent); 2 Lcx:: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrb. Indicators for ProDlamlltic Hydr1c Solls3 00 2cm Mudc {A10) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (axplam In remar1':s) 3 Jndicaton; of hydrophytic vegetation and weUand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Type,---------------- Depth (inches): Hydrtc SOIi present? I Yes Remarl<s: 'fpt_t_.1 f, ;·~(' ... A), ,-I ,-, • ~. j HYDROLOGY "'.,' / . _,, .A/• ( / " " Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary lndic~ (minimum of one required: check aJJ that apply): D Surface water (A 1} q Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) High water Table (A2) D Wale1'-Stalned Leaves (•xeept MLRA 1, 2, .tA & ,IS) (89) Saturation {A3) Salt Crust (811) Waler Marks {81) Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13} Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odo< (C1) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reducl:ion in Tilled Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracka (86) Stun led or stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Inundation Vislble on Aerial D Olher (explain In remarks) Imagery (87) Field Observ1Uons Surface Water Present? Depth (in): Water Table Present? Yes No ,·:.:.-' Secondary Indicators (2 or more ,equired): -s .L. I~-,-., Water-Stained Leaves {89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Paltems (810) Dry-Season Waler Table (C2) Saturatioo Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphk:: Position (02) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAC-Neutral Test (05) O Raised Ant Mounds (D5) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks ~Yes !No ):t I 0epo, (in), // Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No SatureUon Present? Yes No Depth (in): • ..... (lndudes caplllafY fringe) >W Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monllorlng well, aerial ptotos, previous inspections). if available: Remarks: LIA_~./ US Anny Corps of Engineers ll-(1,·,,11_- !., ,· /,'' :...; c.. ! ; '. J ( . ' ... -It:/ ,_ , Wesrem Movntains, Valleys, amt Coast -Interim V~Nlll CITY OF RENTON October 19, 2009 Keith P. Scully Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Jack McCullough Jessica M. Clawson McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 South End Gives Back Brad Nicholson c/o Keith Scully 1424 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 1015 Gendler & Man, LLP Seattle, WA 98101 Ann Nielsen Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Re: Hawk's Landing Request for Reconsideration Dear Attorneys, Applicant and Appellant: Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has received two Requests for Reconsideration on the Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan, Site Plan and Environmental Appeal decisions. The original appellants, South End Gives Back (SEGB) and Brad Nicholson and the underlying applicant for the Hawk's Landing Hotel have each sought changes to the original decision. The original appellants have suggested that this office consider new information about the manner in which stormwater is managed by the applicant. In the original appeal, the appellants maintained that the "rain garden" used to collect stormwater would permit infiltration into the ground and that groundwater would flow toward the Quendall Superfund site. The appellants argued ground flow would potentially leach additional contaminants into Lake Washington. The record reflected and continues to reflect that the rain garden would actually convey storrnwater through a closed system to a ditch running along the west side of the property. The main thrust of their current request is that stormwater will be conveyed to the ditch and that ditch permits infiltration into the groundwater. They argue that the plans to use the ditch and that the ditch's conditions (pond scum) were not known prior to the hearing. The record shows that the original plans demonstrated the proposed functions of the rain garden and conveyance system. Further, the ditch had been conveying storm water from a site that is covered almost entirely with impermeable surfaces in the same manner as when the site was actively used and has been conveying stormwater in its current inactive state. There is no reason to consider the evidence as new and unavailable at the time of the hearing. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98057 -(425) 430-6515 "'"" AHIC.,1.1; Uf THE Cl•R\-E The underlying applicant for Hawk's Landing had two major objections to the decision. It suggests that this office went beyond the scope of the original Master Plan's boundaries when requiring additional landscaping. The first objection had to do with additional landscaping to screen the proposed development from the unsightly portions of the site generally cast of the parking areas and to plant street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard continuing the planting pattern for the site south of the main site. The applicant introduced evidence that the City has funds to address those areas along Lake Washington Boulevard covered by the condition. That specific evidence was not available at the public hearing. The second objection was to using "best available science" to manage stormwater so that contaminants from the site do not reach May Creek and Lake Washington. This office believes that the Master Plan should not have ignored those areas outside of the immediate hotel redevelopment parcel. Doing so leaves visually unappealing pavement as a dominant feature from the hotel and its grounds. In other words the applicant's limiting of the Master Plan site probably should have been initially rejected by staff. Frankly, when coupled with an immediate Site Plan review, Master Planning adds very little. There is nothing to coordinate the hotel's site plan with in this case -it stands alone. But rejecting the Master Plan would be inappropriate at this stage in the process since in the main it is well-designed. Therefore, in order to give some weight and meaning to the Master Plan review, the additional screening to hide or soften the impacts of the unsightly eastern parcel appears reasonable. The condition for landscaping along Lake Washington Boulevard south of the project confines will be modified to allow the City to install the landscaping. The condition to require the use of "best available science" appears reasonably related to the critical areas intended to be protected, namely May Creek and Lake Washington. The subject site will be developed with large parking areas and landscaping. The parking areas will collect contaminants from automobiles including oils, solvents, gasoline and anti-freeze and road grime. The landscaping will more than likely be treated with fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Stormwater will capture these various contaminants. The site's storm water runoff will feed a ditch that almost immediately feeds into May Creek which then almost as quickly empties into Lake Washington. Both May Creek and Lake Washington are shorelines and waters of statewide significance. They are also critical areas. RCW 36. 70A. l 72 provides the following language: "Critical areas -Designation and protection -Best available science to be used. (I) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries." The standards already exist in state law and should be used to protect both May Creek and Lake Washington. The standards imposed in this decision are no more uncertain than they are in state law. In conclusion, Condition# IO will be modified. The full list of conditions made a part of the decision are found below. "DECISION: The Site Plan if approved subject to the following conditions: J. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by ll fllndscape llrchitect registered in the State of WllShington, "certified n11rseryma11, or other similllrly qualified professional, llnd be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planni11g Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Curre11t Planning Project Manager prior to issua11ce of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-080.I. 6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Curre11t Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation,flle # VAC-09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. 5. The upplicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian-oriented fa,ade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project ma11ager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot /IS a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12-foot sidewalk widths and a 10-foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of building permit review. 9. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping are/IS. 10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east of the parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant such trees at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage." This office recognizes that appeals of the underlying decision have already been filed. This decision may change one or more of those appeals or appeal ·issues. The parties may appeal this decision within 14 days of this new decision Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton cc: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Denis Law, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer " n R D n I:, i l ' . ' : j • .I TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL For Hawk's Landing L.L.C. April 28, 2009 Prepared By: Sound Development Group, L.L.C. 1111 Cleveland Ave., Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone: {360) 404-2010 Fax: (360) 404-2013 Email: office@sdg-llc.com Project No. 8115 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARE B . OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PRO .E SJHRVy.. ENGINEER \JNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. /. DA TE :--,,.L.-~'J+ ~--,<--<--.c.-- M \SOG\200818115-Haw~s L~riding · Haw,~ Landing\dra1~\11r.doc 1 I () 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS '1 SECTION D D B ri:-J g"1I 8' r .. .. , n , t. ,Li .. t : --' j J, ' j 1.0 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. . 1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Post-Development Conditions ................................................................................ 6 2.0 Conditions & Requirements Summary ............................................................................. . 2.1 Core Requirements ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 C.R. #1 -Discharge at the Natural Location ............................................... 7 2.1.2 C.R. #2 -Off-site Analysis ...................................................................... 7 2.1.3 C.R. #3-Flow Control ................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 C.R. #4 -Conveyance System .................................................................... 8 2 1.5 C.R. #5 -Erosion & Sediment Control ........................................................ 8 2.1.6 C.R. #6 -Maintenance & Operations .......................................................... 8 2.1. 7 C.R. #7 -Financial Guarantees and Liability .............................................. 8 2.1.8 C.R. #8 -Water Quality .............................................................................. 9 2.2 Special Requirements ........................................................................................... . 2.2.1 S.R. #1 -Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements ................................ 1 O 2.2.2 S.R. #2 -Floodplain/Floodway Delineation ................................................. 1 O 2.2.3 S.R. #3 -Flood Protection Facilities ............................................................ 1 O 2.2.4 S.R. #4 -Source Controls ........................................................................... 1 O 2.2.5 S.R. #5-Oil Control. ................................................................................. 1 O 3.0 Off-Site Analysis ........................................................................................................... 11 3.1 DownstreamAnalysis ............................................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Task 2 -Resource Review .......................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Task 3 -Field Inspection ............................................................................ 12 3.1.4 Task 4 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions ............. 12 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................... 13 2 . ; n . t d '"\' ; -\ 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ...................................................................... 13 6.0 Special Reports and Studies ............................................................................................ 14 7 .0 Other Permits .......................................... , ......................................................................... 14 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design ........................................................................................ 15 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure ................................................................. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping ............................................................... 16 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration ................................................ 16 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report ......................................................................... 16 8.5 Inspection Sequence .............................................................................................. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments ......................................................... 18 8.7 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 18 8.8 TESC Conclusion ................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summary, and Declaration of Covenant.. .................................. 19 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan ................................................................................... 19 11.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19 APPENDICES Appendix A -Exhibits .................................................................................................................. 20 Figure A-1 -Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. 21 Figure A-2-Flood Insurance Rate Map-Firmette .......................................................... 22 Figure A-3 -Pre-Developed Condition Map ..................................................................... 23 Figure A-4 -Developed Condition Map .......................................................................... 24 Figure A-5-NRCS Soil Survey Information ..................................................................... 25 Figure A-6-WSDOT Basin Map .................................................................... 26 Figure A-7 -Downstream Aerial ....................................................................................... 27 Figure A-8 -TIR Worksheet ............................................................................................. 28 Figure A-9 -Facility Summary (not included) ................................................................... 29 Figure A-10 -Bond Quantity Worksheet (not included) .................................................... 30 Figure A-11 -Draft Declaration of Covenant Form (not included) .................................... 31 Appendix B -Geotechnical Report .............................................................................................. 32 Appendix C -Water Quality Calculations (not included) ......................................................... 33 Appendix D -Maintenance and Operations Plan (not included) ............................................... 34 Appendix E -Legal Description ................................................................................................. 35 Appendix F -Conveyance Calculations and Detail (not included) ............................................. 36 3 ltt ' n J :>1 .£ _; J; 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the proposed 3.06-acre project is to demolish the existing structures within the current project boundary, relocate existing onsite utilities and construct a 5-story 122,000 square foot hotel. Associated utilities will be provided to the new hotel to accommodate required fire, water, stormwater, power, cable and sanitary sewer requirements. Existing impervious areas within the development area will be demolished and re-used/recycled or removed. It is assumed that the site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be less than that of the existing site conditions. The developed runoff from the pollution generating impervious areas will be treated with Low Impact Development: rain gardens. The Western Washington Hydrology Model will be utilized to determine the required treatment stormwater runoff to size the proposed rain gardens, and can be found in Appendix C. As discussed with Alex Jones, with the King County Surface Water Department, the KCRTS is not appropriate to size rain gardens. Modifications will be made to the existing on-site Washington Department of Transportation conveyance system to re-route the existing system around the new building structure and site improvements. 4 .n'._ j 1.2 n ti r 1 i I 'l i .; i Existing Conditions The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, west of Highway 405. King County parcel number: 3224059049. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The project site basin is approximately 3.06 acres. Existing soils onsite consist of Norma Sandy Loam, with a Hydrologic group of "D", per the NRCS soil survey, A geotechnical engineering study was prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in February of 1991 and is attached to this report as Appendix B. This report describes the soils on-site, and will be updated upon site design. An on-site topographic survey was conducted by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc, in 1995. This survey was used as a base map to delineate the on-site drainage and grading for the new site plan. Sound Development Group has verified that there are no apparent major modifications to the existing on-site conditions. This office also completed an off-site topography to be utilized in the proposed off-site road improvements, in January, 2009. The project site currently supports four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and assoc_iated landscaping. The existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/re-used and removed from the site. Currently, the site is approximately 85 percent impervious. The majority of the 15 percent pervious area includes the landscaped road frontage along Lake Washington Boulevard. 5 ' ' ', .•. ---, n if ,, 'f i -1 '1 ' J '1 : I -' ' ' l -' 1.3 Post-Development Conditions Upon completion of construction, the proposed project site will consist of a new 5-story, 29,412 square foot footprint hotel, with underground parking garage. The new hotel will be provided with proposed storm and sanitary sewer, water and other appropriate utilities. Road improvements will be completed along Lake Washington Boulevard to include curb, gutter and sidewalk. Stormwater runoff from the site development will be treated with rain gardens. A portion of the southern entrance to the site, from Lake Washington Boulevard will be conveyed through a proposed basic treatment system in compliance with the King County Stormwater Design Manual, prior to discharging to the proposed public storm system. 6 !l ' . d " B [1 tl '1· ' i di '1 : r 'J ,, ' ' i" :.J. '.1 j f} i i l it l ' ! • j 2.0 2.1 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1 -Discharge at the Natural Location Currently, based on the topographic survey information and records, stormwater from the majority of the existing site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard, or within an existing onsite storm system, and discharged to said ditch. The water captured within the tight-lined system is conveyed discharged off-site to the existing ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site will occur at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch, utilizing the existing culvert to May Creek. 2.1.2 C.R. #2 -Off-site Analysis A Level 1 Upstream / Downstream Analysis, is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The analysis, upon site design, will include: • Defining and mapping the study area; • Reviewing available information on the study area; • Field inspecting the study area; and • Analyzing the existing drainage system including its existing and predicted problems, if any. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 -Flow Control The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface . Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. 7 n n B n d . ' '-1 n ' 1 LJ r 1 . ' 'I i J I t i ; 2.1.4 C.R. #4-Conveyance System The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems will be demolished / removed. Due to essentially equivalent impervious areas in the pre-developed and developed conditions, flow characteristics should be unchanged. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin. 2.1.5 C.R. #5 -Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for this site in accordance with the KCSWDM and the City of Renton requirements. The existing paved northern entrance to the site will be used as the construction entrance. Construction work limits will be determined and shown in Appendix A, Figures A-3 and A-4, upon design. The erosion and sediment control plan will be included in Section 8 of this Technical Information Report. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 -Maintenance and Operations See Appendix D of this report for further discussion on maintenance and operations requirements. 2.1.7 C.R. #7 -Financial Guarantees and Liability Financial guarantees meeting King county guarantee requirements will be provided under separate cover. See Appendix A in the future, Figure A-7 for the Bond Quantity Worksheet. 8 q . ' .l q i j J l i ' j '; . I I' , I 2. 1.8 C.R. #8 -Water Quality Water quality treatment, as required by Core Requirement #8, will be implemented and designed to target pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) and a portion of the non-pollution-generating impervious surface (NPGIS). It is intended to capture the proposed roadway/parking runoff, as well as a good portion of the NPGIS, within several individual rain gardens. The rain gardens will be designed utilizing Western Washington Hydrology Model, Version 3, to treat 91 % of the site runoff. The proposed rain gardens will meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, Section 6. 1. 9 B B q ' ,, ' . ' '.l . ' i . ' 1. d • f ; j 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2. 1 S.R. #1 -Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements N/A. 2.2.2 S.R. #2 -Floodplain/Floodway Delineation FEMA Map Panel No. 53033C0664 F, dated May 16, 1995, was consulted and shows that the site is not within a 1 DO-year floodplain. Note that the site is located in a Zone X (see Appendix A, figure A-2). 2.2.3 S.R. #3 -Flood Protection Facilities To our knowledge, the existing site does not contain flood protection facilities, nor does the proposed project intend to construct any. 2.2.4 S.R. #4 -Source Controls This project does not require ,source controls; therefore, Special Requirement No. 4, Source Control, does not apply. 2.2.5 S.R. #5 -Oil Control This project does not fit the classification of a high-use site; therefore, Special Requirement No. 5, Oil Control, does not apply . 10 n . ' ri d· H A u I ,ct 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis 3.1.1 Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps The project site represents a portion of the May Creek watershed basin. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The site currently drains south to May Creek, and eventually to Lake Washington. A boundary and topographical survey of the project site has been completed and is included in the project submittal. A Pre-Developed Condition Map is included in this report in Appendix A, Figure A-3. An upstream and downstream inspection I site visit was conducted to determine the relative basin that contributes to the shared discharge location. The contributing basin appears to include a portion of Interstate 405, associated on-ramps, Lake Washington Boulevard and the project site. The approximate 1-405 basin has been included in Appendix A - Figure A-6. The 1-405 basin is captured in a series of ditches, culverts and catch basin -pipe networks, and conveyed west to ex CB 2604 per the attached Developed conditions map. It is then tightlined south and west to the existing roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. The ditch conveys the water south, approximately 450' to an existing 24" CPP culvert. The culvert discharges the stormwater directly into the buffer of May Creek. May Creek flows to the west from the above discharge point, beneath an existing Lake Washington Boulevard bridge, beneath an existing railroad trestle, then south and west to discharge to Lake Washington. The downstream flow path of May Creek has been included in Appendix A - Figure A-7. May Creek appear to be well vegetated, with no conveyance or erosion problems. 11 '! I u '! ;_ i . ' 3.1.2 Task #2 -Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential problems in the study area: 1. FEMA Maps. 2. Critical Areas Map and Wetlands Inventory Map: A critical areas report is being prepared. 3. Soils Information: The geotechnical report for the project site was consulted, and no special conditions apply. (Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix B.) 4. Drainage Complaints: City records will be consulted to determine if any drainage complaints are on file. 5. Erosion Problems. There are no erosion problems at the site due to the fact that it is almost 100 percent impervious. 3.1.3 Task #3 -Field Inspection Sound Development Group staff walked the project site on March 12, 2009. There was no rain at the time of this inspection. The site was observed to be comprised of primarily concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Minimal landscaping in the parking area was observed. 3.1.4 Task #4-Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The drainage system consists of sheet flow to an existing roadside ditch and catch basins to a closed conveyance systems. The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. This will contribute to conveyance problems, ditch and pipe siltation, and possible clogging of the existing system, and should be remedied. There are no known overlapping problems at this site, or within May Creek. 12 n u n , I i., 'l t d l l 4.0 5.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This site is will meet flow control requirements. See Section 2.1.3 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. This site is will meet the Water Quality Core Requirement. See Section 2.1.8 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW. Due to no change within the WSDOT basin, flow characteristics should be unchanged, and existing sizing will be utilized. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin upon site design. 13 n i l' iJ "1 ; '' ' .! ' 1 l j 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Critical Area Investigation by Graham and Bunting. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS SEPA Checklist -City of Renton Building Permit -City of Renton Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOi) -DOE Clearing and Grading Permit -City of Renton 14 8.0 ,., J rJ.' ... CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure The proposed project will include an erosion/sedimentation control plan designed to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site during construction. Currently, the site is approximately 85% percent impervious. Maintaining existing surfacing where construction allows, will help ensure erosion/sedimentation control. Additional control can be achieved by cover measures and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. Prior to the start of any construction activity upon the site, erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance with this plan and the construction documents. The best management practices will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. The planned construction sequence for erosion control is as follows: 1. Stake and flag the clearing limits. 2. Schedule and attend a pre-construction meeting with the City of Renton, the Owner, and Engineer. 3. Identify existing entrance(s) to be used as construction entrance(s). 4. Provide catch basin sediment protection. 5. Provide miscellaneous demolition within the clearing limits as necessary to construction project. 6. All on-site erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected at least once every 5 working days, each working day during a runoff producing rain events, and within 24 hours after a runoff producing rain event. The contractor shall repair or replace erosion control measures as required. 7. As necessary, adjust temporary erosion control measures as work progresses. 8. Install stormwater facilities. fine grade areas to receive surfacing and provide the surfacing indicated on the plans . 9. Stabilize all remaining disturbed areas. 10. Contact the City of Renton for final inspection. 11. Remove sediment from catch basin sumps. Remove remaining temporary erosion control devices when the area has been permanently stabilized with vegetation and surfacing, and the removal is approved by the City and the Owner. 15 ., .. , 'l i . i ' ' . J 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Structural control measures will not be used on this site due to the fact that it consists almost entirely of existing concrete, asphalt, and buildings within the work limits. Specifically, during the period of May 1 through September 30, the contractor will not be allowed to leave soils unprotected for more than 15 days, and immediate seeding will be required for areas brought to finish grade with no further work planned for the next 30 days. Areas to be paved may be armored with crushed rock subbase in place of other stabilizing measures. The area of clearing will be limited to the amount that can be stabilized by September 30 of that year. During the period of October 1 through April 30, all disturbed soil areas will be covered or stabilized within 2 days or 24 hours when a major storm event is predicted. Cover measures may include mulching, netting, plastic sheeting, erosion control blankets, or free draining material. The extent of clearing shall be limited to the amount of land that can be covered or stabilized within 24 hours. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized by plastic covering. In order for the TESC facilities to function properly, they must be maintained and sediment removed on a regular basis. Inspection and sediment removal shall be performed on all TESC facilities as described in the inspection schedule located in Section 9.4 of this report. 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration 8.4 Permanent site stabilization and erosion control will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. 2. Paving of driving and parking surfaces. Landscaping (including hydroseeding). Geotechnical Analysis and Report Geotechnical analysis has been completed for this site and is contained in Appendix B . 16 8.5 ' ' . ' i ... ~ • . J Inspection Sequence The Contractor shall inspect the temporary erosion control facilities prior to commencement of construction. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining TESC facilities. Erosion control facilities shall not be allowed to fall into disrepair. All TESC facilities shall be inspected, as a minimum, according to the following schedule. • Dry Season: Once a week. • Wet Season: Daily, and after every storm event that produces runoff . Needed repairs shall be made within 24 hours or immediately, if possible. If necessary, the Engineer or City will instruct the Contractor to provide additional facilities as warranted during field inspections. The Contractor shall provide the name and contact information for the designated Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead to the City of Renton prior to beginning construction . Additionally, the following inspection/maintenance schedules shall be utilized to ensure the TESC facilities are functioning as designed. Plastic Covering: • Plastic sheeting shall be inspected once a week during both the wet and dry season. • Torn sheets must be replaced and open seams repaired. • If the plastic begins to deteriorate due to ultraviolet radiation, it must be completely removed and replaced . • When the plastic is no longer needed, it shall be completely removed. • If tires are used to weight down the plastic sheeting, they must be disposed of properly . Inlet Protection: • Catch basin filter inserts shall be inspected frequently, especially after storm events. If the filter becomes clogged, it should be cleaned or replaced. • Inserts shall be replaced when tears are detected. If the erosion control facilities are damaged, or if the CESCL, project Engineer or City determines that existing controls are inadequate, the contractor shall install additional measures as required. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments The contractor shall be responsible for controlling pollutants at the work site. Key elements such as centralized areas for equipment and concrete truck washing and temporary storage of debris and other stockpiled materials are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor may elect to follow the detailed guidance on control of non- sediment pollutants as outlined in the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Department of Ecology, February 1992, Section 11-3 (included as Appendix E). 8. 7 Utilities In general, in order to prevent conflicts between the utilities. the sanitary sewer system shall be installed first due to the depth of the installation. The storm system shall then be constructed and the water system shall follow. During trenching activities, no more than 500 feet of open trench shall be allowed at any time. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of the trench except where limited by safety or space requirements. Trench dewatering, if required, shall discharge to a sediment-trapping facility. 8.8 TESC Conclusion Erosion control procedures as described in this report and illustrated on the design plans, if properly implemented, should mitigate anticipated erosion effects from the development of this project. 18 i] . • n q ii ! f n ,_ j . ' i j [1 I..! '1 . ' l 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARY, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet, TIR Worksheet, Facility Summary Form, and Draft Declaration of Covenant Form will be provided in Appendix A upon site design. 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance and operation of storm facilities is the responsibility of the Owner. All drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with King County maintenance standards. A Maintenance and Operations Plan will be provided in Appendix E upon site design. 11.0 CONCLUSION This site will be designed to meet KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management. The existing conveyance system will be reused and rerouted as necessary to facilitate the new building footprint. The storm drainage calculations and modeling provided in this report will meet King County standards for sizing stormwater conveyance systems and treatment facilities. This analysis is based on topographic surveys, supplied data and records. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project should not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. The backwater problem within the existing ditch and it's contributory system should be remedied. This project should not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. 19 ATTACHMENT B WetlandJStream Study: Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel Prepared for: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Prepared by: t Graham-Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Ph.360. 766.4441 Fx. 360. 766.4443 May 12, 2009 Table of Contents Section/Subsection Page Project Summary ----------------------------------------------------------ll I. 0 Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------- 2. 0 Existing Conditions ---------------------------------------------- 3. 0 Project Description ----------------------------------------------------3 4. O Existing Information -------------------------------------------------3 4.1 National Wetland Inventory--------------------------------3 4.2 Soil Survey of King County-------.-----------------------4 4 .3 May Creek Basin Action Plan ------------------------------5 4 .4 Barbee Mill (BA) -------------------------------------------5 4.5 Fawcett Property Wetland Delineation -------------------5 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map-----------------------------5 5. 0 Stream Study -----------------------------------------------------------5 5. I Riparian Functions -------------------------------------------5 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark-------------------------------7 5 J Stream Classification and Regulations----------------8 6.0 Wetland Study-------------------------------------------------------9 6. I Methodology -------------------------------------------------9 6. 2 Findings -----------------------------------------------------I 0 6.3 Data Summary Table--------------------------------------l l 6. 4 Data Digest -----------------------------------------------11 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations----------------12 7.0 Regulatory Summary and Mitigation Measures------------------13 7. l May Creek --------------------------------------------------13 7.2 Drainage Ditch (Class 5 Water)--------------------------14 7.3 Wetlands A and B -------------------------------------------14 7.4 Drainage Ditch (nonregulated wetland) ------------------14 7.5 Water Quality-----------------------------------------------14 8. O Closure ---------------------------------------------------------------14 9. 0 References -------------------------------------------------------------l 5 Attachments Wetland Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan----Attachment A Proposed Conditions------------------------------------------------------------Attachment B Wetland Field Data Forms -------------------------------------------------------Attachment C Graham-Bunting Associates H awkY Landi ne 1\fav 2009 Environmental &Land Use Services PROJECT Sl/MMARY Project: Project Sjte· Project Location: Project Proponent: Methods: Field Dates: Streams & Wetlands: Proposed Mitigation: Project Staff: OrahamwBunting Associates Hawks Landingl>fav 2009 Construction ofa 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel including underground parking and ground level parking. The project site is a 3.06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The subject property is located at the southwest comer of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44"' Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Wetland -Routine On-Site Methodology, 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-97- 1) -Corps Interim Regional Supplement, April 2008 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, Ecology Publication #96-94 City of Renton Critical Area Regulation: RMC 4-3-050 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program: RMC 4-3-090 March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009 May Creek -Class I Water, Shoreline of the State Drainage ditch-Class 5 Water/Nonregulated Wetland Wetland A -433 square foot Category 2 Wetland Wetland B -481 square foot Category 2 Wetland Subject proposal will avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Patricia Bunting, Wetland Ecologist PWS Oscar Graham, Wetland Ecologist ii Environmental & land Use Services Photo 3: View south showing drainage ditch and inlet to buried pipe 3.0 Project Description Photo 4: View west showing outfall of buried pipe at May Creek (right offigure). The proposal is to demolish the existing structures associated with the Pan Abode facility and utilize approximately 3.06 acres of the subject property fur construction ofa 5 stoty, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel. The proposed Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will consist of: • One level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls • Ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square feet, 2,152 square feet, and 3,360 square feet for retail, spa and restaurant facilities respectively • Four levels of guestrooms • A total of approximately 126 surface level parking stalls, inch1ding five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles {NEVs)) • Two access points along Lake Washington Boulevard • Storm water facilities including rain gardens • Sanitary sewer, water and other utilities Preliminaty designs indicate that the hotel will maintain a maximum height of 60 feet. Required land use permits include site plan review, environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), building permits and a street vacation. All development including required infrastructure will be located a minimum of277 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek. (Attachment B: Proposed Conditions) 4.0 Existing Information The subject property has been addressed under a number of existing studies. These information sources have been reviewed and synthesized to assist GBA in characterizing the subject property. The sources are sununarized as follow: 4.1 National Wetland Inventory The National Wetland Inventory (NWl) is compiled by the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. NWI relies upon visual aerial photo interpretation of wetland indicators including hydrologic, vegetation and topographic signatures. NWI does not identify wetlands within the vicinity of the subject property. It should be recognized however; that the forest canopy associated with the riparian corridor of May Creek would likely obscure the indicators upon which NWT relies. GBA utilize NWI only as a generalized map indication of the possible Graham-Bunting Associqtes 3 Environmental & Land Use Seniices Hawks Landing Assessment (5/J 2109) presence and extent of wetlands. Reconnaissance and delineation procedures are always based on an on-site assessment. 4.2 Soil Survey of King County. Area Washington The Soil Survey is compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and includes mapped soil units registered to detailed descriptions of soil characteristics, The survey identifies one soil unit within the subject property boundaries. The map unit appears to include the entire floodplain associated with lower May Creek No-Norma sandy loam is a poorly drained soil typically found on floodplains with slopes between O and 2 percent. The parent material is alluvium, Minor components include Seattle. Tukwila and Shalcar soils. Norma sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil under criteria L. 2. b) (3) and 3. 1. All Histosols except folists 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are: b} poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (3) water table equal to 1.0 feet from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches. 3, Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. .1, Figure 3 -National Wetland Inventory http :I /wetl andsfws. er. us gs. gov/ 4 J May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 200 I) Figure 4 -Soil Smvey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app The May Creek Basin Action Plan was funded by King County and the City of Renton outlines a set of actions addressing the threat of flooding, facilitation of stormwater conveyance to stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and warer quality, The plan is intended to prevent existing problems within the basin from becoming worse in the Graham-Buntin/! Associates 4 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LandingAssessment (5/12109/ future The plan provides b3scline mformation relating to conditions in the basin including a map sheet rcflcctmg the approximate location and extent of wetlands. It is noteworthy that the wetland map identifies a small wetland in the vicinity of the drainage ditch described under existing conditions. 4.4 Biological Assessment: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (August 2002) Raedke Associates, Inc. prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to evaluate potential effects of the proposed subdivision on federal and state listed species. The BA includes a characterization of May Creek and Lake Washington, documents species use, and identifies mitigating conditions to ameliorate project generated impacts to listed species. The Barbee Mill development is located just west of Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the subject property. 4.j Weiland Delineation Report: Fawcett Property (December 2000) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prepared a Wetland Delineation Report addressing a portion of the area located south of the subject property. While the contiguous area south of the subject property is under the ownership of Dr. Greg Fawcett, the delineation focused only on the area south of May Creek. The report includes observations relating to May Creek and hydrology, soil and vegetation within the riparian corridor. 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map The Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps and classifies waters of the state pursuant to WAC 222-16-031 on the Forest Practice Stream Type Maps. The maps were reviewed to assist in characterizing the project area. May Creek is identified as an S (Shoreline) Water of the State. Type S waters are defined as: "All waters, within their bank.full width, as inventoried as 'shorelines of the state' under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. No additional Waters of the State were identified on the Stream Type Maps. 5.0 Stream Study May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly approximately 8.6 miles to Lake Washington. The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agricultural, conunercial, industrial and public infrastructure development including runoff from 1-405. The stream reach located south of the subject property lies between the J-405 bridge crossing in the east and the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge crossing in the west. This reach of May Creek is identified as Reach 8 and characterized in the City of Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis as relatively unaltered (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008) 5. l Riparian Functions Observations gathered during our site investigation, conducted during the early spring of 2009, indicate a high level ofin stream and riparian corridor functions. The stream is low gradient(< 8%) and displays a complex of low velocity pools mixed with swifter moving riffles and runs. In stream structure is provided by naturally recruited large woody debris (LWD) consisting of native deciduous species and installed habitat features including anchored root wads and cabled logs. Riparian functions are closely linked to vegetation along the stream bank and adjacent floodplain. Graham-Bunting Associates 5 Environmental & land {I.re Services Hawks landing Assessment (5/12109) L\VD Recruitment -While large conifers are generally the preferred source ofLWD, the presence of mature deciduous species throughout the stream reach provides an ongoing source for recruitment of woody material into the stream. LWD promotes complexity within the stream and provides holding areas for salmonids and resident fish species. Bank Stability -The three strata vegetation community along the riparian corridor promotes bank stability through establishment of deep root systems. The anchored roots help hold the sandy loam of the floodplain intact and minimize the forces of erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity. Reed canarygrass, often viewed as an undesirable species, is very effective in promoting bank stabilization. Unfortunately it also may colonize aggressively reducing the diversity of native plant species. Shade -The deciduous tree canopy provides shade during low flow summer months and helps to maintain cool temperatures and maintain dissolved oxygen levels required by sa!monids and resident fish species. Water Quality -Emergent vegetation including vigorous communities of reed canarygrass contiguous to the OHWM provide for the filtering of sediments and pollutants. Reed canarygrass is viewed as an invasive species; however, its dense mat like quality provides an e,ccellent filtering function that helps prevent delivery of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters. Photo 5 -View upstream ( east) showing L WD and riparian vegetation south of subject property. Photo 6 -View of installed habitat feature consisting ofroot wad (right) anchored to rock (left) with chain located near I-405 bridge. Fish and Wildlife Habitat -While no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during our site investigation, May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon. Winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Sa/mo c/arki clarki) are also known to utilize the creek (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008). Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon are listed as a candidate species under ESA. May Creek does not have a self sustaining Chinook run. Chinook observed in May Creek are likely strays from the Cedar River (Lucchette 2002). Coho are known to utilize Lake Washington and May Creek Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production (Raedeke 2002). Puget Sound Steelhead have utilized May Creek on a historic basis and may remain present in depressed numbers (Salmonscape 2009). A Graham-Bunting Associates 6 Environmental & Land Use Sen>ices Hawks Landing Assessment (5/12109) review of pertinent literature relating to Lake Washington salmonid stocks indicates a high degree of uncertainty as to the genetic origins of sa!monids utilizing May Creek. It is possible that individuals from the Puget Sound and Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Units (ES Us) utilize tl1e habitat provided by the creek. TI1e riparian area provides excellent feeding and cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species. Small mammals such as voles utilize uplands within the riparian area for burrowing. GBA observed blacktail deer (Odocoi/e11s hemionus columbianus) droppings and hoof prints V<ithin the riparian corridor. Common snipe (Capella gal/inago) were flushed during several site inspections at a location near the bridge crossing at Lake Washington Boulevard. A short tailed weasel (Mus/e/a erminea) was also observed burrowing in the rip rap near the bridge abutment. A pair of Osprey (Pandion halia/us) was observed perched on a nest platform near the mouth of May Creek. Additional species were observed during our site investigation including: song sparrow (Me/ospiza melodia) house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) black-capped chickadee (Poeci/e atricapil/a) hairy woodpecker (Picoides vil/osus) spotted tol'Mee (Pipi/o maculatus) winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) mallard hen and drake {Anos platyrhynchos) unidentified buteo (Bureo sp.) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) gull species (Lams sp.) 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark GBA reviewed the location of the OHWM as identified and flagged in the field by David Evans Associates (DEA) in 2006 and Sound Development Group (SDG) in 2009. The guidance contained in the statutory definition was utilized in confirming the location of the OHWM. "The Ordinary high water mark on all lakes, streams and tidal water is that mark tl1at will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continues in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June I, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water." In addition, the definition contained in the Renton Municipal Code under 4-11-010 was also considered. Review was aided by a series of high water events occurring during the late winter and early spring of 2009. These one to tl'<o year flows generally correlated with the physical evidence observed along the bank of the creek. The OHWM was identified based on scour and drift lines, sediment deposits, topographic features and vegetation transitions located at or near the top of the right bark. It was not deemed necessary to adjust any of the flags placed previously by DEA and SDG. The OHWM as flagged was surveyed and is depicted on the map sheets accompanying this report. Graham-Bunting Associates 7 Environmental & land Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment (5112/09) Photo 7 -View upstream (east) showing the OHWM located at the landward extent of a sandbar and transition to persistent vegetation. 5 .3 Stream Classification and Regulations Photo 8 -View upstream showing the location of the OHWM at the top of a cut bank along the line of vegetation. The City's Critical Area Regulations RMC 4-3-050 classify May Creek as a Class 1 water. Class I Waters are pereonial salmon bearing waters classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Subsection L. Streams and Lakes: I. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply stipulates that the City's critical area regulations do not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations. Subsection 4-3-090, 5, d. establishes the standard setback for commercial development as follows: "A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50') to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the waters edge." All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will be located a minimum of248 feet landward ofthe OHWM of May Creek. The subject proposal is located outside of the 200-foot jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and is therefore compliant with the required 50-foot setback requirement. The drainage ditch located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in light of the City's Critical Area Regulations and identified as a class 5 water. RMC 4-3-050 L. Streams and Lakes: I. a. v. (a) (b) establishes the criteria for Class 5 waters as follows: ''v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non-regulated non salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half(0.5) acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M. of this section.,, Graham-Bunting Associates 8 Environmental & Land Use Serylces Hawks Landing Assessment (51121091 GBA conferred on site ,,,th the Area Habitat B1olog1st from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 1,ho provided the follo"mg observations and guidance: • The ditch is a man made feature , Work within the ditch itself will not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW , Work on the outfall to May Creek would require an HPA , Any proposed improvement to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch Based on observations gathered during our site investigation and consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist, GBA have determined that the drainage ditch is a non-salmon bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicate that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility. GBA have determined that the drainange ditch satisfies Criteria (a) as a Class 5 Water and is therefore not regulated under the City's Critical Area Regulations. The ditch will be discussed further under the following Wetland Study. 6.0 Wetland Study The following discussion addresses the procedures and methods utilized in our wetland investigation and provides a summary of our findings. 6. I Methodology GBA utilized the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is a revised version of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-ll in the preparation of this report. The Ecology Manual (along with the recent Corps of Engineers regional supplement, April 2008) represents the accepted standard for identifying and delineating wetlands for jurisdictional purposes under the Clean Water Act. OBA considered the new interim regional supplement in the assessment of field data. The Ecology manual has been adopted for use by the City of Renton for use in conjunction with the Growth Management Act mandated Critical Areas Ordinance. Both the Ecology and Corps manuals incorporate the Clean Water Act Definition of Wet lands as follows: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." The City· s Critical Areas Ordinance stipulates additional defining elements as follows: "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, fann ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July l, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands." Graham.Bunting Associates 9 Environmental & Land Use Services 1/awks landing,lssessmen/ /5/12/09) Tiie definition requires that three intcrrcbtcd defining clements or parameters be established "hen 1dcntifrmg wetlands. 1l1csc paromctcrs arc wetland hydrology, hydric soils and In drophyt1c vegetation Wdland Hydrology Water is the driving force, which creates and sustains wetlands. The 1987 Manual and subsequent Corps guidance identifies wetlands as areas where soils are inundated or continuously saturated for a minimum of5% of the growing season (approximately 12.5 days for Western Washington). When direct observation of the water table cannot be made, hydrology is detennined by relying upon hydrologic indicators such as hydric soil characteristics, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns. H ydric Soils Wetlands exhibit hydric soils. These are soils which are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during tl1e growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. These are conditions where no free oxygen is present in the upper soil horizons. Typical field indicators ofhydric soils are the presence of a thick organic layer, or in predominantly mineral soils such as found on this site, a low chroma matrix (gray color) and/or bright mottling. Soil chromas are determined by comparing soil samples with color chips in the Munsell Color Charts. Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has classified wetland vegetation according to its frequency of occurrence in wetlands: Obligate wetland species (OBL) occur in wetlands greater than 99%ofthe time. Facultative wetland species (FACW) occur in wetlands greater than 67% of the time. Facultative species (FAC) occur in wetlands 34o/.-66% of the time. Facultative upland species (FACU) occur in wetlands less than 34% of the time. Upland species (UPL) occur in wetlands less than 1% of the time. Generally the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is satisfied when greater than 50% of the species present at a data collection point have an indicator status of OBL, FACW and/or FAC; when two or more dominant species have observed morphological or known physiological adaptations for' occurrence in wetlands; or when other indicators ofhydrophytic vegetation are present. 6.2 Findings OBA conducted the site investigation on March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009. Observations were collected over a period of a month during weather conditions that transitioned from cold and wet to sunny and seasonable. Little plant growth was noted during our initial site visit, however, by mid April plants were exhibiting active growth. Indian plum, salmonberry and elderberry were rapidly leafing out and Japanese knotweed colonies along the bank of May Creek was emerging from donnant rhizomes. GBA consider the timing and weather conditions of our investigation to be optimal for the identification of wetlands. Two areas were investigated: I) The subject property (Pan Abode facility) and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek Both areas were traversed and visually inspected for indications of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The ordinary high water mark of the drainage ditch was identified and flagged on site. A single data point (DP- 7) was established along the top of the bank. A second data point (DP-2) was assessed just cast of the ditch along the southern boundary of the subject property. Three rough transects were established in an cast/west aspect between May Creek and the subject property. Six data points Craham~Bunting Associates lO Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks landing ,lssessment /5/ 12,09) (DPs 1,3,4,5,6,8) were assessed m the floodplain or riparian corridor of May Creek Soil evaluation pits were excavated to a unifonn depth of 21 inches, Hydrology, soil and vegetation were assessed at each data point. Data collected on site was recorded on data fonns and field notes. Photographs documented appropriate visual images. Data collected is sununarized in the following table. (Attachment C: Wetland Field Data Fonns) 6 3 D S ata ununsrv T bl a e DP Hvdrol011V Soil *oxidized *sandy loam 2.5Y rhizospheres -412 -rhizospheres - I fac neutral -sandy redox geomorphic oosition no indicators gravelly loam - 2 IOYR 4/3 no indicators silt loam -1 OYR 3 3/3 no indicators silt loam I OYR 3/3 4 no indicators silty day loam 5 JOYR2/2 *water table @ 8" *silty clay loam 6 -saturated to 2.5¥ 3/1 -10% surface mottles 7.5YR 4/6 Saturation@ 15" gravelly silt loam 7 IOYR 2/2 saturation below sandy loam 2. 5 Y 8 20" 414 'Wetland parameter satisfied 6 .4 Data Digest Dominant Ve~etation Status *Populus baisamifera FAC (20%) A/nus ruhra FAC (20%) Cornus stolonifera FACW (50%) Wet Carex obnupta OBL (80%) *A/nus ruhra FAC (2%) Rubus discolor FACU (25%) Up Pha/aris arundinocea FACW (95%) Populus balsamifera FAC (30%) Rubus discolor FACU (100%) Uo *Populus balsamifera F AC ( I 0%) A/nus rubra FAC ( 10%) Up Phalaris arundinocea FACW ( 100%) A/nus rubra FAC (60%) Rubus discolor FACU ( 100%) Uo *A/nus rubra FAC (60%) Rubus discolor FACU (60%) Wet Rubus sveclabtlis FAC (30%) *Populus balsamifera FAC (80%) Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Rununculus repens FACW (5%) *A/nus rubra FAC (20%) Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Cornus stolonifera FACW (20%) Based on the above data summarized above, two regulated wetlands were identified: Wetlands A and B are small depressionaJ wetlands located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. Toe wetlands receive th.eir hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. Toe wetlands are distinguished from the surrounding uplands because they are distinct topographic features, exhibit saturated soils and are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland A is a deep depression with observable hydrology at the soil surface. Soil displays a very dark matrix chroma accompanied by mottles, Vegetation is dominated by a mix offacultative plant species. Wetland Bis a gentler depression which exhibits only secondary indicators of wetland hydrology with saturation present well below the soil surface. Soil is sandier and lighter by comparison and vegetation includes a vigorous community of slough sedge (OBL). In addition to Wetlands A and B, the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in accordance with the wetland identification/delineation methodology. Although a data Graham-Bunting .Associates 11 Environmental & land Use Services Hawks landing Assessment (5/12109) point was not assessed within the ditch itself, the area within the flagged OHWM was detennined to satisfy wetland parameters. Standing water was present in much of the 500 linear foot ditch. Soil was silty and likely consists of stormwater sediment from surrounding development. Vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass. Data point 7, established at the top of bank approximately 20 feet west of the existing Pan Abode facility was assessed to characterize the area lying between the ditch and subject property. No surface water was observed although saturation was present at a depth of approximately 15 inches from the soil surface. Soil consisted of a gravely silt loam, possibly fill from the development of the Pan Abode fucility. The soil exhibited a dark matrix chroma (I OYR 2/2) but was not accompanied by redoximorphic features. The subsoil was a very light silty sand (2.5Y 6/6). Vegetation was dominated by a mix of facultative trees, shrubs and herbs. Because the hydrology and soil parameters were not satisfied the data point was determined tc be upland. Photo 9 -View of soil profile and test pit assessed at data point I. Note sandy soil and relatively light matrix chroma. 6.5 Wetland Classifi<;ation and Regulations Photo IO -View of a portion of the 481 square foot Wetland B. Note shallow depressional topography aod sedge plant community. Wetlands A and B were classified in accordance with the criteria contained under Subsection 4-3- 050 M. 1. a. ii. of the City's Critical Area Regulations as Category 2 wethmds. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands that meet one of the criteria listed under (a) through (d). Wetlands A and B were found to satisfy criteria ( d) below: "(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such a diking ditching or channelization ... " The majority of the floodplain, including Wetlands A and B, located landward of the right bank of May Creek and south of the subject property has not been subject to human related alteration. The wetlands contribute to the riparian functions discussed under the stream study earlier in this report including LWD recruitmen~ bank stability, shade, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. The wetlands functional value, however are limited by their small size which represents a combined area ofonly 914 square feet in a floodplain parcel totaling over 110,000 square feet. RMC 4-3-050 M. 6. c. establishes the standard buffer width required for Category 2 Wetlands at 50 feet. Required buffers are to be maintained in their natural condition. Buffers are required to be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Wetland A and B are located offsite 117.4 and 63.8 feet south of the subject property respectively. The area between the Graham-Bunting Associates 12 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LandingAssessment (5/J 2/09) \VethU1ds and the property line remains in a natural condition and rs vegetated primarily\\ itb native species RMC 4-3-050 M. 1. e. i. establishes the basis for regulated and non regulated wetlands as follows: "i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands -General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July I, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. The department administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements or other evidence." GBA followed the guidance provided above in assessing the regulatory status of the drainage ditch. The following findings were considered: , The Pan Abode facility was constructed on a fill pad during the mid 1950s • The fill pad appears to extend to a point near the road right of way at the top of ditch , The soil profile assessed at data point 7 displays rock typical of pit run commonly utilized as a fill base , The 2: I bank profile of the ditch is typical of an excavated stormwater conveyance facility , TI1e hydrology that charges the ditch is composed primarily of stormwater runoff from 1- 40 5, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility , Unaltered areas within the floodplain south of the subject property do not include natural linear features similar to the ditch , National Wetland Inventory does not identify the ditch as a wetland Based on the above findings GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a nonregulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. While the wetland may not be regulated by the City, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. 7.0 Regulatory Summary/Mitigation Measures The following buffers and setback requirements are registered to proposed project actions: 7.1 May Creek May Creek is a shoreline of the state regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton 's Shoreline Master Program. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends two hundred feet landward of the OHWM. The closest point of proposed project actions to the OHWM is 277 feet. The setback for commercial buildings from May Creek is currently established under the SMP at 50 feet. The subject property itself is located entirely outside of the required shoreline setback area. The mature deciduous forest located on the parcel south of the subject property varies in width from 64 feet in the west to 235 feet in the east and provides a full range of protective functions (see subsection 5.1 Riparian Functions). Because the riparian corridor is outside of the Graham-Bunting ,..,:lssociates I 3 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Asse.,sment (5112109) subject property boundaries and is not owned bv the applicant, GBA have refrained from characterizing the area as a buffer. 7.2 Drairiage Ditch The drainage ditch is classified as a Class 5 water. [tis a non regulated non salmon bearing water within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel previously existed. 7.3 Wetlands A and B Wetlands A and Bare Category 2 Wetlands which require 50 foot buffers. Both wetlands are located offsite south of the subject property. Wetland A is 117.4 feet south of the subject property boundary and Wetland B is 63.8 feet south of the subject property. The area between the wetlands and the subject property consists of a mature deciduous forest. Although the uplands surrounding the wetlands are not characterized as buffers, the deciduous forest provides a high level of buffer functions. 7.4 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is a noruegulated wetland created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of conveying stormwater. 7.5 Water Quality In addition to the distance of project actions from the regulated stream and wetlands, rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with the project's drainage plan. The site will be designed consistent with the King County Storm Water Design Manual guidelines for stormwater management. It is anticipated that the water quality of drainage leaving the site will represent an improvement over the existing conditions associated with the aging Pan Abode facility. 8.0 Closure GBA employed currently accepted methods of delineating wetlands and characterizing aquatic features on the site. In addition we utilized the guidance provided in the City ofRenton's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program in identifying appropriate regulatory requirements. Consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducted to detennine fish use of May Creek and the drainage ditch and to determine potential hydraulic project approval requirements. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report, however, represent our best professional opinion. Concurrence should be obtained from agencies of jurisdiction prior to initiating land use actions or construction. The report will also provide a sufficient source of information in the event that a jurisdictional determination is requested from the Corps of Engineers. Please call either Patricia Bunting or myself with any questions relating to this report. Sincerely; Oscar Graham Principal Ecologist/Project Lead Graham~BitntingAssociates Hawks Landing Assessment (5112/09) l~ Patricia Bunting Wetland Ecologist/PWS Environmental & Land Use Services 9.0 References Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., December 7, 2000. Wetland Delineation Report Fawcett Property; Renton, WA Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, E. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hitchcock C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 730 pp. King County, April 200 l. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Munsell Color. 1994 revised Munsell Soil.Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Pojar J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington Oregon, British Colwnbia & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver B. C., 528 pp. Raedkc Associates, Inc., August 26, 2002. Biological Assessment, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. Reed, PB, Jr. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Northwest (Region 9) National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008. Sound Development Group, LLC. April 28, 2009. Technical Information Report; Hawks Landing -Crowne Plaza Hotel. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W .. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vepraskas, Mike. Technical Bulletin 301, 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions: North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences33 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Activity Map, It ttg :ii\\\\\\ .. dnr.,, ;i. gg_v / Busi.11t:s s f~cr1_11i ts/fop iG_~/ F or!..!st P ract i cvs,:\p J )!)cat i 011s Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, l1ttpi,\1c[f)l:.J, g.gQ,_l1.,1~ppi_11gi'.s.1ln!<!J1,q1p_, Personal Communications Fisher, Larry. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries. On site discussion relating to drainage ditch along Lake Washington Blvd. April 24, 2009. Severin, Pat P.E. Project Engineer, Sound Development Group. Project Meetings March through May 12, 2009. Graham-Bunting Associates 15 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks landing Assessment 15112109) "l'\-j,QOIJHALL..S TOTI~;, J?t"TU+ WN.ve'..";'$ . Ll/..ll'~S~~k/~i Fl!DM Dii'T"" ;t. fA~i:'.tl-(1-,, ~ 'l"····' "'" ·:, ·/ 'lr I cifO.H,l·,61.~f,if.<al+ c~w.>..1M) ai:= orft, CIA~_?-S W~rtff-!} . ,: 1/ ~ lE.1111 ii/~! C:f1lf 'J I ' ' //t . ,, I• I ·' 11 I c,:.1,y ' . I -'--·· li Sound Development . Croup DKJNID*"C,lt.l!>fllr,(;.&-JA/,1!1~.ftlrl'lCZS ,._o.,.,.11m, ,.,.._.,_,~i.= --,.. ,u?~ w, :no---N!O f= J~-< ... -1'6'1.1 __ _ 1&ii --·,: «!I06/Jf. a<:atllll: -~ •=• -~ ------..:._rt?~: O!Zii'..UD,..JS f'"oU:S.fED M!S:A ,,....,\ \ -"I, '.:-' '1' ). \J'.A \ 7,.),. ( \\ '('(' '\ :i;,-,\ ~ /\ w,'" =·= ""-,,.~ l ,,. o-,' EXISTING WE'TV,.NO 'A' ~ll' $.F. 0.TICORY "1' Well,nd DellHUfoa & Slreom 5"'dr P••P•"d by: Gnihun-Buntln& Asmciali:3 Legend <D i:z;g {::) l':SNt,/N FOR Environmental & L1111d Use Ser,lces _ _ ~ DP"" Wetland Data Poi:11 Delineated WetlanC Existing vegeta!io;i o' ' ·~ = :oo SCAU: 1'"' -100' - NORTH "·~··= ,.~ HAWK"S LANDING• CROWN£ _PLAZA HOTELII' HAWK'S LANDING, LLC . !1l",_. __ ··-:•«r~.I!!'! . ,.......,.. )&,1,lt..uRd .• eo .. _WA982J2 ~ l'h: 360.7~.#-41 Fo: 3~0. 766.~•-U · • We1!:o.nd Oelfneatfon ar.d Stream Srudy Existing Conditions Site Plan Attachment A I i I I &32 TWN 24 N., RANCE 5 E, WM iJ A portiDn of the ditch is propo5ed to be filled to ell ow fur a sidewalk along Lake Washington Boulevard. ~. 'I I i ·>:11 i ,, ' "i- -:11- . ' . Ii u} ,f !, r;·ip J :'' I , i(:s':/('. I~ I•; 1.: I j 'I I I ii 'J,, :.A '1' ' '1'-' , .. ' 7.>,. Conttruetion Limi1 Lino c' 'o u' _.,_:' ~=-~ ~--~:::::. /' ' ,· /-~--- '-·.~:-':J.,'t,-,;:~, ' 0DPl ,. ' . --· } l I I :r ·1 I , 0 . I , ~ A °'. • •U. °', ;,:,ici,,n ' .-,. -. , ' • A' I J Cl ,, O:,,, . · _,, '--, o'°'""!';.~ o, "-J j O ~, --/', ~ <WATER I I I , ----''-... ,~ c,m I I~--,, I I . I ~ .. TING • -...-... ---------~---............. - \ '"· I .,,.. '-""' c'"""-, -· ---~-----. rl. ' µ ! ~nco,o--------=--=s_ ·::..cf .,,-·r··.j I {i CAtC4a HOURS BEFORE YOU O!G 1-800-424·5555 d. ---lt~ll#-"4J:.,--. ll'A .MW _.._,u._/ ,,,,_....,. __ , ~ Sound Development Croup ~Jl!ll\ffli\C.l.~l>MIOl'l'M(NTJl!.l!>!CEI" :!ii--::·'"",~~.-;---...... ;,,,, T"' _uo ....... OtD F•~ JID•<Of-,>O!~ -=- PROPOSED CONDfTIONS = />Ultll'tr: =,~ =" -~ ~n:· Note; This is 8 reduced site plan of the proposed pro1ec1. The original dnw"'g ahould be consulted for any detailed information. ~------~---~.____J o· ~o 1~ SCAU: ,~ r 100' I Att.achm~ NORTH --=-~-j_ ,.•100'!11a.«r ~~!HAWK'S LA.ND/NC -,_ CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL FOR ~YT..100jl HAWK'S LANDING, !lf_ ~w = ----- Wetland Field Data Forms Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: 'I-· I,,.-· cfl App1icanUOwner: Hawks Lar1dln9, LLC Sampling Point· -Li-8 Investigator: PaUOscar/Jeromy City/County: Renton/Kinq - Secl1on, Township, Ran~·e. S29 T24N R5E State: WA Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc) .1;':( ,I i·, J r,1,: Slope(%) I ~-· .. / Local relief (concave, convex, none) r/·1 · '- Subregion (LRR) A I Lat 47.5338 Long-122.19487 I Datum Soil Map Uni1 Name Na, Norma j NWI Classification: None Are dimatidhydrulogic conditions on the site typical tor ttlis time or year? CKJ Yes tBJ No {If no, explain in remarks.) Are ·Normal Circumstances· present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation 0. Soil, 0. or Hydrology D significanUydisturbed? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarns.) Are Vegetation D, Soil. 0, or Hydrology O naturally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling ooint locations, transe-cts, fmnnrtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 00 Yes I No Is thii, Sampling P<llnt wtthln a Wetland? rn:J Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No ~o Remarks: c:.r.A.l~ .. ,.0-1,. · i VEGETATION -Use scientific names of olants. Tnte Stratum (Plot sfze 20 fl R I Absolute% Cover 1 f ,.: I 11.11-< /111')('(] -?/17.~, ,. ' ' . , , r 'r -. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 10 ft R__J ' 1. ,..,,,/ J,JJI< A,.r::· ';''-'.(' ~ r;.,n 'IC ' /~f/111( r:YL'.~111,1 >"r;r'n ,;_n 1t~ ' ~,./, ,:'j,,0:./' . /I !·1 ,. ~, ft) \ C; "l<': ' •.. .;<,;', or: ,-1 ,. I,·· If/.-,:" ,, "/;. 5. , LJ .,.,tJ Herb Stratum (Plot size [1Lfl I 1. 2. ,. 4. 5. 6. -( ,. ,. ' ,'i. k'r /'/_";·, ,,_/ .t:, i/ Oomlnant Indicator Dominance Tt11st Work.she-et S""""'es? Status --< /C l'JC.., Number of Dominant Species d.. that are 0BL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata· 3 "Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species ·:t/ .... (r;_&_ 1: !hat are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 'd 'J-r' I,[ Prevalence Index Wori<sheet '"' " Tr-~ l % Cov<>r nf ~ I. .-,, I OBL species X 1::: ' t> " ,-. FACW species x2= fAC species X3- :: Total Cover FACU species x4= UPL species x5 = Column totals (A) I Prevalence Index= B /A= "vdro, hvtlc Vegetation Indicators l<:_ Dominance lest is > 50% Prevalence test IS S 3.0 • (A) (8) I.NB) ,a, 7. Morphological Adaptations* (provide supporting 6. data In remarlul or on a separate sheet) ' Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (explain) 11 . = Total Covar • Indicators or hyOric soil and wetland hydrology must be ..... sent unless disturt>ed or nroblematic Woody VlnEt Stratum (Plot size l 1. ' Hydrophytlc Vegetation ~ D :: Total Cover Pment? Yes No ,'- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum '?(// Remarks· /·-'· I , -.. "?" > 50,,t A7c.. { /'/ ( 7 ( 7 t•/_r'! .,· .. I , .:: w ' (,,.1//:':. 0( L. . 1 .S rr) lC I I ·" ' I (. / US Army Corps of Engmee~ weslem Mountains. Veffeys, and Cosst-lnlerim Version Project Stte: ApplicanttONner: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Hawks Landino, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: 4!1'/109 DP-7 Investigator: Pat/Oscar!Jeromy City/County. Ren1on/King Section, Township, Range S29 T24N R5E State: WA landforrn (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope(%) Local relier {concave, convex, none) Subregion (LRR) A I lat 47.5338 long-122.19487 I Datum Soll Map Unit Name No, Nonna [ NWf classification: None Are climatic/hydrologic oondiiions on the site typical for this time of year? tf:j Yes f:Bj No (If no, explain in remar'ils.) Are "Norma! Circumstances· present on !he site? Yes No Are Vegetation D, Soi!, D, or Hydrology O significantly disturbed? No (If nee<led, explain any answe~ in Remar1<s.) Are Vegetation D, Soil, 0, or Hy<trology D na1urally problematic? No SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site maD showlna samolina point locations, transects, lmnnrtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Pres.en!? Hydric SoJfs Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 00 Yes Yes Yes I No No No Is thls Sampling Point within I WeUand? rn:J Yes VEGETATION -Use scientific names or Dlants. Tree Stratum (Pfot size .2o_ft~R~--~I Absolute% Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover S'""""jes? Status 1 .. r ... '.-:~u/; _ _. r rw.t<..-1., ;··,·_;, :,-. --, -y' ~= Numbar of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ' ' I 3. Total Nurnberof Dominant Species Across All Strata: r){1 = To!e/ Cover Pen::ent of Dominant Species ~No ;;;:L 3 --· (A) (BJ ?{, ~\~~ that are OBL, FACW, orFAC: .. : (NB) Sapllng/Sht'Jb Stratum (Plot size 10 ft R_J _.O() -,,, --..- 2. <-I -,~ kl 4. S. 7i}i ~ "'Tot.el Cover Herb Stnitum {Plot size U.B_ I I 'Ill 11 4. 6. 7 ' ' 10. 11 - /,.. ,....._ /, =Total Cover WOOd>1 Vin& Stntum IP lot size ) 1 CW.I.A f-H('.tJ PreValence Index Wor11:shNt T r~~o -v"r-f OBL species x1= FACW species X2 = FAC species x3= FACU species x"4= UPL species x5= Column lotals (A) Prevalence Index= B I A = Hvdrochvtic Veaetatlon lodicatora X. Dominance test Is > 50% Prevalence test is :S. 3.0 • ~ t /Bl MorpMlogical Adaptations • (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) Wetland Non-Vascular Plants • Problematic Hydrophylic VegetaUon ' (explain) • Indicators of hydric sell e.nd wetland hydrology must be i,re.sent, unless disturbed or --blemaUc r-'·---------~------------~~~-------l Hydrophytic Vegatatlon "To1ar cover / Present? Yes No D % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum Ir., red::-z:.,,,.' ivtec_ ~n. i:.i. ,. US Am,y Corps of Engineers We.sre·m Mountains. Valleys.· and Coast-Interim Vei;sion Project Site -Applicant/Owner Jr,vestigator Section, Township, Rar,ge WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Ha'llks Landing, CroYme P!a.z.a Hotel Sampling Date Hawks Landino, LLC Sampling Point: PatlOscar/Jeromt City/County S29 T24N R5E State: 4/8109 DP-6 Renton/King WA Lo1ndform (hillslope, terr.ice, etc) ·/;.,:. //J·· Slope(%) di-. -Local relief {concave . convex, none) c;t'i J, ',.._'.((·:_ Subregion (LRR) A / Lat47.5338 Long -122.19487 / Dotum SoH Map Unit Name No. Norma I NWI classification: Nooe Are climatidhydrologic conditions on the site l)'J)ical fur this bme ol year? CT:=J Yes i:B:J No (If no, explain in remark&.) Are "Norma! Circumstances· present on the site? Yes No Are Vegetation D. Soil, D, or Hytlrolagy O significantly diaturbed? No Are Vegetation D, Soi!, 0, or Hydro!09y D naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any anlWt'E!ra in Remaffls.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampflna point locations, transects, lm..,..,rtant features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegeta~on Present? I Yes 00 No Js this Sampllng Point within a WeUand? [l(,J Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks:)1;:')//J, ./,.,., ·1,,-,,., v./~,,l .. h/ I-"/( '' VEGETATION U tifi -ee sc en 1c names o · olant:s. Tl"l:Hl Stratum (Pfot size 20 ft R I Absolute% Cover 1. r.,t{),,))11 .. "', Vt lrt.n /,{)"> 2. ' 4 ._,, i-. i Dominant S.....,.;es? y / ,'. y· ; . ; .. ·'' r1 fi.J.,,·'ic '''/· lndi<:ator Dominance Test Worksheet Status "'""' Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number Of Dominant Species Across All Strata: [g No ~ '3 "1'otal Cover Percent of Dominant Species ?~: C,~ o/ thal are OBL. FACW, or FAC: /(; &!piing/Shrub Stratum (Pio! size 10 ft R_J - 1. P, J; < -' '.' ~ I"," ,f: ,,. /.,,/'J ."-,-; y FH'11 Prevahmce Index Worksheet 2. -,ib!i < < " -,.J,,.,,'; /· ~ ;.;r, ~ r-•-• n, Cover of ~ 3. ' OBL species X 1 = 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= =Tolsl cover FACU $pecies x4 = UPL species x5= Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 fl R I Column totals (AJ I 1 2. Prevalence Index= BI A= 3. ' H11dro hvtic VAnetafion Indicators 5. 7'.. Dominance tesl ii > 50% 6. Prevalence test rs :S 3.0 • (Al (BJ (NB) 181 7 Morphological Adaptatiorn • {provide iupporting ,. data in remarks or on a sepan&te sheet) •• Weijand Non-Vaso.ilar Planb • 10. Probjemauc Hydrophytic Vegetalion • {explain) -· 11 = Tolal Cover • Indicator& of hydnc soil ana walland hydrology mus! be ""°sent unless disturbed or nroblemstic Woodv Vlne Stnltum /P!ol size I I. 2. Hydrophytlc Vegetation i< D "'Total cover PrKent? Yes No % Bare Ground in Herb stratum in% R,m,,;.s,;11 .5.~i, ;,:; 1·· .'( /',/ . ,;,. vc-y ( ' ti «/tCd [,,, ) cf{}! )If. Ji (!Ali! ',v /.1.{ f ; 5 inuJ , US Army Corps of Engineers WBsfem Mountains. Valleys, and Coast-Interim Varsion SOIL Sampling Point DP-5 Profl!e De~crlotion: (Describe to tha death naed&d to document the Indicator or conflnn the absence of Indicators. . Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) I----Color moist! % Color tmoisn % Tvoe Loe' Texture Remar\<s ,n -10 /;) rr. L, I 2,.. .-,,H v~, J.f.~ ___L{) Y. Z. I 7 ~{. 7, "'1" 'I~ :l ,t. ;/ "2 /l ,-C IF, A IA --"if/a,-~ ;",,~.>----JS L£:jJL ' , I' ., , ,,/ I - 1Type: C=Concentration, 0:::Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS:Covere<I or Coated Sand Grains 2Lac: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matri:,; ce drfc_ Solf Indicators: (Applicablll' to all L~ un/qs otherwise note-d.J lndlcato/"8 for Problematic Hydrlc Solls3 H1stosol (A 1) O Sandy Redox ($5) 00 2cm Muck (A 10) 0 HisUc Epipedon (A2) J'.t Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) l:! Black Histic (A3) D Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) {except MLRA 1~ othef' (explain in remarks) =B Hydrogen Sulfide {A4) 1t Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3} )Indicators oftiydrophytic vegetation .and wetland hydrology must __g_ Thick Dan<: Surface (A 12) D Red ox Dark Surface (F6) _Q. S,;1ndy Mucky Mineral (S1) ~ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic _Q Sandy Gleyed Matlix (S4) ___Q_,_ RedoxOepres.sions (F8) Reslrictive Laver /if oresentl jNo~j Type; Hydrfc soil pnaent? j Yes 01 Depth finches) Remarks: /41{//';i _ (' 501/;11.l,·e,41,rs ell'~ nu~ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndlcalot'\l; Primary lndicafo~ (minimum of one roquired; check all /hat appfy): Secondary lndicatora (2 or more required)' Surface water (A 1) O Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) High Water Table (A2) O Water-Stained Leaves (0XCiµt MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B} (BS) D Water-Stained leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A. &. 40} Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3} D Salt Crust (B11) Wafer Marks (81} 0 Aquatic lnvertebra!es (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) D Hydroge11 Sulfide Odor (Gt) Drift Deposits (B3) D Olddlzed Rhizospheres along living Roo~ (C3) Algal Ma! or Crust (B4) D Presence of Reduced lroo (C4} Iron Deposits (BSJ D Recent 1ron Reduction in Tilled Soils (Ct!} Surf.ace Soil Cracks (B6) 0 Stunted or Stressed Plants. {01} (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial O Other {e><µain iri remarks) Imagery (B7) Fl&ld Observations Surface Waler Present? Yes Depth (in): Ory.Season Waler Table (C2} Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Shallow Aquilaro (DJ) FAC-Nautral Test {05) Raised Ant Mounds {06) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks [fil ~No Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in)· Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes D No )ff' Saturation Present? I ttJ 11 Yes Qneludes capillary fringe) No Depth (in): Describe Recar~ ~ata (stream gauge,, monitof"lng well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: /:2urU· WI U) ~t:4.,J-;;. Remarl:s US Anny Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valle~, anQ Coast-Interim Verston SOIL Samclina Point DP.-4 Proflle Descri;uon:7Descrlbe to the dellth need~ to document the lndlcatof or conftnn the a~ence of lndlcaton;. Depth Matrix Redox Fea1ures I inches\ Color imolst % Color 'moisti % T ,~ TAx!ure Remarks 7f . / I JA • ' ,~ :,)-, ~-; -:;;,_;-1f-LrY1 " /7 7,t ,~,., 777 ·erp -?.r.vv '7fi,, '7",(, -,,~ ,n ~-S.,'/t c./u.,. ~{ U) 1 " J :...,· I ::-y E, ''-' 101, f/A'"~,1,,. .~ -· -· 'Type: Cc::Concentra(1on, Qc;;Depletian, RM==Raduced Matrix, CS=Co~ered or Coated Sand Grains ;Loe: PL=Pore lining, M-==Matrix [ Hydric Soll lndJc.ators: [App!lcabl& to elf l~ unless othll'rwlse noted.) Indicators tor Probfem&tlc Hydric Sof11 3 ~ Histosol (A1} & SandyReoox(S5) ; 2cmMuck(A10) ~ H1stic Epipedon (A2) ~-Shipped Matrix (S6) Red Parenl Material (TF2) tB Black Histic (A3) J2 LoamyMuekyMineral (f-1) (e:xcept MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks} Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _Q Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) D c.O Depleted Be!ow Dark surface (A 11 J .Q Depleted Matrix (F3J 'lndicalors of hydrophytic 'legetation and wetland hydrology must ill Thick Dark Surface (A12) ill RedOX Da/'K Surface (f6) ::E Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1 J J2 Depleted Darn surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matro: (S4) ill Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (if ere.sent): [No~/ Type: I Yes Dj Hydric soil pntaent? Depth (1ncties)· Remr111<s //.If:-/ r IC I . ' .. C tta ., . -I :::,i,.,,,. / ; nc./1 ·1.: (ii·" ·' //(f/J/JC1 , HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndlcatof'IJ: Pnrnary lndicetors (minimum of one required: check all /hat apply); Secondary lndlcatoro (2 or mare required): Surface water (A 1} D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {86) High Wa!er Table (A2) D Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48} (09} Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLflA 1, 2, "4A & '8) Drainage Patterns (810) Saturation (A3} Salt Crust (811) Water ~!io::s (81} Aquatic lrwertebra1es (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drift D6posits (83) Oxidized Rh!zospheres along Uving Roots (C3i Algal M~t or Crust (84) Presence of Reduced Iron (Ci) Iron Oepo.stts (BS) Recent lrnn A.eduction in moo Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Slunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial other (explain In remarks) Imagery (87) Field Observltiona Surface Water Present? Yes Depth Qn): Dry.Season Water Table (C2) Saturation V~ble oo Aerial Imagery (C1J) Geomorphic Position (D2J Shallow Aqu1tard (OJ) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks ~ ~No ~ Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (in): Wetland Hydrology Preaent? I Yes D No Saturation Present? 7;21 'I Yes (includes capillary fringe) No Depth {in): Describe Recorded Data (s!ream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if aYailable: ~dt, , .. 1.,,. u ~ rc,1 Remarlrs: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast-Jnterlm Versk;n SOIL Samp)inr1 Point DP-3 Profile Descriri-tjon: {Describe to the deeth nlffld&d to docum8nt the Indicator or conflnn the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features tmches\ Color (mois¥ % Colorlmois\l % T·--Loe' Texture Remarks 6 f/ /v · ,._, 1 /--, o;-;J ,C_. 1-:t,.._. )\. ff~ l"VIi ,J:.:· a '/: /:: Yo_ '-f/1,, I ~Y."' l'.m h-'-,c,•, /11.,,, ~1·1 -J ·---·---·- ' 1Type: C::Coricentrat1on. D=Deplet1on, RM=Reducecl Malrix, CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains iloc: PL=Pore lining, M=Matrix :ndrlc Soll Indicators: (AppJieabJe lo all L~ unfess othwwise noted.) llldlcatars for Pro~atfc Hydric Soils1 H1stosol (A1) D Sandy Redox (S5) 00 2cm M,ci< (A 10) 0 Histic Epipedan (A2) i Stn'pped Mabix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) rn Slack His tic (A3) loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1} Other (explain m Jl3marks) Q Hydrogen Sulfide (A4J t8 Loamy Gleyed Mabix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) Depleted Matrix {F~) 1 Jndicatora of hydrophy1ic vegetation and wetland hydrology must L Thick Dar1o: Surface (A 12) t8 Redox Dark Surface (F6) L Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dar1< Svrface (F?) be present, unless disturbed or problemalic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) & Redox Depressions {F8J Restricti11e Laver (if oresentl: 7'/Pe: Hydrlc soil present? I Yes o I J No £1 Deplh ~nchesJ· Remaoo llj c,' , 1 Cc .5 O 1/ / )} J/, (1] ;' ,J a,, Ii,-'/ ~!fso, 1, HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndlcetoni: Pn"rIJary fndicstors (minimum of one requiff!!J;$heck alt that apply): secondary Indicators (2 or m0te required): ~ Surface water (A 1) D Sparsely Vegetale(I Concave Surface (86) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MlRA 1, 2, 4A & .48) !:::c High Water Table (A2) :1t Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (BB) Drainage Patterns (B10) · Sali.Aration (A3) D Salt Crust (B11) 0()'-S&ason Water Table {C2) Water Marks (B 1) tf1 Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial lmage,y (CB} Sediment Deposits (B2) t:B: Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1} Geomorphic Potlition (D2) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidi:i::e<I Rhizospheres along living Roots {C3) Shallow Aquitard (03) J;l Algal Mat or Crust (84) .J2 Pre$e0ce of Reduced Iron (C4) FAC.Neutral Test (D5) if lron Deposits. (85) & Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soila (CB) "~ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) {LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks {B6) & Stunted or Stre~ Plants (D 1) (LRR A) b Frost-Heave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial D other (explain in remarks) ,_ Imagery {B7) L- Field Observatlona Surface Water Present? ~Yes IN, Depth (!n): 'c9.f, / )(1 water Table Present? Ye, No Depth(,nJ,> f/ Wstland Hydrology Present? I Yes D I I N~ Saturation Present? Yes No Depth 1;n1, i / (1neludei capfllary fring';!) Describe Recortle<l Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: it)d.&N1t/ /~Jt1hjtJ /1Wt('t1 _7:1;.f a,u 11.-.l ,,1rut.f , US Army C<Jrps of Engineers Westem Mounfaln.s. ValltJys, llnrf Coast-Interim Ver.sion SOIL Samo mo 0 nt DP-2 r P I ' Profile Description: {D&scrlbe to the depth n&ede-d to document the Jndlc1tor or conflnn th& ab,ence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches I Color (moist) """ % Color (moist! % T>= Loe· Texture Remar1':s -~ ''(f_""~ It L ,.., I() rr ·,-.:>, -01"''-'.WA,v1 -If j/) 'fv' ... /'.:i. -(S/!f_t/,-iJ , .!.:.1 '/!~ ri.--,,,,.. "-~ ') 17:"( :31-.. ID 7 rt o; J.,__ ;, (..1 Iv-•1 -I .4vi.,j/// _r.r<n ?1 I 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CSa:Covereci or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc. Pl=Pore lining, M='Matrix ~drlc_So/l lndicatoni: (App!lcab!e to all L~ un/&n othel"'Wlse noted.) Indicators for Problematlc Hydrlc So1Js 3 0 H1stoso1 (A1) O SandyRedox(SS) ; 2cm Muok (A 10) :Q: Hislic Epipedon {A2) ~ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (ff2} =8 Black His tic (A3) :=c:: Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) /except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarti:s) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) D loamy Gleyed Matrix (f2) _Q_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11} =a= Depleted Matri:w; (F3} 3 Indicators or hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must _Q Thlcio: Dark Surra~ (A 12) ~ Redox Dark Surface (Fe) .....Q_ Sandy Mueky Mineral (S1) tR: Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematlc ~ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressioris (FS) Restrictive Laver <n oresentl: Type Hydric soil present? \ Yes D\ j No >{l Depth (inelles): --, Remarks 11z1a'J r 6 .5 (l 1 / 111 cl·c.a i:-i , .... .s (lfe, r7ctn1d , HYDROLOGY WeUand Hydrology lndicrloni: Pn'"mary lndic.ators (minimum of one required: c/Jeck. all rhat apply): D Surfuce water (A 1) 0 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface {86} D High Water Table (A2) Water-Stained leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 40) (B9) Saturation (A3) Sall Crust {B11) Weter Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Sediment Deposits (82) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} Drift Deposits (83) Oiddized Rhizosphere.s along U\ling Roots (G3) Algal Mal or Crust (84) P""ence of Reduced Iron (04) Iron Deposits (85) Recent Iron Reduction in Ti!led Soils (C6) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) D Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain in wnaO(s) Imagery (87) F~d Obaervniona Surface Water Present? Yes Depth (in): Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Waler-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturatiofl Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Shallow Aquitard {03) FAG-Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) Fro9t-Healie Hummocks ~ ~No '.WI Water Table Present? Yeo No Depth Qn): 72-0 WtrUand Hydrology Pres.ent? Ye, D No Saturation Present? /2.0 Yes (inciuo'es caplllary fringe) No Depth (in): US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Interim Version SOIL Samoling Point DP-I Profile Descrlptlon: (Doser/be-to the deoth needed to document the Indicator or conflnn the absence of Indicators". Depth Matrix Redox Features iinchesl Color rmoisll % Color /moisll % T= Loe' Texture Remar1o:s . ~ -" lo If?_ .$1~ /!'( ... J' ·, ,;i -·,o -,,.:r--, 1-//.., 1 crt? -r11, ;t,ti,ofir ~t c"',,{);j.,d' ,r ·fr ,f. ~ ·,.. ., .<'. _J " ' 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Loe: PL=Pore Linin~. M=-Malri~ j!ldrlc Soll !ndlcato'8; (Applicable ID all Llnie., ott>.,.,.;,e noted./ lndlcator1 tor Problematlc Hydric Soi1s 1 Hislosol (A 1) Sandy Redox ($5) ; 2cmM,ci<(A10/ D Histlc Ep!pedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6} Red Parent Material (TF2) f-Black Histic (A3) 0 loamy MudiyMinera! {Ff) (1txc.ept MLRA 1) Other (explain In remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A<I) 1 D loamy GJeyed Matrix (F:2/ De_pleted Below Daril Surface (A 11) ,._.Q_ Depleted Matrix (F3J 3 /ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must :;;, Thick Oar<,,; Surface (A 12) 0 RedoK Dark Surface (F6) .JJ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ~ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ~ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _Q_ Redox Depressions (F8) be pft!sent, unless disturbed or problemaUc Restrictive Laver (if oreseno: Type, Hyd'1c IOH p""'9flt? I Yes ~J I No D I Depth (ind'les): , Rem,,,, li!JdU6 ::;,,.<'-(, ;.ud,f,;t7,:rS or·,: minio·1tLf. R«clcu: 1.,,~,1:, )(.:; qrt·. k>ea.A' .ff1!.;l}(<J.. r:;;x;t vlk"6'.;,(;'°b:.S •. aic lJ:21«,'!J:'·1.L,1. Son,;: s,.,,,,~lec !Jtvl c/;r.:tt1<!<r: 3 1 IIS~c1,<! r/ llr., C-~ rt Cl)fc:i:£ , ,. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology lndlcatof'5: Primary Indicators (minimum of one ~quired: check all that apply) Secondary I Mice tors (2 or more required): D Surface water (A 1} D Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) High Water Table (A2) 0 Wo:1ter-Stalned'1.eaves (except MlRA 1, 2, -CA & 48) (89} Water.Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) Drainage Patterns (810} Saturation(A3) D Sa1!Crust(B11) Water Mp.ri<s (B 1) D Aqua6c Invertebrates (B 13) Sediment Deposits (82) 0 Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) Ory-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) Drif!: Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheras along living Roots (C3J Shal!ow Aquitard (03) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduc.ed Iron (C4) Iron Deposits (B.5) Recent Iron Reduction ln TIiied Sofls (C6} Surface Soil Cracks (86) Stunted or Stressed Plants {01) (LRR A) Inundation Visible 011 Aerial otl;ter (e,:plain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Field Obffrvat1on11 Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (indudes capillary fringe) Yes ~ No Yes No Yes No Depth (ln): Oeplh r;ni, / ZC) I , Oeplh /n/ 7 z. ('.) FAC-Neutral Test (05) Rai:ied Ant Mound's (D6) (LRR A) Frost-Heave Hummocks Wetlond Hydrology p,...nt? L/ _ves __ if_,_~f Describe Recorde<1 Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections}, If available: .·) ,':;;;M!t 6L4.~l... ' Remen<s, {.;) .Q. of US Anny Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys. and Coast-lntenm Veniton 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 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ---------------- Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT I. INTRODUCTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this hearing brief to supplement the legal argument in the Notice of Appeal filed in this matter. Appellants adopt the Notice of Appeal by reference. The matter should be reversed for the reasons argued therein, and because a Shoreline Substantial Development Pern1it is required but has not been sought. II. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT A. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is Required In the Notice of Appeal, SEGB raised as an issue that Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applied to the site, and requested that City staff review the project for HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT -1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621·0512 1 compliance. A closer review reveals that an SSDP is required, and that the applicant 2 should be required to provide additional infonnation on the applicant's earth movement 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and landscaping plans next to Conservancy-Shoreline designated May Creek. The applicant has completed a Technical Information Report (TIR), and a Wetland and Stream Study. Both of those documents demonstrate that an SSDP is required, and show that further information is needed to detem1ine if the applicant's plans comply with Renton's SMP. Applicant Spencer Alpert (Applicant) has applied for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. The proposal would involve constructing new buildings approximately 248 feet from May Creek, but would also involve demolishing existing structures, and disturbing earth, within a short distance of the Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). See Alt. A, Technical Information Report (TIR), at 4; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. Renton's Shoreline Master Program requires an SSDP whenever substantial development is proposed within 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek. RCW 90.58.140; SMP § 2.02, 9.38. "Substantial development" is that costing greater than $2500 to construct.SMP § 2.02, 9.38, RCW 90.58.030. In this case, although the hotel structure is planned for slightly farther ilian 200 feet from the OHWM, the existing site consists of "four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping." Att. A at 5; Figure A-7. CmTently, buildings, debris, and other impervious surface comes to within a few feet of May Creek. Att. A, TIR, HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT -2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 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 27 28 Figure A-7; Ex. 16 to Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). During constrnclion, the "existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/reused and removed from the site." Att. A, TIR, at 5; Alt. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. There is no detail on what will happen with the site once the buildings are removed-no detail on whether impervious surface will be left, whether the site will be left in bare earth and thus subject to erosion, and whether and what type of landscaping will be provided right next to May Creek. See Alt. A, TIR, at Alt. A-4, showing blank space next to May Creek. Since the applicant proposes a hotel, it is unlikely that the concrete and debris will remain in view of guest rooms. Instead, it is probable that the applicant will be landscaping; the applicant's Technical Information Report discusses "hydroseeding" among other landscape activities. Att. A, TIR, at 16. Thus, although the buildings will be located greater than 200 feet from the Creek, the "substantial development" extends nearly to the water's edge. The applicant's landscaping must preserve May Creek in "essentially [its] native state." RMC 4-3- 090(I)(l). Landscaping "should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific type[] of waterway." SMP § 6.05.01. May Creek is a Renton Shoreline, designated as "conservancy" for the portion passing next to the development site. RMC 4-3-090(1). Neither the TIR nor the Wetland/Stream Study have any infom1atiou on the type of landscaping, other than a mention of hydroseeding. Hydroseeding suggests that the applicant intends to use entirely inappropriate non-native lawn grass, right up to the edge of May Creek. HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT -3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 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 27 28 Knowing what the applicant proposes to do on the banks of May Creek and ensuring that it is in keeping with Renton's SMP is key lo preserving this shoreline of the City. Decreasing water flow through removing surface water flow and planting the shore of May Creek with an invasive non-native grass, subject to pesticides and fertilizers which will flow unobstructed into the waterway, could have disastrous consequences for the shoreline's health. Landscaping must be "representative of the indigenous character of the specific type of waterway." Renton SMP § 6.06.01. The applicant provides no detail on what type of plants will be placed; its reference to "hydroseeding" makes it probable that the applicant plans to spray golf-course style non-native grass onto this sensitive environmental area. The SSDP must address numerous areas of concern under Renton' s Shoreline Master Program. In addition to native plants, stream flow must be addressed. Cmrently, stonnwater flow rnns to May Creek over impervious surface. Although unclear, it is probable that the development project will decrease flow to May Creek based upon the increase in pervious surface and subsequent decrease in surface water flow. As the SMP provides, "[ s Jtream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a river, stream or creek." SMP § 7.16.01. Stream alteration is only allowed if it is designed by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer, and "will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic Ii fe." SMP § 7.16.04. In this case, the applicant has blown off any impacts on May Creek by noting without analysis that the impervious surface will be less than before, and that the new buildings will be more than 50 feet away from the OHWM. But even the applicant admits the impm1ance of this creek to wildlife in Renton; it is reported to be used HEARTNG BRIEF OF APPELLANT -4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: {206) 621-0512 1 by Chinook and Sock eye salmon, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout. Alt. B, 2 Wetland/Stream Study, at 6. Terrestrial species benefit from May Creek, too: according to 3 the applicant, "[t]he riparian area provides excellent feeding an cover habitat for birds, 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 ]I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 28 including woodland hawks and passerine species." Id., at 7. Similarly, a variety of mammals use May Creek -and are adapted to and dependent on its current flow and vegetation. An SSDP should be required, describing and limiting the impacts of this massive project on May Creek. III, CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein and in the Notice of Appeal, the MONS and Master Site Plan should be reversed, and an SSDP required. Dated this 3 I st day of July, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN,~P M I : "'' Mlfl ~ 'ib" By: ~ ~ Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Gives Back(Den)\Hearing Brief of Appellant FfNAL 7 31 09 HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT -5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: !2061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION L;J) A--~ -vi -o l:, 6 I , I ~~~ APPLICATIONNAME W \;f\ FILENO. sft-Yr1 S{-\--/;f The undersigned interested party hereby files its Nati of Appeal from the decision or rec£lh'h9fnB~f1i5W'6f the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated \-&:f+:vyYJ /2:Uc { 0 , 20fil. SEP 2 4 2009 RECEIVED 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY CITY CLERKS OFFICE APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): , Name: B:~v--f 1:V\:tll'Y\.tGD D n?J Name: (Vlt,c'.',[;,i}._,? ;j 1--i ili ~l ~j Address: l ~l3'. !2ivl.-iV\lv?J7'Lhi.AJLU Address: ,dl)) 0:t1,\ k Jud( ":J-&-0 ~ !A)fl SY 1-?"=r }(td;/1 e U)?I:: SZI 0:1 Phone Number: Phone Number: 101;, ,r/-:.l?, ~ f!{ Email: Email: jl'.JS.1f' 0 VY\..0-Jc'.4CiHt' .!1DJ1l 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No._ Error: Pimn Kt tc~wol /..a_~ a,Vl..dl ~n~ t[ML11. 11 l ci fP )J ft£J/L + a..s .Kffj A, li -t:V' r fY:S u,'Y\h't.,, 11..Q_A_ 1 n "n Correction:· vquf.4+h yfµJn.V)fflAC0D,7\IJ,4\ 4~, Conclusions: No. Error:---------------------------- Correction:-------------------------- Other: No. Error:---------------------------- Correction: -------------------------- 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief; (Attach explanation, if desired) y Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: -1L.. , 1 • _ / Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: p /~ }Cf /'/...,-C,J~ Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: :Jessi Uj l~ Type/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-l lOF, for specific: appeal procedures. ~~~ dl~, DCash CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 'f1>Check No .. _____ _ D Copy Fee rppea!Fee Description: tt,uvk'5 ~I\~ -kv.tA-0'1'°bD (4i2~ -Ju UN:1'-4 L ~ Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip cM 9-e,v-\' Tu'.\'\ \O?,.,Z ~:,c..,h~ ~ µv....J ~k IDA °I ¥\'11. Receipt N9 1454 Date "I al-\ 111 D Notary Service D _________ _ I Amount$ 15-00 I ~~ .. City Staff Signature Ren ton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 McCULLOUGH HILL, rs September 24, 2009 RE: Applicant's appeal to City Council/ request for reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear City Clerk: CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 4 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Enclosed with this letter is a request for reconsideration, as well as an appeal to City Council, along with the $75.00 appeal fee, for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. We are simultaneously filing the request for reconsideration and the appeal to City Council, because the Renton Municipal Code is not clear as to whether filing a request for reconsideration tolls the time period for filing an appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this matter. 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.rnhseattle.com ·, McCULLOUGH HILL, rs The Honorable Fred J. Kaufman City of Renton Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 September 24, 2009 RE: Applicant's request for reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear Mr. Examiner: CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 4 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE We are writing on behalf ofthe applicant for Hawk's Landing Hotel to respectfully request reconsideration of two conditions placed on the Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review approvals granted by you on September 10, 2009. RMC 4-8-100 allows an interested person to make a written application for reconsideration of the Examiner's decision when the person feels that the decision is based on an 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. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of an error oflaw, fact, and judgment. The applicant requests reconsideration of the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include 'master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage." Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com Page 3 of 5 Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Aettt!iss...ll.y, t:he applies.Ht: sftettld. pla.B:t ad.a:i1:i.s.Ha:l st:reet t:fees s.-1.e.ag the fetna:ie:ing Lake Washffl.,gtsa :B eale,rs.-rS: tfe:fl.Ht-ge a:t 1:B:e sil:tfte £s.1:ie a.ad. sp eeies ftS is planted. a:lea-g the H:efth :&e:B:ffit;e." The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater were a result of an error of law, fact, and judgment. The applicant requests reconsideration and clarification of the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9: Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/ or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." Condition 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stonnwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stonnwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/ or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and condition because: • The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwater, which includes the use of "best management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including the use of best management practices in its stonnwater system design. The City of Renton has determined, through adoption of this manual, tha.t compliance with the manual is sufficient to properly treat and convey stonnwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/ or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." • The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12-no evidence was submitted into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the Page 5 of 5 Response due: September 30 Reply due: October 5 We hope that this schedule is acceptable to the Hearing Examiner. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this request for reconsideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or requests for additional information. cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson ,2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03-00.u p.m I 10 ,;1TY OF r<ENTON McCullough Hill, PS NOV O 2 llJO) 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 7220 Seattle W.A 98104--7042 206-812-3388 206-812.-3389 fox www.mhseattle.com ~tcCEi\/ED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO: FAXNO.: FROM: DATE: CLIENT NO.: Bonnie Walton, Renton City Clerk 425-430-6516 Jessie Clawson November 2, 2009 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: COMMENTS: Hi Bonnie, FAX COVER SHEET 6 Please see out amended appeal, attached. We paid the appeal fee on September 24, 2009, when we originally appealed the Examiner's decision_ This amends the appeal in response to the Examiner's decision on our request for reconsideration. Please call me if you have any questions. Tbanks. PLEASE CALL IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL P .AGES THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN 11"115 COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR Tiffi USE OF TI-IE ADDRESSEE AND MAYBE CONrIDENTIAL. MAY BE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONS'CTTUTE INSIDE INFORMATION. UNAUTilORIZED, USE, DISCLOSURE OR COPYING IS PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL. IF YOU RECErvED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US AT 206-- 812-3388. 2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill. p 03 06 52 pm 11-02-2009 2 /6 McCULLOUGH HILL, Ps NOV O 2 7,711:J Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 November 2, 2009 RE: Applicant's amended appeal to City Council LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear City Clerk: " -~,'vED CITY CLERK'<; OffiCE We filed an appeal regarding this matter on September 24, 2009, asking for review of the Hearing Examiner's September 10, 2009 decision. This letter amends our previous appeal to respectfully request that the City Council review the Hearing Examiner's decision, and the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the applicant's request for reconsideration. RMC 4-8-100.F. 7 allows the City Council to modify a decision of the Examiner if it determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record. Here, the Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping and stormwater were a result of a substantial errors in fact and/ or law. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of a substantial error of law and fact. The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include 'master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage." · Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle. Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com '2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03 0740 pm 11-02-2009 Page 2 of 5 breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, in the event that the City does not plant street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage then the applicant shall plant such trees at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage." The applicant appeals this conclusion and this condition because: • The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it. See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, it is an error of law to impose this condition--this condition is not within the scope of the application and may not properly be imposed under this application. When the applicant proposes development in this portion of the site as part of a site plan and master site plan approval for the remainder of the larger property, street trees would be required by code. In addition, requiring street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard when there is no plan for redevelopment may interfere with the future redevelopment of this portion of the site- trees may need to be removed or relocated in order to acco=odate the future development (construction access, sidewalks, driveways 1 etc.). The applicant therefore requests the City Council to revise portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10 to read as follows: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include 'master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefete, the refl'lftieing aereat,e shetttd ee ifleerpeH.ted at le,,st .l'rli!liffia.lly. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that acco=odates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter.boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Adetlierutlry, !loe app!i€M!t shetttd plaet aelditieHa.l. s!feet e:ees ftttlflg !loe tefful±t.ttfig btk.e Ws.shiftgtea BE>ltie"*1!6 frafttage at 1:he sMB:e tR1:te ftft8: species as 6ft the Her!h &ee.toge,Future redevelopment of the southern portion of the site not proposed for development with this application will requite consistency with City of Renton landscaping requirements including the plantin,g of street trees." Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. AEl<HlieMlly, in the eveHt !loat the Cf~ ,lees aet pbuit stfeet !fees a.l.e:ag the r~ La.l.te Washlagtefi 3 /6 2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03.08:46 p m 11-02-2009 Page 3 of 5 Bettleva:rB &eatage th-et1 the applteftfl.t sha:Y. plaftt stteh 1:tees a:t the sftff'!e ta.1:ie J!tftti sr,eeies as is {'i'ffl:teB: alaag the :eeftfl: frentsge. - The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater were a result of a substantial error of law and fact. The applicant appeals the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9: Conclusion 5: 'Those waters should lie handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stonnwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." Condition 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stonnwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/ or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." The applicant appeals this conclusion and condition because: • The City of Renton has not adopted ''best available science" as a stanclatd for stonnwater treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a standatd. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwater, which includes the use of ''best management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standatds, including the use of best management practices in its stormwater system design. The City of Renton has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance with the manual is sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted standards will ensure that "development shall not feopardize May Creek and/ or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." • The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12-no evidence was submitted into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that 'The proposal will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations regarding discharge from the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). Io addition, the Hearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stonnwater "will not travel 4 /6 ?068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03 09 50 p m. 11-02-200Y Page 4 ofS the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion 6). As such, the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9. • The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non- regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (i.e., that the "development shall not jeopardize May Creel< and/ or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas'') .. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new standard, and the Hearing.Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater quality, so this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's stormwater regulations, so we are appealing this issue. • The Hearing Examiner responded to the applicant's request for reconsideration regarding stormwater by essentially arguing that both May Creek and Lake Washington are critical areas, so "best available science" should be used as a standard in this permit decision. The Examiner then cited RCW 36.70A.172, the definition of best available science under the Growth Management Act, as the standard that should be used in this permit decision. The Examiner's reasoning regarding this matter is a substantial error of law. RCW 36.?0A.172 requires jurisdictions to use best available science in developing comprehensive plan policies and development regulations to protect critical areas. The permit decision in this case does neither-instead, the Examiner is required to apply the existing policies and development regulations that already been adopted by the City of Renton to this permit application. The Examiner does not have the jurisdiction.to create new regulations, and has limited jurisdiction to "review and implement land use regulations" in the City of Renton. See RMC 3-1-5. Thus, the Examiner's introduction of a new standard, not adopted by the City Council and outside of the City's already-adopted policies and regulations, is a substantial error of law that must be remedied. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 should be revised to read: · Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant must comply with the City of Ren ton's standards regarding stormwater (the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual), There is no evidence in the record that would suggest May Creek or Lake Washington would be jeopardized as a result of the application. '.fhe 8.f'f'liellflt shetild ttSC eest llvail&ele seiefiee Hi t£eatiag Sffiffl>'.Vftref aefefe e8flVeyiag it la !fte teadsia.e eifefl. Thete is fle tettJe.a te jeepft:t'!me £.!s.y eteek ftfld/e.t We Wa:thie:gt:e:ft \\iith l'ell.tffilfttS a:ei>i:ed er ealleered efl fuis site's !'>Wee er t£e•ted laads""fling areas." Condition 9: "The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual use eest lt'tllli!tBle seieaee in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The staffflwaffi sl,,.Y be t£elltetl. by whstever mellas ineh,diag water retealiefl, D /Q 2068123389 Line 1 McCullough Hill, p 03:1059pm 11-02-2009 Page 5 ofS d.e1:entiefJ:, Bf "til:tfi gM.4en" feat:ttt-e ffl: eta.er ~e :redli:ee potlttti.eB: ea-teaftg the a:it:efl tftfl theft M,,y Creelc The aeveler,llleat s!,,,ll aet jeer,araize May Creek Mia/et Lake Washiagtea Witll. r,ell:tttartts eeatea er eelleetea ea this site's r,avea eHreatee: lartdsEftf!iftg areas." We appreciate the opportunity to provide this appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or requests for additional information. Jessi M. Clawson cc: Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson 6 /6 .. CITY OF RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION SEP 2 4 2009 ?i'.' RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ' APPucATIONNAME tJc..,w l-0 l-C-,1-i ~/~ FILENo. wA oP-OkOJ::CF; The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the s; A~ Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated Se,;d=kr / C:J , 20J2!l. l. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE(If ANY): Name: B',aJ N,·cbo /::;on .5ov ±b End Give -s , 1 Name: _,__/(i=e,._,_lf.-'-'n--'5=CJ.<.=I 1u ______ _ -,3-f!, f 13 ack {5e'6f3/ 11 ,7M D Address: J.3 OJ Nt: 2 5_ Address: GeoctLcr .& ahn, (J 4 Ren+o12.. vJA _!/_8D5v !t/Jt/ 4J!J Av.-. lt1015. Seall!e. W4 !/S'/O/ Phone Number: {,P5)1-/1-/-5-0((;5$ (eel/) Phone Number: (JfJ/;) b;f-8Sfe8, Email: hr-a.d g,:;r(i;hofma:!CQm ' Email: /seifhfi.?!Jtku/;ermann f'on1 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: see. ,1.ftachecf f«:}""5 Correction:-------------------------- Conclusions: No. _ Error: ---';'.)"-'e=e"'---_,a.oc,il"--t).(;."'.L<h-"ed"""-._O'-"acJ4'=--'e5"-----------------f ::;- Correction:-------------------------- o·ther: No. Correction:-------------------------- 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) x. Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: ) e C Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other: ype/Printed Name NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-llOF, for specific,appeal procedures. Findings STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF SEPA Appeal 15, p. 16. Error of fact in finding that storrnwater will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants. Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present. Conclusions ,r,r 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors oflaw in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental harm will be "exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would not percolate into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants. Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Determination of Significance, or additional mitigation. Master Site Plan Findings ,r 27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the storrnwater will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants. Decision Error oflaw in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. ,r I 0, p. 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside ditch to convey stormwater, rather than requiring other storrnwater control measures. Remedy Reverse the SEP A determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with directions to require a storrnwater plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to treat storrnwater on site. GENDLER & MANN, LLP Michael W. Gendler* David S. Mann Keith P. Scully Brendan W. Donckers *Also admitred in Oregon Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7m Floor Renton, WA 98057 ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLE WA98101 September 24, 2009 RE: File No. LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the Renton City Council. CITY OF RENTON SEP 2 4 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (206) 621-8868 Fax (206) 621-0512 keith@gendlerrnann.com www .gendlermann.com We are also filing today a Motion for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. We respectfully request that no action be taken on the appeal until we've received a response to our motion. KPS:den Enclosure cc: Client Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP Keith P. Scully 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 27 28 CITY OF RENTON SEP 24 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. AGREED BRIEFING SCHEDULE The parties have conferred, and agree that any response shall be due by 5 p.m. on October I, 2009, and any reply due by 5 p.m. on October 5, 2009. II. MOTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) move the Examiner to reconsider his decision denying the Appeal of SEP A Detennination, and approving the Master Site Plan and Site Plan in this matter based on new information regarding water flow on the subject property. This new information was uncovered as a result of testimony from the applicant and city staff at the hearing, and .subsetjuen:t-investigafion, and was not reasonably available before the hearing. Because the site's design will concentrate all or virtually all of the site's surface water into a ditch, and infonnation presented at the hearing GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 ·seattle, WA 98101 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -1 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 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 27 28 and investigated by Appellant's expert after the hearing indicates that the ditch is an infiltration feature, the Examiner's decision is based on an error of fact. Moreover, the Examiner erred in law, with or without the new information, and erred in judgment in limiting stormwater treatment options to dumping water in to a ditch that fails to convey water offsite. III. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED The September 23, 2009 Second Declaration of Joel Massman (Second Massman Dec.) (attached). The files, pleadings, and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter. IV. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 1. The Hearing Examiner erred in finding as a matter of fact that: Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment. The stonnwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate in to the underlying soils. HE Decision at p. 17, ,r 6. 2. The Examiner erred in law by finding that: The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. HE Decision at p. 17, ,r 6. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -2 Phone; {206) 621-8868 Fax: [206) 621-0512 1 3. The Examiner erred in concluding as a matter of law that the ERC did not err 2 in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate poJlutants leaching from 3 contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, ,r 6. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. The Examiner erred _in judgment by approving the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with the foJlowing condition: The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. Decision at p. 25, ,r 10. V. ARGUMENT A. Standard for Reconsideration RMC 4-8-1 OO(G) provides for reconsideration: Any interested person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an 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 application for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. I. The Decision rests on an error of fact. At the hearing, Appellant SEGB presented expert testimony regarding potential groundwater infiltration on the site based upon the Applicant's description of its proposal in the application materials, which appeared to indicate that a significant portion of the site would be left as either bare earth or hydroseeded. The Applicant responded at the hearing by clarifying its plan, stating that it intended to leave the impervious surfaces throughout the site either intact or replace them with new impervious surfaces. The Applicant stated that it intended to grade the development area and route all water flow to a "rain garden," MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 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 27 28 with water then flowing to a drainage ditch. New information presented at the hearing included a drawing of the "rain garden," which had an impermeable liner, meaning that no infiltration would occur onsite. This "rain garden" is simply a conveyance measure, not a treatment measure. Second Massman Dec. at ,r,r 1-3. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that the flow of water would be through the ditch and to May Creek. Although not reflected in the summary of testimony, City staff testified that the ditch had standing water and "orange scum" in it, and that City staff had difficulty or were unable to maintain it. A site visit by hydrogeologist Joel Massman revealed that there is water standing in the ditch, even though this is dry weather. Second Massman Dec. at ,r 6. The design of the ditch includes a higher inlet elevation than the culvert, meaning that water flowing into the ditch will stand in a pond, rather than flow to May Creek. Id. Dr. Massman notes that: A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. Second Massman Dec. at ,r 7 ( emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly found, the City must conduct an EIS if there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Decision at p. 17, ,r 4. The Examiner correctly noted that uncontroverted testimony established that groundwater flows from the development site to Quendall Terminals, and conveys pollutants to Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, ,r 14; Second Massman Dec. at ,r 11. The new information from the Applicant that all storrnwater will MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 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 27 28 flow to the ditch, and from the City and Joel Massman that the ditch ponds, and thence infiltrates the ground, means that the same arguments raised regarding increased permeable surface apply to the use of a ditch that serves as an infiltration feature. Second Massman Dec. The appeal should be granted and an EIS must be ordered. 2. Denying the SEPA appeal rested on an error oflaw. In addition to the new information regarding groundwater infiltration, the Examiner's decision should be reversed because it rests on an error of law. The Examiner concluded that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, ,r 6. But SEP A does not require that a project exacerbate environmental issues. The threshold determination for an EIS is whether the development proposal is "likely to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); RCW 43.21 C.031; WAC 197-11-360. That the proposal causes new impacts is not dispositive of whether an EIS is required; nor is it necessary that the proposal increase environmental impacts. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979). In ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The court held that even though there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the action still required an EIS. As the ASARCO court noted, SEP A "aims not only to prevent further environmental degradation but to reverse, where possible, ecological damage already done." Id. In this case, uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that groundwater flow carries toxins from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, ,r,r 10-11. Infiltration MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: !2061621-0512 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 27 28 from the site will maintain or increase groundwater flow. Decision at p. 14, ,r 15. Because the ditch does not convey all water offsite, but instead allows infiltration, the ongoing harm of toxin flow via groundwater provided from the site will be continued. Like ASARCO, an EIS is required to study the impacts and evaluate alternatives. An EIS would provide substantial information to the decisionmaker on how best to handle the project's impacts on the adjacent Superfund site. Unlike a threshold determination, an EIS requires consideration of alternatives. There are numerous options available for how storm water is handled on the project. Some options, like the use of the infiltrating ditch, increase or at best maintain the flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals. Another option, the BAS option, would be to channel the water the other way, towards May Creek, and thence to an infiltration feature on the other side of the property. Second Massman Dec. at ,r,r 11-12. An EIS would quantify the impacts of the project as submitted, a no-action alternative, and other means of handling stormwater, and allow Renton to make an informed decision on whether to allow this project as proposed or require stormwater management more tailored to the unique circumstances of the site. 3. The Examiner erred in ordering that water be dumped in the ditch. The Examiner ordered that "[t]he applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch." Decision at p. 25, ,r 9. But the new information regarding the infiltration of water from the ditch means that this condition will not prevent pollutants from entering Lake Washington. As Dr. Massman opines, the Best Available Science for handling stormwater on the site is not to use the ditch: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -6 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206! 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 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 27 28 Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7 .8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7 .8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. Second Massman Dec. at "i["i[ 11-12. While undoubtedly well-intentioned, the Examiner's decision thus improperly limits the stormwater treatment options to a system that makes no sense, given the unique topography of the site and the presence of Quendall Terminals downslope from a "ditch" that actually serves as an infiltration pond. Dated this 24th day of September, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Gives Back(Den)\Motion for Reconsideration FINAL 9 24 09 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -7 GENDLER & MANN. LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-6868 Fax: [206) 621-0512 I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: 1. I am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back to assist in addressing stormwater and other site development issues related to the proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. 2. I provided a previous declaration related to this project dated July 17, 2009. 3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items 1 through 3 in my First Declaration, dated July 17, 2009. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 22nd day of September 2009, Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. I have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton dated Sept=ber 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009 hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall. These minutes include the following information that was not previously provided to me: 1. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area related to the hotel development. 2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the stormwater plan for the site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water. 3. The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces. Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration dated July 176, 2009 include the following: 1. Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality treatment BMP or option. 2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 4. The subject site is approximately 7 .8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 5. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at the site may be in the range of20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. 6. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for Hawk's Landing Crown Plaza Hotel," The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. 7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. 8. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths ofup to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soiis and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. 11. Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. 12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7. 8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms ofreducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. 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 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ____________ ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION I, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above-captioned action. I make this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of GR l 7(a)(2). 2. The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman. 3. I have examined the document, determined that it consists of five (5) pages, including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION -1 GENDLER & MANN. LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fa:x: (206) 621-0512 1 Dated this 24th day of September, 2009, at Seattle, Washington. 2 t~~ 3 4 KEITHP. SCULLY, WSBANo. 28677 5 \South End Gives Back(Den)\Dec Scully FAX 9 24 09 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 . DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING Seattle, WA 98101 FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION -2 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 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 27 28 BEFORE TIIE HEARING EXAMlNER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ss. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORIT A COAK.LEY, under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Motion for Reconsideration, and Second Declaration of Joel Massman to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE -1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone; (2061 621-8868 Fax.; !2061 621-0512 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 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ J By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen@rentonwa.gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [ J By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [] By Facsimile [] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), j essi ca@mhseattl e. com DATEDthis2"1',..dayof ~ , 200 '3 , at Seattle, Washington. \South End Gives Back(Den)\Dec serv DECLARATION OF SERVICE -2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: !206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 ,,, •), u"~~Y rJ + .2.m~ CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division ~~ + \~JY:1'. ~ 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6510 D Cash . Ci ,-· "-)9 Cheek No. V) I ~ ~> Description: A,, ,e_,, .v 'j Funds Received From: "" D Copy Fee qPAppeal Fee Receipt 1 · .• 1453 Date q 11'-, f O '] D Notary Service o __________ _ \. ~ 1e;,.,\,,1i1,,_;,_ Lrc·" 11.:.,..~ ·· t.,_u.fl-o 1-ob'D Name Address City/Zip .\ )" .,\ ,, ·-·-.!_L·Y'"-U· -"~ ..t 'N' (). V\ "' \, l, r/ !Amount$ /S vO --;( •.. ct· \ t,. ,;./',A '"'1'6\0l / ., I 1-1'' (''·'>(~ 1-,V., u..,-,_,.·H. City Staff Signature ) ' SEATTLE TACOMA BELLEVUE EVERETT OLYMPIA 9105THAVE.. 943 TACOMA AVE. SO. 10655 NE 4th 2927 ROCKEFELLER 119W LEGION WAY I SEATTLE, WA 98104 TACOMA. WA 98402 Suite L101 EVERETT. WA 98201 OLYMPIA, WA 96501 ooa)< CE6AL ,, • ., .. , ) PH: 206-623-8771 PH: 253-363-1791 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 PH: 425-256---4591 PH: 360-154-6595 i 206-61t2-1675 1~00-383-1791 PH: 425-455-01[}2 1-800-869-7785 1-8D0-82S-0199 bh~~lcam. 1..S00-736-7295 FAX: 253-272-9359 FAX.: 425-455-3153 FAX: 425-252-9322 FAX: 360-357-3302 FAX: 206-625•9247 tac@abciegal.com bel@abdegal.com eve@abciegal.com oly@abclegal.com seallilabi::Jeoa!.com MESS5NGEF1S-,,= FIRM NAME ! PHONE I EXT.# I EMAIL (SECRETARY) LAST DAY Gendler & Mann, LLP 621.8868 850 florita@gendlennann.com DATE/TlME ADDRESS i A1TY I SECRETARY 9/24/09 1424 Fourth Ave., Suite 1015, Seattle WA 98101 KPS Fiorita CASE NAME YOUR ABC ACCT. NO In the Matter of the Aooeal of South End Gives Back 103142 by4:30 p.m. CAUSE NO. I CLIENT MATER# DATE LUA-09-060, ECF, SA·M, SA-H 616 9/24/2009 DOCUMENTS Anneal Fee (check); Cover Letter; Notice of Anneal to the Renton Citv Council; Statement of Errose and Reauest for Relief I SIGNATURE REQUIRED ON DOCUMENTS ) X I RETURN CONFORMED ABC SLIP ONLY I RETURN CONFORMED COPY I I CONFORM ORll:i!NAL DO NOT FILE OTHER INSTRUCTIONS 1 Clerk ' City of Renton CITY OF RENTON 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor SEP 24 2009 3,' ' rr Renton, WA 98057 . ' ' RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 2 ' ~I I SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT (INDICATE APPSACS FEDERAL COURT I I sm• s,c COUNTY COURT DlSTRICl) AUDITOR I-SEA I T~C -I JIMl(R~CV SEA TAC SUPREME STATE COURT CORP . ..I I 11 I I I I I THIS FORM NOT FOR PROCESS ABC Legal Services, Inc. (ABC) assumes no liability for errors c:aused in whole or in part by the imp raper filling out of this messenger service request form, in duding but not limited to, omission of a last day date/time, filings not marked in the proper and designated filing boxes, illegible print or script, etc. All messenger requests are double-checked for accuracy and completion prior to returning la the requester, however, it is the responsibility of the requestor to also check the completed request form for accuracy and to notify us immediately if there are any questions or discrepancies. Usaoe of this farm constib.Jtes a contract between the reauestor and ABC and acknowledament and acceotance bv the reouestor of the terms set forth above. ABC legal Services ABCSlip 3.0 NOV-02-2009 11:58AM FROM- Miclrael W. Gendler- David S. Mann J{dtll P. ScuUy Brendan W. Dooclcers Clerk City of Renton 205-621-0512 GENDLER & MANN, LLP l424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SE.,rrLEWA 98101 November 2, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL 1055 Sourh Grady Way, 7'h Floor Remon, WA 98057 RE: Amended Noiice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hore! applicaiion. No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA-M, SA-H Dear Clerk: CITY OF RENTON NOV O 2 2009 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE (106) ol l ·8R6~ Fa. 11061 oll-0511 l...c:ith@gendlc:rrrunn.com www.gendlermann.com Attached please find an amended nmice of appeal in this matter. We filed a notice of appeal on September 24, 2009, asking for review of !he Hearing Examiner's Sepiember 10, 2009 report and decision. This amended notice asks for review of rhe Hearing Examiner's Occober 19, 2009 denial of the morion for reconsideration, as well as the September 10, 2009 repon and decision. Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP ~~ Keith P. Scully KPS:den Enclosure cc: Ann Nielsen, Cicy of Remon Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicam C!ienr NOV-01-1009 11 :58AM FROM- It j\A ( (,,, o-e. d 206-611-0511 T-805 P 002/004 F-759 CITY OF RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOV O 2 2009 ' RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION NAME --aHL.C-&v_.::..._-Lt=----.e:0c.-_.l-,:::.__c.-..,,,~=d.,_,f L."'-'5'-----FILE NO. L u ,1-°1-0 6S The undersigned interested parry hereby files irs Notice of Appeal from die decision or recommendation of die Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated O C ... ffJ6--e.r } 'j 2QQ:). c... l'l d p-C f-/ <;4---"'), 1. IDE.NTlFICATIONOFPARTY <;ep-}-e.r16,er /CJ; 2.-oO"J 5,,t;--f-) APPELLANT: l . · REPRES:~1~iI'IVE (lF ANY): Name: i;~t c 6{e,.,?J. ,,V}(l-p)'5,tli,, Name:e th? ~lu/}Y Address: r Address: ;~ L. 4: lf:Th ~( SJe )<JJ> ( ec.....rt-1(, wA c,<:c 10/ Phone Numbec ----------- Email:------------- Phone Number: ?....o 6 6 ")..,/ 9'.:~b l> Email: j::.., e )DJ b 9 81:-J: I c (" /"'1"?i;I t, • ~ 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below arc the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No._ Error: (1rc..-sc Sec s±tc...LL.,C;..d Correction:------------------------ Conclusions: No. Error:----'----------------------- Correction:------------------------ lli!!fil:: /1 No._ Error:·-------------------------- Correction:------------------------ 3. SUMMARY OF AClJON REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach expUnation, if desired) C><:: Reve_rse the de~ision or recammenda~on and grant the following relief: )C'C.. C, f1-<--<..f..-i e. d Modify the decmon or recommendaoon as follows: · Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Ocher: ( ~~~ <-'EE· ~€ i-h, ScuJ1'/ IJ /c:-Joc>i dtppdlant/Representative Sign~qb7 Type/Printed Name ' ~ / NOTE: Please refer to Title IV. Chapter S, of the 2uon Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-1 lOF, for specific: appeal procedures. / NOV-02-2009 11 :58AM FROM-206-621-0512 T-805 P 003/0D4 f-759 AMENDED STATEMENT OF ERRORS AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF Morion for Reconsideration Conclusions Page 1, denial of morion to admit new evidence and reconsider ruling. SEP A Appeal Findings 15, p. 16. EiTor of fact in finding that stonnwater will not exacerbate leaching of comaminants. Error of fact in finding that probable significant adverse environmental impacts were not present. Conclusions ,ri[ 6-8, pp. 17-18. Errors oflaw in finding that the Appellant did not provide a basis to reverse the City's determination, and in finding that the Appellant must prove that environmental hann will be .. exacerbated" by the project. Errors of fact by finding that water would nor percolate into the underlying soils and exacerbate pollutants. Error of law in not reversing the determination of the ERC for a Detenninarion of Significance, or additional mitigation. Master Site Plan Findings ii 27, p. 21. Error of fact in finding that the stormwater will not be exacerbating any isst1es with pollt1tants. Decision Error of law in not requiring a stormwater plan and habitat management plan prior to approval of the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. ,r 10, p: 25. Error of law and judgment in requiring that the applicant use a particular roadside ditch to convey swnnwater, rather than requiring other stormwater control measures. NDV-01-1009 11 :59AM FROM-206-621-0512 T-S05 P. 004/004 F-759 Remedv Reverse the SEPA determination of the Hearing Examiner with directions to the ERC to issue a Determination of Significance. Reverse the approval of me Master Site Plan and Site Plan with directions ro require a stonnwarer plan and habitat management plan utilizing BAS to rreat srormwater on site. NOV-D4-1D09 04:14PM FROM-1D6-611-0511 T-808 P.001/003 F-761 GENDLER & MANN, LLP Michael W. Gendler· D,vid S. M,mn Keith l'. Scully Brendan W. Poockets ATIORNEYS·AT-L,W 1424 FoURTH AVENUE, Surre 1015 SEATTLE WA 98101 November 4, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Clerk City of Remon 1055 South Grady Way, 7"' Floor Remon, WA 98057 RE: Amended Notice of Appeal in Hawk's Landing Hotel application, No. LUA-09-060, ECF SA-M, SA-H Dear Members of Council: isECEi\iffi C;TY CLERK''i OfF'.CE 1206) 621-SS6S F:u (206J 621.0512 keirh@gendleraunn.com WWY.. .ge:ndlcrmann.com This case involved voluminous briefmg. We ask that you review all of the briefing provided to date, but also provide this letter to summarize aod guide you through it as you consider whether to gram our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal. This site has unique challenges. Uncomrovened evidence shows that the hotel proposed here is upslope from the Port Quendall Superfund site. Port Quendall is contaminated with extremely toxic substances, and th.: Depanmem of Ecology and EPA have information that these 10xic. substances move via groundwater flow to Lake Washington. For more informarion, see Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the attached Declaration of Joel Massman. Groundwater flow must be controlled, or infiltration will make the toxins flowing from Port Quendall to Lake Washington worse. An EIS should be ordered. Unconrroverred evidence in the record shows that groundwater flow transmits toxins from the contaminated soil at Port Quendall into Lake Washington. And water that infiltrates the ground from the site flows downslope to Port Qu.:ndall. Although the Applicant argues thar ir will channel stormwater 10 May Creek through irs as-yet incomplete stormwarer management plan, and nor infiltrate 1he ground with it, evidence uncovered after the hearing indicates that the drainage ditch relied upon by the Applicant acrually will infiltrate the ground, leading to NDV-04-2006 04:24PM FROM- Clerk November 4, 2009 Page 2 206-621-0512 T-808 P.002/003 F-762 increased groundwater and toxin flow to Lake Washington. An Envirownemal Impact Srudy should be perfonned to evaluate how much water is infiltrating the ground through the ditch, how much of an impact it has on Lake Washington, and what the best means of dealing wirh the impacts may be. SEGB asserts that rhis problem can be resolved simply by changing the direction of stormwater flow on the site to move it away from Port Quendall, and through the installation of a srormwater detention pond on the May Creek side of the site. An EIS will answer critical environmental questions about this project and the adjacent superfund site. For more information, see Appellant Nicholson Motion for Reconsideration and Declaration of expert Joel Massman, filed with the Hearing Examiner on September 24, 2009. We need a swrmwater management plan before the site ill approved to know if stormwater will be adequately managed. A stormwater management plan is required in order to complete the conditions of the approval on rhis project -but we don't know what will be in it, or what the Applicant will propose as rheir final solution to rhe srormwater problems on site. The public does not have an opportunity to comment on the stonnwater plan when it is evenmally completed, and there is no mechanism for the Hearing Examiner or the Council to review it. The Hearing Examiner and Council have broad authority to impose conditions on a development proposal. While most development sires can safely wait to complete their stormwater plan after approvals have been received, this site is unique. We should know in advance how the Applicant will handle stormwater, and rhe public should be allowed ro commem. For more information see Appellant Nicholson Hearing Brief, filed with the Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2009, and the attached Declaration of Joel Massman. The Examiner reasonably imposed the condition of Best Available Science on stonnwatei:- management at the site. The Examiner has been granted authority by the Renton Code ·to impose conditions on developments. In rhis case, the Examiner, understanding the unique narure of this site and the challenges to the long-term health of the region, imposed a requirement of Best Available Science on stormwater management on the sire. Best Available Science is a commonly-used standard in Washington law to protect critical areas, and means what it says: rhat rhe Applicant does not need to create any new methods, bur must choose the bes1 scientifically-valid method available to manage srormwater. See RCW 36.70A.172. The Applicant asks you to impose a "Best Management Practice" requirement instead of the Examiner's Best Available Science requirement. But "Best Management Praetices" are defined by the Renton Municipal Code as measures pertaining to wetlands protection or short-term construction methods, nor Jong-renn stormwater solutions. RMC 4-11-020. The Examiner's discretion should be left undisturbed on this issue. For more infonnarion, see Appellanr Brad NOV-04-1009 04:25PM FROM- Clerk November 4, 2009 Page 3 206-621-0512 T-808 P.003/003 F-f6l Nicholson Response to Renton & Hawks Landing Requests for Reconsideration, filed on October 5, 2009 with the Hearing Examiner. For the reasons summarized here and presented more fully in our briefing IO rhe Examiner. we u:rge you to grant our appeal, and deny the Applicants' appeal. KPS:den cc: Ann Nielsen, City of Renton Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP '--~~ Keith P. Scully Jessica Clawson, Attorney for Applicant Client 1 2 3 4 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 5 6 7 8 In the Matter of the Appeal of 9 Brad Nicholson, and SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, 10 Petitioner, re; 11 City of Renton, a non-NPDES phase II 12 MS4 Respondent. 13 14 Name and address of Petitioner: 15 Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28'h Street 16 Renton, WA 98056 1 7 425 445 0658 brad827@hotmail.com 18 19 20 21 Name and address of Respondent: City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98057 ) Case No. ) ) ) PETITION FOR REVIEW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 22 Name and address of Property owner identified on tax records: 23 24 25 Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Ti! 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 PFR-1 Brad Nicholson 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 Name and Address of Project proponent: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Parties Served: Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 160th A venue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Washington office of the Attorney General RobMcKenna 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 I. INTRODUCTORY FACTS South End Gives Back (SEGB) and Brad Nicholson hereby file this Notice of Appeal challenging the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit the City of Renton issued to itself under LUAl0-041, ECF, SM, allowing a stand alone "Wet Biofiltration Swale" to service the infrastructure needs of the proposed Hotel the Sealiawks require for their operations. The proposed storm water facility purports to discharge its polluted water into May Creek, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class 1 Salmon stream" situate in the City's commercial/office/residential (COR) zone. PFR-2 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 The proposal is not in conformity with Renton's code. The facts show that the Wet Biofiltration Swale is not enough to protect Washington's shoreline amenities from pollution, that toxic pollutants entering the habitat of endangered and threatened species is not only unnecessary and avoidable, but indicate the City does not comply with the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as an MS4 jurisdiction. The City and the applicant combined to piecemeal this uncoordinated project's approval. The permit the City issued for the piece of the storm water system mitigation are inconsistent with the policies of the State of Washington Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington's Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Renton's shoreline regulations. The specific provisions of drainage code core requirement #8 (Water Quality) would be violated should the permit go unreversed. This petition seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the Washington's Shorelines. RCW 90.58.020. 14 II. BACKGROUND FACTS 15 1. On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International Spencer Alpert (Applicant) 16 applied for and obtained approval for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 1 7 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 18 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton-with unarticulated street and storm water 19 improvements. The proposed project consists of7.8 acres along Lake Washington Blvd just off 20 the exit 7 Interstate 405 in Renton. There was no real storm water drainage plan for the hotel the 21 Seahawks consider to have such importance. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H. The applicant 22 had has an agreement with Port Quendall Company to build out the property. A Shoreline permit 2 3 was needed for the Hotel to perform deconstruction work within the May Creek buffer area but 2 4 the applicant rested at their Hearing contending that the large rusted metal building would not be 2 s "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. It seems avoiding a shoreline development permit was most important to the applicant, and there has never been a PFR-3 Brad Nicholson 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 permit for the deconstruction of one of the huge rusted and leaching metal buildings. The Applicant argued that storm water improvements would be identified at the permit stage of the project. Parking would be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 new surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for "Tesla" electric vehicles. In constructing the new hotel, the applicant planned to move 4,450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil. 2. From a perspective of groundwater flow, the project is directly upstream from the Port Quendall Superfund site. Port Quendall is severely polluted with wood preservative products that have been dumped in numerous areas of the site. There are large patches of the chemicals around 6-8 feet thick and are significantly impacting the water quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up Quendall Terminals, there will probably need to be around 500,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on the site. It was discovered that a significant amount of water from the hotel project could enter the superfund site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. There is uncompleted remediation plan in progress that is being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up ofQuendall Terminals. EPA Exhibits 3. SEGB and Brad Nicholson made an appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner citing the lack of the Hotel projects' compliance with SEPA and the SMA, and lack ofa compliant Storm water Plan. 4. The result was a determination that one of the huge rusted metal warehouses would be left to continue to deteriorate on the site right in the view of the Hotel windows, and the storm water system would remain un-designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be applied. The applicant indicated he was committed that the storm facilities would be constructed according to code. The applicant insisted on splitting the Hearings into two separate hearings one for SEP A issues and one for substantive site plan code issues. PFR-4 Brad Nicholson 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 5. The KCSWDM non-conformity similar to here in this appeal was discovered after the SEPA Hearing that a "Rain Garden" that was arbitrarily proposed by Spencer Alpert was merely an impervious lined conveyance trench masquerading as a water quality feature, and that the drainage ditch the storm water would be flowing into not only infiltrated a significant portion of the water into Quendall Terminals, but contained a large amount of"orange scum" flowing into May Creek. That "orange scum" is obviously from the buildings and contains toxic metal. When questioned about the water quality menu used during the hearing, the Storm water engineer evidently perjured himself by answering that the "Rain Garden" satisfied the criteria for the basic water quality menu. It doesn't, and there was no coordinated plan to manage storm water quality at that time, in fact, there still isn't. 6. SEGB obtained the testimony of Hydrogeologist Dr. Joel Massman to opine on the issues. On reconsideration, Dr. Massman found that a significant amount of the storm water from the ditch would charge the groundwater flow into Quendall Terminals and that the groundwater would flow to Lake Washington. The chemicals of concern there are not dissolved metals and various contaminants from a 173 room hotel building, retail, fitness center, and high use roadways, but cancer causing chemicals such as Poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), Pentaclorophenol, and Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene. (BTEX). The PAH chemical family contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofuran. They are considered to be extremely dangerous. 7. The area was and still is of particular concern because the area is considered prime habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout. The area or concern has recreational swimming areas nearby. The May Creek basin and Lake Washington are several of the supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle in the area. Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon are ESA listed species. Threatened and Endangered, respectively. PFR-5 Brad Nicholson 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 8. Recently Dr. Massman's conclusion that there is significant groundwater flow into Lake Washington has been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington's shoreline as part of the superfund investigations. EPA exhibit. The EPA has recommended that the rate of "Fluxing" of the extremely dangerous chemicals be studied and determined before the remediation process may be determined. Dr. Massman calculated the Storm water infiltration/runoff from the Seahawks Hotel that was to be supported by the unarticulated water quality facility to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably did not take into account the one rusted hulk that counsel for Spencer Alpert pledged would remain. It also must be true that his calculations did not take into account other impervious calculations such as transportation mitigation measures. 9. The Hearing Examiner decided applying the use of the Best Available Science before conveying surface water offsite would suffice, and Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology to the use of "Best Management practices" as appropriate in order to proceed. After the Hearings, the City obtained State money citing community revitalization interests to provide mitigation measures for the Football Enterprise. PFR-6 Brad Nicholson 1 III. TIMING 2 A This petition is timely filed according to RCW 43.2IL.050 (3) because it is filed within 21 3 day of the date that the permit was issued by the City of Renton. (2) copies of the permit decision 4 that are at issue in this case are attached. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IV. JURISDICTION A. The issues that are raised by this appeal; the piecemeal and uncoordinated development of the State's Shorelines; not properly designed in a manner to minimize damage to the ecology and environment of the State's Shorelines, and the policies of the States Environmental Policy Act "Strike to the very core of both the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the State Environmental Policy Act" SHB Case No. 93-55, Appletree Cove Protection Fund v. Kitsap County B. This is an appeal ofa Shoreline substantial development permit. Renton's City code places jurisdiction in RMC 4-8-110 (H.) (!.)with the Shoreline Hearings Board: "1. Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit and/or variance on the shorelines of the City, or by the rescinding of a permit pursuant to the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, may seek review from the State of Washington Shoreline Hearings Board." V. STANDING A SEGB Standing Appellant SEGB is a legally established and operating Washington nonprofit corporation serving the interests of the Citizens of Renton to protect Renton's environmental quality. Membership is made up of Renton citizens who are directly impacted by the loss of environmental quality in their city. The members ofSEGB have exclusive control of the corporation. SEGB has an adopted corporate policy that envisions efforts such as this appeal. No outside influences have any control on the direction of the corporation. PFR-7 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 SEGB has standing to file this appeal because its members' interests are within the zone of interests intended to be protected or regulated by the Washington's Shoreline Management Act and State Environmental Policy Act, and its members are suffering and will suffer the following injury in fact. SEGB has one or more members that enjoy the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walk, boat, fish, or swim or desire to swim and observe the areas surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife, and recreation associated with this project. The improper review and construction proposals that fail to improve the situation will impact them, using inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact them, and SEGB will be impacted by the degradation to water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake Washington or May Creek. SEGB has one or more members who are residents of Renton with an active interest in the integrity of City ofRenton's land use and environmental review processes, who have actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to Clean Water, who seek to ensure that the City abides by SEPA and SMA policies and procedures and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and who are negatively impacted by the improper processing and lack of environmental considerations in connection with this project. SEGB has one or more members who wish to have their community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's City code, and who will be injured by the City's denial of their rights to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline Permit and consideration of environmental values according to SEP A. 23 B. Nicholson Standing 24 Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a 2 s very short distance up hill from the site, (less than one mile) and uses the May Creek and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining the site. As a result of the unanalyzed, undesigned and PFR-8 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 unmitigated impacts caused by the project, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased damage to the environmental quality envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Element and SMA and SEPA, specifically damaged water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington, loss o visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids that use these water bodies that he enjoys. Nicholson declares that he enjoys the fish that presently make May creek and Lake Washington their habitat. Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in appeals concerning water quality in the past. He has worked to protect the environment in the past. As a result of the City's improper processing and decisionmaking with regard to the shoreline permit and issuing the DNS and failure to require the correct processes and procedures, Nicholson is already suffering harm from an inability to consider the quantifiable environmental effect of the project or propose alternative measures envisioned by SEPA. Nicholson will suffer if the project is constructed as proposed. VI. CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS 1 7 A. It is error for the City to take a single project concept and divide it into segments for the 18 purposes of SEP A and SMA approval and not consider the totality of the effect upon the 19 environment. The size of the project, its proximity to the superfund site and its toxic chemicals, 20 the character of the leaching metals into the storm water facility are a few of the factors not 21 considered. The project improvements should be reviewed in the context of all the impacts from 22 the proposed Football Hotel, Restaurant, Retail Shopping, Fitness Center, and their associated 2 3 regulatory requirements but were not. 24 25 PFR-9 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 B. The EPA Phase II Rules provide that Ecology permits must require regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program (SWMP) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." cite 40 C.F.R. §122.34(a). Storm water is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urban waterways. PCHB NOS. 07-022, 07-023 Puget Soundkeeper v. Alliance of Cities. It is error and uncoordinated to fail to enforce EPA rules and Ecology permit system requirements for storm water discharge. In this context, failing to use the known project criteria to assess the environment with an "end run" around what is in reality preventable damage only frustrates the rights of citizens of the State and the right to a healthy environment. The center of the issue is that it is error to conduct or tolerate such activity. C. The City has an obligation to conduct a review of the entire plan under SEPA, which they have not done. They should have laid out the entire development in the context of Shorelines Management Act permit, which they have not done. Because they have failed to do so, the permit the City issued to itself fails to meet the requirements of SEPA and SMA and should be reversed. 19 VII. ISSUES 2 o A. The City, by approving the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, did not construe the 21 following or interpret the State policies correctly, justifying reversal of the decision. 22 1. The permit decision is inconsistent with Shoreline Management Act of 1971: RCW 90.58.020 states, 23 24 25 PFR-10 "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water" Brad Nicholson 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 2. Permit decision is inconsistent with goals of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971: RCW 90.58.020, "that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, stale, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's shorelines" 3. Permit decision is inconsistent with State policy RCW 43.21C.020 "that it is the continuing policy of the slate of Washington, in cooperation with federal and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to: (a) Fosler and promote the general welfare; (b) to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony;" 4. Permit decision is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act RCW 90.48.010: PFR-11 "It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagution and protection of wild life, birds, game,jish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state of Washington. Consistent with this policy, the stale of Washington will exercise its powers, as fully and as effectively as possible, lo retain and secure high quality for all waters of the state. The state of Washington in recognition of the federal government's interest in the quality of the navigable waters of the United States, of which certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this state, proclaims a public policy of working cooperatively with the federal government in a joint effort to extinguish the sources of water quality degradation, while at the same time preserving and vigorously exercising state powers lo insure that present and future standards of water quali within the state shall be determined by the citizenry, through and by the efforts of state government, of the state of Washington" Brad Nicholson 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 VIII. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON A. Thorough review of the following City Drainage code and adopted King County Surface Water design Manual reveal that the proposed "Wet Biofiltration swale is not pennitted: I. Renton city code states: PFR-12 4-6-030 DRAINAGE (SURFACE WATER) STANDARDS: A. PURPOSE: I. The purpose of this Section shall be to promote and develop policies with respect to the City's watercourses and to preserve them by minimizing water quality degradation by previous siltation, sedimentation and pollution of creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water, and to protect property owners tributary to developed and undeveloped land from increased runoff rates and to ensure the safety of roads and rights-of-way. 2. It shall also be the purpose of this Section to reduce flooding, erosion, and sedimentation; prevent and mitigate habitat loss; enhance groundwater recharge; and prevent water quality degradation through permit review, construction inspection, enforcement, and maintenance in order to promote the effectiveness of the requirements. 3. It shall also be a purpose of this Section to regulate the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) regarding the contribution of pollutants, consisting of any material other than stormwater, including but not limited to illicit discharges, illicit connections and/or dumping into any storm drain system, including surface and/or groundwater throughout the City that would adversely impact surface and groundwater quality of the City and the State of Washington, in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-20 l 0) C. ADOPTION OF SURF ACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL: The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), as now or as hereafter may be amended by King County or the City of Renton, and hereby referred to as the Surface Water Design Manual, is hereby adopted by reference, with the exception of Chapters I and 2 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual which are not adopted. Chapters I and 2 of the Surface Water Design Manual, as amended by the City of Renton to specify local requirements and procedures, are hereby adopted by reference. References 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4D, 7B, 7C, 8F, 8G, 9 and 10 of the King County Surface Water Design Manual are not adopted. One copy of the Surface Water Design Manual shall be filed with the City Clerk including any amendments thereto. (Ord. 5526, 2-1-20 I 0) D. WHEN REQUIRED: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval a drainage plan with their application and/or request: 2. Shoreline permit; Brad Nicholson 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 h. Core Requirement 8 -Water Quality: Proposed projects that would result in five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of new pollution generating impervious surface or thirty five thousand (35,000) square feet or more of new pollution-generating pervious surface, or that are redevelopment projects that would result in a total of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more of new and replaced pollution-generating impervious surface, shall provide water quality treatment facilities to treat polluted surface and stormwater runoff generated by new or replaced pollution-generating impervious surface, as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. Water quality treatment facilities shall meet the land-use water quality treatment requirements and the water quality implementation requirements applicable to the project site as specified in the Surface Water Design Manual. The facilities specified by these requirements are designed to reduce pollutant loads according to the applicable annual average performance goals listed in subsections E3h(i) and (ii) of this Section for ninety five percent (95%) of the annual average runoff volume: i. For basic water quality: remove eighty percent (80%) of the total suspended solids; ii. For enhanced basic water quality: remove fifty percent (50%) of the total zinc. B. CORE REQUIREMENT #8 applies to the project 1. Core requirement #8 requires WATER QUALITY facilities for the project. KCSWDM read as follows: 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to treat the runoff from those new and replaced pollution-generating impervious surfaces and new pollution-generating pervioas surfaces targeted for treatment as specified in the following sections.These facilities shall be selected from a menu of treatment facility options specified by the area-specific facility requirements in Section 1.2.8.1 (p. 1-67) and implemented according to the applicable WQ implementation requirements in Section 1.2.8.2 (p. 1-75). C. Wet Biofiltration Swales do not remove dissolved pollution from metal and other contaminants. KCSWDM reads as follows: PFR-13 6.3.1 BASIC BIO FILTRATION SW ALES A biofiltration swale is an open, gently sloped, vegetated channel designed for treatment of stormwater (see the details in Figure 6.3.1.A through Figure 6.3.1.E beginning on page 6-52). The primary pollutant removal mechanisms are filtration by grass blades which enhance sedimentation, and trapping and adhesion of pollutants to the grass and thatch. Biofiltration swales generally do not remove dissolved pollutants effectively. Brad Nicholson 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 D. There is no Exemption available to the project. It is many more square feet than allowed no matter how it is calculated. The total impervious surface impacting May Creek and/or Lake Washington would necessarily be around 300,000 to 400,000 square feet. The project proponents are extremely wealthy and the Hotel proposal will be valued at many times the value of abandoned, leaching, rusty metal warehouses . KCSWDM reads as follows: EXEMPTIONS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #8 There are five possible exemptions from the requirement to provide a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement #8: 1. Surface Area Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be created as part of a redevelopment project, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed transportation redevelopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) The total new impervious surface within the project limits is Jess than 50% of the existing impervious surface, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redevelopment project on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) The total valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 4. Soil Treatment Exemption A proposed project or any drainage area within a project is exempt if the runoff from pollutiongenerating impervious surfaces is infiltrated in soils that meet the "groundwater protection criteria" outlined below, except areas within one-quarter-mile of a sensitive lake. E. The proposal ignores the type of area that the project is situate: KCSWDM: PFR-14 1.2.8.1 AREA-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY FACILITY REQUIREMENT Projects subject to Core Requirement #8 must provide a water quality treatment facility selected from a menu of treatment facility options identified in the area-specific facility requirements and exceptions for the WQ treatment area in which the proposed project or threshold discharge area of the proposed project is located. These WQ treatment areas are listed below and their requirements and exceptions are detailed in the following subsections: A. Basic WQ Treatment Areas B. Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas C. Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas. Intent: To apply an appropriate level of water quality treatment based on the sensitivities of receiving waters for the drainage area in which the project lies. These drainage areas are Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 identified as WQ treatment areas on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual. In addition to a minimum basic standard, which applies broadly to most geographic areas, special menus are provided for land uses that generate the highest concentrations of metals in storm water and for sites within the watersheds of sensitive lakes, and sphagnum bog wetlands. 4 F. Toxic metals require an increased level of treatment to protect fish. KCSWDM reads as follows: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS Basic WQ Treatment Areas are designated by King County where a general, cost-effective level of treatment is sufficient for most land uses. Some land uses, however, will need an increased level of treatment because they generate high concentrations of metals in storm water runoff and acute concentrations of metals in streams are toxic to fish. The treatment facility requirements for Basic WQ Treatment Areas provide for this increase in treatment. Basic WQ Treatment Areas are delineated on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual (see the map pocket inside the back cover). Any unincorporated areas of King County not shown on this map shall be assumed to be Basic WQ Treatment Areas. A more detailed delineation is available on the County's Geographic Information System. G. The proposal is inconsistent with the required "Enhanced Basic" Water quality menu. KCSWDM reads as follows: Required Treatment Menu Within Basic WQ Treatment Areas, a treatment facility option from the Basic WQ menu shall be used to treat runoff from the surfaces listed under "Target Surfaces" below, except where such treatment is waived or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection and except where the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is applicable as follows. If50% or more of the runoff that drains to any proposed treatment facility is from one or more of the following land nses, then the Enhanced Basic WQ menu shall be used in place of the Basic WQ menu for the design of this facility, except if such treatment is waived or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this subsection: 1. Residential subdivision development in which the actual density of single family units is equal to or greater than 8 units per acre of developed area. 2. Commercial, industrial, or multifamily land use. 3. A road with an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of2,000 or more vehicles or expected to serve 200 or more homes. Note: those roads defined in the King County Road Standards as urban subaccess streets, rural subaccess streets, urban minor access streets - residential, rural minor access streets -residential, urban subcollectors, and rural subcollectors all serve less than 100 homes by definition H. The "Wet Biofiltration Swale" is less than compliant. It must be upgraded to the enhance water quality menu, but impossible to do since the City has not adopted the right facility types. The basic menu facility that was chosen is not a stand alone facility option on the Enhance Basic water quality menu because it drains to a fish bearing stream. May Creek is a class on Salmon Stream and Shoreline of the State. KCSWDM reads as follows: PFR-15 Brad Nicholson 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 Treatment Goal and Options The treatment goal for facility options in the Basic WQ menu is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff. TSS is the general performance indicator for basic water quality protection because it is the most obvious pollutant of concern. The Basic WQ menu includes facilities such as wetponds, combined detention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, filter strips, and sand filters. See Chapter 6 for specific facility choices and design details. The treatment goal for facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is 50% reduction of total zinc. Zinc is an indicator of a wider range of metals typically found in urban runoff that are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu includes options for use of a basic-sized stormwater wetland, a large sand filter, or a combination of two facilities in series, one of which is either a sand filter or a Stormfilter ™ (leaf compost filter). See Chapter 6 for specific facility options and designs. I. There is no indication at all that the basic water quality menu may be chosen on this May Creek project. In fact, All project sites such as this one containing significant metals are intended to use the enhanced basic water quality menu. KCSWDM reads as follow: Intent The Basic WQ menu is intended to be applied to both stormwater discharges draining to surface waters and those infiltrating into soils that do not provide adequate groundwater protection (see Exemptions 4 and 5 from Core Requirement #8). Overall, the 80% TSS removal objective, in conjunction with special requirements for source control and high-use site controls, should result in good stonnwater quality for all but the most sensitive water bodies. Increased water quality treatment is necessary for developments that generate the highest concentrations of metals and for developments that drain to sensitive lakes and sphagnum bog wetlands. Facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu are intended to remove more metals than expected from those in the Basic WQ menu. Lower metal concentrations reduce the risk to fish of exposure to both chronic and acutely toxic concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc. As the toxicity of metals depends on their concentration, this standard is most effective for project sites with a larger proportion of pollution-generating impervious surface like roadways and medium to high density subdivisions. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is intended to apply to all such project sites that drain by surface flows to a fish-bearing stream. (Emphasis supplied) However, projects that drain entirely by pipe to the major receiving waters listed on page 1-37 are excused from the increased treatment and may revert to the Basic WQ menu because concentration effects are of less concern as the overall flow volume increases. J. More than just a "wet biofiltration swale" is required under the enhanced basic water quality menu. KCSWDM reads as follows: PFR-16 6.1.2 ENHANCED BASIC WATER QUALITY MENU Where applied: The Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu, is applied where an enhanced level of treatment is required for those development sites or portions thereof that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff and drain by surface flows to a fish- bearing stream. Acute concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc in streams are toxic to Brad Nicholson 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 fish. For precise details on the application of this and other water quality menus, refer to Section 1.2.8, "Core Requirement #8: Water Quality." Note: The Enhanced Basic menu is a stand-alone menu. It integrates the Basic menu level of protection and the additional measures needed to achieve a higher level of metals removal. When this menu is required in Basic WQ Treatment Areas per Section 1.2.8.1-A a/Core Requirement #8, it is intended to replace the Basic WQ menu on development sites or portions of development sites that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff When this menu is required in Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas per Section 1.2. 8. I -B, it is intended to be combined with the Sensitive Lake Protection Menu such that a facility design option common to both menus must be used. Treatment goal: The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is designed to achieve 50 percent total zinc removal for flows up to and including the WQ design flow or volume ( defined in Section 6.2.1, p. 6-17).4 Basis: The treatment goal is expressed in terms of total zinc removal. Although zinc is not the most toxic metal in storm water, it is usually present in significant amounts, making it a practical and reliable indicator of overall performance. Many metals are readily adsorbed onto particulates in the runoff, usually the finer fraction of the particulates. Facility combinations that remove more of the particulate load than the Basic menu, including the finer fraction, are specified by the Enhanced Basic menu. Facilities providing organic binding sites that enhance metal adsorption are also specified. ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 1 LARGE SAND FILTER This option includes use of a large sand filter, large sand filter vault, or large linear sand filter. Sizing specifications for these facilities can be found in Sections 6.5.2 (p. 6-104), 6.5.3 (p. 6-123), and 6.5.4 (p. 6-129), respectively. Note: A preset/ling cell is required if the sand filter is not preceded by a detention facility. ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 2 STORMWATER WETLAND Provision of a stormwater wetland (see Section 6.4.3, p. 6-89) or combined detention and stormwater wetland (see Section 6.4.4, p. 6-95) satisfies the 50 percent zinc removal goal without additional facilities. The large amount of organic material in the stormwater wetland provides organic binding sites and is considered very effective in removing metals. ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 3 TWO-FACILITY TREATMENT TRAIN This option uses one of the basic water quality treatment options listed in Table 6.1.2.A (p. 6- 8) followed by a basic sand filter (see Section 6.5.2, p. 6-104), sand filter vault (see Section 6.5.3, p. 6-123), linear sand filter (see Section 6.5.4, p. 6-129), or StormFilter with CSF™ leaf compost media (see Section 6.5.5, p. 6-134). K. The project can not satisfy the criteria necessary for an exception to the enhanced basic water quality requirement. Attached exhibit proves that May Creek flows well under the threshold of 1000 cfs. The runoff into May Creek contains leachable metal. KCSWDM reads as follows: PFR-17 Exceptions The following exceptions apply only in Basic WQ Treatment Areas: I. The facility requirement in Basic WQ Treatment Areas as applied to target PGPS may be waived altogether if there is a good faith agreement with the King Conservation District to implement a farm management plan for agricultural uses, or DOES approves a landscape management plan.a that controls solids, pesticides, and fertilizers leaving the site. 2. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the BasicWQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.4. 3. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is discharged directly, via a non-fish- Brad Nicholson 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 bearing conveyance system, all the way to the ordinary high water mark of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more (at the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acres or larger. 4. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for treating runoff from a commercial land use may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu if all of the following criteria are met: a) No leachable metals (e.g., galvanized metals) are currently used or proposed to be used in areas of the site exposed to the weather, AND b) A covenant is recorded that prohibits future such use of leachable metals on the site (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q), AND c) Less than 50% of the runoff draining to the proposed treatment facility is from any area of the site comprised of one or both of the following land uses: • Commercial land use with an expected ADT of 100 or more vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. • Commercial land use involved with vehicle repair, maintenance, or sales. 5. The facility requirement as applied to replaced PGIS may be waived if the County has adopted a plan and implementation schedule for fulfilling this requirement using regional facilities. L. The Galvanized Metal Buildings presently located next to and proposed to be discharged to the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" have been corroding and leaching out an extremely large amount of metal for years and years. It is a fact that one of the biggest ones must remain because they don't have a shoreline permit to remove it. The City testified that the ditch is filled with "Orange Scum" LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H M. Ecology's 303 (d) map identifies the relevant area of May Creek to have a level 5 metals problem. Metals Problem is defined in the KCSWDM as follows: Metals problem means a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either ( I) currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Water due to exceedance or concern fo exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper, zinc, lead, mercury, etc.) as documented in the state's latest published Clean Water Act Section 303d list (an electronic map of these waterbodies is posted at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wqawa/viewer.htm), or (2) is currently designated by the County as a metals problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper, zinc, lead, mercury, etc.) as documented in the latest published list of King County-Identified DEFINITIONS SECTION l/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual -Definitions 14vWQ Problems (Reference Section IO) posted at http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/documents/surface-water- design-manual.aspx. N. King County's Hydrologic information center data indicates concentrated metals in the May Creek. SEE Attached evidence exhibit. PFR-18 Brad Nicholson 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 IX. EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1: City notice that includes narrative and map of"project area" (2) pages EXHIBIT 2: Satellite photos of the project area (2) pages EXHIBIT 2.1: 8Xl O photo of the portion of the galvanized, corroded warehouse that is protruding into the Shoreline buffer. EXHIBIT 3: Washington Dept of Ecology Section 303 (d) map depicting May Creek metals problem. EXHIBIT 4: King County Surface water Design Manual Chapters 1.2.8 and 1.2.8.1 EXHIBIT 5: King County Surface water Design Manual Chapters 6.1.2 and definition of "metals problem". EXHIBIT 6: I '1 Declaration of Joel Massman EXHIBIT 7: 2nd Declaration of Joel Massman EXHIBIT 8: EPA Quendall terminals information (4) pages EXHIBIT 9: King County Hydrologic information center Hydrograph for mouth of May Creek @ cfs recording EXHIBIT 10: EXHIBIT 11: EXHIBIT 12: PFR-19 Brad Nicholson 1 2 X. RELIEF REQUESTED 3 A. Reversal of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4 B. For all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just. 5 6 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 9 10 Brad Nicholson 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PFR-20 Brad Nicholson • Figure A-8 TIR Worksheet ' ' l 28 ' l ' KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Port Quendall Company Phone ____________ _ Address 1111 3rd Ave suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 Project Engineer Pat Severin Company Sound Development Group LLC Phone 360-404-2010 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION D Landuse Services Subdivison / Short Subd. / UPD El Building Services M/F / Commerical / SFR El Clearing and Grading El Right-of-Way Use D Other Part5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Type of Drainage Review Full I Targeted (circle): Large Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Part6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS I Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ttaWK s Lanaing-i....rowne r .... aza Project Name .. -~ -, ODES Permit# ---------- Location Township Range 24 5 Section ____ .c?'q"-----~ Site Address 4350 Lake Washington, Blvd. Part 4 OTH!:R REVIEWS AND PERMITS D DFW HPA 0 COE404 D DOE Dam Safety D FEMA Floodplain D COE Wetlands D Other __ _ D Shoreline Management D Structural Rockery/VaulV __ D ESA Section 7 Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type (circle one): Full I Modified I Small Site Date (include revision dates): Date of Final: Type (circle one): Standard / Complex /~eapplicatio~/ Experimental/ Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Annroval: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/ 1/05 1 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: ~/No Describe: Site will be monitored, :ger NOI Start Date: 10/01/09 ___ .. , Completion Date: Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: _____________ _ Special District Overlays: _______________________ _ Drainage Basin: ~M~a~v=cr~e=e=k _________ _ Stormwater Requirements: ----------------------- Part 9 ONSITE ANP ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ··. ' Q River/Stream ----------CJ Steep Slope ________ _ CJ Lake CJ Erosion Hazard _______ _ CJ Wetlands __________ _ CJ Landslide Hazard _______ _ CJ Closed Depression _______ _ CJ Coal Mine Hazard -------CJ Floodplain __________ _ CJ Seismic Hazard _______ _ CJ Other ____________ _ CJ Habitat Protection _______ _ CJ _________ _ Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Alderwood Grav.Loam 6-15 moderate Bel Ji ngbam Silt T.oam n-, ~ ~ . ~ • IodianoJaJoam~ fine sand /I -, i::: mode:r:ate Norma Sandy I aam n _ 1 ri 1 ~ • • CJ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) CJ Sole Source Aquifer CJ Other CJ Seeps/Springs CJ Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 2 l/l/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS . . . REFERENCE LIMITATION/ SITE CONSTRAINT D Core 2 -Offsite Anal~sis Bad water in road side ditch D Sensitive/Critical Areas Mav Creek D SEPA D Other D D Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIRSUMMARY SHEET 1nrovide one TIR Summarv Sheet ""r Threshold Dischame Areal Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharoe Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 I 2 I 3 or Exemption Number /incl. facilitv summarv sheet) Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: . ( Private')/( Public ') If Private, Maintenance Loa Reauired: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes / No i Liability Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes I No Soecial Requirements (as aoolicablel Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MOP/ BP I LMP / Shared Fae./ None Reauirements Name: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type: Major I Minor / Exemption / None a 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): ' Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control Describe landuse: (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 3 1/1/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET - Oil Control High-use Site: Yes IQ,/ Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? Other Drainaae Structures Describe: Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION C3 Clearing Limits 13 Stabilize Exposed Surfaces GI Cover Measures GI Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities Q Perimeter Protection CJ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure C3 Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities uJ Sediment Retention 0 Flag Limits of SAO and open space 0 Surface Water Control preservation areas 0 Other GJ Dust Control GI Construction Seauence Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS CNote: Include Facilitv Summarv and Sketchl Flow Control T vne/Descriotion Water Oualitv Tvoe/Descriotion 0 Detention Q Biofiltration raingarden 0 Infiltration CJ Wetpool 0 Regional Facility Q Media Filtration CJ Shared Facility Iii Oil Control i, 0 Small Site BMPs 0 Spill Control ' 0 Other 0 Small Site BMPs .i 0 Other 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/1/05 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIA) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS D Drainage Easement D Cast in Place Vault D Access Easement D Retaining Wall D Native Growth Protection Covenant 0 Rockery> 4' High D Tract D Structural on Steep Slope D Other D Other Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER visited e site. Actual site conditions as observed were cl T nical Information Report. To the best of my • 2005 Surface Water Design Manual l /!/05 5 Figure A-9 Facility Summary ' • 29 Figure A-10 Bond Quality Worksheet • f' 30 Figure A-11 Draft Declaration of Covenant Form ' 31 , ' ' I ' i Appendix B Geotechnical Report 32 ... . ·, J. i[ ' l .. 11 ' ·i-: ~ tlll._ il LI J ! ""' PREPARED FOR WELLS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON,WASHINGTON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 February 6, 1991 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 • 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 L I _. . I L µ I I L / I' INI'RODUCTION TABLE OF CONTEY..'TS E-5144 General................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description............................................................................................................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2 Surface................................................................................................................................................... 2 Subsurface............................................................................................................................................ 2 Groundwater........................................................................................................................................ 2 Seismic Considerations...................................................................................................................... 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 3 GeneraL ................. u ... , .......... o, ...... n .. , ....... ,u,,....................................................................................... 3 Site Preparation and General Earthwork...................................................................................... 4 Pre-Load and Surcharge Program.................................................................................................. 5 Foundations.......................................................................................................................................... 6 Slab-on-Grade Floors......................................................................................................................... 7 Excavations and Slopes..................................................................................................................... 7 Site Drainage....................................................................................................................................... 7 Utilities.................................................................................................................................................. 9 Pavement Areas................................................................................................................................... 9 LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 9 Additional Services............................................................................................................................. 10 APPENDICES Appendix A • Field Exploration Appendix B . Laboratory Testing Earth Consultants, Inc. ' i I i !. i: f. ,, L r1 Li Li [j L ' -• : L: . Li l t: I I • -, Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate Al Plate A2 through Al3 Plates Bl and B2 Plate BJ Plates B4 and BS ILLUSTRATIONS E-5144 Vicinity Map Test Boring Location Plan Typical Monitoring Plate Detail Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Typical Utility Trench Fill Legend Boring Logs Grain Size Analyses Atterberg Limits Test Data Consolidation Test Data Earth Consultants, Inc. February 6, 1991 Wells Development Company 11100 Northeast Eighth Street Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attention: Mr. David Grein Gentlemen: E-5144 We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechrtical Engineering Study, May Creek Business Park, Renton, Washingt0n." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 30, 1990 proposal and authorized by Mr. Wells on January 8, 1991. Our study indicates that the site is underlain by approximately one to three feet of loose to medium- dense fill consisting of silty sand and sand with gravel. Underlying the fill, a soft saturated sandy silt, loose to dense silty sand and some orgartic silt was encoumered to depths of 12 to 16 feet. Below these strata, dense tci very dense silty sand and stiff silts were encoumered to a maximum exploration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on our understanding of the proposed consrruction, and the soil conditions encountered, it is our opirtion that the proposed structures can be supported on convemional spread footing founda1ions, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program 'is completed first. All the foundation footings should bear upon at least two feet of compacted structural fill after the fill induced settlements have been completed. i805 · 136th Place tl E. Su11e 101, Bellevue. \1/ashmqton gEOOS 222 [. 261h S!leel. Sui1e 101 T:ccma ~·:~stl11;01an ~8,! 11-9~9B '. 1 '' ' L iJ Li lJ lJ l u , -. j GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY \,1 ;.y ,~reek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 2 We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, EARTII CONSULTANTS, INC. JI~ 7J1·!/tickJ Aaron McMichael Staff Engineer '""""• /. r)/ ,,,,•'\. SCH(/~11,11 -7 .'' 4 ~· .. , ~~ ....... ;<>~ .. , t7. ~ ... • _ .• ., _ )/ _;Ji.4\, L..._.-· ! ~0 ... ~;~,-SH~~"•. ~ \ ,.. ..c.·1..l'l' ~-,. " (I/ :: 0 : .. ,"·~~·. ~ .. r-.· -w·*' . - Theodore J. Scbepper, P.E. ; :.: :~.. : !!; : I • • -• --Director, Geotechnical Services ;. ,.. \~4 .... : ft~ DB/AM/TJS/ah [Ell#F.Olj Enclosure -;. ..0 .... . +~·· 0' " •, "' ••• "9£m~ •• '~ ,' , ·ro ··•··•· V' ... .. ~,, 'J::'es~10 .... "\. ..... ... ''t ,;) p ,\, '''•unu'' Earlh Consultants, Inc. General GEOTECHNICAL ENGI1''EERING STUDY MAY CREEK BUSI1'.'ESS PARK Renton, Washington E-5144 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Study completed by ECI for the proposed May Creek Business Park. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, on this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. From our discussions and review of the project site plan we understand that you intend to construct three warehouse/office buildings. The proposed buildings will consist of first-floor warehouse facilities with second-story office space. The project will also include paved parking areas and paved access roadways to all the warehouse facilities. Based on the preliminary design, the buildings will be constructed at finished floor elevation 32. The site's present grade ranges from approximately 26.0 to 34.0 feet in elevation from west to east. Based on the building information provided to us, maximum total dead plus live loads are expected to be 8.5 follows: o Wall loads -3 to 4 kips per lineal foot, dead plus live o Maximum Column loads -150 kips, dead plus Jive o Warehouse Slab loads -250 pounds per square foot (psf) If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth Consultants, Inc. (EC!) be retained 10 perform a general review of the final design. ' i j '. ' ! a !l u ! ! u GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY :, .'.·-." ,.:,·eek Business Park Februan· 6, 1991 SITE CONDITIONS Surface E-5144 Page 2 The proposed site i5 situated on a parcel of land that is east of Lake Washington Blvd. Nonh, west of interstate 405, north of May Creek, and south of the intersection of Northeast 44th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. The properiy is approximately 720 feet in length along the west, 745 feet along the east, 310 feet along the north, and 730 feet along the south. The site is presently occupied· by Pan Abode Inc., as a lumber processing facility. An office, model borne, three warehouses, and a production building are located on the site. The remaining area is paved predominantly with asphalt; isolated sections are paved in concrete. The asphalt is in poor to fair condition. Some areas of the asphalt have numerous cracks and show signs of a soft soil subgrade. It is our understanding that the existing structures will be removed in sequence as construction of the new facilities begins. The site is relatively flat and slopes gently from the north and east to the west sides of the property. Elevations at the site range from 26 to 34 feet above sea level. The adjacent roadways that border the property to the north, east, and west are all higher in elevation than the subject site. The south 1. side of the property parallels May Creek and is several feet higher in elevation than the creek. ' I i Subsurface The site was explored by drilling 12 borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A 4 through A 13, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encoumered. In general, during our field study we encountered two to three inches of asphalt pavement that is underlain by one to three feet of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt pavement and fill, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of saridy silt and organic silt was encountered to a depth of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. Dense to very dense silrv sand and stiff silt were encountered below these soils to a maximum exploration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater The groundwater seepage level observed while drilling ranged from approximately 2.0 to :;_5 feet below the existing surface and are shown on the boring logs. Groundwater levels were measured at 4 10 7 feet below the ground surf.:ice during an earlier Han Crowser, Inc. geotechnical study of the site. The Hart Crowser, Inc. study was completed during September of 1985. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENG!NEER[NG STUDY :·.'fa; !\·eek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 3 The groundwater seepage level is not static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the flow and level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. However, fluctuations in the groundwater seepage flow should be expected, with higher levels typically developing during the wetter winter months. Seismic Conditions The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the (UBC) Uniform Building Code. In their present condition, the upper ten feet of some on-site soils do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. However, with addition of the proposed preload fill, we have calculated that the potential for soil liquefaction would be minimal. Our liquefaction analysis was based on an analytical procedure presented in "Soil Dynamics" by Shams her Prakash. Additionally, soil conditions are classified as a type S3 by the UBC with a corresponding S factor of 1.5. DISCUSSION TO RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our geotechnical study, it is our opinion that the proposed warehouse buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing upon a compacted structural fill, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program is completed first. The preload and surcharge program is designed to induce settlements equivalent to those that are anticipated due to the slab and column loading. These recommendations are based on the amount of structural fill necessary to bring the finished floor slab sutiace to Elevation 32. With current grades, the site will require approximately one to five feet of structural fill to attain the proposed subgrade elevation. A small section of the parking area in the southeastern portion of the property will require excavation of approximately two feet. No other site cuts appear necessary. If the finish floor elevation of the buildings change, ECI should be notified and allowed to re-evaluate our recommendations. Due to the poor condition of the site's near surface soils, we recommend that a minimum of two feet of compacted structural fill be placed below all footings. A minimum of one foot of compacted structural fill will be required beneath all slab-on-grade and pavement areas. The majority of the site will require more than two feet of structural fill to obtain the proposed sub grade elevation. Only in the southeast sections of the east and south buildings does it appear necessary to over excavate and replace with structural fill. This requirement should be verified by observation at the time of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. L L f' .. ' l -•. ' . ' 11 '' LJ A u j '. ,L: '. '. GEOTECHNICAL ENG!i'<'EERING STIJDY :, ; ~.. .:.-eek Business Par\.: February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 4 After the required structural fill has been placed, two feet of surcharge material should be applied to the southeast building areas. The surcharge will be required on areas where less than two feet of fill material will be needed to bring the building pads to subgrade elevation. Groundwater seepage wa~ encountered during our field study from 2.0 to 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore, a subfloor capillary break and perimeter footing drains should be installed. Additionally, the pavement area located centrally between the three buildings and the southeast section of the site should be provided with subsurface drainage to increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. Specific details concerning the parking area subsurface drainage is presented in the subsequent Site Drainage Section of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the Wells Development Corp. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its emirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures, foundations, slabs, existing utilities lines, surface vegetation, all organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Where structural fill depths will be two feet or greater, it is our opinion that removal of existing asphalt from below slab-on-grade areas would not be necessary. It will be necessary, however, to remove the asphalt from below interior and perimeter footing locations. In these areas the asphalt removal should extend laterally a distance of two feet from the edge of the footing. Following the stripping and excavating operation, the ground surface where structnral fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be pbced within _±2 percent of their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also Earlh Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGII\EERJNG STUDY :.;~;" .:, eek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 5 be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of their maximum dry density, as detennined by ASTM D-1557-78. Beneath pavements, the upper 12 inches should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent per this same standard. Based on our laboratory test results, the moisture content of the on-site soils at the time of our exploration was well above optimum. Therefore, unless the moisture content can be reduced, it will be necessary to use imported granular soil as strucrural fill. Ideally, particularly during wet weather conditions, structural fill should consist of a free-draining granular material. This material should have a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Given the fine-grained nature of the native soils, it is strongly recommended that eanh work operations be undertaken and completed during the dry summer months. Pre-load and Surcharge Proeram As discussed, we recommend that pre-load and partial surcharge program be implemented prior to construction of the facilities. As indicated earlier in this report, we recommend that two feet of surcharge material be placed above the southeastern building slab areas where less than two feet of fill will be necessary to bring the pads up to the subgrade elevation. In other areas, where the fill depth will range from three to five feet, additional surcharge would not be necessary. The program is designed to pre-consolidate the compressible soils, in a manner that will limit post construction movements to within a tolerable range. Based on our analyses, we estimate that the preload and surcharge fill material will induce approximately two to three inches of settlement across the building foundation area. Based on the results of our laboratory testing of the site soil samples, we estimate that this settlement should take about four weeks to occur. The surcharge material, where placed, may be removed when the required settlement rate has been reached. A smaller settlement than estimated could indicate that the soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely,. a larger settlement than that estimated could be interpreted as indicating the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and addilional measures, such as more surcharge or a longer surcharge period will be needed to obtain satisfactory results. As stated, it is important to note that surcharge fill is in addition to the fill required to bring the site to subgrade. The surcharge and fill should extend, at full height, a minimum of five feet from the building perimeters, and then slope outward at IH:JV (Horizonwl:Venical). Earth Consultants. Inc. '. [ ' '. L ' f ! ' l i '' I, iJ I' '. L l' f _j ... r' . ' u '. '. I-' u ' . . . L GEOTECHNICAL ENGJNEERJNG STIJDY ,; ,.,_. .:reek Business P«rk February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 6 Surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements except that the material should have a total density of one-hundred-twenty (120) pcf. However, if the surcharge material is to be used for structural fill in other areas after completion of the surcharge program, it should meet the requirements for structural fill. The definition for structural fill can be found in the site preparation and general earth work section of this report. Prior to placement of the fill and surcharge, we reconunend installation of six settlement markers within each building surcharge area to monitor the magnitude and rate of such settlement. A typical settlement monitor is illustrated on Plate 3. These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment. The settlement markers should be surveyed, as soon as the markers are installed, by Earth Consultants, Inc. personnel or a licensed surveyor. Monitoring should be done during preload fill and surcharge placement at daily intervals, depending on the progress of the filling operation. Readings should then be taken on a weekly basis after completion of the preload fill and surcharge placement until the settlement has stabilized. The initial reading should also show the natural ground elevation, and readings taken during preload, and surcharge placement should also show the changing ground elevation. Settlement readings should be evaluated by Earth ~ Consultants, Inc. if a licensed surveyor performs the settlement monitoring. • ' f . f; Foundations Following successful completion of the preload and surcharge program, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional, continuous, or individual spread footings . These footings should bear on at least two feet of compacted structural fill. The compacted fill material should extend at least one foot beyond the footing perimeters. For frost protection and support considerations, we recommend that foundation elements be bottomed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior foundations ~hould be provided with a minimum of twelve ( 12) inches of final cover. The foundation elements can be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. With foundation elements obtaining support as described, and with structural loading as expected, estimated total post construction settlement falls in the range of one-half inch for the slab areas, and three-quarters inch for the column areas. A one-third increase in the allowable soil-bearing pressure can be used when considering shon-1erm transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled v.-ith a compacted fill meeting the requirements o( structural fill. Earth Consullanlb, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 7 Passive earth pressures may be assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight. To calculate base sliding resistance, a coefficient of friction equal to 036 may be used. Lateral resistance has been calculated for compacted granular fills. Additionally, since movement is required to mobilize full lateral resistance, we have applied a factor of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 for the passive resistance and coefficient of base sliding, respectively. All footing excavations should be examined by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated in this report. Slab-on-Grade Floors With site preparations completed as previously described, suitable support for slab-on-grade construction should be provided. The slab should be provided with a minimum of six (6) inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand should be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Excavations and Slopes Based on the preliminary grading plans, the site would not require cuts except for a small area located in the parking area of tbe southeast section of tbe site. We anticipate tbat tbis area will require approximately two feet of excavation and will have enough room to create a gentle slope to the property line. Soil conditions at the site fall into category "C" in accordance with current OSHA regulations. Therefore, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height must be sloped at a minimum inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary sboring may be necessary. This shoring will help protect again.st slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. Site Drainage The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must ilOt be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction. loose surfaces must be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of Earlh Consultants. Inc. ' - i. " '' • j - IJ ; • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in areas that are to be paved. minimum drainage gradient of one and one-half percent should be used. E-5144 Page 8 In paved areas, a We recommend the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operadoru; by ECJ's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, be more clearly defined. It is likely that seepage will be encountered in utility trenches excavated approximately two feet below the existing ground surface. If seepage is encountered, we reconunend your contractor slope the bottom of the excavations to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive discharge point, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump by a system of permanent connector trenches. We recommend you install footing drains around the building perimeter just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected 10 the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you install cleanou1s at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline. systems. As previously mentioned, the parking area centrally located between the three proposed buildings and towards the southeast site corner should be provided with subsurface drainage. This drainage will increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. The system should consist of an excavated trench at the base of which a four-inch perforated drain pipe wrapped in fabric is placed. The pipe should be slotted and have a smooth interior surface, and sloped at not less than one-half percent to a permanent discharge point. The fabric wrap should consist of Mirnfi 140-N filter fabric or equivalent. The pipe should be bedded and backfilled in a clean, free draining aggregate meeting the grading requirements for a class 2 fine concrete aggregate per the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications. The drain pipe invert should be set at a minimum of four feet below the final pavement elevation. The drainage aggregate should extend a minimum of four inches below the pipe and laterally a minimum of twelve inches to either side of the pipe. Additionally, the drainage aggregate backfill should continue to the pavement subgrade elevation. The proposed grading plan indicates that the storm sewer system includes three lines which span most of the area of concern. Consideration could be given to installing the subdrain system in the same trenches excavated for the storm sewer. Alternatively, a single separate line can be constructed Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 9 with collected water taken to a poim of pennanem discharge. With cuts required in the southeast section of the site, and considering the groundwater level, it would be prudent to install the subdrain in this area prior to excavation. Utilities Trench backfill beneath building, parking, and roadway areas may consist of native granular soils or imported materials provided they are near optimum moisture content as determined by our field technician. During wet weather, we recommend using an imported structural fill, as described earlier. Compaction requirements for bedding and backfill are described in detail on Plate 5, Typical Utility Trench Fill. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the top one foot of the existing site fills and any structural fill that will be added to the site should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78), as described in the Site Preparation section of this reporL · It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet, or unstable sub grade may exist. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas: Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life, and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck-trafficked areas the following sections: Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience Earth Consullants, Inc. ' ' r '. L f l. • l u ,-• t L 1: 7, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 10 and engineeringjudgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and to the extent of variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services We recommend that EC! be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. SOUTH l'OJHr C D .0 roj, No, 5144 Drwn. GLS ' l -' < .• :? ·'"" ----rN--------~I "' ~ ' I " : I ...., i I "I,,,\ / I Qc I I~ 'IN ' l'UUUII/ -· .~ ., r J l'!..\l!f.!. 1 ---~ -----~,;,'-!, H>ll -""'1""'-"" ~ I I I I ----+------ ' I I I SliT"E I ,, . "'· I 1•· .. IU I .:··1 ' hR,:: '\!\ . . I -----~---,- ! A, I I V I J { ' I I ~- I I I I I 1 Date Jon. '91 E I Checked Refera1Ce ; KinQ County / Mop 27 By Trorros Brothers M:lp~ [);J!ed 1990 Vicinity Map Business Pork Washington Moy Creek Renton, DB Date 1/24/91 I Plate ' - ,- ' i. J i ; I' 1 u ' ,r~ 1' ' I I ' ' "-' :---- ' / I I i I ' ' I o '' L. , ' I i I ' 0 I ' I (_ I --J -, _, -, ., ' ,, ____ , .., iD " I I ' ' : ' I " ' (D " r· I ' I I I ' ' ' ' ' I I ' / I -~--..: ' I ' I l I I ' --~ ' I / ' ' I I I i ' I ' I I r, r ,!::.I II ' ,, ' J .J 5 . C ' '-, --' D w I ' / ' / ',, fl //, ~ ,.,/;;,!',/' / ff~<t / ,,/ ' , ',.,/ ,/ Prcj. No. NOTES: SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING • Base consists of 3/4 -inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 518 -inch diameter hole. • Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand. • Marker rod is V2 -inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. • Marker rod is al tached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. • Proteclive sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist ol 2 -inch diameler plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached to rod or base. • Additional sections of steel rod c,:,n be connected with threaded couplings. • Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press -fit plastic couplings. • Sleel mark~r rod should exlend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. • Marker should extend at least 2 feet above lop of fill surface. 1)511 Ill TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL ViAY CREEK SUS!NESS ?~R.K RENTON 1 \·iASHINGTON 5144 Drwn. GLS Dale ~eb' 91 Checked AM Dated 2-1-91 Pla\e 3 t. i. f L L ' L 1, SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING t / .. ~ ... SLOPE TO DRAIN . -.. -_.-.-{.. -.""'1-;;, •• 'c_.="+------,,..... 6 inch min. 4 inch min. . . ~ ... .. ~ .. .. . .. a • "'•"' . ... .. ..... . . . . . . diameter -----\. • • • -'-------~?YV~i?~ ; \ ~--=··; ;·:·~ f:-~: .:: :·; 2 inch min./ 4 inch max. I .. ;~ ·i~c~ ~min. I LEGEND 0 Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Gravel backfill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications, Section 9-03.12121, or Fine Aggregate for Portlljnd Cement Concrete ; Section 9-03.112 I. Drain pipe; perforaled or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. ---Impermeable visqeen barrier or other impermeable material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. 18 inch min. I 2 inch min. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL ViAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RSNTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 514 4 Drwn. GLS Date Feb' 91 Checked Dated 2-1-91 Plate 4 Non-Load Supponing Areas _:.®·.' •, .. ·-.·· .. Floor Slab or Roadway Areas Sacl<fill .. I Proj. No. SlH Drwn. GLS ·: "'·@·: .· ., ·.•·:_-90_ ,' · . -. " Varies LEGEND: Asphall or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab Base Material or Base Rock Bacl<fill; Compacted On-Site Soil or lmponed Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Repon Text. Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Densily as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specffied in the Attached Repon Text Bedding Material; Malerial Type Depends on Type of Pipe and Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform lo lhe Manufacturers Recommendations for lhe Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL MAY CREEK BUSINESS ?ARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Date Feb' 91 Checked AN Date 2-1-91 Plate S ,- ' .. " ' ' i APPENDIX A E-5144 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration was performed on January 15 through January 17, 1991. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling 12 borings to a maximum depth of 24.0 feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Subterranean Drilling, Inc., using a truck mounted mobile B-61 drilling. Continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping from existing buildings on the site. Approximate boring elevations were determined by a topographic map provided by Wells Development, Inc. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring obtained representative samples, measured groundwaier levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A3, Legend. Logs of the borings represented in the Appendix on Plates A4 through A13. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one- hundred-forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratorv for further examination and testing. · Earth Consul!an1s. Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION COJIISC Gra,ntel So,IS. More Than 50'., M;1er,.a,T L;u9er Thal\ No .?DO S,eve s,ze Fine Grained So11s Mot,e, Tnari so• .. M11cr,a1 Smaller Tnar,. No. 200 s,_.~ s,ze Gra..et "' Gravelly S0,1s Mort-TJ111n 50'• Coarse Fn,e1,ori Re1a,r,ec Qr, Ne 4 S,itve S•n~ '"' Sanoy Soils Mort Than SO'.. Coa1$e F"nchon Passino No .: Cle.in G1a,,e1s (1r11!C" o• no lines. l Gr:1ve1s With F1nasc apc:irec1ao1e amotJnl or hnu 1 Sands W•lh Fme:s I aotirec1able amoun1 01 lmts l • • • ........ . . . ·, • • • • ·• . . . .. . . gw GP_/"" _/"" gp GM _/"" _/"" gm SM _,,,...,.- :_,,,---sm SC SC W(!l1· Grio!"c Gnve,~. Grave,-51no M,1tvr<-S. ume o, No Fme:s Poorly· Guded (i1ave1s. Gravel· Sand M1:,;lu1t-i;. Lott, Or No F,nu S111y 011ve1s. G11vc-1 • !;.ana • Sd! M,Jlure-s Clayey G,a.,els, Gravel• Sano• Cli111y M,l(!ures Well· Graced S-1nos.. Gr:11;,tllY SiHHlft, Litlle o, Na F, ... e:s S,!Ly Sanos, Sa!'ld • S,11 M1x11ires lnor,gan,c S,lts 4 Very Fme S•nd:;, RoclC Flo1..r,Si1Jr· Clayey Fme Sands: Cl•yey S111s wl 5111,:iN Plashc1ly Liouid L1m,t less Tnal"I 50 c~ 1nor9.an,c Clay, QI Low io Mtd1Um Ptasl«:d)', Gravell)' Ciays, Sanoy Clavs. S,ny Clays, LHn Silla '"" C1.ays L1cu,d L1mil Gre.iur Tl'\an '0 r / / / / ~ CH __.,--,ch 1r.0r9al'I!~ Clays 01 H,gn <JV///;_~ Cl P1ast1c-,1y.Fa1 Clays OH -~ -·.:.·-· .. ... .. .,. ~-.- ......... , .. ";...:...·-~·-.. · Fill oh Or;anlC Clays 01 Med,um To H,Q:'1 Plast1~1ty. Oroan1c S1U.s Pt.at. Hllmus. Swamo Soni W•lh H,9h Orq.m,c Con1enu· Humus A.nd Dufl Layer H,9~ly Vam1ble Cons1o11..1,m1s The 01Si::vs:;ion In Trie Tu:, Of This Rl!ocrt is Necessary For A Proo•r Unel!rs1ano""lg 01 The Nalure or The Matc-roa/ Presen1ed In The Anacned Lo1,1s I rr p '*" 'iZ a Notes: Dual symbol$ are used to indic~te borderline soil classiricalion. Upper c:ase letter symbols desi9na1e sample cl<1ssifica1ions based upon lab- oralory testing; lower ease lener symbols designa1e classification!. Mt verified by laboratory testing. 2 • 0.0. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 2.4~ I.D. RING SAMPU:R OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER LEVEL I DATE) WATE:R OBSERVATION WELL C TORVANE READING. tsf qu PENETROMETEFI' READING, tsf W MOISTURE. perc:ent ol dry weight pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per c:ub1c ti. LL LJQUIO UMIT, percent Pl PLASIJC INDEX LEGEND Proj.No. 5144 Date Feb'91 Plate Al ' ' lJ ' I r ; lJ BORING NO. 8-1 I Logged By nH Da1e 1-15-91 8ev. 26. S':. us Depth (NI w Graph cs Soil Description (~l Sample Blows (%) Ft ' SP Gr&y bn)wn fii1e to t1ediurn Si\ND with ... 1 23 Cjrave!, trace silt, de!"l.se., wet ll ... -5 I -11 I : ! I/ 1111 ! i r.tl GL"~Y S1i./l" 1 r.1edium stiff, saturat.ed 10 29 10 i1wmrn: Sin Gray silty medillm SAND, dense, ... I 18 4,::f{:f:•1:1 sat.urated •:.>·.:' .. -)~·. -:f':!( l:! I ::)~:! :ff1:! ... ~.$...?'ft log so ·oh Organic SILT, -'.·P.:"i:l·"··:r..; ~ 15 JH1t:llf ... ···v:1; l (''' '\ i ,,;r, ''fl''f -i;,'!-Jf/ Sr.\ Gray silt.y r.i.ediun SMND, loor.e, I :*l : fa; ~:i-saturated with organics, c1P.nS1;! ... IftJ.ti 6 ii,,\~'! :i :,ki; '-20 '1' l'f:tif !i :,, :f·t,.f. j -·)!C ~t:i;,;.: :t:t-J : f:ttj ... . (::: t_.-~:ti: '!f''''f -ti rn~Jt ·}'.!:,.l.-~:-:1:-. Doring terr.iinated at 2q feet below e:xistim; grade. Groundwaer encountered at 2 foet during driJ..lins. 1 Borins: backfilled wi t:h C\.!tti:1SS, benr.onite and concrl!t.e. 1 " ' ' J • S1,1~1ur1itt r;ondft.lOl\5 OtOICl..0 "'0rtt.lln1 11\Jt 011Hr.,111cnl .1.1 t""' \>m1 1n11 IOCIIMJn o,l u"s upla,:a1ory ho!t. moc:hl .. d Dy •no•~"i"l9 IHH, v,1ty,.1'1, lt'IC ivoi,em.111. '1r.t::t ••• l'IQI r..ceu.irn~ ~·-~!Ml ot 01nermr,u .,Hl JOe.aJ,on,. ¥,1,t ~I\OI •t.t.eP11ui:,o,,a.,o,1~y ltltJl)t v,-it< i.n111p,11!l1.oft by Dl1'19f1 at ttll«m.1J.1Cn l>ltMti:11-C on rno ~ ,/T'"-:f.'\, ·~ BORING LOG 11~ Earth Consultants Inc. MAY CRE:f.K BUSIHESS rr,iH~ v1,~.1 c.-,,»~Ul:,nR~D f..-,~j&l;,n,'lfUll....,".a,j~ .... , RENTON, \·11\SH l NC.TOl~ Proj. No. 5144 1 Drwn. GLS I Date Ff~b' 91 Checked DB I Date 2-1-91 I Plate A2 -- ' BORING NO. B-2 Logged By D• Date l-15-91 Elev. 27 1 ! us Depth (N) w Soil Description Sample Blr,ws Graph cs (ft) Ft. (%) :?,i asphalt conc.!:'ete I . Ep Light browr. fine to coarse SAND, t.race -1 15 silt and g:::avel, nediurn dense, - su tura ted -5 -very dense with gravel -I 40 - dense -I 21 -grades to gray, :111 I I' 10 I I! ' ii ML. Gray sandy SILT, medium stif!, ,-I I saturat.ed -9 '"' I 1! c I ,1 '"' 6 11 ,_ 15 j I I 11 - ' I I~! 59 sp Gray nedi'Llr.1 to coarse SAND \'.'ith - gravel, trace silt, very dense -20 - - sp (very dense) T 63 ' Boring te~inated a,: 24 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encounte!'cd at 3 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled wit.h cuttings, bentonite and concrete. Suc,11,11'1.111;,1 C:Ol'ldll!C,N. Ott)lc:ll'!l ttf>~t"II o..n ~rvah1m1 at U~ I~ Jo!'l(I ~,on cl !l'l1S uo1ornory f>Olt. modll.-.d t,,,, tllO!l!oMr'f"? ll'SI.!. •n•l)'l,11. 11'\C >II'(!~~: 1~ .11,, l'\O\ ~s.a1Mt 1~1eHn,lrl1W ol a1n11 r.mu •f>ll loe.lt,or,,. W.. C,.11u'I01 .. eu,~ IOi;,,:,tlilflrl,ty l!H 1..._ ~,1 ot W'tlttpr11111on by ~r..rs 01 >~IQ<fflll,o,, P•"4'm.C 0t1 tr,..,-lo; ~:; Earth Consultants Inc. BORING LOG t-'i.bY CkCH Bl!SlHSSS :'d\RK /'j (;.;)J\rj); Qro<<-<Tlr'loCill~~/'S.l~t<, .. 1,.J·.JWUU'<n•"<IAA!:,.0....,1,1,,.~ 1lE1':TON 1 L',iS HI NGTJX Proj. No. SlH I Drwn. GLS I Date f'=b'9l I C~e-cked on I Date 2-)-91 I Plate ;\] ' l, i_ f L ! i L BORlf\lG NO. B-3 Logged By D~ Date 1-l~-91 Bev. 1E-I.._ us Depth (NI w Graph Soil Description Sample Blows cs (ft) Ft. (%) '.?Ht~;:~~? sp Gray-brown r.i.ediurn to coarse SAND with oravel anci !iilt. ~n.c..:.::<lt:.P.rl I- l -H!iiiti: I- ;! l j ii : i' r.il Gray sandy S.iLT, trr1ce g.rav~ l , t'l)ediur.l., ~ I 9 25 ·11r'"' -lq !!1/i saturll.ced I- '''/'1' . ~5 :ii J, Ii I I ·1 1,1/11 -lenses of peat C. 7 43 l 1,1,,1 I- r,l Gray sandy SILT, rnediur.i ztiff, C. I : I Ii I I 15 saturated I- '--10 I 23 :.:[!:::\:} sp g~~~~~e2i~~~~~psoarse SAND w-i t.h s;ravel, ~~)ff[ 51:1 G~ay 5ilty r.iedium SAND I r.icdiurn dense, I-I :*-'l:1:~-.r:i 12 r~ sa tura t.ed .. ' :11l' .,;f,il'! I-15 ., .. ff '··,fr J1Ji Hrni I- I 5? Gray r.ieC:iur.i SAND with gravel, r.teCit.:;n I 13 dense, saturca..ted 20 ~···r·· Gray silty r.iediur.i SAND, trace gravel, 1 6 .• t. :f>*:-r Sf:l -:t!1'•t:,:<<·,· looso, naturat~eG. ::tnif}:J:>,r ~11 1 ' ml Grey sandy SILT, mediur.: stiff, sat.u:ratedl T I l, I ti 1 It mtttJ 51'1 Grav sil~v r.,ed.1.ura SAND f dense, j. 7 !:iatorat.e -. ':race cr'.!."av~ ± J, t • ,, soring te:rr.iinated at 24 feet below existing grade. Groundwate;: encountereC. at 2 !e:et during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite an<:l concrl:!te . • Su1:11,.,n.,~ 00,r,dnlOl'I.I c1p,e;1c<111.~nl our O:l'MIW.l1on$ ,: lr.e 11mi ,rid locl"IK>n ol 111,~ uolonuoiy f>Olt. mod~>f<I bl' tr.Q•~'"'lil \HU. 111,i-r,.~. 1,-,c fU"9'1'fTl,ff'\t T~ .. ,,. Nl'\ r...cHUnly IHIJH<lffl..1.1 .... Cl otMf1>f'!>C"j. lnO l.x.ll>ol'\1 ""e ~ Jtl:OIJI ,u:,oru,o,1ny l'c)I IM,e UH r,, lf'llett>fllrllOt\ r)j Otht'l 1)1 11\!0t'm:UIOtl prnaa/llf<I Ofl fflts ~ ' BORING LOG ~/.'°'' "' (~1, Earth Consultants Inc. ~·.:, y CRJ:Ct: ?.IISH;ESS PARK ~.9\?.;,...V V''f>'!'!""1V'o(";>I l;AjW.....-T.I.. ~""'~ L l:tl>~lfl<Vl...-.U;O .0.:.0.'nl~~ RENTON, h'ASH l NG':'~l\ Pro). No, 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date feh'9l Checked DB I Date 2-1-91 I Plate ;;4 BORING NO. B-4 Logged By n .. n Date 1-15-91 Elev. 7. '? I ! us Depth (NI w Graph cs Soil Description ltt) Sample Blo\NS (%) Ft. ,·;i:·'.:J:i:rt*:: ,:,,p ,,,, .. ,. -:::J:t:d~ JHi,:tf • . ···f • -lfV[!1M . I D t:'.r: ::ih!:: SM Brown finF: tn r.,ediur.i sil:y SAND with 23 {t :l:H:H3 ljl.',i:,VCl 1 raediur.'I d~nse1 saturated -, .. f 1•'\ j r:,; :::flfo -5 I trr -grades to dense l1:A1 :tl -20 'H "''!", . '·Jt I-'j"''t ::i -grades to gray with gravel :: l''f, tii ,... 1 ::,: : <:~· l 25 I l'f I-I ?il' li.ffr 10 ! 111111111 r.il Gray sandy SILT, trace gravel, T 5 20 - mediur:, den5e ,· saturated - i1frn1 -I : l' iJ:,;,, sm Gray sils:y nedium SAND, trace grav~l, 10 t l'JH medium dense, saturated - i~lff t ;i -15 . · r I;~. \~/r1 - -grades to grav brown wis:h T ~tf :tj:Wi .. {~~=,:i .. :i:~J! grave.L very aense 41 I Boring terr.iinated at 19 feet Oelow exi5ting grade. Groundwater ~ncountered at J !eet during <'!rilling. j Boring bac):fillec wit.h cuttin~s and bentonite~ ' 1 L L f Svtnur1~1;)9 ~lt00/'1$ Ot111eu,t:l 111~m our tlO'MNIIIOns •1 IM" l,mt ar1<11Q1:t1-Cn oi 1r111 uOl<>,..lCil)' h¢11. ll'>Q(l1!,.d /;I'( •"'91n.+r1r191MU.. 1n.,.ly1is. ,.,n.c: i. )tJ<lp,em.rn. l"'1 .it no, -uur,1y 1~1n..1111,11i., 1;11 O:l'Mlrr l•IN"S J'1Q lo<:..al.,ont . ....,, '-Inna\ 1cccim rnDQl'\S1tl1iny to~ 11'11 int c,, .,.,,.,p1•11t,or, try O\Mn: cl lll~ICl'I pl"~lll80 orl lhd. I<),/ ~; ; Earth Consultants Inc. BORING LOG l''.J\Y c:1r:FJ: BUSINESS !'ARI~ \:.1.' \~ ~,,..,.,,.,..-.,,1~:r.11:n~r-~'11""'-""b11,-.o:nn..-.,.,ucl-<'"li,u6l-. Ri:NTON, W1\SHINGTON Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date f'cb'9l Chocked D:'. Date 2-1-91 I Plate l\S BORING NO. 8-5 Logged By llP Date 1-Js-~n E.'ev. 30 ' :::: us Depth (NI w Soil Description Sample Blows Graph cs (ft) Ft. 1%) \~~fH;i!!/ ~" ~-sp?i.e.l~ c11:-:crr.t1· sn Hrnwn ~ilt\' coarse: $,\:;v HHh irovi; 1 1 Wet to \.. ,...,. S::".!:-,1 trc! · . • • • I . • \.. 11'11111 ML Gri::-· :;aildy Slj,T I :J:oft, fiilturuted, \.. I 4 27 tracl:;! g:rnvcl . I I ,, _5 l , 2 95 LI.=52 9.1' oh Brown o~nic SIL'l', so:: t ' s a turu t.t:!d P..,=51 %~~ ' f'1il/i PI= l 1:11 Gray SILT, r.'lediut.i, dense, s·aturated I ., 1111 - -10 i 1.11 ii '- ttJ}j sp Gray rnediur., to coa!'se SAND with \.. I gravel, tr.ace silt., very dense, 38 fl \.. saturated 15 <- sn Gray silty medi1.1rn SAND with gravel, \.. T dense, saturated 27 Boring terlilinated a~ 18 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 1.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. i Sub:!.umc,i ~~.Ol'I.I: OtOlel""-rt~m O\lr(lc,s~rv.1.!!QM u 1~ lttr>e 11'1d IOc.ll!1C1t1 cl !1'111 .i.,c:,1ora!O<')' holt, mooAICrd t>t tt>Oll'IN1>n9 IHtl, 1.,,.!'y',,i,, ari< f','<11\l'*"'lUr.. They 1.t,11 ni;r. nec-en-ttily rep111tMll'..-i.-01 Q\M!r llm.t"I 1na ~OQ<\1. v,,, '-"".-.01 1ccoo11n.oot'l,1D11n1 lor 11'4 UH o, ll'llorJ)f.,1hcM1 I>,' 1;11r-.r,. er rn1orm.a.1,,;111 prn-l'ml<l on nm ior;. . .-.. ~-;:",; 0 BORING LOG ~·1~· Earth Consultants Inc. :'ll\ y CRl::!:K BUSINESS P7\Rl: ~! ~~) Cl:vl~GIJIEl\,llir..-Tn. ~'(-,l., I-t,r,"r<.............,Ud!-,(·•...-11~"1~ RENTON, HA~IIINGTON ?roj. No. s 144 1 Drwn. GLS I Date f(~b'91 Checked DB I Date 2-1-91 I Plate M BORING NO. B-6 Logged By_~::,~?- Date __ 1 ... -~1'-5'---'q'-0-Bev. '.iV. s'-+ Graph us cs Soil Description 2" a~phalt c~ncrete Red brown medium to coarse s;..No wit.i·, gravel, sat~=ated ;;1:p::: ldld:i! !~L 1 I ' " ' I I ' Gr;;.y SII.,T, zaud, :-w~t. ::;Uturated .· ............ , ... ;.i sr.i Graoes to bro1vn 5ilt;· SrliiD, cn.Jt~P., !.atur.arcC'i · 1lljli1Jlf ral I Grad~s to gcay w1•h sand, medium 1 :. • .. ~ !;atura t~c. ·,,111::i C'lrsanics -:t,·,f81·,· -----------··r·PJf ., .if=i1.~)H sr.t Gray silty r:i.~dJ.Ur:l. SAND, ~race orqan.ics, . ,,,,·,··i· d' , d :~:~:f·tt:· i r.ie .1ur.i uens€:l, s,1tur.c1t~.! ;:~•:_~:. ~1.: >~ Gray SILT,-~erlium, sa~urated -gr,:Hi.es to :;ti:=i - - - - Depth I~) 5 10 _ 15 - Sample 1 T I I T T Bo~i~g terninateC at 19 f~et below P.xisting grade. Grauhdwa~er encountered at 3 f~et during drilling. Boring back!illeC with cut~ings 1 bentonite and concrf! tP.. IN! Blow.; Ft. 2 7 ll 8 18 16 w 1%) 36 52 S~:i,11M1et c.ol'ldnlOfU o,p.e,.e r,,t,<'111.a>'l'I wr o~rv,u,on1 l! \llt-l!1n1: •r><' tQr::•uon 011n4 u::oto111to')' holt moorhec tJf R"91..-ro"9 le,fU . .,-..1...i,1. llld J...O't"'rr-11 "1 l1-4T ''"" f'O: r.-c, IM '~1 f~lrM!"lll'I .... c,! cr,r.ar 1'!t')e$ 11'1::I IQO; .. Ui0<\1. Y'°I, ,;.lnnt,'. a!tO~ IUC,Oll!•P.~lf)' Jo• lhl-~H c,, ,.,,9rp1"1)1C,ll by ov .. rl, ()I >nlc,rm&1,on Pf~t:nlbl;I on 1r11s io; Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS f Date F'F-:-h' 91 Checked rni BORING LOG ,t,Y CR££)( i30SIN:"::3S ?MRF. ?!::l\'TON, i·IASl'i~i.:.;To~J Date 2-1-C)l Plate A 7 L ' • J, Graph i' I/ i I 11 1 I 1111 BORING NO. 8-7 Logged By IJ? Date l-16-9 l us cs ml sm sn Soil Description 2 11 asphalt concrete Gr~y silty medium SAND with grav~l, la0s~. s~turat~d Gray brown sandy SILT, trace organics, soft, saturat:C!d Gray SILT, loose, saturated Gray-brown SII.'1' 1 trace sand and organics, soft 1 saturated Gr~y ~ilty ~edium SAND, trace gravel, ~ediurn dense, saturated -grades to dense Gray silt:{ S.?\.ND with gravel, ve-::y dense, 5atur~teC Depth Sample (~) .. .. '- _ 5 - - ,_ 10 .. .. .. '---15 .. -.. '- >-20 .. '- - T I I I I T 8ev. Jl 1 ! (NJ Blows Ft. 5 4 4 14 15 36 w (%} 39 ~o 50 S~tm1,Upa Cl)l'ld,1,0,U (lt~>C1e<l 1't.~Al C<J/ -.irw:,01'11 fl tlM ""'-~ &"(I loe&IICII ~ 11'>1l autlallllory r,olt.11'1QOll..,;i t1y arig,,-11n,g 1.stl, .,,..~.,_, jf>C: /ll"9tm.tr:~ Thfrt t!• ne:,; l'>f':IU..1,ly tC"t>ro1•Ml'lt.:1-OI v!Mr111N-J lll"IQ ~\~ ........ unno: lc;.,;.DPI tui::ioon.10,111y /ol ll>w IIH IDl ll'll•IP'lljl>On 17:,' CIIM!"li o/ o.rilDl!n&l~ prw,um.o M lmt log. BORING LOG '.;hY CHf.H auSINESS PARK ?.BN1'0N, WASHINGTON LL=~4 PL~29 PI=lS 1 Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date Feb' 91 Checked DP. I Date '.!-l-91 Plate A8 Graph I ii . ! '1 I i I I i BORING NO. 8-8 l.Dgged By D" Date -~'~-_,,1""6--""9._l _ EJev. ){.)':: us cs sm ml ml Soil Descriptjon Gray brown ~ilty coarse SANO, loose, wet Gray 5andy SlLT, soft, snturated Gray ~edium SAND, dense, saturat~d Gray brown SILT, trace sand, mediun stiff, saturated (grades tc stiff) Depth (ft.) Sample - - . I _5 I ~ ~ .. .. 10 ~ l ~ ~ I - -15 - T Boring terminated at 19 feet below exi5tins grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and ben toni t.e. !NI w Blows (%) Ft 4 32 27 19 9 13 :6 51.1?>1Vl"l~CI' CQn(IJIJQN Od)I~ ,..C>f'ti,al'II ~r o::,ur·.,111()1'1S ll 11'>1:" lm'IC •l)(l lPCs110fl ,;rl 1r.,, uDIQ11110')' holr.. mod•l-.d by t"9'M+llr.Q 1e-m. ll\.ltr",11, 11\(l jl10tM'fflo41nl. Thq' J.rl l'}O'; ~:Mll•ly )t,;,1...,.rilafl"'9 o: l;ll.l'ltf umu IM~=-V','a C..'1no\ aa.t>DI IU00(\11b1\l'ly IOI Ir. U)! DI mltl?l.,lhOl'I D)' C,O'<ll'S al inlOrm.atiori prn.m9'd on ln'II IOQ BORING LOG ?·i.:::.."f CR.EEK BUS!NES.S P!\RK R£NTOK, HASH lNG'TON Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date F'cb'91 I Checked DE I Date 2-1-91 I Plate ,,9 -------"'-----~---- i I J, 1 ' • • 1 i j l I l Graph BORING NO. B-9 Logged By _D::.:='c__. Date '-l~-91 us cs Soil Description 2 1 ' asphalt concrete Red-brown coarse SAND with gravel, }O().!'>P tn r.if:diur;'I drtnsf:-. wet 3rown sil~y oedium to coa~se SAND, loos~, satura~~a -grddes to gray br.o .... 'n, trace silt t- Depth (~) Sample I Bev. 28':; (N) Blows Ft. 8 w (%) 33 : i I 111 i Ii I '"1 I B=own SILT, trace organics, medium stiff, saturated 10 I 6 I r:,l Brown silty m1.!diumSJ\ND 1 loose?, sat.ur~!".e:1 Gray r:u,?dium SILT, trace sanC., mediur.i stiff, sa'turated Gray silty medium SAND, dense, saturated Gray nediun coarse SAND, very dense, saturated f- -15 -20 I l T Soring te!T.linateC at 21.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwate.:c en~ountered at 2.5 feet during drilling . Boring back:illeC. "'it:h cuttings and Lentonite . 25 7 28 27 63 Sv?W;.ir1u:.,. Cll~ll,oru; CH .. Clf'O "'Ot"h<:o'\1 e.JI c~~IOIU ti V,.,,, 1,~ and IOC&llO(I rJ!th.r$ ••:>1ora10,y l'>Ol(. l'!'>Odl'l'4<1 bf •"{l,,_""'O lrr'J, ·~·s. •N: JUClptrl\6'11. ln+t tit~ r.e1ru,1,1y tn),,,...,.,..1,.... ol ct:h•• ,,,,..11no lo,;..lc1Qn$. '1W etnnot tti.ci:,,, ,a~ul\y tor 1/W i,M 00' •n1a1p1t111oon bJ' o,;r-.n ~ ..,,~,on ~1noot1111<l on u,r,; 1o9 Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date ,eh' 91 Checked DB BORING LOG NAY CREf.l': DUS n:r:ss Pt"'.RK RENTON' ,!ASnlNGTm: Date 2-l-91 Plate . AlO BORING NO. 8-1 0 Lngged By L'E Dme l-16-91 Bev. 'i..7 I:: us Depth IN) w Graph cs Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows 1%) Ft . :~·~·t}~./ ... aspna l r CC"r.cre ti? sp Drown ~;.~n •,.:i th sl l r an<\ J:1"',1\IC l 1 loose, wet ,-. j j: ii] I j; r.11 Gray-brown sandy SILT, soft., saturated ,- . i I Ii If Ii I ,-. I 4 l!li1! 11 ,- 1:111:1,: G!"aV-!)rown silty :;i1:diur,1. SAN[;, ionse, t 5 !;T.'l szt:ilra~~d ~ j .:•:•:H:-~:··· .... " t:11 Brown SI.::'!', so~t., sa~u:rati~d ·1 22 ''''fjti" .-<(,. . . \ JrJ.:t~t: Sr.I Brmm silty rn~diUr.\ SAND, loQSt: , I ift.lf it {t " saturated ... 11 sp Brown tH!di \lr.l SAND 1,,i th silt, rnediur.i. ... cientie, satu::-ated f-10 T I oh Brown o~q~nic SILT, sor:t, sascu=at:.ec., I,-7 89 ~ ¥.4"////. trace wooa mr·1i11 sm I Gray-hr.own silty mediur.1 SANO, t::-ace ,-. <'·f. ft . f gravel, loose, s.atu::at~d ... T i~:i:3 : •. r\:,.~ 6 91 ~?//,,',!; I oh Brown organic SILT, .soft, satu::-a~ed ~ -,·r···,· )i· 'Jhti ~ 15 i :/ }1Ij1 . . '( .. • • 1~f.J4iJ{1 Sr.1 Gray silty t;)eaiura SAND, rnedi:.t.~ dense, JJ!l:i:111 saturated 1 oh Brown organic SI:.T, cier..se I -I ~ft'///.w.l 15 : Ii 1111111 nl Gr.a}' SI!~T I r.iedium st.iff, satu.J:at:.ed - 20 ~MHHffiU >--~):l:>~:1:)i;{< lll1 1 i11111:, S:71 Gray silty SAND, den~e, satura':.ed ~ ,-. T 23 • Soring t.err.iinnteC at 24 :i'.eut below c.xist.ing qrade. Groundwu.t.cr encountered at 3.5 fet!t during drilling. Bo::-ing h~ck!'illed with cut~ir:s:,. r bent.onitP. and concrete. ' l. l L Su:osun,ea CQl\t:~,or,i CtP~t-() r1Dl'9'Hr<I ov< ri.!>M,...,.l>On3 at I~ 1,m, •~ 10,.,ucr. ~ tho, UDIQfl/Q,Y r,clt, /l'>Ol:l,f,t,d t,,, 109-.llr)fl 1,lrfU, 1n,ly1.•J, an.C 1..o~m.111.;. 'f~ •1t 001 n.-e,,:i.en,y ie,une~M 01 D!herlni·,u ana l()C..l.!,On$, V...: uru,;,11,,:c.ec,: ,.,l)(lfu1t:>r11\y1(1t 1M u11 or "'lll'P••111,c,o ti)' O(l'ltrJ. o' ,nlGnnu,or, Ol'H-4mlod en 1h11 k)Q ~?--...,_ BORING LOG (~f Earth Consultants Inc. ~iAY CREE}; ,,USINCSS p;,;R1: \ :.,;I \f.;,;;/ 1,,,.;/l (c-04,~.,.. .. 111,i;o........,.~. !,t'-""!<';l,J. l;nnHJtvo-.'nl,11 ~\C..,11,."l~ RL::NTON, \•;ASHlNGTON ! Pro]. No. 5144 1 Drwn. G~.$ I Date f1,;-h'92 Checked DB I Date 2-1-91 I Plate 7,11 ,, BORING NO. B-:1 j Logged By DF Date 1-Jf--9) EJev. 2., I+ ' - us Depth !NJ w Graph cs Soil Description {tt) Sample Blows (%) Ft. /:.!lii/:if !!~i 2" anphalt co:,crP.t<? - ,- mt1m11 Gray-Oro,·::1 sil "-Y :'ine to tiediurn Sl\ND, ,-I 25 !>T:l with lens~s of silt, loose, saturated ,- ~~:i:fH~~}: C ~ ., ij1rM: T t 1' Ihl -grades to brown ,-0 !11! l: l!Il .. tJJ,hJ;:li ,-I 6 23 :1Jl!l!lil ml Brown SILT, trace peat., soft, ,- saturatt:!C 10 :~.·:-::.•. sp Br-own l:lediUI71 SAND, loose, saturated T ! 11 J 111/ Ii I ,-5 28 r.il Gray SILT, mediWi'I stiff, saturaL.ed ,- ' I Gray silty nediu.-;t SAND, louse, .. T 9 Sr.I saturated " ,__ 15 ,- ' nl I Gray SILT, so.:t, sat.urc.t.ed ar:C: I I bYO\o.'n : 14 <j,>:·lp / :;,::Ji:lf, ' tN li'i silty medium -20 T ! :l!ti\!i~1~~ili~ Sr.I Gray Sl\.ND I very dense, i t.aturated ,-40 Boring te ?:"i:1.i!'la t.ed at 21. 5 feet below existing grade. G:-oundwater encouhtered at 3 feeL during drilling. aoring bacl:filled with cu~ti;-igs and bentoni t.e. ' S1Jt11<1r'{1ce ;ond11,ons OCP1C,K1 ~~m ov1 o:i-s~,v,,i,on, 11 tr... '""' .atw:1 loc.J1"0n ol 11111 HPIQrnOl")I hole, mDd1!,td b-j '"V'l"ff""9 lHU. 1111~11 • .a'>C JiJ~IT-.11\. "Th.,-Uf fl(!', l'IK-Ul-.ll1lr rt"Pr.,..m.a,,.,. Ql Q'l~I Wl"ll tf>d bc.l.llO!"IJ, \',It U.,,j'>Q( <1..CC:r,I IUOon11t:1HI'.¥ 1Dl 1r.. 1/U Qr 11'11lllP<l111>0/\ tJ)" otr.or, O' 1~10mU1,on 1tt..,.arT1e<1 cm lh>ll ~ .,.... /7\ ~ BORING LOG 11 ff} Earth Consultants Inc. ! : .. A y CRF.EK BUSINESS Pt'IRK \ ..,,,., \,;,,,/1\":,J:!) i,v~1:1112 .. ~.{""~1~ • en-.,,.,.,.,.. ..... ~u:,,,r-.-ni ... ,~ REN'l'OII, \,ASH INGTON I Proj. No. S,4~ I Drv,,,n. I Date Checked I 2-1-91 I A l2 I GLS Feb'9l Oll Date Plate -- Graph itfH:i{i :/ltlidtl}iii : 11111 JI: i ' ii [ l:1 ~:J:t:fnti:i~ ! i Ii Ii I! I :/!l{f fi!JJ. : I JI j \' i; I '.!IJI.IJl! 11 I 1' 11' '' BORING NO.B-12 LDgged By __ D_P_ Date ____ 1--'-1 _,_-~s,~'~ us cs f;J!I ,.1). s~ r.il sp nl Soil Description 211 asphalt cnnr.ri:te Brown-gra.11 silty medium SAND with gravel, s~tlJ~ated Grriy sandy SILT, rnl!dium sofL ":Q s"Ci~f, r- saturated Brown S!L~, loose, sa~urated Brown 5ILT, soft, saturat~d Brown ne<liur.i SAND, dtrnze, .satu:-at.~d Gray and brnwn sandy SIL'!' 1 so:~;:, saturated. L Depth (ft.) ', 10 Sample I Bev. -. ~ '.,. (NI Blows Ft. 8 13 3 w (%) 24 36 1--1-C=,".,+----+---------------------j I : J, l ! . '!l J I JI ·!· '; ! " • J' : . i ". SC\ nl Gray ~i2.t:~· t:1ci!.iur., SAND, r.'lnC.itlr,,. Ucr:se, sutur.:itecl Gray sandy SILT, stiff, sa~urated I-- ~ 15 '" T 23 Boring ter~inatcd at 19 feet below existing grade. G~oundwater encountered at 2.5 feet during drilling. 3oring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite and '.:onc:=-ete. E<1nh Consulrarns Inc. • ., ,.·,~.,.,." 1,,-,,,~h ... JJ""'''"-•11.~."<.,,-.,r,w. BORING LOG :;.-\y CRSD'. EPSINE:SS i',\RK Rf:i'\TON I \·fASi!:ii~GTON L..~p,. 0_i_._N_a_.~~:-.;-.;-l..j_o_,_w~n-·~-··-~-~-~~L.j_:o~a~t:e~~f~e~)~,·~s~·l~l..'.::Checked I Date /-1-9: I Plate LL=38 PL=29 PI= 9 ' l f l ! General APPENDIX B E-5144 LABORATORY TESTING We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analyses and Atterberg Limits, on representative samples. Moisture determinations and consolidation tests were performed on representative samples. A brief description of each of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in this Appendix. However, it is imponant to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion oi this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. · Soil Classification A5 mentioned earlier, all soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they are obtained. They are subsequently packaged and returned to our Bellevue office, where they are independently reexamined by one of our engineers and the original description is verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of information obtained from classification tests, the samples are described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM Test Method D-2487-83. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual boring log and are qualitative only. The attached Legend Plate AJ, provides pictorial symbols that match the written descriptions. Moisture Density Moisture content and tests were performed on several samples obtained from the borings. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain 1he existing in-place moisture content of the soil sample tested. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method. Earth Consultants, Inc. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are presented at the appropria1e sample depth on the boring logs. Particle Size Analvsis Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on several of the shallow soil samples to determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The test is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-422-63. The information gained from this combined analysis allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in-place materials. The results are presented on Plates Bl through B2, and classification symbols are provided as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs. Several consolidation tests were conducted on two relatively undisturbed representative samples taken with the Shelby Tube sampler to evaluate the consolidation characteristics of the site soil. In addition, the time readings were taken at several points of loading to evalua1e the 1ime rate of settlement. The resul!s of this test are shown on Plates B4 and BS, Consolidation Test Data. Earth Consullants. Inc l I: I ------·- ( ,i1 ~-.· ~ I ~-1 f { I ,t"f . . .• _! ' :-n ~ I t ~ s ::Y ~ n ~ :,:: ' ...) ! t.n ~ r- ' ' ::, .. CJ " ' :::i b ! - ' [r, '" -"' ' ::J <Y ,o ('; ~ - ) r ' ' ' L ' a I % "'>< G) '" (") :n 7."' l> .., '" 2 OM ?, X O') -CII N " I 5;:c m Ul~ :t> ,: z ;z: o I ~ t1' ):,, ,;-, en r •-:l (l'.I -< 0,o ~ z :r, (/) ~ ~: I ;, ~ 1•1 ,, SIEVE ANALYSIS I IYDl10METEn ANALYSIS _fil.l[ 01· oi•ENING lf.rlNCitt:'.S NU~J!E;l'I OF MEstf PERlNCtl U.S. ST ANOAliD t;;HA1NSTlE1N MM <;:! \0 '<t r) N _N.:_ ...-rir-,;,<D ,$' ~11:J. y 0 .... <D 0 -"' g ~ 00 <D <D 0 Oo .... o,. g~ _, M C! q ~ (DtO ~M ""0 0 0 0 Q~O_qO, N 0 0 0 0 too -----~---~ -=-==---r~:--;1;1·1-1:-t=l::\=I=~ 90=--=--==·-=-~ ~--==-~-=.s";:. --= -= --=1:r=t=t=- ----=l=l=t=l=-l= . . . . . -- 0 -I· -1--~ so f---!----!---!-1-1--S=l:~~l-/i~l=t-l--i'' --,--1-l-l-+----l-f-----------l '-1-4- lE 10 20 _,_ 1-l I I I '11--·l-----+-+---!-l- § "™gEl=:="U'/s.cH "TI 60 z ----l'-+---l-'--1---1--1----I I- ~ ;g 30 :n ~1=1---1= Pn -1-. r=i:= 2 •o ---1 -1-1-1-+----+----; 0 n, ;-~ -I----'-l~---!----1----l~H 0 )> :II ~0~-t- -----~ ------ I..Jl-1--1-j:=l=l==Jso :n .,, rn :;, --m C, I ~ 30 i=== -··. -1--+--~-+--1---1--+-[===: --~: . <':. --1:1=1=1=1-_:m: I-E---.o ; --:_ ------==== 70 :;, t-=--. ----~ -1---.__ ___ ,__,___ -----.. I 201---1 1-1----J---l--!-I--lv~----1-1---H--,___ !==I l---t=t=i:1=!=1-1---1--1-1-,--,-1----_,_, __ ,_, ___ ,,..__.. -1=1-=t=1=1:t=l=i:l=I l==l=l LI 1 _,___ , __ ·J,,;-f- T-""il" 1---1---1-l--1-~1:ti:=1= ::l.:.1~1=1=1=1=1== :!=1::1='~ BO ---j t~§.§90 10 1---1-t-1=1--1-1=1=1-1=1-1=1-1-1::1-t::t:=1- -I--- o E1==t=il:iil~=la~l=§l:FmJr:1lii1=l==!nlrnlrl~- o . -0 O o 0., ~ 0 0 ~ M 0 N 0 .... ~ M N ,-ti:! ~ so; ': ""T "! 0 M 0 0 N GflAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETEflS COBBLES I COARSE I FINE GRAVEL ,COARSE FINE MECJ:!UM SANO n -.... • C! ~ KEY I Boring or Te~t Pi1 No. · 0 ~~?1 I uses DESCRIPTION ~ M ~ ~ o--U-1 5 SP Gr<1y poorly graded SJ\ND with grc1vel ,1.---B-2 10 ML Gray sandy SILT D·········I ll-4 I 2 .s I SM Gray silty Sl\ND N " ·I-~-1---., .. ~ g ~ FINES ~ g 0 0 N 0 " Moisture Content ('Yo) 13 31 2J 0 0 LL 100 Pl ,, ~ 0 2 ? ,,, ,-,, ~ 0 ~ :, n ,. <n 0 ~ ro -, ro r:r ,o ~ () :,- ro 0 >C ro a. lJ UJ 0 ' > ,0 < < D 0 ' " 0 \ ~) -..;_ .. ' I~ I I,:~ ;--r, CJ I "U rn -::5" JJ 0 n m 2J z --; __, IF -n ' z m -c.; JJ _} [JJ --< Ir -~ ' ::J m :J C) I --; s: :,J •< 0 ~n :n -::tJ :t>, "''" -~t'J 2 7' (f> ~~ ~ ,, . tn~ p ~z :z zl•J p, C) <n ,... .., <n -< 0'<1 (/) -z ,,. m (f) "' :,; SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS ~_ILC OF Of1[NIN{i IN WC.If~ NtiMUEn ot-MESII PER INCi~ U.S. STANDAno GnAm SIZE lN MM N l[l{J <IJ "<f M N .• N.iJ .:'f CO N ,.:, ·.:__ _ __:---,., •ri .;:.. ci ,;::."f ,t co2 lO O o O . ·• --. <,> . -N M ~ g:;: 0 0 g U, S, M <0 "' = ~. ==~=~I~===~=-'-,=== r11= 1=r:lt@! 1fhJffi_J ~O --1 ··1 = . -• -< i., -o, -N q q O :::: -0 0 cl 8 N - 'JO =:.: 1~ . ~~·=,~~,= ;~:~ e-==~~::=~: === --1= = -= = _,_ -·=. --_: _____ 1~ --~ ~E=l-1-·· -~=-· WI ~1 1::1===1=1=1=~-J-- 10 ~1~111-~ 1-1·=11=~~!§~§,~}:S 1 -j 60 -----•. ---.. =t-=F-t=t=~.i~ =l= ·--------. ·------------1-1- 001 .1~=1=1=1:1=1~:J§§ LI rrl~l~1~~ ~~ra:r=i=== ---<--<->--l-+-1---1- ·<--<-<--1·-l-l ··1-1-1---1-1-1--+--1--<---· ,o ~!=l=i='=G8=1=1=1=t=1-I ==1:1==t=[=l=1=J:t::j:j ,-=t-l:l~=t:t=i=l==t= ==t:i-==1--=l=l=lJ=f_ - -t-1- 1-t- -•-1::1-,-•-- i=r= ·1---+---- JO I= = -": !1 l=I=== ------ -\::1=1=\=: i= 10 '~EF-1-~,o 1--l= +-i-·1+-1-f--jJO .,:1:l+f::1-1-----! 40 -1--1--1-1--1--- -t -· t---! -· 1---------1 50 --- GO ·~- ·•--~~ ·170 H+H-+--l------ 201: __ -___ -= --==-I==== H -• -t·-l-·-1--·- -1--1-1--t---i---l ao 0 ~,--r~~1f1:=Jl=51riJ= 00 000000 Oa:Jta 00 Ca>I.Dq,MN ~ N COBBLES I COARSE I f!NE GOAVEL KEY narinl] or DEPTH uses Test Pit No. It. I / 0--1 IJ-5 2.S ML ,:,---, ll-12 5 ~~ ,.. .. -------------=l=t-=i-1---, -1---190 --------------- 100 -,-,-·=1=1-i=u-1 ·1-·1:1-1-:t:1=1---1 r ;=....1=-I-, -~ rl-=1= ..... r-,=r== .. "' N -m "' . I!! ~ ... Cl?~ ~ "'! ~ GnAIN SIZE IN MllllMETEnS I COARSE I MEDIUM SAND FINE DESCRIPTION Gr.:iy sandy S1LT Brown SILT ..... ~ t:! N C m "' C O 0 . ~ ~ FINES .. "' 0 0 ~ C! N 0 C Moishu~ Con1cnt 1o/ .. J 27 30 0 0 1. L -0 rn JJ 0 m z --; 0 0 l> JJ [/J m JJ OJ -< ::;; m C) I --; Pl I I ! Key It .. ii 100 ~---------------------:--- ! ! : : ! I i I ! X 60f---------,----,---,----,-----,------,---,---;--~ LU I ' I ' I ! I y:, ~ , i l ! ! I ! i ~401--_:___! -------+1------'l,------,--1 --+-i----,1~0)-!-7'1 "-~---:--~..=A--!:!\'Lile:_e -I ~ I I I I IA I I I i ~ I ,, ! l I i 20f------,----,------,------,,,L-t----,--::::----:::---:---,----~ I I I ~ l@&.@1 i I 1 /1-I i 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT I 8orin9/ Oepth Natural !Test Pit ( ft.) Soil Clossificotion I I ' ! ' 3-5 5.5 organic G1..·ay-br-own ' SILT 3-7 7.0 Gray SILT =-:.:: 5.0 Brown SILT ! I I uses LL. P.L. P. I. Water Con!ent OH 52 51 l 1-\L 44 29 15 ML 38 29 9 Atterberg Limits Test Doto !-\A¥ CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5144 Date Feb'91 Plate E3 I ' I I . c 4) u ~ 4) c,. -z Q U) V) UJ a: 0.. ::'< 0 () 2 ~ 6 8 -' ~ I I I J . 11 ! I I I I I ' 1 rru I ' I I . 11 "' I I I I I I ~ "'I 11 I i I I I I 11 I I I 111111 ~ ~1111 I I 11 I 1111 I I I\ ~I I 11 10 12 14 16 I 111111 11 . I I I 111 f I I t-"' -.!__ I ! :\ I I I I I I ; ,-.· -~r-o I 1111 I I 111 \ I I I I I I I I 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1-6 3.2 6.4 12_8 25.6 Vips "- 2 I I I ll I I I I : I I I 11 I I I I I I I i I I "' I I I I 111 ' ! I I ,.. _,....., I -I ' I I 111 I I I I I '-' I I 11 I I i I i I PRESSURE , kips =::-, J De~t., uses Ii ·.: I i;,.J ' I Soil Oescrrplion ~ar}~ g::ay SILT En.rth . C?_nsultants Inc . • 1. •. 1 .,, .. ·.-,;.. :.:·,t~1:.cc-w1NG tz CCOLOGy LiquJd L1m1[ Pl2suc . P1as11c11y. Moisture Ory LimiT Index Conrnm. \\/ ~~ Densnv. " " 44 ~~ % 8~/ore . Alter (pcf) 29 15 41.0 30.0 80.43. CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA HAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, \,JA.SHING'"l'ON Proj. No. 5144 Date Feb'9l Plate B4 ·' ' I • " ~ 'E ., lJ 6 ~ 0. . z 8 Q t/) t/) w a: 10 "-::. 0 u 12 14 i I ! 1111 I I I I I I ' I I I I ' I I I 1111 ~~1 I 1111 I I 111 I I I I I I 11 ~ N I I I I I 11 I II I I~ ' I--.._ I " 11 ' 1\.r;--~ r-.. I I 1111 I I I 1-~F\ I I I I 11 I I I I ,~, 111 I 1111 I I I I 11 I I I I 11 I 111 I I I I I I I D.l 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.o kios - 3 I I 1-s I I I I I I I 11 I l I I I I I I I 11 \ I I I I I i 1111 \ I I I £J. I I I I 11 11 \_ I 1_ -~L..-l'-0 I ' . I 1111 I I I I l 0.0 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 2s.6 . PRESSURE, Soring Key No. Dep1h uses If t .I Soil Description PLast1c . Plast1cny Moisiure Ory L1m1t lnde:x Comem. W % Densny O B-12 5-7~ ML Brown SILT Earth ~ Consultants Inc.\l\JJ\i CtOTECHN\CAI,,, (NCINE:E:RING Ii GEOLOGY o• ,o % % Before After {pc:f) 38 2 9 9 41.0 21.2 83.22 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA flAY CREEK BUSINESS PAKK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5144 Date Feb' 91 Plate BS ' ,. Appendix C Water Quality Calculations 33 Appendix D Maintenance and Operations Plan ,,- ' 34 Appendix E Legal Description ; J, I ' 35 • • • ' j • ' j 1 Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment EXHIBIT 'A' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: File No.: NCS-377730-WAl Page No. 2 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED NORTHEAST 44TH STREET (SOUTHEAST BOTH STREET), IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 88° 47' 36" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, 797.2 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO HIGHWAY ENGINEERS STATION 4+65.6 AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 4210056 AND 7811221071; THENCE SOUTH 01 ° 12' 24" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID VACATED S.E,' BOTH STREET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01 ° 12' 24" WEST 256.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 204 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE X-LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE .v.c TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 59° 02' 16" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 88° 47' 36" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2-A AS CONVEYED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4664242; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO PAN-ADOBE INC., BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4856255; THENCE NORTH 62° 59' OS" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; STIUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED 44TH STREET NORTHEAST (SOUTHEAST BOTH STREET), IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 01 ° 12' 24" EAST 30.00 FEET; ,,A'" THENCE NORTH 88° 47' 36" WEST 563.68 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT AS DESCRIBED UNDER '\i' (6 RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; , THENCE SOUTH 30° 21' 54" EAST 35.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; ---.~-- THENCE NORTH 88° 47' 36" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 342.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGITT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 44° 14' 51" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, SAID POINT '\F, BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID ARC 201.65 FEET TO THE R·A LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 811221071; 781122Hl7t; THENCE SOUTH 32° 59' 47" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE, 11.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF f=i~f-.dni.or-,'r.:::1n Ti'rl.-. r,....,.., , .. .., ... _,.. -------. \ r_ " Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-377730-WAl Page No. J 180.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 68.23 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID UNE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 58.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY UNE OF SAID VACATED S.E. 80TH STREET WHICH IS NORTH 88° 47' 36" WEST OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 88° 47' 36" EAST 77.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Arst American Title Insurance Company I. '. i ~ i ' • Appendix F Conveyance Calculations 36 ATTACHMENT L \ I access road see Section 5.3.1.1 for specifications outflow/ overflow structure see Figure 5.3.1.B t t " " L• ~,-,' ~.r-,~1 12'/15' if H ~ 6' 16' if H < 6' I (typ) NOTE: FIGURE 5.4.2.A TYPICAL INFILTRATION POND settling pond if required connecting __ spillway infiltration pond l f5· minimum A._l PLAN VIEW overflow/emergency overflow provided per Section 5.3.1.1 SECTION A-A NTS Detail is a schematic representation only. Actual configuration will vary depending on specific site constraints and applicable design criteria. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-69 5.4.2 l6B1NF1LTRATl0N PONDS for details see Figure 5.3.1.B l 1/01/2006 SECTION 54 JBfNFILTRA TION FACILJT[ES 5.4.3 INFILTRATION TANKS Infiltration tanks consist of underground pipe that has been perforated to allow detained stonm:i:./ater to be infiltrated. Figure 5.4.3.A (p. 5-72) shows a typical infiltration tank. 5.4.3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General The following criteria for tanks are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: l. The proposed tank trench bottom shall be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and have at least 3 feet of permeable soil beneatb the trench bottom. 2. Infiltration tanks are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A gcotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 3. The infiltration surface elevation (bottom of trench) must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Spacing between parallel tanks shall be calculated using the distance from the lowest trench bottom to the maximum wet season ground water surface (D) and the design width of the trench for a single tank (W). The tank spacing S ~ W2/D, where Sis the centerline spacing between trenches (or tanks) in feet. S shall not be less than W, and Sneed not exceed 2W. 5. Tanks shall be bedded and backfilled with washed drain rock that extends at least I foot below the bottom of the tank, at least 2 feet beyond the sides, and up to the top of the tank. 6. Drain rock (3 to 11/2 inches) shall be completely covered with filter fabric prior to backfilling. 7. The perforations (holes) in the tank must be one inch in diameter and located in the bottom half of the tank starting at an elevation of 6 inches above the invert of the tank. The number and spacing of the perforations should be sufficient to allow complete utilization of the available infiltration capacity of the soils with a safety factor of 2.0 without jeopardizing the structural integrity of the tank. 8. Infiltration tanks shall have an overflow structure equipped with a solid bottom riser (with clean-out gate) and outflow system for safely discharging overflows to the down.stream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. 9. The criteria for general design, materials, structural stability, buoyancy, maintenance access, access roads, and right-of-way shall be the same as for detention tanks (see Section 5.3.2, p. 5-31 ), except for features needed to facilitate infiltration. Setbacks l. Tanks shall be set back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainfields. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 2. All tanks shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 3. Building setback lines for adjacent internal lots shall be 20 feet. These may be reduced to the minimum allowed by zoning if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on structures so located. 4. Infiltration tanks shall be set back 20 feet from external tract, easement, or property lines. This may be reduced to 5 feet if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on existing or future structures located on adjacent external lots. J l/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-70 5.4.J 17BJNFJLTRATION TANKS 5.4.3.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The size of the tank shall be determined using the hydrologic analysis and routing methods described in Chapter 3, and the stage/discharge curve developed from the recommended design infiltration rate as described in Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). The storage volume in the tank is used to detain runoff prior to infiltration with the perforations providing the outflow mechanism. At any given stage, the discharge may be computed using the area of pervious surface through which infiltration will occur multiplied by the recmmnended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). The area ofpervious surface used for dete1mining the potential infiltration from the tank shall be computed by taking the lesser of the trench width, or two times the width of the tank, and then multiplying by the length of the tank (assuming infiltration through the bottom of the trench only). Note: The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide a preliminary tank length for a given tank diameter, storage depth, design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). 2005 Surface Water Design Manual l 1101/2006 5-71 SECTION 5'1 JBINFILTRXf!ON FACILJTIES FIGURE 5.4.3.A TYPICAL INFILTRATION TANK oullet pipe~ filter fabric---~ top only riser for infiltration only\j for detention/infiltration see Figure 5.3.2.A PLAN VIEW NTS optional design for parallel tank shown dashed 1~1oo·max-1 I-so· max- 0 ~---2" min. diameter air vent pipe welded to tank (required if no access riser on tank) ..;.£.. 6" min dead storage -<;::_-,,--2u·1--m-io-.-If--l+,,.Y-o ,~ do 00'1:~0 : :d :, 0 c:~0 o::d :~" o 0c )~in L detention tank 1" holes as size as required required washed rock bedding min. 54" dia. type 2 C.B. see Section 5.4.1 NOTES: 36" min. dia. (typ.) SECTION A-A NTS • All metal parts corrosion resistant. Steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated (treatment 1 or better). • Filter fabric to be placed over washed rock backfill. 1 i/01/2006 5-72 and backfill to top of tank 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5.4.4 5.4.4 18BINFILTRAT10N VA\Jl,TS INFILTRATION VAULTS Infiltration vaults consist of a bottomless concrete vault structure placed underground in native infiltrative soils. Infiltration is achieved through the native soils at the bottom of the structure. Infiltration vaults are similar to detention vaults. A standard detention vault detail is shown in Figure 5.3.3.A (p. 5-37). Overflow riser details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-38. 5.4.4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General The following criteria for vaults are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: I. The proposed vault bottom shall be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and have at least 3 feet of pe1mcable soil beneath the bottom. 2. Infiltration vaults are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 3. The vault bottom must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Infiltration vaults shall have a solid bottom riser (with clean-out gate) and outflow system for safely discharging overflows to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. Structural Stability All vaults shall meet shuctural requirements for overburden support and H-20 vehicle loading. Vaults located under roadways must meet the live load requirements of the King County Road Standards. Cast- in-place wall sections shall be designed as retaining walls. Structural designs for vaults must be stamped by a licensed structural engineer unless otherwise approved by DDES. Bottomless vaults shall be provided with footings placed on stable, well-consolidated native material and sized considering overburden support, traffic loading (assume maintenance traffic, if placed outside ROW), and lateral soil pressures when the vault is dry. Infiltration vaults shall not be allowed in fill slopes unless analyzed in a geotechnical report for stability. The infiltration surface at the bottom of the vault must be in native soil. Access Requirements Same as specified for detention vaults in Section 5.3.3.1 (p. 5-35). Access Roads Same as specified for detention vaults in Section 5.3.3.1 (p. 5-35). Right-of-Way Infiltration vaults to be maintained by King County but not located in King County right-of-way shall be in a tract dedicated to King County. Any ttact not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to accommodate an access road to the vault. Setbacks I. Infiltration vaults shall be set back I 00 feet from proposed or existing septic system drain fields. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual ll/Ol/200o 5-73 SECTION 5.4 JBI1'FJI.TRATION Fi\CILITIES 2. Infiltration vaults shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 3. Building setback lines for adjacent internal lots shall be 20 feet. These may be reduced to the rrrinimum allowed by zoning if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on strncturcs so located. 4. Infiltration vaults shall be set back 20 feet from external tract, easement, or property lines. This may be reduced to 5 feet if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on existing or future structures located on adjacent external lots. 5.4.4.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 1 t/0 t/2006 The size of the vault shall be detennined using the hydrologic analysis and routing methods described in Chapter 3 and the stage/discharge curve developed from the recommended design iufiltration rate as described in Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). The storage volume in the vault is used to detain runoff prior to infiltra6on. At any given stage, the discharge may be computed using the area of pervious surface through which infiltration will occur (the exposed soil comprising the vault bottom) multiplied by the recommended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). Note: The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide preliminary vault volume (,nodeled as an infiltration pond with vertical side slopes) for a given storage depth, design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-74 5.4.5 5.4.6 20BSMALL INFIT.TRA TIO); BASINS INFILTRATION TRENCHES Infiltration trenches can be a useful alternative for developments with constraints that make siting a pond difficult Infiltration h·enches may be placed beneath parking areas, along the site periphery, or in other suitable linear areas. 5.4.5.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General The following criteria for trenches are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: I. The proposed trench bottom must be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and 3 feet below finished grade. 2. There must be at least 3 feet of permeable soil beneath the trench bottom. 3. The infiltration surface elevation (bottom of trench) must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Infiltration h·enches are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 5. Trenches shall be a minimum of 24 inches wide. 6. Trenches shall be backfilled with 11/2 -3 /4-inch washed rock, completely surrounded by filter fabric and overlain by a minimum I foot of compact backfill. 7. Level 6-inch minimum diameter rigid perforated distribution pipes shall extend the length of the trench. Dish·ibution pipe inverts shall be a minimum of 2 feet below finished grade. Provisions (such as clean-out wyes) shall be made for cleaning the distribution pipe. 8. Alternative trench-type systems such as pre-fabricated bottomless chambers that provide an equivalent system may be used at the discretion of DDES. 9. Two feet minimum cover shall be provided in areas subject to vehicle loads. 10. Trenches shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet, measured on center. Setbacks I. Trench systems shall be set back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drain fields. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 2. Trench systems shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 3. Structures shall be set back 20 feet from individual trenches. This may be reduced if the facility soils report addresses potential impacts of trench phreatic surface on stmctures so located. 5.4.5.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The sections and lengths of trenches shall be determined using the hydro logic analysis and routing methods for flow control design described in Chapter 3. The stage/discharge curve shall be developed from the design infiltration rate recommended by the soils engineer, as described in Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). Storage volume of the trench system shall be determined considering void space of the washed rock backfill and maximum design water surface level at the crown of the distribution pipe. At any given 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-75 SECTION 5.4 JIJ!M!L TRATION FACILITIES I l/0112006 stage, the discharge may be computed using the area of pcrvious surface through which infiltration will occur (trench bottom area only) multiplied by the recommended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). Note: The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide a preliminary total trench bottom area for a given trench depth (from spring line), design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). The program assumes 30% void space in the trench backfill. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-76 ATTACHMENT J APPENDIXC SMALL PROJECT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks January 24, 2005 SECTION C2 FL.OW CONTROL BMPs C.2.5 RAIN GARDEN Rain gardens, also known as "bioretention," are excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide for storage, treatment, and infiltration of stonnwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth. Plants adapted to wet conditions are planted in the enhanced soil. Figure C.2.5.A (p. C-58) shows a plan view and section of a typical rain garden sy.stcm. Applicable Surfaces Subject to the minimum design requirements and specifications in this section, rain gardens may be applied to any impervious smi'ace such as a roof, driveway, parking area, road, or sidewalk, and to any non-native pcrvious surface such as a lawn, landscaped area, or pasture. Design Considerations Rain gardens may overflow occasionally in large storm events or more frequently if located in very poorly drained soils or areas with very high water tables. In very welI~drained soils, water may drain too quickly to support water loving plants and ponding may be of short duration. Conditioning the soil in the rain garden with abundant compost will enhance the growth of plants and help the soil to more readily admit water. Operation and Maintenance See Section C.2.5.3 (p. C-60). C.2.5.1 MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1/24/2005 All of the following requirements must be met in order for a rain garden to be applicable to a target impervious surface or new pervious surface: I. A minimum water storage volume equivalent to 3 inches (0.25 feet) of runoff depth from the impervious surface area served is required. In other words, the volume in cubic feet shall equal 0.25 times Lhe square footage of the impervious surface area served (see example calculation in Section C.2.5.2 below). For rain gardens serving new pervious surface, a minimum water storage volume equivalent to 0.5 inches (0.04 feet) of runoff depth is required. 2. The water storage area, containing the minimum required storage volume, shall be 12 inches deep at overflow and have side slopes no steeper than 3 horizontal to I vertical. The overflow point of the water storage area shall be at least 6 inches below any adjacent pavement area. The overflow point must be situated so that overflow does not cause erosion damage or unplanned inundation. 3. If a containment berm is used to form the water storage area, the berm must be at least 2 feet wide and 6 inches above the l2 inches of water depth. A catch basin or rock pad must be provided to release water when the pond's water level exceeds the 12 inches of water depth. The catch basin may discharge to the local drainage system or other acceptable discharge location via a 4-inch rigid pipe. The rock pad may be used with or witl1out a constructed drainage system downstream. If a rock pad is used, it must be composed of crushed rock, 6-inches deep and 2 feet wide (perpendicular to flow) and must extend at least 4 feet or beyond the containment berm, whichever is greater. The rock pad must be situated so that overflow does not cause erosion damage or unplanned inundation. 4. Amended soil consisting of minimum of 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 12 inches of soil or 12 inches of imported sand/compost blend is required in the rain garden. Tilling and amending to greater depth is desirable. 5. Water tolerant plants such as those in Table C.2.5.A shall be planted in the pond bottom. Plants native to Western Washington are preferred. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual~ Appendix C C-56 ATTACHMENT K I . . I SOUND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. Engineering, Surveying, GPS Construction Modeling and Land Development Services P.O. Box 1705 • 1111 Cleveland Avenue. Suite 202. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone (360) 404-2010 • Fax (360) 404-2013 • E-Mail: office@sdg-llc.com ? l ' ;., TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL For Hawk's Landing L.L.C. April 28, 2009 Prepared By: Sound Development Group, L.L.C. 1111 Cleveland Ave., Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone: (360) 404-2010 Fax: (360) 404-2013 Email: office@sdg-llc.com Project No. 8115 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARE B SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PRb .E S LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. M:ISDG\200818115 • Hawks Landing . Hawks La ndingldra1n'.tir doc 1 . OR UNDER MY DIRECT · ENGINEER UNDER THE IO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. . 1.1 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Post-Development Conditions ................................................................................ 6 2.0 Conditions & Requirements Summary ............................................................................ .. 2 .1 Core Requirements ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 C.R. #1 -Discharge at the Natural Location ............................................... 7 2.1.2 C.R. #2 -Off-site Analysis .......................................................................... 7 2.1.3 C.R. #3 -Flow Control ................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 C.R. #4 -Conveyance System .................................................................... 8 2.1.5 C.R. #5 -Erosion & Sediment Control ........................................................ 8 2.1.6 C.R. #6 -Maintenance & Operations .......................................................... 8 2.1.7 C.R. #7 -Financial Guarantees and Liability .............................................. 8 ;. 2.1.8 C.R. #8 -Water Quality ............................................................................... 9 2.2 Special Requirements ........................................................................................... . 2.2.1 S.R. #1 -Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements ................................ 10 2.2.2 S.R. #2 -Floodplain/Floodway Delineation ................................................. 10 2.2.3 S.R. #3 -Flood Protection Facilities ............................................................ 1 O 2.2.4 S.R. #4-Source Controls ........................................................................... 10 2.2.5 S.R. #5 -Oil Control. ................................................................................... 10 f 3.0 Off-Site Analysis ............................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Downstream Analysis ............................................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps ................................................... 11 ;; 3.1.2 Task 2 -Resource Review .......................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Task 3-Field Inspection ............................................................................ 12 3.1.4 Task 4 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions ............. 12 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................... 13 2 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ........................................................................ 13 6.0 Special Reports and Studies ............................................................................................. 14 7.0 Other Permits .......................................... , ......................................................................... 14 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design ......................................................................................... 15 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure ................................................................. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping ............................................................... 16 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration .................................................. 16 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report ......................................................................... 16 8.5 Inspection Sequence .............................................................................................. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments ......................................................... 18 8.7 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 18 8.8 TESC Conclusion ................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summary, and Declaration of Covenant.. .................................. 19 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan ................................................................................... 19 r 11.0 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 19 APPENDICES Appendix A -Exhibits .................................................................................................................. 20 Figure A-1 -Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 21 Figure A-2 -Flood Insurance Rate Map -Firmette .......................................................... 22 Figure A-3 -Pre-Developed Condition Map ..................................................................... 23 Figure A-4 -Developed Condition Map ............................................................................ 24 Figure A-5 -NRCS Soil Survey Information ..................................................................... 25 t ;li Figure A-6 -WSDOT Basin Map ...................................................................................... 26 Figure A-7 -Downstream Aerial ....................................................................................... 27 Figure A-8 -TIR Worksheet ............................................................................................. 28 Figure A-9 -Facility Summary (not included) ................................................................... 29 Figure A-10 -Bond Quantity Worksheet (not included) .................................................... 30 • Figure A-11 -Draft Declaration of Covenant Form (not included) .................................... 31 Appendix B -Geotechnical Report .............................................................................................. 32 Appendix C -Water Quality Calculations (not included) ............................................................ 33 Appendix D -Maintenance and Operations Plan (not included) ................................................. 34 Appendix E -Legal Description ................................................................................................... 35 Appendix F -Conveyance Calculations and Detail (not included) .............................................. 36 3 l • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the proposed 3.06-acre project is to demolish the existing structures within the current project boundary, relocate existing onsite utilities and construct a 5-story 122,000 square foot hotel. Associated utilities will be provided to the new hotel to accommodate required fire, water, stormwater, power, cable and sanitary sewer requirements. Existing impervious areas within the development area will be demolished and re-used/recycled or removed. It is assumed that the site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be less than that of the existing site conditions. The developed runoff from the pollution generating impervious areas will be treated with Low Impact Development: rain gardens. The Western Washington Hydrology Model will be utilized to determine the required treatment stormwater runoff to size the proposed rain gardens, and can be found in Appendix C. As discussed with Alex Jones, with the King County Surface Water Department, the KCRTS is not appropriate to size rain gardens . Modifications will be made to the existing on-site Washington Department of Transportation conveyance system to re-route the existing system around the new building structure and site improvements. 4 1.2 Existing Conditions The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, west of Highway 405. King County parcel number: 3224059049. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The project site basin is approximately 3.06 acres. Existing soils onsite consist of Norma Sandy Loam, with a Hydrologic group of "D", per the NRCS soil survey, A geotechnical engineering study was prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in February of 1991 and is attached to this report as Appendix B. This report describes the soils on-site, and will be updated upon site design. An on-site topographic survey was conducted by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc, in 1995. This survey was used as a base map to delineate the on-site drainage and grading for the new site plan. Sound Development Group has verified that there are no apparent major modifications to the existing on-site conditions. This office also completed an off-site topography to be utilized in the proposed off-site road improvements, in January, 2009. The project site currently supports four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping. The existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/re-used and removed from the site. Currently, the site is approximately 85 percent impervious. The majority of the 15 percent pervious area includes the landscaped road frontage along Lake Washington Boulevard. 5 ; .... ' ' -, ·t, J r j ' 1.3 Post-Development Conditions Upon completion of construction, the proposed project site will consist of a new 5-story, 29,412 square foot footprint hotel, with underground parking garage. The new hotel will be provided with proposed storm and sanitary sewer, water and other appropriate utilities. Road improvements will be completed along Lake Washington Boulevard to include curb, gutter and sidewalk. Stormwater runoff from the site development will be treated with rain gardens. A portion of the southern entrance to the site, from Lake Washington Boulevard will be conveyed through a proposed basic treatment system in compliance with the King County Stormwater Design Manual, prior to discharging to the proposed public storm system. · 6 f • .... • i • l ' 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1 -Discharge at the Natural Location Currently, based on the topographic survey information and records, stormwater from the majority of the existing site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard, or within an existing onsite storm system, and discharged to said ditch. The water captured within the tight-lined system is conveyed discharged off-site to the existing ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site will occur at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch, utilizing the existing culvert to May Creek. 2.1.2 C.R. #2 -Off-site Analysis A Level 1 Upstream / Downstream Analysis, is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The analysis, upon site design, will include: • Defining and mapping the study area; • Reviewing available information on the study area; • Field inspecting the study area; and • Analyzing the existing drainage system including its existing and predicted problems, if any. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 -Flow Control The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. 7 ? -~ 2.1.4 C.R. #4-Conveyance System The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems will be demolished / removed. Due to essentially equivalent impervious areas in the pre-developed and developed conditions, flow characteristics should be unchanged. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin. 2.1.5 C.R. #5 -Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for this site in accordance with the KCSWDM and the City of Renton requirements. The existing paved northern entrance to the site will be used as the construction entrance. Construction work limits will be determined and shown in Appendix A, Figures A-3 and A-4, upon design. The erosion and sediment control plan will be included in Section 8 of this Technical Information Report. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 -Maintenance and Operations See Appendix D of this report for further discussion on maintenance and operations requirements. 2.1. 7 C.R. #7 -Financial Guarantees and Liability Financial guarantees meeting King county guarantee requirements will be provided under separate cover. See Appendix A in the future, Figure A-7 for the Bond Quantity Worksheet. 8 ' ,. 2.1.8 C.R. #8-Water Quality Water quality treatment, as required by Core Requirement #8, will be implemented and designed to target pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) and a portion of the non-pollution-generating impervious surface (NPGIS). It is intended to capture the proposed roadway/parking runoff, as well as a good portion of the NPGIS, within several individual rain gardens. The rain gardens will be designed utilizing Western Washington Hydrology Model, Version 3, to treat 91 % of the site runoff. The proposed rain gardens will meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, Section 6.1. 9 -,_ ' ,. f ,I 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2.1 S.R. #1 -Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements N/A. 2.2.2 S.R. #2 -Floodplain/Floodway Delineation FEMA Map Panel No. 53033C0664 F, dated May 16, 1995, was consulted and shows that the site is not within a 100-year floodplain. Note that the site is located in a Zone X (see Appendix A, figure A-2). 2.2.3 S.R. #3 -Flood Protection Facilities To our knowledge, the existing site does not contain flood protection facilities, nor does the proposed project intend to construct any. 2.2.4 S.R. #4 -Source Controls This project does not require ·Source controls; therefore, Special Requirement No. 4, Source Control, does not apply. 2.2.5 S.R. #5 -Oil Control This project does not fit the classification of a high-use site; therefore, Special Requirement No. 5, Oil Control, does not apply. 10 '' ' • j ; 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis 3.1.1 Task 1 -Study Area Definition and Maps The project site represents a portion of the May Creek watershed basin. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The site currently drains south to May Creek, and eventually to Lake Washington. A boundary and topographical survey of the project site has been completed and is included in the project submittal. A Pre-Developed Condition Map is included in this report in Appendix A, Figure A-3. An upstream and downstream inspection / site visit was conducted to determine the relative basin that contributes to the shared discharge location. The contributing basin appears to include a portion of Interstate 405, associated on-ramps, Lake Washington Boulevard and the project site. The approximate 1-405 basin has been included in Appendix A - Figure A-6. The 1-405 basin is captured in a series of ditches, culverts and catch basin -pipe networks, and conveyed west to ex CB 2604 per the attached Developed conditions map. It is then tightlined south and west to the existing roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. The ditch conveys the water south, approximately 450' to an existing 24" CPP culvert. The culvert discharges the stormwater directly into the buffer of May Creek. May Creek flows to the west from the above discharge point, beneath an existing Lake Washington Boulevard bridge, beneath an existing railroad trestle, then south and west to discharge to Lake Washington. The downstream flow path of May Creek has been included in Appendix A - Figure A-7. May Creek appear to be well vegetated, with no conveyance or erosion problems. I 1 r i 3.1.2 Task #2 -Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential problems in the study area: 1. FEMA Maps. 2. Critical Areas Map and Wetlands Inventory Map: A critical areas report is being prepared. 3. Soils Information: The geotechnical report for the project site was consulted, and no special conditions apply. (Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix B.) 4. Drainage Complaints: City records will be consulted to determine if any drainage complaints are on file. 5. Erosion Problems. There are no erosion problems at the site due to the fact that it is almost 100 percent impervious. 3.1.3 Task #3 -Field Inspection Sound Development Group staff walked the project site on March 12, 2009. There was no rain at the time of this inspection. The site was observed to be comprised of primarily concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Minimal landscaping in the parking area was observed. 3.1.4 Task #4 -Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The drainage system consists of sheet flow to an existing roadside ditch and catch basins to a closed conveyance systems. The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. This will contribute to conveyance problems, ditch and pipe siltation, and possible clogging of the existing system, and should be remedied. There are no known overlapping problems at this site, or within May Creek. 12 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This site is will meet flow control requirements. See Section 2.1.3 for further , · discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. This site is will meet the Water Quality Core Requirement. See Section 2.1.8 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site i. de~gn. 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW. Due to no change within the WSDOT basin, flow characteristics should be unchanged, and existing sizing will be utilized. The proposed storm , " conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin upon site design . • -"f; 13 J, " L ' j 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Critical Area Investigation by Graham and Bunting. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS SEPA Checklist -City of Renton Building Permit -City of Renton Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOi)-DOE Clearing and Grading Permit -City of Renton 14 ' -" I j ' 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure The proposed project will include an erosion/sedimentation control plan designed to prevent sediment-laden runoff from leaving the site during construction. Currently, the site is approximately 85% percent impervious. Maintaining existing surfacing where construction allows, will help ensure erosion/sedimentation control. Additional control can be achieved by cover measures and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. Prior to the start of any construction activity upon the site, erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance with this plan and the construction documents. The best management practices will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. The planned construction sequence for erosion control is as follows: 1. Stake and flag the clearing limits. 2. Schedule and attend a pre-construction meeting with the City of Renton, the Owner, and Engineer. 3. Identify existing entrance(s) to be used as construction entrance(s). 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Provide catch basin sediment protection. Provide miscellaneous demolition within the clearing limits as necessary to construction project. All on-site erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected at least once every 5 working days, each working day during a runoff producing rain events, and within 24 hours after a runoff producing rain event. The contractor shall repair or replace erosion control measures as required. As necessary, adjust temporary erosion control measures as work progresses. Install stormwater facilities, fine grade areas to receive surfacing and provide the surfacing indicated on the plans. Stabilize all remaining disturbed areas. Contact the City of Renton for final inspection. Remove sediment from catch basin sumps. Remove remaining temporary erosion control devices when the area has been permanently stabilized with vegetation and surfacing, and the removal is approved by the City and the Owner. 15 ' ' • ~ 1 • • 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping 8.3 Structural control measures will not be used on this site due to the fact that it consists almost entirely of existing concrete, asphalt, and buildings within the work limits. Specifically, during the period of May 1 through September 30, the contractor will not be allowed to leave soils unprotected for more than 15 days, and immediate seeding will be required for areas brought to finish grade with no further work planned for the next 30 days. Areas to be paved may be armored with crushed rock subbase in place of other stabilizing measures. The area of clearing will be limited to the amount that can be stabilized by September 30 of that year. During the period of October 1 through April 30, all disturbed soil areas will be covered or stabilized within 2 days or 24 hours when a major storm event is predicted. Cover measures may include mulching, netting, plastic sheeting, erosion control blankets, or free draining material. The extent of clearing shall be limited to the amount of land that can be covered or stabilized within 24 hours. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized by plastic covering. In order for the TESC facilities to function properly, they must be maintained and sediment removed on a regular basis. Inspection and sediment removal shall be performed on all TESC facilities as described in the inspection schedule located in Section 9.4 of this report. Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration Permanent site stabilization and erosion control will be accomplished through the following measures: 1 . Paving of driving and parking surfaces. 2. Landscaping (including hydroseeding). 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report Geotechnical analysis has been completed for this site and is contained in Appendix B . 16 1 : ' ' • " ' ' 8.5 Inspection Sequence The Contractor shall inspect the temporary erosion control facilities prior to commencement of construction. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining TESC facilities. Erosion control facilities shall not be allowed to fall into disrepair. All TESC facilities shall be inspected, as a minimum, according to the following schedule. • Dry Season: Once a week. • Wet Season: Daily, and after every storm event that produces runoff. Needed repairs shall be made within 24 hours or immediately, if possible. If necessary, the Engineer or City will instruct the Contractor to provide additional facilities as warranted during field inspections. The Contractor shall provide the name and contact information for the designated Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead to the City of Renton prior to beginning construction. Additionally, the following inspection/maintenance schedules shall be utilized to ensure the TESC facilities are functioning as designed . Plastic Covering: • • • Plastic sheeting shall be inspected once a week during both the wet and dry season. Torn sheets must be replaced and open seams repaired . If the plastic begins to deteriorate due to ultraviolet radiation, it must be completely removed and replaced. • When the plastic is no longer needed, it shall be completely removed. • If tires are used to weight down the plastic sheeting, they must be disposed of properly. Inlet Protection: • Catch basin filter inserts shall be inspected frequently, especially after storm events. If the filter becomes clogged, it should be cleaned or replaced. • Inserts shall be replaced when tears are detected. If the erosion control facilities are damaged, or if the CESCL, project Engineer or City determines that existing controls are inadequate, the contractor shall install additional measures as required. 17 • " 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments 8.7 The contractor shall be responsible for controlling pollutants at the work site. Key elements such as centralized areas for equipment and concrete truck washing and temporary storage of debris and other stockpiled materials are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor may elect to follow the detailed guidance on control of non- sediment pollutants as outlined in the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Department of Ecology, February 1992, Section 11-3 (included as Appendix E). Utilities In general, in order to prevent conflicts between the utilities, the sanitary sewer system shall be installed first due to the depth of the installation. The storm system shall then be constructed and the water system shall follow. During trenching activities, no more than 500 feet of open trench shall be allowed at any time. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of the trench except where limited by safety or space requirements. Trench dewatering, if required, shall discharge to a sediment-trapping facility . 8.8 TESC Conclusion Erosion control procedures as described in this report and illustrated on the design plans, if properly implemented, should mitigate anticipated erosion effects from the development of this project. 18 .. 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARY, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet, TIR Worksheet, Facility Summary Form, and Draft r ·· Declaration of Covenant Form will be provided in Appendix A upon site design. ' i_: I • ! . i : l' l z J, • 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance and operation of storm facilities is the responsibility of the Owner. All drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with King County maintenance standards. A Maintenance and Operations Plan will be provided in Appendix E upon site design. 11.0 CONCLUSION This site will be designed to meet KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management. The existing conveyance system will be reused and rerouted as necessary to facilitate the new building footprint. The storm drainage calculations and modeling provided in this report will meet King County standards for sizing stormwater conveyance systems and treatment facilities. This analysis is based on topographic surveys, supplied data and records. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project should not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. The backwater problem within the existing ditch and it's contributory system should be remedied. This project should not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. 19 _J, ' j Figure A-1 Figure A-2 Figure A-3 Figure A-4 Figure A-5 Figure A-6 Figure A-7 Figure A-8 Figure A-9 Figure A-10 Figure A-11 APPENDIX A Exhibits Vicinity Map Flood Insurance Rate Map Pre-Developed Condition Map Developed Condition Map NCRS Soil Survey Information WSDOT Basin Map Downstream Arial TIR Worksheet Facility Summary Bond Quality Worksheets Draft Declaration of Covenant Form 20 Figure A-1 Vicinity Map , £ ., .t 21 • !' j .,.,__--"-,"-/'-"--~·/'-.-"'-d.-J'--~ ~r..icr""-/'-J'--'l ~v.JAs~'·~"-"~ ~-"' !(I: SE 76 ST N. 40TH ST N. 38TH ST. SHEET DESO/IPT/ON TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT VICINITY MAP 110JECT HA WK~ LANDING · CROWN£ PLAZA HOTEL FOR HAWK'S LANDING LLC SCALE. /JI/AWN BY.· J()BMIMBER: NONE TZEMPEL 8115 iWIY 2009 DATE' 00111NG NM/£ 81150/WNDWG SHEET 1 OF 1 Figure A-2 Flood Insurance Rate Map .. ... • 22 · r":>I~ 111:.s 1.-d "II !It,.,,., ...••. ,., ,j 7-·--. JOINS PA I (T_-~_0675 .----~/ I \ LIMIT OF i.[~O \ETAIL>D ST .U·D·Y 5/"'Yj v/· I 0/ o\"/ ~$/ /N 40TH Sl REET (?:-\-."-/ I ", I I ~ oc 0 z · ,;;_../ MEADOW x_,~/ r /\\l£. NORTH I ~0/ r- ( &, :§ w 7 NORTH 38TH STREET 2 ~ I "' // NORTH 37TH STREET I 6 NORTH r,,TH STREET ~ NORTH 36 fH STREET NORTH 35TH STREET w :, z " ~ I NORTH 36TH STREET j " oc ;;: z w :, z ~ 6 a ;:; > 9 ~ :5 I ~ oc 0 z w :, z w ii ~ w z 0 , ~1 47 52 I " JI ZONE AE /'--. Y' ZONE X ~ £ w ~ w :, z w > "' I ~ f? w z w :, z w ii z ~ 0 u z :0 500 ~ lillJblliF APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 500 NATIONAL ruJOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEl 664 OF 1725 (SEE MAP INClO: FOR PANELS NOT f'Fl!NTEDI ~~~ !IJD<)]I 06"' -.. MAP NUMBER 53033C0664 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16, 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency This Is an offlclal oopy of a portion of the abo'.oe referenced flood map. It was extracted Ul'llng F-MITOn-Line. Thi1< map does not reflect che,ng,,,,;, or amendments which may haw been made gubsequent to the date on the title block. For the latest product Information about Natlonal Flood Insurance Program flood maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.msc.fema.gov Figure A-3 Pre-Developed Condition Map C j 23 Figure A-4 Developed Conditions Map T > ' • f '1. 24 . ,, _!, r j ' Figure A-5 NCRS Soil Survey Information 25 "' 47" 3 1' 58" 4 7" 3 1' 38" I';; ; ~ I 0 ~ ~ "' ;;; " "' r;i ;?of ~ • .'I g E. "·~ " "' :;: ' ~!~ § ~ "' ~--. ~: :": N N -,,1..;J l,i,.i ,, .• ..,"' ti,,.,. ... ,., b,.-r-,1 ~ 559830 559920 5600 10 559 830 559920 560010 Map Scale: 1:4,220 if prin ted on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") she •I. .,; U°•'I, t ~ ~r,, . ··,:, I:,.-' . .,, ' ' Hyd r ologic So il Group-King County Area. Washingt on (HAVVK'S LANDING -CROWNE PLAZA) 560100 560100 5601 90 560280 N N N A 0 -----=====---------========?Meters 3 00 50 100 200 USDA ~ -----c:=====-----------==========Feet 0 Natural Resources Conservation Service 200 400 8 00 1,200 Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 56037 0 560460 .,.."t .,.., .,,. .. "' .., '- "' ~ .. <f' ~ N N 0 .; ~ ~ "' .... ~ "' ~ ;! :;: * ·i ~ 5l ·~ "' § ~ "' 5f712009 Page 1 of 4 47 "3 1'57" 47" 3 1' 38" ,;,,.,,m·1,ii1 USDA w.,.,,1,.,~J ~-i· ffi!'h' " "" "' , .. , ., Hydrologic Soil Group-King County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING· CRDWNE PLAZA) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest {AOI) Solis -" Soil Map Units Soil Ratings D A D AJD i!l"l!l B D BID D C il2!I CID D D Not rated or not available Political Futures ,e Cities Water Features rn Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +++ -...v ...v Natural Resources Conservation Service Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :4,220 if printed on A size (8.5'' x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http:1/websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 4, Nov 21, 2006 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 5[7/2009 Page2of4 • Hydrologic Soil Group-King County Area, Washington HAWK'S LANDING -CROWNE PLAZA USDA - Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologlc Soll Group-Summary by Map Unit -King County Area, Washington Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres lnAOI Percent of AOI AgC Aldeiwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to C 2.1 15 percent slopes Bh Bellingham silt loam D 0.2 lnC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 A 1.8 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam D 28.1 Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 32.1 Totals for Area of Interest 32.2 - Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, B/D, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group Dare assigned to dual classes. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 6.4% 0.5% 5.6% 87.1% 99.7% 100.0% 5/7/2009 Page 3 of4 Hydrologic Soil Group-King County Area. Washington Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey HAWK'S LANDING -CROWNE PLAZA 5/7/2009 Page4of4 47" 3 r 58" 4 7" 31' 38" r,,,! I 0 ;;; ~ <() 0 ~ ~ lk I ~ \~I f oi ,,. ('} :,, "' r ;E k~ ~ ~·· 0 ~ ;g ~ ~ ,f 0 ?' "' . N t1. ~ .:. ~ ~- U"l :,:, " I i, ~ . o~f m ~ ; f· ~ ' "' t ~ I ~ ~-~ N A ··-f h l:i 'c.-tit•i·,1···,I li!<-t .. '"·"' ~,1 ... -::i ~· I • ~ :J 5 59830 559830 559920 560010 Map Scal e: 1:4.220 ii printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. I,,,,' \,,, ~ Representative Slope-King County Area, Wash in gton (HAWK'S LAND ING -CROWNE PLAZA) 560·100 560 190 560280 •----=====--------~=========::;Meie rs 300 0 50 100 200 ~---"!"'::====::::a----------=========::::i Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 USDA N atural Resources ...,_ 'F Conservation Service Web So il Survey 2.2 National Cooperative So il Survey 560370 550460 560550 ·" "' a, <") '- ~ 0 ;;; ;;s [;! '::t ,_..,_.· ~-11 ~i 560640 ~ N N ~ re "' 0 <") ·i ~ .... <D [;! g ~ "' 5f7/2009 Page 1 of 3 4 7' 31' 57" 4 7" 31' 38" i,,,, t to-c~1·1,,1111 uso;. - lit!-( +••:·:>.1 ltil;T• '"<'/j ~-·~"-" .... ·•JI t'< •4' -.~. " ~-. -·! Representative Slope-King County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING -CROWNE PLAZA) MAP LEGEND Area of lnttrest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Soll Ratings ~ 0-5 D 5-15 D 1s.30 D ,o-45 lmJ 45-60 Not rated or not available Political Features • Cities Water Features ~ Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +H--.,.,,, .,.,,, Natural Resources Conservation Service Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :4,220 if printed on A size (8.5" I( 11 ") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http:/!websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NADS3 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 4, Nov 21, 2006 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Sn/2009 Page 2 of3 Representative Slope-King County Area, Washington HAWK'S LANDING -CROWNE PLAZA USDA Representative Slope Representative Slope-Summary by Map Unit -King County Area, Washington Map unit symbol Map unit name RaUng (percent) Acres In AOI Percent of AOI AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 11.0 2.1 to 15 percent slopes Bh Bellingham slit loam 1.0 0.2 Inc Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 10.0 1.8 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam 1.0 28.1 Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 32.1 Totals for Area of Interest 32.2 Description Slope gradient is the difference in elevation between two points, expressed as a percentage of the distance between those points. The slope gradient is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. Rating Options Units of Measure: percent Aggregation Method: Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Interpret Nulls as Zero: No Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 6.4% 0.5% 5.6% -- 87.1% 99.7% 100.0% 517/2009 Page3of3 47 ' 3 1' 59" 47 '31'38" 0 ;;; ~ •o N ;,, N N .: ~ Ci~ ~ r· ; ~ N - .,, & G .. ff,i.- g ... ~ ltt "' . 0 ;Ii ~ "' f! { o ~'.~. "' l N ;2; ~ ~ . oi ;.• ~ ~ .... ~ t; .,, I~ N ;,, 1': N A q •:-.•;t•"!;) ........ ··'1 -=-r-r--•J " 559830 559920 560010 I:! ~ "' .. ,. Erosion Hazard (Road , Tra il)-King County Area. Washington (HAWK'S LAN DI NG -CROWNE PLAZA) 560100 559830 559920 56001 0 560100 560 190 Map Scale: 1 :4,220 ,1 printed on A si ze (6.5 " x 11 ") sheet. ----====--------========iMe le rs 0 so 100 200 300 J ___ _::;,c:==~~~-----,;,;;,;.._-:~========~F eel • 1,200 0 20 0 400 800 USDA Natural Resources = Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2 .2 Nati on al Cooperative Soil Survey 560450 560550 ~ <') 1:: !>606 40 ·'' .... . ~ 'J ~ ... N N e <D .... ~ "' sn,2009 Page 1 of 4 47" 31' ST' 4 7" 31' 35·· 11 -l~l·"'ll-i, ~J : .. , le, ,i lit·· r ,-~~ 1ni~ I· • i ... , ... ) "' • , .. ,-' USDA - Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail)-King County Area. Washington (HAIM<'S LANDING -CRO\M'>IE PLAZA) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) D Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Units Soil Ratings 1111 Very severe D Severe D Moderate ~ Slight Not rated or not available Political Features t, Cities Water Features ~ Oceans Streams and Canals Transportation +<+ - ~ /V Natural Resources Conservation Service Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1 :4.220 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1 ON NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area; Survey Area Data: King County Area, Washington Version 4, Nov 21, 2006 Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 5/7/2009 Page 2 of4 • • Erosion Hazard (Road. Trail)-King County Area, Washington HAWK'S LANDING -CROWNE PLAZA Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail) Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail)-Summary by Map Unit-King County Area, Washington Map unit Map unit name symbol AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Bh Bellingham silt loam lnC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam Subtotals for Soll Survey Area Totals for Area of Interest Rating Slight Moderate Totals for Area of Interest Natural Resources Conservation Service Rating Component name Rating reasons (numeric Acres In (percent) values) Moderate Alderwood (95%) Slope/erodibility (0.50) -- Slight Bellingham (85%) Moderate Indianola (100%) Slope/erodibility (0.50) Slight Norma (90%) Erosion Hazard (Road, Trall}-Summary by Rating Value Acres lnAOI 28.2 3.9 32.2 Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Sail Survey AOI 2.1 - 0.2 1.8 28.1 32.1 32.2 Percent of AOI Percent of AOI 6.4% 0.5% 5.6% 87.1% 99.7% 100.0% 87.6% 12.1% 100.0% 5/7/2009 Page 3 of 4 .. ' • Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail)-King County Area, Washington HAWK'S LANDING· CROWNE PLAZA USDA Description The ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails. The ratings are based on soil erosion factor K, slope, and content of rock fragments. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The hazard is described as "slight," "moderate," or "severe." A rating of "slight" indicates that little or no erosion is likely; "moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely, that the roads or trails may require occasional maintenance, and that simple erosion-control measures are needed; and "severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, that the roads or trails require frequent maintenance, and that costly erosion-control measures are needed. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soi! Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/712009 Page 4 of 4 i' ._;;. 7 j ' Figure A-6 WSDOT Basin Map 26 '. ff f' ' ' ,. Figure A-7 Downstream Aerial 27 ATTACHMENT I KING COUNTY, \VASHJNGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL King County Department of Natural Resources January 24, 2005 1.1.l I I I PROJECTS REQUIRTNG DRAl'.'lAGlc REVIEW PRO.JECTS REQUIRING DRAINAGE REVIE\V Dnlll1i:lge 1·evie\:v is n:qu11L"d for any proposed pro.1cct (e,\cept those proposing only maintenance) that is subject to a King County development pcnrnt or approval, including but not limited to those listed at right, AND that meets any one of the following conditions: 1. The project adds or \vill result in 2,000 square feet 10 or more of uew impervious surface, OR 2. The project proposes 7,000 square feet 10 or more of laud disturbing activity, OR 3. The project proposes to construct or modi/}' a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth, or receives surface and stonn water runoff from a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth, OR 4. The project contains or is adjacent to a flood hazard area as <le fined in KCC 21 A.06, OR 5. The project is located within a Critical Drainage Area, 11 OR G. The project is a rede11elop111e11t project proposing $l00,000 12 or more of improve111ents to an existing high- use site. OR 7. The project is a redevelopment project 011 a single-or multiple-parcel site in which the total of new plus replace,/ impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation and frontage improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. If drainage rc\iev,,1 is required for the proposed project, the type of drainage review must be detem1ined based on projecl and site characteristics as described in Section 1. l .2. The type of drainage review defines the scope of drainage requirements that must be evaluated for compliance with this manual. King County Permits and Approvals Administrative Subdivision (Short Plat) Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Conditional Use' Clearing Commercial Building Experimental Design Adjustment' Formal Subdivision (plat) Franchise Utility Right-of-Way Use Grading Preapplication Adjustment' Right-of-Way Use Shoreline Substantial Development' Single Family Residential Building Special Use' Unclassified Use* Urban Planned Development Zoning Reclassification* Zoning Variance* *Note: If the proposed project wi/1 require subsequent permits subject to drainage review, then ODES may allow the drainage review to be deferred until application for the later permits. 10 The thresholds for new impervious surface and land disturbing activity shall be applied by threshold discharge area and in accordance with the definitions of these surfaces and activities_ 11 See Reference Section 3 for a !ist of Critical Drainage Areas. 12 This is the "project valuation" as declared on the permit application submitted to ODES. The dollar amount of !his threshold is considered lo be as of January 8, 2001 and may be adjusted on an annual basis using the local consumer price index (CPI). Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01'2006 1-9 1.2.3 I 2 3 I OllCORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL CORE REQUIREl\lENT #3: FLOW CONTROL ~ All pruposecl projects, including redevc/up111e11t projects, must provide on site flmv control facilities or lo~u~· L flow control BMPs or both to mitigate the impacts of storm and surface water runoff generated by new impervious sw:face, new pervious swface, and replaced impervious surface targeted for flow mitigation as specified in the follm.ving sections, Flow control facilities must be provided and designed to perform E1 as specified by the area-specific flow control facility requirement in Section 1.2.3.1 (p. 1-30) and in ~1 accordance with the applicable flow control facility implementation requirements in Section 1.2.3.2 ~. 1 . (p. 1-41 ). Flow control BMPs must be provided as directed by the flow control BMPs requirement in Section 1.2.3 .3 (p. 1-46) and applied as specified by the flow control BMP requirements in Section 5.2. [ntent: To ensure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. The level of control varies depending on location and dQ\vnstream conditions identified under Core Requirement #2. D EXEMPTIONS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #3 There are three possible exemptions from the flow control provisions of Core Requirement #3: 1. Basic Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) If the project is a redevelopment project, less than 5,000 square feet of ,iew plus replaced impervious sm:face will he created, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of uew pervious surface \vi\l he added. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed transportation redn,elopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt ifit meets all of the following ctitetia: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new imperi:ious surface will be added, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feet of nen, pervious surface will be added, AND c) The total new impen,ious swface within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redevelopment project on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface will be added. Al\!]) c) The valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual I t/01/2006 1-29 KING ('.OUNTY. \VASlllNCiT0'.\1. SURF.ACF \\'ATER DESJGN \-1ANCAL 5.3 DETENT[ON FACILITI U:S 5.3.1 This section presents the methods, criteria, and details for design and analysis of detention facilities. These fac1 li ties provide for the te1r.porary storage of increased surface water runoff resu I ting from development pursua11t to the performance standards set forth in Core Requirement #3, "F]O\v Control" (see Section 1.2.3). There are three primary types of detention facilities described in this scctwn: detention ponds, tanks, and vaults. The inforn1ation presented in this section is organized as follows: Section 5.3.1, "Detention Ponds" "Dl'.sign Criteria," Section 5.3.1.1 (p. 5-18) "\.1ethods of Analysis," Section 5.3.l .2 (p. 5-30) Section SJ.2, "Detention Tanks" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.2.l (p. 5-31) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.2.2 (p. 5-32) Section 5.3.3. "Detention Vaults" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.3.l (p. 5-35) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.3.2 (p. 5-36) Section 5.3.4, "Control Structures" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.4.1 (p. 5-38) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.4.2 (p. 5-43) Section 5.3.5, "Parking Lot Detention" Section 5.3.G, "Roof Detention" Scct1011 5J.7, "Simple Detention Pond for Cleared Areas" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.7.1 (p. 5-50) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.7.2 (p. 5-55) DETENTION PONDS Open ponds are the most desirable detention facilities for controlling runoff from developed areas. The design criteria in Section 5.3.1.1 are for detention ponds. HO\vever, many of the criteria also apply to inhilration ponds (Scc11011 .5.4.2), and \Valer quality wetponds and combined detention/wetponds (Sect10n G.4). Dam Safety Compliance Detention ponds and other open impoundment facilities must comply with requirements for dam safety (WAC 173-175). Under cumnt regulations (as of September 1998), if the impoundment has a storage capacity (including both water and sediment storage volumes) greater than 10 acre-feet above natural ground level and a dam height of more than 6 feet, then dam safety design and review are required by the \Vashington State Depa1imcnt of Ecology (\All)OE). If the storage capacity is less than JO acre-feet above natural ground level, then the facility is exempt from WDOE review. If the darn height is less than 6 feet but capcicity is greater than 10 acre-feet, then WDOE reviews on a case-by~case-hasis to determine the hazard potential downstream in the event of a failure. 2005 Surface \Vater Design Manual 1/24/2005 5-17 :::EC! ·o\') ~' D['..TFi'<Tl(}\1 h\C!LJTIES 5.J.1.1 DESJ(;N CRITERIA Swn,fard rietails for detention ponds are shO\vn in Figure 5.3.1.A (p. 5-26) through Figure 5.3. l .D (_p. 5-29). Control structure details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-40. General 1. Ponds must be desig11ed as flow-through systems (however, parking lot storage may be utilized through a back-up system; see Section 5.3.5, p. 5-49). Developed flows must enter through a conveyance system separate from the control structure and outflow conveyance system. Maximizing distance between the inlet and outlet is encouraged to promote sedimentation. 2. Ponti bottoms shall be level and be located a minimum of0.5 feet below the inlet and outlet to provide sediment storage. 3. Outflow control structures shall he designed as specified in Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). 4. A geotechnical analysis and report may be required on slopes over 15%, or if located within 200 feet of the top ofa steep slope hazard area or landslide lwzurd area. Side Slopes I. For facilities to be maintained by King County, interior side slopes up to the emergency overflow \vater smface shall be no steeper than 3H: l V unless a fence is provided (see "Fencing," p. 5-20). See Section 6.4.4 for side slope requirements for internal berms in combined ponds and wetponds. 2. Exterior side slopes shall be no steeper than 2H:l V unless analyzed for stabihtyby a geotechnical engrneer. 3. Pond walls may be ve1iical retaining walls, provided: (a) they are constructed ofreinforccd concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p. 5-35); (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 25% of the pond perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3H: 1 V; and (d) the design is stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. 4. For privately owned and maintained facilities, the entire pond perimeter may be retaining walls, and building foundations may serve as one or more of the pond walls. Embankments l. Pond benn embankments higher than G feet shall require design by a geotechnical engineer. 2 For berm embankments 6 feet or less, tl1e minimum top width shall be 6 feet, or as recommended by a geoteclmical engineer. 3. Pond berm embankments must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable fill soils analyzed by a geotecbnical engineer) free ofloose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris. 4. Pond berm embankments greater thau 4 feet in height must be constructed by excavating a key equal to 50% of the benn embankment cross-sectional height and width. This requirement may be \Vai vcd if specifically recommended by a geotechnical engineer. 5. The berm embankment shall be constructed of soil placed in 6-inch lifts compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density, ,vithin 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content, modified proctor method ASTM D 1557, with the fo!krn:ing soi! characteristics: a minimum of 20% silt and clay, a maximum of 60% sand, a maximum of 60% silt and clay, with nominal gravel and cobble content. Note: In general, excavated glacial till is lvell suited for berm embankment material. 6. Anti.seepage collars must be placed 011 outflow pipes ln benn embankments impounding water greater than 8 feet in depth at the design water surface. 1 l /0 l /200(J 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-18 , ! I SBDETENTION PONDS DtSIGN OUTEIUA Overflow I:i c1ll ponds, t:.rnks, and vaults, a primary o,·erllow (uSLtally a riser pipe within the controi structure; .c:ee Scct1uc1 5.3.4.2, p. 5-"1-3) must be pro\·ided to byp::iss the JOO-year, 15-minute dcvdoped peak flow on:r or around the restrictor system. Tl11s assumes the facility will be full due to plugged orifices or high inflows; the primary ovcrtlow is intended to protect against breaching of a pond embankment (or over flows of the upstream conveyance system, in the case of a detention tank or vault). The design must provide controlled dischargc directly into tl1e downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. 2. A secondary inlet to the control structure must be provided in ponds as additional protection against overtopping should the inlet pipe to the control structure become plugged. A grated opening ("jailhouse window·") in the control structure manhole functions as a weir (see Figure 5.3.1.B, p. 5-27) v .. 1 hen used as a secondary inlet. Note: The maximum circumferential length of this opening shall not exceed rme-halfthe control structure circumference. The "birdcage11 overflow structure as shown in Figure 5.3.1.C (p. 5-28) may also be used as a secondary inlet. Emergency Overflow Spillway l. In addition to the above overflow· requirements. ponds must have an emergency overflow spillway sized to pass the 100-year, 15-minute developed peak flow in the event of total control structure failure (e.g., blockage of the control structure outlet pipe) or extreme intlo\vs. Emergency overflow spillways are intended to control the location of pond overtopping and direct overflows back into the dovmstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. 2. Emergency overflow spillways must be provided for ponds with constructed berms over 2 feet in height, or for ponds located on grades in excess of 5o/o. As an option for ponds \\'ith berms less than 2 feet in height and located at grades less than 5%, emergency overflow may be provided by an emergency overflow structure, such as a Type 11 manhole fitted with a birdcage as shown in Figure 5.3.1.C (p. 5-28). The emergency overflow structure must be designed to pass the 100-year developed peak fknv, v.:ith a minimum 6 inches of free board, directly to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. Where an emergency overflow spilhvay would discharge to a slope steeper than 15%, consideration should he given to providing an emergency overflow structure in addition to the spillway. 3. The emergency overflmv spillway shall be armored with riprap in conformance with Table 4.2.2.A. The spillway shall be armored full width, beginning at a point midway across the berm embankment and extending do\vnstream to where emergency overflows re-enter the conveyance system (see Figure 5.3.1.B, p. 5-27). 4. Design of emergency overflow spillways requires the analysis of a broad-crested trapezoidal weir as described in Scctio11 5.3.1.2 (p. 5-30). Either one of the weir sections shown in Figure 5.3. 1.13 (p. 5-27) may be used. Access Requirements 1. JVIaintcnance access road(s) shall be provided to the control structure and other drainage s:trnctmes associated with the pond (e.g., inlet, emergency overflow or bypass structures). Manhole and catch basin lids must be in or at the edge of the access road and at least three feet from a property line. Rims shall be set at the access road grade. 2. An access ramp is required for removal of .sediment with a trackhoe and truck. The ramp must extend to the pond bottom if the pond bottom is greater than 1500 square feet (measured without the ramp) and it may end at an elevation 4 feet above the pond bottom, if the pond bottom is less than ! ,500 square feet (measured without the ramp), provided the pond side slopes are 3: I or flatter. Intent: 011 large, deep ponds, truck access to the pond bottom via an access ramp is necessary so loading ca11 be done in the pond bottom. On small deep ponds, the truck can remain on the ramp for loading. On small shallow ponds, a ramp to the bottom may not be required if the trackhoe can load a 2005 Surface Water Design Manual l l/OJ/2006 5-19 SECTION o.3 DFTE'lTION FACILITIES I 1!0112006 truck parked at the pond t':rlge or on the 111Lcmal berm of ;_i vvdpond or cornhincd pond (trackhoes can negot:ate int::-11or pone! '>Ide slopes) Th,~ internal b('rlll era ',\c(po11d or c'ornb1ncd detention and \\'dpond may be used for access ifit is 110 more than 4 feet above the first \Vetpool cell, 1ftlie first \Vetpool cell is less than 1500 square feet (bottom area measured \Vithout the ramp), and ifit is designed to support a loaded truck, considering the berm is normally submerged and saturated. 4. Access ramps shall meet the requirements for design and construction of access roads specified below. 5. All control structures shall have round, solid locking lids with 5 /8-inch diameter Allen head cap screws (see KCRS Drawing No. 2-022 and 2-023). 6. Access shall be limited by a double-posted gate 1fa fence is required, or by bollards---that is, two fixed bollards on eocb side of the access road and two removable bollards equally located between the fixed bollards. Design of Access Roads Access roads shall meet the following design crite1ia: 1. .Maximum grade shall be 15% for aspha!t paving and 12% for gravel or modular grid paving. 2. Outside turning radius shall be 40 feet, minnnum. 3. Fence gates shall be located only on straight sections of road. 4. Access roads shall be 15 feet in vt'idth on curves and 12 feet on straight sections. 5. A paved apron shall be provided \Vhcre access roads connect to paved public roadways. The apron shall be consistent with driveway details in KCRS. Construction of Access Roads Access roads shall be constructed with an asphalt, concrete or gravel surface, or modular grid pavement. Access roads must con fo1m to King County road design and construction standards for residential minor access streets. Modular grid pavement shall meet manufacturer's specifications. Fencing 1. A fence is required at the emergency overflow water surface elevation, or higher, where a pond interior side slope is steeper than 3H:1V, or where the impoundment is a wall greater than 24 inches in height. The fence need only be constructed for those slopes steeper than 3H: 1 V. Intent: To discourage access to po1iio11s of a pond ,vhcre steep side slopes (steeper than 3:1) increase the potential for slipping into the pond, and to guide those who have fallen into a pond to side slopes that are flat enough (flatter than 3:1 and unfenced) to allow for easy escape. 2. For privately owned and maintained facilities, fences are recommended, but not required, for slopes steeper than 3: I. ;\late, however, that other regulations such as the Uniform Building Code may require fencing of vertical walls. Fence material and construction specifications outlined below do not apply to private facilities. 3. Fences shall be 6 feet in height. For example designs, see WSDOT Standard Plan L-2, Type 1 or Type 3 chain link fence. Exception: The fe11ce may be a minimum of 4 feet in height if the depth of the impoundment (measured from the lowest elevation in the bottom of the impoundment, directly adjacent to the bottom of the fenced slope, up to the emergency overflow water surface) is 5 feet or less. For example designs, see WSDOT Standard Plan L-2, Type 4 or Type 6 chain link fence. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-20 5.3.1 8BDETENTION PONDS /JESlGN CRI/ERJA 4. Access road gates shal1 he lG feet in width consisting of two swingtng sections 8 feet in width. 1\dditional vehicular access gates may be required as needed to facilitate maintenance access. ). Pedestrian .icrcss gates (if needed) shall be 4 feet in \vidth. 6. For fences to be maintained by the County, fence material shall be vertical metal balusters or 9 gauge galvani7ed steel fabric with bonded vi11yl coating. For steel fabric fences, the following apply: a) Vinyl coating shall be compatible \Vith the sunounding environment (e.g., green in openi grassy are,is ;ind black or brown in \Voodcd areas). AH posts, cross bars, and gates shall be painted or coated the same color as the vinyl clad fence fabric. b) Fence posts and rails shall co11fom1 to WSDOT Standard Plan L-2 for Types I, 3, or 4 chain link fence. 7. For metal baluster fences, Uniform Building Code standards shall apply. 8. \Vood fences are allowed in subdivisions where the fence \Vill be maintained by homeowners associations or adjacent lot ovvncrs. fence maintenance requirements shall be a condition of subdi\'ision approval, and a statement detailing maintenance responsibilitie.s and requirements must be recorded with the plat. 9. Wood fences shall have pressure treated posts (ground contact rated) either set in 24-inch deep concrete footings or attached to footings by galvanized brackets. Rails and fence boards shall be cedar or pressure-treated fir or hemlock. I 0. Where only short stretches of the pond perimeter (< I 0%) have side slopes steeper than 3: I, split rail fences (3-foot minimum height) or densely planted thorned hedges (e.g., barberry, holly 1 etc.) may be used in place of a standard fence. Sign age Detention ponds. infiltration ponds, wctponds, and combined ponds to be maintained by King County sh::dl have a sign placed for maximum visibility from adjacent streets, sidewalks, and paths. The sign shall meet the design and in.stallation requirements illustrated in Figure 5.3.1.D (p. 5-29). Right-of-Way 1. Open detention pond.s shall not be located in dedicated public road right-of-way. 2. Detention pond.s to be maintained by King County shall be in a tract dedicated to King County (see Section l .2.6). Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to an acceptable access location. Setbacks I. A setback of 5 feet from the toe of the exterior slope, retaining walls and rockeries to the tract or property line is required for County-maintained ponds and recommended fur privately maintained ponds. 2. The tract or property line on a detention pond cut slope shall be setback 5 feet from the emergency overflow ,,rnter surface. 3. The detention pond water surface at the pond outlet invert elevation shall be setback 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainficlds. This setback may be reduced with written approval of the Seattle-King County Dcpartmcn t of Public Health. Seeps and Springs Intermittent seeps along cut slopes are typically fed by a shallow groundwater source (interflow) flowing along a relatively impermeable soil stratum. These flows are storm driven and should discontinue after a few weeks of dry weather. The KCR TS model accounts for this shallow groundwater component, and no 2005 Surface Water Design l\fa11ual ] ]/0]/2006 5-21 SECTrON 5 J UETr::NTION r:AC[Ll"~IES 11 !O I 12006 special pro\:isions are needed when directing these flows through the f1ow control facility. However, 111ore continuous seeps and springs. which extend through longer dry periods, are likely from a deeper ground1,\aler source. \Vhen contim:ous flows are intercepted and directed through flov,., control facilities, ,1d_1ustrne111s to the approved facility dcsign may be required to account for the additional base fiow (unless already considered in design). Tf uncertain at the time of construction, the situation may be monitored while the facility is under maintenance and defect financial guarantee. Adjustments to the facility may be required prior to the release of the financial guarantee. Planting Requirements Exposed earth on the pond bottom and interior side slopes shall be sodded or seeded with an appropriate seed mixture. All remaining areas of the tract must either be planted \,.,·ith grass, or be landscaped in accordance ,vith the standards below and mulched with a 4-inch cover of hog fuel or shredded wood mulch. 7 Landscaping Landscaping for aesthetic purposes is encouraged, but not required, for most st01mwater tract areas containing ponds maintained by King County (see below for areas not to be landscaped). However, if provided, landscaping must adhere to the criteria that follow so as not to hinder maintenance operations. Landscaped stonnwater tracts may, in some instances, be used to satisfy requirements for recreational space. In other instances, "naturalistic" stornw,.rater facilities may be placed in open space tracts. For more informati011, see page 5-25. ff landscaping is proposed in the stormwater tract ofa County-maintained pond, the following requirements shall apply: I. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or manmade drainage structures such as catch basins, spillways or flow spreaders. Species \Vith roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, should be avoided within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. 2. Planting is restricted on berms that impound water either permanently or temporarily during storms. Not(!." This restriction does not apply to cut slopes that form pond banks, only to herms. a) Trees or shrubs may not be planted on po1tions of water-impounding berms taller than four feet high. Only grasses may be planted on be1ms taller than four feet. Intent: Grasses allow unobstructed visibility of berm slopes for detecting potential darn safety problems such as animal burrows, slumping, or fractures in the berm. b) Trees planted on portions of water-impounding be~s less than 4 feet high must be small, not higher than 20 feet mature height, and have a fibrous root system. Table 5.3.1.A gives some examples of trees with these characteristics. lntent: These trees reduce the likelihood of blow-down trees, or the possibility of channeling or piping of water through the root system, which may contribute to dam failure on berms that retain water 3. All landscape materi,d, including grass, must be planted in good topsoil. Native underlying soils may be made suitable for planting if amended with 2 inches of well-rotted compost tilled into the top six inches of soil. Compost used should meet Ecology publication 94-38 specifications for Grade A compost quality. 4. Soil in v..'hich trees or shrubs are planted may require additional enrichment or additional compost top-dressing. Co11sult a nurseryman, landscape professional, or arborist for site-specific reco rnrnenda ti ons. Shredded wood mulch is made from shredded Lree trimmings, usually from trees deared onsite. !t must be free of garbage and weeds and may not contain excessive resin, tannin, or other material detrimental to plant growth. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-22 5.3.1 88DETENT101\ PONDS -DESIGN CRITERIA 5. F(1r J 11:1turalis1ic effect as well as l'asc of maintenance, trees or shrnbs must be planted in clumps lo i'orrn "/ondscnpe 1,-/rmd1·" r,1thcr than e\·tnly sp::iced 6 The lan<lsc,1ptd isla11ds 111ust lw pb1ted abo\ c the ; 00-ycar \vater surface an<l mu~t be a mirrnnum of six feet apart, and 1 f set back from fences or other barriers, the setback distance must also be a rrnmmum of six feet. Where tree foliage extends lo\V to the ground, the six feet of setback should be counted from the outer drip line of the trees ( estimated at maturity). Intent: This landscape design must allow a 6-foot wide mower to pass around and between clumps. 7. Evergreen trees and trees that produce relatively little leaf-fall such as Oregon ash, mimosa, or locust arc prefened. Large-leaf deciduous trees may not be planted where branches could extend over interior pond slopes. 8. All trees shalt be set back so branches do not extend over the lOO-year water surface of the pond to prevent leaf-drop into the v,,,ater. 9. Drought tolerant species are recommended. l 0. Landscape areas within the tracts of County-maintained ponds in residential subdivision developments shall be designated "to be maintained by the homemvner's association." -· - TABLE :U.I.A S~IALL TREES AND SIIRl/BS WITH FIIIROUS ROOTS Small Trees I High Shrubs Low Shrubs 'Red twig dogwood (Camus stolonifera) •snowberry ( Symphoricarpus a/bus) •serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) 'Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) Rosa rugosa (avoid spreading varieties) Highbush cranberry (Vacc,nium opulus) Rock rose (Cistus spp.) Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) Ceanothus spp. (choose hardier varieties) 'Filbert (Cory/us cornuta, others) New Zealand flax (Phormium penax) Fruit trees an dwarf rootstock Rhododendron (native and ornamental Ornamental grasses (e.g., Miscanthis, varieties) Pennisetum) .. Native species Guidelines for Naturalistic Planting Stormwater fac1l!ties may sometm1es be located within open space tracts if"natural appearing" (see page 5-25 for details). Two generic kinds of naturalistic planting are outlined below, but other options are also possible. A booklet discussing stonnwater ponds and landscaping possibilities is available at the Water and Land Resources Division; when completed, it should be consulted for additional ideas. Native vegetation is preferred in naturalistic plantings. ,Vote: These landscapmg criteria must be followed unless a landscape professional judges that long-term quality of the open space would be improved by deviating from the criteria, AND that if the facility is maintained by the County, maintenance 1,vould not be made more d[fjicult by the deviations. Open Woocllancl In addition to the general landscaping criteria above, the following requirements must be met: 200.5 Surrace Waler Design tvfanual 11/01/2006 5-23 S[CTiO'\l 5 .. ' l)ET~.:'H!Oi\ FACJ~ITJI:.'.) 11/01/2006 1. Lmdsc<1ped islands (when mature) should cover a minimum of 30~/0 or more of the tract, exclusive of the pond ,irea. 2 Tree clumps shoul<l bf..' underpL:mted \ritl1 shade-tolerant shrubs and groundco\Tr plants. The goal is to provide a dense understory that need not be \Veeded or mo\ved. 3. Lmdscaped islands sl10uld be placed at several elevations rather than "ring11 the pond, and the size of clumps :.hould vary from srna11 to large to create variety. 4. Not all islands need have trees. Shrub or groundcover clumps arc acceptable, but lack of shade should be considered in selecting vegetation. 1Vote: Landscaped islands are best combined with the use of hog file! or shredded 1:11ood mulch for erosion control (only for slopes above the flow control i·vater swface). It is often difficult to sustain a low-maintenance understory if the area was previously hydroseeded. Northwest Savannah or Meadow In addition to the genercd landscape ciiteria above, the following requirements must be met: I. Landscape islands (\:vhen mature) should cover 10% or more of the tract, exclusive of the pond area. 2. Planting groundcovcrs and understory shrubs is encouraged to eliminate the need for mowing under the trees when they are young. 3. Landscape islands should be placed at several elevations rather than "ringu the pond. 4. The remaining tract area should be planted with an appropriate grass seed mix, which may include northwest meadow or wildCTower species. Native or dwarf grass mixes are preferred. Table 5.3 .1.0 below gives one acceptable dwarf grass mix. Grass seed should be applied at 2.5 to 3 pounds per 1000 square feet. Note. Amended soil or good topsoil is required for all plantings. 5 Creation of31-cas ofcrncrgcnt vegetation in shallow areas of the pond is recommended. Native wetland plants, such as sedges (Carex sp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), ,:vater plantain (Alisma sp.), and burreed (Sparganiwn .:,p.) are recommended. If the pond does not hold standing water, a clump of \Vet-tolerant, non-invasive shrubs, such as salmon berry or snowbe:rry, is recommended below the detention design water surface. Note: This landscape style is hest combined with the use of grass or sod for site stabilization and erosion control. T.,\ IILE 5.3.1. ll STOR~IWATER TRACT "LOW-GROW" SEED MIX Seed Name Percentage of Mix Dwarf tall fescue 40% Dwarf perennial rye "Barclay"* 30% Red fescue 25% Colonial bentgrass 5% . If wildflowers are used and sowing is done before Labor Day, the amount of dwari perennial rye may be reduced proportionately to the amount of wildflower seed used. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-24 5 J. I SBDETENT!UN PONDS~ DESIGN CRITERIA Detention Ponds in Recreational Tracts Pn_i_: ::::cr.s rcqui, cc.I lo p: oviclc ons11e 1ccreational space per KCC 21 :\ .14.180 may combine the ci.etentio11 pu11U 1r~1ct \1it:1 the recre<.1tion space tract to receive a 50S'C, 1eductio11 in required ons1te recreat'lonal space. To receive the 50% credit, the followmg criteria must be met as required by KCC 21 A .14.180.D: 1. The proposed stonmvater tract must be dedicated or reserved as a part of a recreational space tract. 2. The stormwater pond must be constructed to meet the follo\ving requirements: a) Side slopes shall not exceed 33 percent unless they are existing, natural, and covered with vegetation. b) A bypass system or an emergency overflow pathway shall be designed to handle flow eAcccding tl1e facility design and located so that it does not pass through active recreation areas or present a s<1fety hazard. c) The stormwater pond shall be landscaped in a manner to enhance passive recreational opportunities such as trails and aesthetic viewing. d) The stonnwater pond shall be designed so that it does not require fencing per the fencing requirements on page 5-20. 3. Where a tract is jointly used for recreational space and King County maintained drainage facilities, the County is only responsible for maintenance of the drainage facilities, and an access easement shall be provided for that purpose. Detention Ponds in Open Space Open space areas reserved through the four-to-one program may be used to site "natural appearing" storm water facilities if they are found to be compatible with the open space value and functions, and if they are located on a "small portion of the open space" (Amended policy 1-204, King County Comprehensive Plan). Conscientious application of the "Guidelines for Naturalistic Plantings" (p. 5-23) typically v,1il1 produce 1,atural-appearing stonnwater facilities. A site-specific assessment is needed, ho\vcver, to determine whether the stormwater tract would be compatible with the open space value and fonctions. 2005 Surface \Vuter Design Manual 11101/2006 5-25 SECTIOJ\ 5.3 DET[:\'TION r AC!LlTJi::S l•IGURE 5.3.1.A TYPICAL DETENTION POND +-------------- 1 ~E~=======~ t1 , if: 3----, I i access ramp~ // \ 15% max I into pond Y:~ , slope i see Section 5.3.1.1 / ~ for specifications compacted embankment 'V .... ' /_/ii •,y y "fr 6" sediment~ storage pond design water surface V \ level bottom V emergency overflow -<=~ss~r- spillway rip rap per Table 4.4.1A w u .,, C ro C 'y 2 C "CJ 'iii ro E 2 .,. in ~ N ..,. - / --tract lines as required alternate emergency outflow structure for ponds not required to provide a spillway (Figure 5.3.1.C) ----5' min. +----------see Figure 5.3.1.B ] \/(j]/2006 \A' A for section cut diagrams NOTE: This detail is a schematic representation only. Actual configuation will vary depending on specific site constraints and applicable design criteria. 5-26 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5 1 1 8BDETEKT10N PONDS DFS!GN C.'/11/ tH!A FIGURE 5.3. 1.ll TYPICAL DETENTION POND SECTIONS control structure emergency overflow WS1 overflowWS~ pond design WS v V \7 debris barrier see figure 4.2.1.D access road '/ ·/ :.J·' ·.:. 2 min. j berm ···,,.SJ 1 __ t_ ~~b!~k~ent ~,\< I existing _I ground profile_ -------:,' ;;b:_fih,1' L 6'' sediment storage ·\ ___ ~/ ~-~ key, if required maximum e!evation 10-yr W.S. SECTION A-A NTS -------circumference length of opening sized for 100 yr flow overflowW.S. 7 '\_____l_LJL __ Frame/grate for se;ondary inlet. Provide vertical bars in frame @ __l_j__J\~---...J\ 4•· O.C. (other flow systems SECTION a-a NTS acceptable if approved by ODES) See also the separate overflow structure shown in Figure 5.3.1.C SECTION 8-8 has 2 options ---------- L I ----+-I 10 (as required for 6" depth) 10 ~-···. ··· ~s::c:i,!3==~;;;;~~~:b=:::;,======~tb::;~1~~;~~?:::::;,ryf[.;,/.).? TI" min + _, ,, . .. , L~~~::~:;: "'+ emergency overflow water surface (see Figure 5.3.1.E) \, --~~,3 9.Yfilflow 1/'{S ~ 1 -- SECTION 8-8 (for spillway on access roads) g design :11'min ~----1' rock lining Emergency Overflow Spillway 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-27 NTS SECTION C-C NTS rock tining per Table 4.4.1.A 11/01/2006 SECTION 5 . .1 DETENTIO'l FACILITIES II ~:. FIGCRE 5.3.1.C OVERFLOW STRLCTURE 3/4" diameter smooth bars equally spaced (4" O.C. max.) At__ ( PLAN VIEW NTS lower steel band 3/4" x 4" wide formed to fit in groove of C.B. riser upper steel~ band 3/4" x 4" type2 -- CB 24" lseei note 1 4 hook clamps evenly placed see detail below _jA UJl ____ Provide maintenance access by welding 4 crossbars to 4 vertical bars as shown. Hinge upper ends with flanges/ bolts and provide locking mechanism (padlock) on lower end. Locate steps directly below 3/4" dia. smooth round bars welded equally spaced. Bars shall be welded to upper & lower bands (24 bands evenly spaced see note 1) standard galvanized steps or ladder smooth vertical bars C.B. riser SECTION A-A NTS hook clarnp -- anchored to C B. riser DETAIL HOOK CLAMP NTS NOTES: 1 l/O l/2006 1. Dimensions are for illustration on 54" diameter CB For different diameter CB's adjust to maintain 45° angle on "vertical" bars and 7" o.c. maximum spacing of bars around lower steel band. 2. Metal parts must be corrosion resistant: steel bars must be galvanized. 3. This debris barrier is also recommended for use on the inlet to roadway cross-culverts with high potential for debris collection (except on type 2 streams) 4. This debris barrier 1s for use outside of road right-of-way only. For debris cages within road right-of- way, see Drawing 2-028 KCRS. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-28 5.3.1 8BDETENTI0.\1 POJ\DS -IJESJG.V CRITERIA FIGURE 5.3.1.D PERMA:\Ei\T SURFACE WATER CONTROL POND SIGN Permanent Surface Water Control Pond Sign ll _,·· ,-If" Stom11vater Pond @King Co.u~ty . ,-•,•e·.: ,/ ,-.~ .-,,,,.,,1, SPECIFICATIONS: Size: 48 inches by 24 inches rv1ateria1: O. l 25-gauge aluminum i•,r,•. ·t '" "· l:,H •1:.--i·,td<:J~ltlcl; ,,,, ,,1:. · ,-..>Jt-) i,x,,::, ""'· fhsl ·1 ,[:;,1t1, ".,,J ,.,'I. \'H~,j,~,.,-,~}, p ... -,::,:,·. I J l.a,:t ,,,i\••Oi•1',>t'"f,'1 , ,.,1;. --~· ' I ,-• N ,: ,:~1 ii,;,,•: 11,," ,, !.,: \I ,, 01•." • !',, .. ,J;.. ,,,, \ ,;, Face: Npn-reflective vinyl or 3 coats outdoor enamel (sprayed). Lettering: Silk screen enamel where possible, or vinyl letters. Colors: Beige background, teal letters. 24" Type face: Helvetica condensed. Title: 3 inch; Sub-Title: 11/2 -inch; Text: i inch; Outer border: 1/3 inch border distance from edge: 11 4-inch: all text 13/4 -inch from border. Posts: Pressure treated, beveled tops, 11/2 -inch higher than sign. Jnstallcttion: Secure to chain link fence if available. Othenvise install on two 4"x4" posts, pressure treated, mounted atop a gravel bed, installed in 30-inch concrete filled post holes (8-inch minimum diameter), with the top of sign no higher than 42 inches from ground surface. Placement Face sign in direction of primary visual or physical access. Do not block any access road. Do not place within 6 feet of structural facilities (e.g. manholes, spillways, pipe inlets). /'late: If the facility has a liner to re.strict infiltration of swrmwater, the following note must be added to the face of the sign: "This facility is lined to protect groundwater quality." In addition, specific in_(orn!(Jtion abow 1he 1i11er nw.st b<:: added to the hack of the sign as ~pecified in Section 6.2.4. 2005 Surface Waler Design Manual 5-29 1110112006 SECI ION 5 3 rnDETENT!OG ri\CILITIES 5.3.1.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS J 1/01/2006 Detention Volume and Outflow Tl1e volume ai1d oulOow design for detention ponds sha!! be in accordance with the performance requirements in Chapter 1 and the hydrologic analysis and design methods in Chapter 3. Restrictor orifice structure design shal! comply with Section 5.3 .4 (p. 5-3 8). .Note: The design water surface elevation is th€ highest elevation that occurs in order ro meet the required outflow pe,formance for the pond. Detention Ponds in Infiltrative Soils Detention ponds may occasionally be sited on till soils that otherwise meet the basic criteria of"sufficient permeable soil" for a properly functioning infiltration system (see Section 5.4.1, p. 5-59). These detention ponds have a surface discharge and may also utilize infiltration as a second pond outflow. Detention ponds .sized with infiltration as a second outflow must meet all the requirements of Section 5.4 for infiltration ponds, including a soils repo11, pcrfomiance testing, groundwater protection, prcsettling, and construction teclmiques. Emergency Overflow Spillway Capacity The emergency overflow spillway weir section shall be designed to pass the l 00-year runoff event for developed conditions assuming a broad-crested weir. The broad-crested weir equation for the spillway section in Figure 5.3.1.E, for example, would be: Q100 l/2 2 3/2 8 512 ~ C (2g) [ /3 LH ~ /15 (Tan e) 11 ] (5-l) where Qiou peak flow for the 100-year runoff event (fps) C discharge coefficient (0.6) g ~ gravity (32.2 ft/sec 2) L length of weir (ft) H height of water over weir (ft) e angle of side slopes Assuming C = 0.6 and Tan O = 3 (for 3: I slopes), the equation becomes: 3/2 512 Qioo -3.21 (LH + 2.4H ) (5-2) To find width L for the weir section, the equation is rearranged to use the computed Q100 and trial values of H (0.2 feet minimum): ]i2 L -[Q100 I (3.21 H )] · 2.4 H or 6 feet minimum (5-3) FIGURE 5.3.1.E WEIR SECTION FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILL W AV 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-30 5.3.2 5.3.2 9DDETENTION TANKS DETE.\'TION TANKS /)etcntion tailks are underground storage facilities typically constructed with large diarnctl'r corrugated metal pipe. Standard detention tank details are shown in figure 5.3.2.A (p. 5-33) and Figure 5.3.2.B (p. 5- 34), Control structure details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-38. 5.3.2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General 1. ranks shall be designed as tlow•through systems with manholes in line (see figure 5.3.2.Ai p. 5-33) to promote sediment removal and facilitate maintenance. Exception: Tanks may be designed as back-up systems if preceded by water quality facilities since little sediment should reach the inlet'control structure and low head losses can be expected because of the proximity of the inlet/control structure to the tank. 2. The detention tank bottom shall be located 0.5 feet belov.1 the inlet and outlet to provide dead storage for sediment. 3. The minimum pipe diameter allowed for a detention tank is 36 inches. 4. Tanks larger than 36 inches may be connected to each adjoining structure with a short section (2-foot maximum length) of 36-inch minimum diameter pipe. 5. Outflow control structures shall be as detailed in Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). Note: Control and access manholes shall have additional ladder rungs to allow ready access to all tank access pipes when the catch hasin sump is filled with water (see Figure 5.3.4.A, plan view, p. 5-40). Materials Pire material, joints, and protective treatment for tanks shall be in accordance \Vith Sections 7.04 and 9.05 of the WSDOTIAPWA Standard Specification as modified by the King County Road Standards an<l AASHTO designations. Such materials include the following: • Lmed corrugated polyethylene pipe (LCPE) • Aluminize<l Type 2 corrugated steel pipe and pipe arch (meets AASHTO designations M274 and M36) • Corrugated or spiral rib aluminum pipe and pipe arch • Reinforced concrete pipe • \'iarrow concrete vaults (see Section 5.3.3, p. 5-35). • Corrugated steel pipe and pipe arch, Alurnmized or Galvanized 8 with treatments l through 6 • Spiral rib steel pipe, Aluminized or Galvanized with treatments l through 6 • Structural plate pipe and pipe arch, Aluminized or Galvanized with treatments I through 6 Structural Stability Tanks shall meet structural requirements for overburden support and traffic loading if appropriate. H-20 live loads must be accommodated for tanks lying under parking areas and access roads. The King County Roads Standards may have different Jive load requirements for structures located under roadways. Metal 8 Galvanized metals leach zinc into the environment, especially in standing water situations. High zinc concentrations, sometimes in the range that can be toxic to aquatic life. have been observed in the region. Therefore, use of galvanized materials should be avoided. Where other metals, such as aluminum or stainless steel, or plastics are available, they shall be used If these materials are not available, asphalt coated galvanized materials may then be used. 2005 Surface \Vatcr Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-31 SEC! ION s, 2GDETEN"I ION cACILITIES ta11k end plates must be designed for structural stability at maximum hydrostatic loading conditions. Flat e11c! plates generally require thicker gage matenal than the pipe and/or require remfon:mg ribs. Tanks shall be placed on sr~1ble, well consolidated native matcnal v,iith a suitable bedding. Backfill shall be placed and compacted in accordance \N1th the pipe specifications in Chapter 4. Tanks made of LCPE require inspection for deformation prior to installation as well as continuous inspection of backfilling to one foot above the top of the tank. Tanks shall not be allov.:ed in fi 11 slopes, unless analyzed in a geotcchnical report for stability and constructability, Buoyancy In moderately pervious soils where seasonal groundwater may induce flotation, buoyancy tendencies must be balanced either by ballasting with backfill or concrete backfill, providing concrete anchors, increasing the total weight, or providing subsurface drains to permanently lower the groundwater table. Calculations must be submitted that demonstrate stability. Access Requirements 1. The maximum depth from finished grade to tank invert shall be 20 feet. 2. Access openings shall be positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location within the tank. 3. All tank access openings shall have round, solid locking lids with 5/s-inch diameter Allen head cap screws (see KCRS Drawing No. 2-022 and 2-023)" 4. Thi1iy-six-inch minimum diameter CMP riser-type manholes (Figure 5.3.2.B, p. 5-34) of the same gage as the tank material may be used for access along the length of the tank and at the upstream 1ermi11us of the ta11k if a backup system. The top slab is separated (1-inch minimum gap) from the top of the riser to allow for deflectio11s from vehicle loadings without damaging the riser tank. 5. All tank access openings must be readily accessible by maintenance vehicles. Access Roads Access roads are required to all detention tank control structures and risers. The access roads shall be designed and constructed as specified for detention ponds in Section 5.3. 1 (p. 5-20). Right-of-Way Detention tanks to be maintained by King County but not located in King County right-of-way shall be in a tract dedicated to King County. Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to accommodate an access road to the facility. Setbacks Setbacks (easement/tract width) and building setback lines (BSBLs) for tanks shall be the same as for pipes (see Section -U ). 5.3.2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS I liOl/2006 Detention Volume and Outflow The volume and outflow design for detention tanks shall be in accordance with the performance requirements in Chapter 1 and the hydro logic analysis and design methods in Chapter 3. Restrictor and orifice design shall be according to Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-32 5.1.2 9BDflt'.NTION IANKS L FIGURE 5 .. 1.2.A TYPICAL DETENTION TANK -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cad optional parallel tank -----------./ ----------------' I ,--, I t I -,' I ',I l.---7 J /\ I \ -. -~ . I 36" I I 1 ', access risers ~ ___ ~ / 1 (max spacing shown below) 1 t ', _ ,.. ,, inlet pipe Pl (backup systems, i I 1 wnere allowed) 1+ 1 1 _________________________ ------1 :/min.diameter 2' min. 1 1 same as inlet pipe A '' t_ -----~ control · structure T '-------'0'-'~ access risers/ 0 See Figure 5.3.2.B PLAN VIEW NTS "Flow-through" system shown solid. Designs for ~flow backup" system and parallel tanks shown dashed 36" ' ' A flow J -----0 inlet pipe \ (flow lhrough) \ . 'type 2 CB required for flow th rough system only 2" min. diameter air vent pipe welded to tank (required if no access riser on tank) 1 ----100' max 1--50' max-'··"'--~--~-~z···.~····~--s=""'~=---~, ----~=----,wi ·r,=!c:c:::=:::;i-~, -----~ 2' max. El 0.5' sediment µ.~,....-~J_ storage ~3~''mm. diameter (typ) 2· min I control structure I (FROP-T shown) min. 54" dia. level ~ detention tank size as required SECTION A-A NTS Type 2 CB see Section 5.3.4 "Flow through" system shown solid. NOTE: Ali metal parts corrosion resistant. Steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated (Treatment 1 or better). 2005 Surface \Vater Design Manual 5-33 l~'-====J 11/01/2006 SECTION J J ~BDETE.''.iTION FACIL!TlES '"~=· ~==============111 = FIGURE SJ.2.B DETENTION TANK ACCESS DETAIL JI standard type 2-60" diam. \ CB concrete top slab \ PLAN -···-----·- NTS standard locking ~ M.H. frame & cover % '»&/ maintain 1" gap between see K.C.R.S. dwg. no. 2-022 ~ bottom of slab & top of rr---!s' riser -provide pliable 36" gasket to exclude dirt compacted pipe bedding . I._ L ~ j riser, 36" diam. min., / t same material & gage as M. H. steps 12" 0. C. ~ .-tank welded or fused to tank /~~ weld or bolt max detention tank standard M. H. steps SECTION NTS NOTES: 1. Use adjusting blocks as required to bring frame to grade. 2. All materials to be aluminum or galvanized and asphalt coated (Treatment 1 or better). 3. Must be located for access by maintenance vehicles. 4. May substitute WSDOT special Type IV manhole (RCP only). I l/Ol/2006 5-34 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5.3.3 53.J lUJJDETENTION VAULTS DETENT[ON VAULTS O,'!ullio11 1·01.1.l/s are Cox-shaped underground storage facilities typically constructed with reinforced concrete. A standard deten1ion vault detail is shovvn in Figure 5.3.3.A (p. 5-37). Control structure details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-38. 5.3.3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General l. Detc11tion vaults shall be designed as flow-through systems with bottoms level (longitudinally) or sloped toward the inlet to facilitate sediment removal. Distance between the inlet and outlet shall be maximized (as feasible). 2. The detention vault bottom shall slope at least 5% from each side towards the center, forming a broad "v" to facilitate sediment removal. l'lote: J,.Jore than one "v" may be used to minimize vault depth. Exception: The vault bottom may be flat if removable panels are provided over the entire vault. Removable panels shall be at grade, have stainless steel lifting eyes, and weigh no more than 5 tons per panel. 3. The invert elevation of the outlet shall be elevated above the bottom of the vault to provide an av~rage 6 inches of sediment storage over the entire bottom. The outlet must also be elevated a minimum of2 feet above the orifice to retain oil within the vault. 4. The outflow system and restrictor device shall be designed according to the applicable requirements spcc1fied for control structures in Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). Materials Minimum 3,000 psi structural reinforced concrete must be used for all detention vaults. All construction joints must be provided with water stops. Structural Stability All vaults shall meet structural requirements for overburden support and II-20 traffic loading. Vaults located under roadways must meet the live load requirements of the King County Road Standards. Cast~ in-place wall sections shall be designed as retaining walls.· Structural designs for vaults must be stamped by a licensed structural engineer unless otherwise approved by DDES. Vaults shall be placed on stable, well-consolidated native material with suitable bedding. Vaults shall not be allowed in fill slopes, unless analyzed in a geotechnical report for stability and constructability. Access Requirements I. Access consisti11g of a frame, grate and locking cover shall be provided over the inlet pipe and outlet structure. Access openings shall be positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location within the vault; additional access points may be required on large vaults. If more than one "v" is provided in the vault floor, access to each "v" must be provided. 2. For vaults with greater than 1250 square feet of floor area, a 5' by 10' removable, locking panel shall be provided. Alternatively, a separate access vault may be provided as sh0Vv11 in Figure 5.3.3.A (p. 5-37). 3. for vaults under roadways, the removable panel must be located outside the travel lanes. Alternatively, multiple standard locking manhole covers (see KCRS Drawing No. 2-022 and 2-023) may be provided. Spacing of manhole covers shall be 12 feet, measured on center, to facilitate removal of sediment. Ladders and hand-holds need only be provided at the outlet pipe and inlet pipe, 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-35 11/01/2006 SECIION o.3 2BDETENTIO'I FACILI I !ES and as needed to meet OSHA confinl'd space requirements. Vaults providi11g manhole access at l ~-foot spc1ci11g need not provide corner ,·entihition pipes as spccifil'd 111 lttm 10 be'[O\v. 4 All aCCl'SS openings, ncept those conrcd by removable panels, shall ha\·e round, solid locking covers (see KCRS Drawing Nos. 2-022 and 2-023), or 3-foot square, locking diamond plate covers. For raised openings where the depth from the iron cover to tbe top of the vault exceeds 24 inches, an access structure equivalent to a Type 2 catch basin or Type l manhole shall be used (see KCRS Dra\ving Nos. 2-005 and 2-007). The opening in the vault lid need not exceed 24 inches in diameter. 5. Vaults with \Vidths 10 feet or less must have removable lids. 6. The maximum depth from finished grade to tbe vau!t invett shall be 20 feet. 7. Internal structural \Valls of\arge vaults sball be provided with openings sufficient for maintenance access between cells. The openings shall be sized and situated to allow access to the maintenance "v" in the vault floor. 8. The minimum internal height shall be 7 feet from the highest point of the vault floor (not sump), and the minimum width shall be 4 feet. Exceptions: • Concrete vaults may be a minimum 3 feet in height and width if used as tanks with access manholes at each end, and if the width is no larger than the height. • The minimum internal height requirement may be waived for any areas covered by removable panels. 9. Ventilation pipes (minimum 12-inch diameter or equivalent) shall be provided in all four corners of vaults to allow for artificial ventilation prior to entry of maintenance personnel into the vault. Access Roads Access roads are required to the access panel (if applicable), the control structure, and at least one access point per cell, and they shall be designed and constructed as specified for detention ponds in Section 5.3. I (p. 5-20). Right-of-Way Detention vaults to be maintained by King County but not located in King County right-of-way shall be in a tract dedicated to King County. Any tract not abutting public tight-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to accommodate an access road to the vault. Setbacks Setbacks to tract/easement lines for vaults shall be 5 feet; adjacent building setback lines shall be 10 feet. For privately owned and maintained vaults, building foundations may serve as one or more of the vault v. alls. 5.3.3.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS l 1/0J/2006 Detention Volume and Outflow The volume and outflow design for detention vaults shall be in accordance with the perfonnance requ1remi:nts in Chapter 1 and the hydrologic analysis and routing/design methods in Chapter 3. Restrictor and orifice design shal1 be according to Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). 2005 Surface \Vater Design Manual 5-36 SJ.1 IODDEIEtdlON VAULTS FIGURE 5.3.3.A TYPICAL Dl<:TENTION VAULT NOTE: .A.: w1ull areas ffiLlSl be within SO' of ari access point /--ventilation pipe / l --1 ~----------",~----------~ optional 5' x 10' access vault may be used in lieu of lop access wall flange {typicaD I I I ', I I I ' I I r \_ 5" x 10' opening : : : for vaLJIIS 125D sf , 1 1 PLAN VIEW orgreateclloorarea I I I I I '----'J' NTS '---1- ! _; I ! frames grates and round soliC. covers marked DRAIN with !oi:;k/1g bolts. See KCRS dwi;;s. 2-022, 2-023 for spec1fcation 7 I ,. """ '" SECTION A-A NTS ~-------~ ' 1--4' min. ....j NOTES; 1. All rnc1>1I parts must be corrosion rcsistanl. If subsbt1Jtcs not avai!able, s1eel parts must be galvanized and asphalt cooled ( Treatment I or Detle~ 2. Prcvide wale: slop at ail cast-in-place ccnslrucl.ion joints. Pretasl ~aults shall nave aoprnved rubber gas~.et sys:em. l Vaults< 10' vi.lde must c1se ·emcvabla !ids. 4. Prefabricated 1,•aL..ll secl10n~ may require slruct,irol mcdi'ications to s,ippo:1. 5' x 10' o~ening Ner main vault. A11cmal1·,1;1ly. access can be :irovided via 2 side vestibule as shov,n. 2005 Surface Water Design Jvlanual 5-37 now '-cap.ac,ry of outiel pipe not lass than de~eloped 1CO-yr design flow "'-...... floor grate with 2' x 2' hinged access door ( 1" x 1/4" galvanized metal bars) 11/01/2006 SECTION 5.3 2BDETENTION FACILJTJES 5.3.4 CONTROL STRUCTURES Contrul stn1ctun!s are catch basins or manholes with a restrictor device for controlling outf10\v from a facility to meet the desired performance. Riser type restrictor devices (''tees!' or "FR OP-Ts") also provide some incidental oil/water separation and fulfill the spill control requirements specified for pipe systems in Section 4.2 and as set fotih in Core Requirement #4 (sec Section 1.2.4). The rcstrictor device is usually a multiple orifice design consisting of two or more orifices and/or a weir section sized to meet perfornmnce requirements. Standard control structure details are shown in Figure 5.3.4.A (p. 5-40) through Figure 5.3.4.C (p. 5-42). 5.3.4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA Multiple Orifice Restrictor In most cases, control structures need only two orifices: one at the bottom and one near the top of the riser, although additional orifices may best utilize detention storage volume. Several orifices may be located at the same elevation if necessary to meet performance requirements. 1. Minimum orifice diameter is 0.5 inches. /',/ate: In some instances, a 0.5-inch bottom orifice will be too large to meet target release rates, even with minimal head. In these cases, the live storage depth need 1101 be reduced to less than 3 feet Iv meet pe,formance. 2. Orifices shall be constructed on a tee section as shown in Figure 5.3.4.A (p. 5-40) or on a baffle as shown in Figure 5.3.4.13 (p. 5-41). 3. In some cases, pcrfonnancc requirements may require the top orifice/elbow to be located too high on the riser to be physically constructed (e.g., a 13-inch diameter orifice positioned 0.5 feet from the top of the riser). In these cases, a notch weir in the riser pipe may be used to meet performance requirements (see Figure 5.3.4.E, p. 5-44). 4. Consideration shall be gi\,en to the backwater effect of water surface elevations in the downstream conveyance system. High tail water elevations may affect performance of the rest1ictor system and reduce live storage volumes. Nole: The KCRTS program, version 4.0 and later, supports the design of a partially tailwatered control structure by using a headwater/tailwater (JIW/TW) datafile generaled using the KCB W program. The user can specify the use of a HWITW file within the ''Point of Compliance Setup," located within the "Edit Facility" menu screen. Riser and Weir Restrictor 1. Properly designed weirs ma}' be used as flow restrictors (see Figure 5.3.4.C and Figure 5.3.4.E through Figure 5.3.4.F). However, they must be designed to provide for primary overflow of the developed 100-year peak flow discharging to the detention facility. 2. The combined orifice and riser (or \veir) overflow may be used to meet performance requirements; however, the design must still provide for ptimary overflow of the developed 100-year peak flow assuming all orifices are plugged. Figure 5.3.4.H (p. 5-48) may be used to calculate the head in feet above a riser of given diameter and flow. Access Requirements 1. An access road to the control structure is required for inspection and maintenance, and shall be designed and constructed as specified for detention ponds in Section 5.3.1 (p. 5-20). 2. Man hole and catch basin lids for control structures shall be locking, and 1im elevations shall match proposed llnish grade. 11/0 l/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-38 5.1.4 11 BCONTROL STRUCTURJoS ~ DES!l7N CR/llR/;' 2005 Surface \Vatcr Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-39 SECT:ON 5. l 2BDETEhT!ON FACILITIES IIC:LIRE 5.3.4.A FLOW RESTRICTOR (Tl-:E) removable watertight -~ coupling or flange ---2~"-min. 1' min. under frame, grate & solid cover marked "DRAIN" with locking bolts see note 3 & KCRS dwgs 2-022, 2-023 pavement L--,-.L..CJ.l\:=:--fl-----:, -vertical bar grate for secondary inlet ELBOW RESTRICTOR DETAIL NTS 6"min. T min. t I outlet pipe Inlet D ,~ I I seenotes1&5 -~-t,l.,bJ---==n'-~G invert and elevation _--1-i·t----,,c~-=Jlg --~ shear gate with control per plans I I ······ · ~ fil2" rod for cleanouUdra1n 1, section of pipe _____LlY-c 12 {rod bent as required tt h d b k t d I -for vertrca\ alignment a ac e Y gas 8 8 = _NE ) with cover) see KCRS band to allow removal 12" dwg. 2-026 restrictor plate with orifice diameter as ISOMETRIC NTS specified {not needed if for spill control only) SECTION A-A NTS NOTES: 1. Use a minimum of a 54" diameter type 2 catch basin. 2. Outlet Capacity: 100-Year developed peak flow. 3. Metal Parts: Corrosion resistant. Non-Galvanized parls perferred. Galvanized pipe parts to have asphalt treatment 1. 4 Frame and lc1dder or steps offset so· A. Cleanout gate is visible from top. B. Climb-down space is clear of riser and cleanout gate. C Frame is clear of curb. 5. If metal outlet pipe connects to cement concrete pipe: outlet pipe to have smooth O.D. equal to concrete pipe 1.0. less 1/4". A see detail PLAN VIEW NTS 6. Provide at least one 3" X .090 gage support bracket anchored to concrete wall. (maximum 3·-0·· vertical spacing) 7 Locate elbow restrictor(s) as necessary to provide minimum clearance as shown. 8 Locale additional ladder rungs in structures used as access to tanks or vaults to allow access when catch basin is filled with water. l l/0 l/2006 5-40 ~~_,_-additional ladder rungs (in sets) to allow access to tanks or vaults when catch is filled with water 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5.34 11 BlONTROL STRUCTURE., -DESIGN CR//lc/W FIGURE 5.3.4.B FLOW RESTRICTOR (BAFFLE) Frames, grati::s and round ~ solid covers marked "drain'' \ with locking baits. See KCRS \ attach shear gate control rod to support bracket on inside of access opening dwgs. 2-022, 2-023 -~~;;;---,,;;;;;c1-:;::;::;:~\·~-----r.=====--,.,----,.__ 1 · min. 1 · min. frame/grate elevation per plans V DESIGN WS. -'=' ma"x w.s. · V _+ 6"min. overflow conditions I (f:~1~i :~-~I ---~ ------~1-=-----1: ------handholds..---1'c..-_c'1 ' 11 !1 /01 [J D D T A l_ SECTION A-A NTS PLAN VIEW NTS removable~ water-tight ~ coupling plate welded to elbow with orifice as specified steps or ladder 1~--~1 see KCRS dwg. 2-011 :1---1: 2'-0"min t l'--JI 11--11 J':...:-....:'1 11 __ J1 -+ -----:c_-=-,!H, -O-t1 11--11 1':.._-_JI 11 II diameter 1" minimum less than diameter of concrete hole 2'-0" min _ J --- A ~ NOTES: SECTION B-B NTS ISOMETRIC NTS outlet capacity: 100 year developed peak flow metal parts: corrosion resistant steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated catch basin: type 2 minimum 72" diameter to ELBOW RESTRICTOR DETAIL NTS be constructed in accordance with KCRS dwg. 2-005 and AASHTO M-199 unless otherwise specified orifices: sized and located as required with lowest orifice a minimum of 2' from base 2005 Surface Water Design :\fanual 11/0 I/2006 5-41 SECTION o.J 2BDETENTIO, FACILITIES FIGURE 5.3.4.C FLOW RESTRICTOR (WEIR) /-Frames, grates and round solid L covers marked "DRAIN'" with rr~"=e, locking bolts. ti = f=1 See KCRS Dwgs. 2-022, 2-023 _l_ '-\.------------,!' 6" min f<W--1 DESIGN W.S. r _, .-1".'.c'~:;;~:"!;'!:~~"';.!.l ---1:=f==--_J::1 ~~------, frame/grate r"s--------1==-----,lr elevation per plans -r :, ··, \ 1· :i:~:~': ::·i:ii \ / ~~~:~~ inlet :: I/ j c-,, \ -. :u~:z;~pe = (--! , ~~' I I -JJ.91N _____ n---i=-='-::-: weirshape :,---·--, ii---~ L__ -~ _....:...... 11 ·----ii J' as needed for ::____ \\ ) 2-1 performance !i ii ~Y-, 1 shear gate with -~ T---~ _ :; __ -_-·]: . control rod for N ~ outlet pipe drain. See '------------' NOTES: KCRS dwg. 2-026 SECTION B-B NTS ISOMETRIC NTS Locate additional !adder rungs (in sets) to allow access to tanks or vaults when catch is filled with wF.iter Out!et Capacity: 100~year developed peak flow. SECTION A-A NTS B PLAN VIEW NTS Metal Parts: corrosion resistant steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated. Catch Basin: type 2 Min. 72" diameter to be constructed in accordance with KCRS dwg 2-005 and AASHTO M-199 unless otherwise specified. Baffle Wall: to be designed with concrete reinforcing as required Spill Control Requirements: see Section 4.2. A shear gate Locate horizontal for clearance with ladder. Attach rod to support bracket on inside of access opening 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-42 5 J 4 l lBCONTROL STRUCTURES -METHODS OF ANALYSIS 5.3.4.2 :\TETHODS OF ANALYSIS rl1is section presents the methods and equations for design of control structure restrictor devices Included are details for the design of orifices. rectangular sharp-crested weirs, v-notch weirs, sutro weirs, and overflow risers. Orifices Flow through orifice plates in the standard tee section or tum-down elbow may be approximated by the ge11eral equation: Q where CA )2gh Q C A I, g flow (cfs) coefficient of discharge (0.62 for plate orifice) area of orifice (st) bydraulic head (ft) 2 gravity (32.2 ft/sec ) (5-4) Figure 5.3.4.D illustrates a simplified application of the orifice equation, assuming a water surface at the top of the riser and that the 2-ycar water surface represents the head in the outlet pipe. FIGURE 5.3.4.D SIMPLE ORIFICE i __ J v -t-Y·· r-u ! . orifice (t) shear ·gate Q l \ ~( )····· -/-·--+·-·-+··-··-L~_J 'orifice (b) Q = CAb·hgh + CA1·,'2gh- = cffg (l\,Jib+1\Jh 1) hb= distance from hydraulic grade line at the 2-year flow of the outflow pipe to the overflow elevation. The diameter of the orifice is calculated from the flow. The orifice equation is often useful when expressed as the orifice diameter in inches: d /3688Q V .J'f; d - Q h orifice diameter (inches) flow (cfs) hydraulic head (ft) (5-5) 2005 Surface Water Design Manual I 1/01/2006 5-43 SECTfON 5.3 ?BDETE\TION r:,1\C!LJTJES I l/0 1 /2006 Rectangular, Sharp-Crested Weir The rcc1.c111guhr, sknp-ucstcd \'-·nr design sh0\\"11 m figure 5.3.-.J..E may be analyzed usrng sLagJard \Vcir equations for the fully contrJcted condition. Q where FIGURE 5.3.4.E RECTAI\GULAR, SHARP-CRESTED WEIR SECTION NTS )/2 C (L -0.2H)H Q ~ flow (cfs) C ~ 3.27+040H/P(ft) H,P are as shown above H 1 riser D p PLAN NTS (5-6) L length (ft) of the portion of the riser circumference as necessary not to exceed 50% of the circumference D ~ inside riser diameter (ft) Note that this equation accounts for side contractions by subtracting O.JHfrom Lfor each side of the notch weir. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-44 5.1.4 11 BCONTROL STRUCTLRES ,\ff/ //ODS OF Ai1ALYS/S V-Notch, Sharp-Crested Weir V-notch ,veirs, as shown 111 Figure 5.3.4.F, may he analyzed usiug standard equations for the fully contracted comhtron. c, 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 rIGURE 5.3.4.F V-NOTCH, SHARP-CRESTED WEIR y SECTION A-A NTS 0 = Cd (Tan 8/2JY 512 , in cfs Where values of Cd may be taken from the following chart: ...... "' ::::,.... 1 ......... -20' r -8 r-1 --45' ~160° ---90 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Y (in feet) 200.5 Surface Waler Design Manual 5-45 11/01/2006 SECTIO'J 5.1 2DDETEf,;TJON FACILITIES 11/01/2006 Proportional or Sutro Weir Su:ro \\'cirs an' designed so that the disch::irge is proportional to the Lotal hr.;a<l. This Jesign may bt uscCul in some cases to meet performance requirements. The sutlo weir consists ofa rectangular section joined to a curved portion that provides proportionality for all heads above the line A-B (see Figure 5.3.4.G). The weir may be syTnmetrical or non-symmetrical. FIGURE 5.3.4.G SUTRO WEIR see X x /see equation -.J -1 equation below below I h, 1 A ~I crest a a b t 1 • b ,IT discharge Symmetrical Non-symmetrical For this type of weir, the curved portion is defined by the following equation (calculated in radians): x . 2 , (z b = l -; Tan f-:; (5-7) where a, b, x and Z are as shown in Figure 5.3.4.G. The head-discharge relationship is: (5-8) Values of C, for both symmetrical and non-symmetrical sutro weirs arc summarized in Table 5.3.4.A (p. 5-47). Note: When b > 1.50 or a> 0.30, use Cd~ 0.6. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-46 5.3.4 11 I3CONTROL STRUCTURES --MFiHODS OF Ah'ALYSJS -----_,. ----------------. ------ I .\Bl .J-: 'd.L\ \.\LI i L.'i OJ·· C,1 FOil Sl'TJ(() WElllS ----------------------------------·--·-·---· ------------------- Cd Values, Symmetrical b (ft) a (ft) 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.50 0.02 0.608 0.613 0.617 0.6185 0.619 0.05 0.606 0.611 0.615 0.617 0.6175 0.10 0.603 0.608 0.612 0.6135 0.614 0.15 0.601 0.6055 0.610 0.6115 0.612 0.20 0.599 0.604 0.608 0.6095 0.610 0.25 0.598 0.6025 0.6065 0.608 0.6085 0.30 0.597 0.602 0.606 0.6075 0.608 Cd Values, Non-Symmetrical b (ft) a (ft) 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.50 0.02 0.614 0.619 0.623 0.6245 0.625 0.05 0.612 0.617 0.621 0.623 0.6235 0.10 0.609 0.614 0.618 0.6195 0.620 0. 15 0.607 0.6115 0.616 0.6175 0.618 0.20 0 605 0.610 0.614 0.6155 0.616 0.25 0.604 0.6085 0.6125 0.614 0.6145 0.30 0.603 0.608 0.612 0.6135 0.614 2005 Surface V/ater Design l\fanua\ 11/01/2006 5-47 SECTION 5 3 2DDETE~1 TIO:,J r ACILITJES 11/01/2006 Riser Overflow Tht nomograph in Figure 5 3.4.II lllJ>' be used lo Uetc1111inl'. the head (in foet) above a nscr of given diameter ,rnd for a gi\·cn flow (usuc:illy the 100-year peak flovv for developed condiuons). [ 100 , i 10 +-· FIGURE 5.3.4.H RISER INFLOW CURVES ; I I I I I 111 , l1lli TI'ITI11 1 .U.LLLLLLJ.W~____j.: lJi_~_j_ 1lill 0.1 1 HEAD IN FEET (measured from crest of riser) 10 Qweir=9.739 DH 312 Oorifice=3. 782 D 2H 112 Qin cfs, D and Hin feet Slope change occurs at weir~orifice transition 2005 Surface Water De::;ign Manual 5-48 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.1.5 PARKING LOT DETE1'TJOK PARKING LOT DETENTJO;\l Private parking lots may be used to provide additional detention volume for runoff events greater than the 2-year runoff event provided all of the fol10 1.ving conditions are met: 1. The depth of \vater detained does not exceed 1 foot at any location in the parking lot for runoff events up to and including the I 00-year event. 2. The gradient of the parking lot area subject to ponding is 1 percent or greater. 3. The emergency overflmv path is identified and noted on the engineering plan, and the path complies with Core Requirements #1 and #2 (see Sections 1.2. l and 1.2.2). 4. Fire lanes used for emergency equipment are free of ponding water for all runoff events up to and including the 100-year event. Note: Flmvs may be backed up into parking lots by the control structure (i.e., the parking lot need not function as ajlm-v-through detention pond). ROOF DETENTION Detention ponding on roofs of sn.11ctures may be used to meet Omv control requirements provided all of the following conditions are met: 1. The roof support strncture is analyzed by a structural engineer to address the weight of ponded water. 2. The roof area subject to ponding is sufficiently waterproofed to achieve a minimum service life of30 years. 3. The minimum pitch of the roof area subject to pondmg is 114-inch per foot. 4. An overflmv system is included in the design tu safely convey the 100-year peak flow from the roof. 5. A mechanism is included in the design to allO\V the ponding area to be drained for maintenance purposes or in the event the restrictor device is plugged. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-49 SECI ION 5.3 WDETE'il!ON FACILITIES 5.3.7 SI!vIPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEARED AREAS This simplified alternative to the :,tandard detention pond (Section 5.3.1) may be used to satisfy the flov..' control facility requirement only for a conversion of forest to pasture or grass, provided that all of the following conditions arc met: 1. The total area draining to any one pond must be no larger than 3 acres and must consist primarily of vegetated land ( e.g., forest, meadow, pasture, grass, garden, crops, etc.) free of impervious surface. If more than 3 acres of cleared area (i.e., area converted from forest to pasture/grass) is proposed to be served, multiple simple detention ponds must be used. 2. The area served by the pond must not be located within a Flood Problem Flow Control Area as dete,mined in Section 1.2.3.1. 3. The pond must not drain to a severe erosion problem or a severe flooding problem as defined in Section 1.2.2, Core Requirement #2. 4. The pond must be constructed in accordance with the design criteria and methods of analysis specified in this section. 5.3.7.1 DESIGN CRITERIA Typical details of the simple detention pond are shown in Figure 5.3.7.A (p. 5-52) and Figure 5.3.7.B (p. 5-53). General 1. The dispersal trench at the outlet from the storage pond may not be placed closer than 50 feet from the top of slopes, 20% or greater. 2. The pond, berrn, and dispersal trench must he fenced to prevent livestock disturbance. 3. Runoff discharge toward landslide hazard areas must be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified geologist. The discharge point may not be placed on or above slopes greater than 20% or above erosion hazard areas without evaluation by a geoteclmical engineer or qualified geologist and DDES approval. Berming and Excavation 1. To the extent feasible, the pond shall be excavated into the ground with minimal henning on the dowm.lope ( outlet) end of the pond. An excavated pond is easier to construct and maintain and is less likely to cause problems during severe storm events. 2. Where berms are used, the top of berm shall be a minimum of 3 feet wide. The soil shall be well cnmpacted mid planted ,vi.th an erosion-control seed mix as soon as possible. 3. Whether c,eated by excavation or bcrming, all pond side-slopes shall be gently sloped, no steeper than 3 feet horizontal per 1 foot of vertical drop. 4. Prior to constructing the benn, the underlying ground shall be scrapped clean of organic material. 5, At a minimum, a hand-level shall be used to ensure the berm and outlet strncture are constructed at the conect relative elevations. 6. The bottom 6 inches of the pond shall retain standing water in the pond between stonns to create a permanent pool. The volume of the permanent pool is not counted towards the required detention volume, vvhich is above the permanent pool. 7. The water depth of required detention volume above the permanent pool should average about 18 inches and must be no deeper than 24 inches. 1 l/0 l/2006 2005 Surti:lce Water Design Manual 5-50 5 3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION PONO FOR CLEARED AREAS-DESIGN CR!nRIA Simple Outlet Control Structure -'latcri.ils Required: a) P\/C pipe, 4 inch rl.iarnetcr or greater as needed. b) PVC pipe cap. c) Small plastic or concrete catch basin with grate, minimum 12~inch width. 2. Construction Method: a) Drill or cut a hole just below the rim of the catch basin, sized to connect the PVC pipe. b) Install the catch basin mto the bottom of the pond. The catch basin should be located within a few feet of the benn at the downslope end of the pond. The top of catch basin must be a minimum of 6 inches above the bottom of the pond to create the permanent pool. Align the hole in the downslope direction of discharge. c) Dig a trench for the pipe from the catch basin to the location of the flow spreader. d) Connect the PVC pipe to the catch basin. PVC pipe should extend about 4 inches into the basin. e) Drill the appropriate size hole into the PVC cap. Clean hole to remove burrs, without increasing the size of the opening. f) Connect the drilled cap to the end of the PVC pipe extending into the catch basin. g) Extend the PVC pipe to the location of the flow spreader. The pipe shall be laid with a slight slope towards the flow spreader. A slope of 1A inch per foot of pipe is recommended and should not exceed 2 inches per foot h) Backfill the trench over the PVC pipe and compact well. Avoid placing large and/or sharp rocks in the trench to minimize potential for damaging the pipe during compaction. 2005 Surface VVater Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-51 S[CT:O'-r:,:; 2BD!..:Tl:.\1Tl0'\' F.,\CIUTIES FIGURE 5.3.7.A Sl.\1PLE OETEi\TIO:', PONO -PLAN VIEW 3' min berm ~ top width\ 0 \ "' I B 11/01/2006 A 3:1 max side ----v----r-v--: slope typ ----v-----.: I C small catch basin I B I\ flow spreader C A PLAN VIEW NTS 5-52 2005 Surface Water Design Manual S.U Sl\1PLE DErEN lJO'l PO'JD rDR CLEARED AREAS-D/!S[(iN CRITE/UA FIC:ldU: 5 .. 1.7.B SIMPLE DETE">TION 1'0/SD -SECTIO'.\ VIEWS catch basin grate small catch basin 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-53 SECTION l J WDHENTION FACILITIES grass typical of all disturbed areas 1 O" high berm I .J. 3' ', maximum water level before overflow 1 screen or hardware / cloth secured to bucket ' 1 ) 6" < ~2:_ · >r .. _:.\..-. > ,,'." '-;notched 2" x 10" x8: long. 4: P;C pii 11/01/2006 spreader board 3 1 r:.:::: imbeded 6" into the ground SECTION A-A NTS 6' / spillway 6" lower than berm SECTION B-B NTS all slopes 3:1 or flatter SECTION C-C NTS 5-54 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5 3 7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND fOR CLEARED AKEAS--METHODS OF ANA!. YSJS 5.3.7.2 METHODS OF A'."ALYSIS The detention volume and orifice sizing for the simple detention pond shall be dete1111incd as described in this section. This detem1ination is hasc<l on where the pond is located \Vi thin the County and how much cleared area (i.e., area of forest converted to pasture or grass) is served by the pond. Detention Volume The map in Figure 5.37.C (p. 5-56) provides the minimum pond volume required based on 10,000 square feet of cleared area. To detcnnine the total pond volume required, locate the project site on the map and multiply the number from the map by the amount of cleared area that will be served by the pond (if the cleared area is measured in units of square feet, remember to divide the achial area by 10,000 before multiplying with map value). Tfthc project site is located between the lines shown on the map, select the closest line to the project site. If located midway between two lines, the average value may be used. To determine if the constructed pond has adequate storage, the pond area must be dctennined by field measurements. If all side slopes are at 3H: 1 V or flatter, the pond's bottom area may be used to determine the pond volume, V1 , above the pernunent pool using the following equation. The resulting volume, Vr, must be equal to or greater than the required volume determined from Figure 5.3. 7.C. v,~1.SA1,t3.4P where V, ~ total pond volume available (cu ft) A, ~ bottom area of pond (sq ft) P ~ bottom perimeter of pond (ft) (5-9) A more accurate volume detennination can be made with field measurements and area calculations taken at two elevations. The first elevation at \.Vhich the pond area is measured is at the top of the permanent pool. The second area measurement is taken at the overflow spillway elevation. V, ~ d (A'"+ A,,) 2 (5-10) V, A.,.~ A1i = d ~ Orifice Sizing total pond volume available (cu fl) area of pond (sq ft) measured at the lowest.elevation of the overflow spillway (A,) area of pond (sq ft) measured at the top of the permanent pool depth ofrescrvmr (ft)~ 1.5 feet Figure 5.3.7.D provides the orifice diameter to be drilled into the PVC cap. If the orifice diameter matches the PVC pipe diameter, no cap is required. Othenvise1 the PVC pipe diameter must be greater than the required orifice diameter. If the ptoject site is located behvecn the lines shown on the map, either select the closest line to the project site or interpolate between the two values. 2005 Surface Waler Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-55 SECTfot\ 5 :i 2DDETE'.'-JTJO'.'J Ft\CILJTIES FIGLRE 5.J.7.C Sl~IPI.F: DETF:'ITION PONO -~IINI.\H.M VOLUME ST 1.0 ST 1.1 ST 1.1 {\Hl ,; . It pr;t 11HllJ(f Q~.tl. dClU(X1 Jrn l, !uii C;:,i.l\. pl:'t tlcare,J frctc>J < \ '·r •· i 0 (:o \ CC ·.i ·v· _01 ~-: -,'ll>·-· ' : rne. r;.> It pt,,_ f,iiJ! <:)f.!illt,"fl ·,;.,r:\~((1 e,..:.li. i,,:r Rainfall Regions and 1 ,1,w,,,1,,rn, Regional Scale Factors ·<~.; ·) ... \ --------'' '"'"''"'·---1 ST 1.0/ lt..;."::Otpi:.it;:1tud A10:a FHver..'LaXe i •Jwrn.tt i:«< rn,oc,o, i s;11t 1.~1t{':J j LA OJ} (l!f 4. \Cl(}{.1.J.!I p+~ 1 tActjct Rrxd c.'B:i1:m<l ilG'f{)[ ['.".?>1rpl(z :P ;•'r,~ jn:1 · ,J ll_i :,_.,,'l:1'1.!? tl('t{'..'> (i-ff(l(IO ~;qUt1te lf:fl} i 1)1 1.i,!.>.,1~-·,:1 (11 ~ut1b l:',•;t1(] \•ii:···.., rro.<ci ilgurc, !.;J:)l) c .:: :~10:1:t slcrr'lgqiar rnnnn '>':pare li:"ii cli:mrnd 11/01/2006 5-56 LA0.9 LA 1.0 LA 1.2 LANDSBURG LA1.o 1,10l.ies....,.lt 1wr i HM)Ot) SQ It (fo<:!si·r,'()' ! (r.ir-1J!{IOW,t1 f,....Y . :~xi' (!(:H~.< / .. ,/ i ,:250 i:~t.tt per !(),{ft,'1flS(tJt 00Me1 (or S.,!hOu.1.ll.1K)!" c.·{:•<iroG ncrN 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5.3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEA RFD AREAS ML!HODS OF ANALYSIS 11 FIGL:RE 5.3.7.D Sl\ll'LE DETENTION POND -ORIFICE SIZE le-----~ 3.5 3 Q 2.5 • ~ 2.0 u §. 3 • -~ 1.5 · 0 1.0 ------t------- i [ -1- 1 l I t I Outlet Orifice Diameter ·-T r I 1---- ! -~-j:-- ' I ----- ' I I ' -j-------f-- " I Landsburg --Landsburg West SeaTac West -+-SeaTac I -=~1 -f------, 05I.b __ ___ __ 1 ______ _ 0 0 -------+1------l-----+-------------+------4 0 0.5 15 2 2.5 3 3.5 Acres Cleared 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11101/2006 5-57 KING COUNTY. WASHJNGTO'I. SCRFACc WATER DESIGN MANUAL 5.4 INFILTRATION FACILITIES 5.4.1 This section presents the method:,, criteria, and details for design and analysis of infiltration facilities. The:,e facilities are used v..rhere soils are suitable for soaking the increased runoff from development into the ground. Such fac1lit1es usually have a detention volume component to allow for temporary storage of mnoff'while it is being infiltrated. This detention volume is typic.:ally dependent on the infiltration capacity of the soils and the required facility pcrfom1ance. There are five types of infiltration facilities allowed for use in complying with Core Requirement #3, "rlO\v Control": infiltration ponds, infiltration tanks, infiltration vaults, infiltration trenches, and small infiltration basins. In general, ponds are preferred because of the ease of maintenance and the water quality treatment that surface soil and vegetation provide. Tanks and trenches are useful where site constraints prevent use of a pond, and small infiltration basins are simple to design but have limited uses. The lnfomiation presented in this section is organized as follmvs: Section 5.4. l, "General Requirements for Infiltration Facilities 11 Section 5.4.2, "Jnfiltrahon Ponds" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.2.1 (p. 5-67) "Melhods of Analysis," Section 5.4.2.2 (p. 5-68) Section 5.4.3, "Infiltration Tanks" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.3. l (p. 5-70) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.3.2 (p. 5-71) Section 5.4.4, 11 [nfiltration Vaults 11 "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.4.1 (p. 5-73) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.4.2 (p. 5-74) Section 5.4.5, "Infiltration Trenches 11 "Design Criteria.'' Section 5.4.5.1 (p. 5-75) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.5.2 (p. 5-75) Section 5.4.6, "Small Infiltration Basins" "Design Criteria/ Section 5.4.6.1 (p. 5-77). GENERAL REQUIRE!\1ENTS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITIES This section presents the design requirements generally applicable to all infiltration facilities. Included are the general requirements for detennining acceptable soil conditions, detemlining infiltration rates, and providing overflow protection, spill control, presettling, groundwater protection, protection from upstream erosion) and construction. D SOILS The applicant must demonstrate through infiltration testing) soil logs, and the written opinion of a geotechnical engineer that sufficient penneable soil exists at the proposed facility location to allow construction of a properly functioning infiltration facility. The has1c requirement is a minimum of 3 feet of permeable soil below the bottom of the facility (bottom of pond or excavation fOr tank) and at least 3 feet bet\-veen the bottom of the facility and the maximum wet- season water table. Test pits or borings shall extend at least 5 feet below the bottom of the infiltration 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/24/2005 5-59 SECTION s.4 'BfNFIL TRA TIO'! cACILITIES facility, and at 1(:ast one test hole should reach the \Vatcr table. If the water table is very deep, the test hole nci.:d 11ot c.\tc11d more than one-fourth th(: maximm11 width of the pond below the bottom ofa pond, 01 more them .5 fret b:.;lmv the bottom of a tank. If there is any question aboul the actual \Vet-season \Vater table elevation, mr.:asurernents shall be made during tbc period when the \vater level is expected to be at a maximum. Any requirements associated \vith impacts to an erosio1t hazard area, steep slope hazard area, or landslide hazard area should also be addressed in the soil study. The geotalmical engineer shall provide a report stating 1,rhether the location is suitable for the proposed i11filtratio11facility, and shall recommend a design infiltration rate (see "Design Infiltration Rate'1 below). 0 MEASURED INFILTRATION RATES fnfiltration rate tests are used to help estimate the maximum sub-surface vertical infiltration rate of the soil below a proposed infiltration facility (e.g., pond or tank) or a closed depression. The tests are intended to simulate the physical process that vvill occur when the facility is in operation; therefore, a saturation period is required to approximate the soil moisture conditions that may exist prior to the onset of a major winter runoff event. Testing Procedure 1. Excavations shall be made to the bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration facility. The measured infiltration rate of the underlying soil shall be determined using either the EPA falling head percolation test procedure (Onsite Waste11 1ater Treatment and Disposal Systems, EPA, 1980; see Reference Section 6-A), the double ring infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385), a single ring at least 3 feet in diameter, or large scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) as described in the August 2001 Sto1mwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Large single ring and PIT tests have been shown to more closely match achial full-scale facility performance than smaller test methods. 2. The test hole or apparatus shall be filled with water and maintained at depths above the test elevation for the saturation periods specified for the appropriate test. 3. following the saturation period, the rate shall be detemlined in accordance with the specified test procedures, with a head of6 inches of water. 4. The design engineer shall perform sufficient tests to deterrn.ine a representative infiltration rate. At a minimum, three small-scale tests shall be perfonned for each proposed infiltration facility location, and at least 2 tests per acre (minimum of 4 tests) shall be perfmmed for a closed depression. Iflarge- scale tests arc perfom1ed, the number of tests may be reduced at the discretion of the review engineer. 5. A minimum of two soils logs shall be obtained for each tank and for each 10,000 square feet (plan view area) of proposed pond infiltration surface area. Soils shall be logged for a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of each proposed infiltration facility. The logs shall describe the SCS series of the soil, indicate the textural class of the soil horizons throughout the depth of the log, note any evidence of high groundi,.vater level (such as mottling), and estimate the maximum groundwater elevation, if within the limits of the log. 0 DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE l l/Ol/2006 In the past, many infiltration facilities have been built that have not performed as the designer intended. This has resulted in flooding and substantial public expenditures to correct problems. Monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that the full-scale infiltration rate is far lower than the rate detem1incd by small-scale testing. Actual measured facility rates of 10% of the small-scale test rate have been seen. It is clear that great conservatism in the selection of design rates is needed, particularly where conditions arc less than ideal. The design infiltration rate shall be deternrincd using an analytical groundwater model to investigate the effects of the local hydrologic conditions on facility performance. Since this analysis may be excessively costly for small projects such as short plats or commercial projects 2005 Surface Waler Design Manual 5-60 5.41 GENl'RAL RF.QCIREMENTS FOR INFILi RATiON FACILITIES of less than l acre, the ground\vatcr modeling requirement may be replaced with use of the simplified amdysis method dcscrihcJ below along with full-scale tcsti:1g of the complete<l facility to verify performance. Groundwater modeling (mounding aI1alysis) of the proposed infiltration facility shall be done using the design infi!rration rate and the estimated maximum groundwater elevation determined for the proposed facility location. MODRET or an equivalent model must be used unless DDES approves an alternative analytic technique. Developed condition hydrographs should be exported from the KCRTS model of the project site for the groundwater mounding analysis. Test hydro graphs should include at a minimum the foll year 8 synthetic record and at least one other runoff event that is the highest volume, peak-flow event identified through KCRTS analysis of the infiltration facility. Note that an iterative process may be required beginning with an estimated design rate, KCRTS sizing, then groundwater model testing. Simplified Method A simplified method may be used for dctennining the preliminary design infiltration rate by applying correction factors to the measured infiltration rate. The correction factors account for unce11ainties in testing, depth to the water table or impervious strata, infiltration receptor geometry, and long-term reductions in permeability due to biological activity and accumulation of fines. Equation 5-9 has been developed to account for these factors. This equation estimates the maximum design infiltration rate (/design); additional reduction in rate beyond that produced by the equation may be appropriate. Note that the design infiltration rate !design must not exceed 20 inches/hour. (5-11) Correction factor Ficsu,ig accounts for uncertainties in the testing methods. For the EPA method, Frestrng = 0.30; for the ASTM D3385 method or large-scale testing, F 1esting = 0.50 Fgcomciry accounts for the influence of facility geometry and depth to the water table or impervious strata on the actual infiltration rate. A shallow water table or impervious layer will reduce the effective infiltration rale of a large pond, but this will not be reflected in a small scale test Clearly, a large pond built over a thin pervious stratum with a shallow water table will not function as well as the same pond built over a thick pervious stratum with a deep water table. Fgromet,y must be between 0.25 and 1.0 as determined by the following equation: Fgronw11y = 4 D/W + 0.05 (5-12) where D -depth from the bottom of the proposed facility to the maximum wet-season water table or nearest impervious layer, whichever is less W ~ width of the facility F1,iugging accounts for reductions in infiltration rates over the long tenn due to plugging of soils. This factor 1s: • 0.7 for loams and sandy loams • 0.8 for fine sands and loamy sands • 0.9 for medium sands • 1.0 for coarse sands or cobbles, or any soil type in an infiltration facility preceded by a \Vater quality facility. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-61 SECTIO'l 5.4 JRINFILTRAT!ON FACILITIES D PERFORMANCE TESTING \.Vhere tbe design is based on the S1mpl1fied .\1ethod, before acceptance of the facility by King County, the completed facility must he tested and monitored to demonstrate that the facility perfonns as designed. If the facility pcrfonnance is not satisfactory, the facility will need to be modified or expanded as needed in order to make it function as designed. \Vhere a groundwater mounding analysis was used in the design, small-scale infiltration testing in the bottom of the facility to demonstrate that the soils in the constmcted facility are representative of the design assumptions is required. D 100-YEAR OVERFLOW CONVEYANCE An overflow route shall be identified for stormwater flO\vs that overtop the facility when infiltration capacity is exceeded or the facility becomes plugged and fails. The overflow route must be able to safely convey the 100-year developed peak flov,,' to the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point in accordance with conveyance requirements in Section 1.2.4. \\There the entire project site is located within a closed depression (such as some gravel pits), the requirement to identify and analyze a 100-year overflow pathway may be waived by DDES if ( 1) an additional conection factor of 0.5 is used in calculating the design infiltration rate, (2) the facility is sized to fully infiltrate the 100-year nmoff event, and (3) the facility is not be1med on any side. Intent: to address situations where the infiltration facility may be a highly permeable onsite closed depression, such as a gravel pit, where all stom1water is currently, and will remain, fully infiltrated. D SPILL CONTROL DEVICE All infiltration facilities must have a spill control device upstream of the facility to capture oil or other fl.eatable contaminants before they enter the infiltration facility (see Section 4.2.1.1). Ifa tee section is used, the top of the riser should be set above the 100-year overflow elevation to prevent oils from entering the infiltration facility. D PRESETTLING 11 /0 l/2006 Presettling must be provided before stmmwater enters the infiltration facility. This requirement may be met by either of the following: • A water quality facility from the Basic V•./Q menu (this alternative is reconunended; see Section 6.1.1 for facility options). • A presettling pond or vault with a treatment volume equal to 0.75 times the. runoff from the mean annual sto1m Vr (see Section 6.4.1. l for information on computing V, .. ). If water in the WQ facility or presettling facility will be in direct contact with the soil, the facility must be lined according to the liner requirements in Section 6.2.4. If the presettling facility is a vault, design of the \·ault shnll be the same as required for presettliug cells in sand fillt:r vaults (see Section G.5.3.2). The settling pond or vault shall be designed to pool water 4 to 6 feet deep with an overflow capacity sufficient to pass the developed 100-year peak flow. Settling facilities must have a length-to-width ratio of at least 3: I. The inlet(s) and outlet should be situated to maximize the length of travel through the settling pond or vault. Berms or baffles may be used to lengthen the h·avel distance if site constraints limit the inlet/outlet placement. Inlets should be designed to minimize velocity and turbulence. Roof runoff need not be treated before entering an infiltration facility. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-62 54.1 GENERAL REQlJIRH!ENTS FOR l'fflLTRATJON FAC/LJTJES D PROTECTION FROM UPSTREAM EROSION Eros ion must Ue controlled during construction of areas upstream of infiltration facilities since sediment- laden rnnoff can pem1ancntly impair the functioning of the system. Erosion control measures must be designed, installed and maintained with great care. Various strategies may be employed to protect infiltration facilities during constrnctiOI\ as described below. Projects may be phased to limit clearing and minimize the time that soils are exposed. An alternative to this approach is to serve the undeveloped area with a large sediment trap on an undeveloped tract with the trap left in place until all clearing and construction is complete and all permanent landscaping is in place. See Erosion and Sediment Comrol Standards (detached Appendix D) for design details. At the completion of all constrnction, the sediment trap must be cleaned out (taking care that no sediment enters the drainage system) and filled in, and the flow routed to the permanent drainage system. Another alternative for subdivisions is to stage excavation of the pond as follows: 1. Bottom elevation of the pond prior to paving of plat roadways: 3 feet above the final pond bottom elevation. At this stage of rough grading, the facility may be used to meet sediment retention requirements. 2. Bottom elevation of the pond during and after paving and prior to construction of 80% of the houses: 18 inches above the final pond bottom elevation with upstream sediment retention, as needed. At this stage, the pond will serve as an interim flow control facility pending final stabilization of the site. Note that KCC 9.04.090 requires that flow control facilitres be operational prior to the construction of any improvements. D FACILITY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Excavation of infiltration facilities should be done with a backhoe working at "arn1,; length" to minimize disturbance and compaction of the completed infiltration surface. If the bottom of the facility will be less lhan three feet below final gra<le, the facility area should be cordoned off so that construction traffic does not traverse the area. The exposed soil should be inspected by a soils engineer after excavation to confirm that soil conditions are suitable. Two simple staff gages for measuring sediment depth should be installed at opposite ends of the bottom of ponds. The gages may consist of I-inch pipe driven at least one foot into the soil in the bottom of the pond, with 12 inches of the pipe protruding above grade. 0 OFFSITE GROUNDWATER LEVEL IMPACTS Potential impacts to groundwater levels off the project site should be considered. In general, replacing vegetation with impervious cover will increase the total annual volume of runoff generated on a site. Infiltrating this runoff will tend to increase ground water recharge, which may affect groundwater levels offsite. The impacts of infiltration could include increased \'i'atcr to landslide hazard areas, increased groundwater resources available, increased water levels in closed depressions, and higher groundwater levels. Higher groundwater levels offsite could result in increased flooding of basements, or impaired functioning of infiltration systems resulting in surface water flooding. Evidence of offsite groundwater flooding problems should be examined during the offsite analysis required under Core Requirement #2 (see Scclwn 1.2.2). In general, ground\vater level impacts will be very difficult to reduce, and there are no specific requirements that apply in many cases. The design engineer is encouraged to consider whether there are any feasible approaches to reduce ground\'.-'ater flooding impacts, such as moving facilities or changing facility geometry, retaining forest cover, minimizing impervious coverage, or fixing downstream problems. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-63 SECTIO!'-54 JBJNFIL 1 KATI ON FACILITIES D GROUNDWATER PROTECTION The protcct1011 ur grou11d\'.·de1 quality is recognized as an issue of greater concern than in the past, and g1oumhYate1 protection srandards are changing rapidly. Increased safeguards are often required. The applicant should check the Critical Aquifer Recharge (CARA) map, sole source aquifer designations, and wellhead protection areas mapped by the Washington State Department of Health, to determine if the pro_iect lies within a gromubvater protection area. The groundwater protection requirements of this manual set fo1ih in Chapter I call for implementing one of the following actions when infiltrating runoff from pollution-generating surfaces: 1. Provide water quality treatment prior to infiltration as specified in Core Requirement #8 and Special Requirement #5, or 2. Demonstrate that the soil beneath the infiltration facility has properties that reduce the risk of groundwater contamination from typical stormwater runoff. Such properties are defined below depending on whether the project is located outside of or within a groundwater protection area. 1Vote: ]he soil properties given below are primarily for groundwater protection and do not necessarily satisfy other protection needs. For example, projects infiltrating runoff within a quarter-mile of a Sensitive Lake may still be required to provide vvarer quality treatment to meet the resource protection needs of the Sensitive Lake. See Core Requirement #8 (Section 1.2.8) for additional WQ requirements. Soil Properties Required for Groundwater Protection Outside of Groundwater Protection Areas For infiltration facilities located outside of groundwater protection areas, acceptable groundwater protection is provided by the soil if the first two feet or more of the soil beneath the infiltration facility meets one of the following criteria: a) The soil has a measured infiltration rate less than or equal to 9 inches per hour9 or is logged as one of the classes from the USDA Textural Triangle (Figure 5.4.1.A, p. 5-65), excluding sand and loamy sanJ. Soil texture classes other than sand and loamy sand may be assumed to have an infiltration rate of less than or equal to 9 inches per hour without doing field testing to measure rates.10 b) The soil has a cation exchange capacity 11 greater than 5 and an organic content 12 greate.r than 0.5%. c) The soil is composed of less than 25% gravel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve. TI1e p01iion passing the #4 sieve must meet one of the following gradations: , At least 50% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 2% must pass the #100 sieve, or • At least 25% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 5% must pass the #200 sieve. Note: These soil properties must be met by the native soils onsite. Soil may not he imported in order to meet grounch-vater prateclion criteria without an approved adjustmenl. -----~------------ I 1/01/2006 9 See discussion of the measured infiltration rate on page 5-60. 1° Criteria (a) is based on the relationship between infiltration rates and soil texture. However. there are many other factors, such as high water table, presence of impervious strata or boulders close to the surface, etc., which also affect infiltration rate. When any such condition is suspected because soils are coarser than expected from the measured infiltration rate, a sieve analysis should be done to establish soil characteristics. The judgment of a geotechnica! engineer, geologist or soil scientist shall determine whether a sieve analysis is warranted. The sieve analysis must meet Criteria (c) above to be considered protective. 11 Cation exchange capacity shall be tested using EPA Laboratory Method 9081 12 Organic content shall be measured on a dry weight basis using method ASTM D2974 for the fraction passing the #40 sieve. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-64 54.1 GFNFRAI. RFQl/lREMENTS FOR ll\FIL TRATION FACILITIES Soil Properties Required within Groundwater Protection Areas For projects located \Yi thin gro111ufH,atcr protection areus, acceptable groundwater protection is provided by the soil if the first nvo feet or more of the soil beneath the infiltration facility meets one of the following criteria: a) lhe soil has a measured infiltration rate less than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour or is logged as one of the classes from the USDA Textural Triangle (Figure 5.4.1.A, p. 5-65), excluding sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam. Soil triangle texture classes other than sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam may be assumed to have an infiltration rate of less than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour without doing field testing to measure rates.13 b) The soil has a cation exchange capacity greater than 5 and an organic content greater than 0.5%, and the infiltration rate must be Jess than or equal to 9 inches per hour. c) The soil has a measured infiltration rate less than or equal to 9 inches per hour, and it must be composed of less than 25% gravel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve. The portion passing the f/4 sieve must meet one of the follO\ving gradations: • At least 50% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 2% must pass the #100 sieve, or • At least 25% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 5% must pass the #200 sieve. Note: The above soil properties must be met by the native soils onsite. Soil may not be imported in order to meet groundwater protection criteria v,.,.,ithout an approved adjustment. FIGURE 5.4.J.A USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLE 100% CLAY 90 10 80 ---20 70 _ r.--___ -::: ____ __ 3o 60 · ciay_/ ', . ' ·s;fr1ay· c1ay"~: · loam ' 70 80 90 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 --Percent SAND 13 Concerns regarding Criteria {a) and the correspondence between the measured infiltration rate and soil textures are the same as discussed for projects outside sole-source aquifer areas. 2005 Surrace \Valer Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-65 Sl'CT'Oi, 5 4 .181\l'IL mA IION fACILITIES Infiltration near Water Supply Wells The design engineer should consider tl1e following when designing mfiltration facilities near wa1er supply \VcJls: 1. In no case should infiltration facilities be placed closer than 100 feet from drinking water wells and 200 feet from springs used for drinking water supplies. Where water supply wells exist nearby, it is the responsibility of the applicant's engineer to locate such ,vells, meet any applicable protection standards, and assess possible impacts of the proposed infiltration facility on groundwater quality. If negative impacts on an individual or community water supply are possible, additional runoff treatment must be included in the facility design, or relocation of the facility should be considered. 2. All infiltration facilities located within the one-year capture zone of any well should be preceded by a water quality treatment facility. Infiltration near Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazard Areas The following restrictions apply to the design of infiltration systems located near a slope steeper than 15%. I. lnfiltratwn facilities ( excluding individual lot systems) shall be placed no closer to the top of slope than the distance equal to the total vertical height of the slope area that is steeper than 15%. Where infiltration facilities are proposed within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or a landslide hazard area, a detailed geotcchnical evaluation may be required. 2. Individual lot infiltration and dispersion systems rather than a centralized infiltration facility should be used to the extent feasible, except for lots immediately adjacent to a landslide hazard area. The runoff from such lots should be discharged into a tightline system, if available, or other measures should be implemented as recorrunended by a geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, or DDES staff geologist. 11/0 l/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-66 5.4.2 5.4.2 I GHINFILTRATION PONDS INFILTRATION PONDS Tnfiltrat10n ponds may be constructed by excavating or constructing berms. See Figure 5.4.2.A (p. 5-69) for a typical detail. 5.4.2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General The follmving criteria for ponds arc in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: I. The proposed pond bottom must be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and have at least 3 feel of permeable soil beneath the bottom. 2. Infiltration ponds are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard llrea. 3. The infiltration surface must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Maintenance access shall be provided to both the presettling pond or vault (if provided) and the infiltration pond. 5. An O\'erflow structure such as that shown in Figure 5.3.1.C (p. 5-28) shall be provided. In addition, mfiltration ponds shall have an emergency spill,.vay as required for detention ponds in Section 5.3.1. l (p. 5-18). 6. The criteria for general design, :-;ide slopes, embankments, planting, maintenance access, access roads, fencing, signage, and right-of-way shall be the same as for detention ponds (see Section 5.3.1, p. 5-17), except as required for the infiltration design. Setbacks 1. The toe of the exterior slope of an infiltration pond berm embankment shall be set back 5 feet from the tract, easement, or property line. 2. The tract, easement, or property line on an infiltration pond cut slope shall be set back 5 feet from the emergency overflow water surface. 3. The infiltration pond design water surface shall be set back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainficlds. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. 4. The infiltration pond design water surface shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard areu, unless an approved geotechnical report recommends closer placement. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 5. Building setback lines for adjacent internal lots shall be 20 feet. These may be reduced to the minimum allowed by zoning if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on structures so located. 6. The infiltration pond design water surface shall be set back 20 feet from external tract, easement or property lines. This may be reduced to 5 feet if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on existing or future structures located on adjacent external lots. 2005 Surface \Vater Design T'vfanual 11/01/2006 5-67 SECTION ,.4 1Dl'fflLTRATION FACILII JES 5.4.2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS 11/01/2006 The size of the pond shall be dctcmlincd using the hyd..rologtc analysis and routing methods described fo1 detention ponds in Chapter 3. The storage volume in the pond is used to detain runoff prior to infiltration. The stage/discharge curve shall be developed from the design infiltrntion rate detem1ined according to Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). At a given stage the discharge may be computed using the area of per,ious ~urfacc through w'hich infiltration will occur (which \vill vary \vith stage) multiplied by the reconuncnded design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). Berms (which should be constructed of impervious soil such as till), maintenance access roads, and lined swales should not be included in the design pervious surface area. Note.· The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide a preliminary pond volume/or a given side slope, swrage depth, design infiltration rate, and allm·vable release rate through a control structure (if applicable) 2005 Surface Water Dt!sign Manual 5-68 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY .;, , . :,-eek Business P~rk February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page G Surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements except that the material should have a total d~nsity of one-hundred-twenty (120) pcf. However, if the surcharge material is to be used for structural fill in other areas after completion of the surcharge program, it should meet the requirements for structural fill. The definition for structural fill can be found in the site preparation and general earth work section of this report. Prior to placement of the fill and surcharge, we recommend installation of six settlement markers within each building surcharge area to monitor the magnitude and rate of such settlement. A typical settlement monitor is illustrated on Plate 3. These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment. The settlement markers should be surveyed, as soon as the markers are installed, by Earth Consultants, Inc. personnel or a licensed surveyor. Monitoring should be done during preload fill and surcharge placement at daily intervals, depending on the progress of the filling operation. Readings should then be taken on a weekly basis after completion of the preload fill and surcharge placement until the settlement has stabilized. The initial reading should also show the natural ground elevation, and readings taken during preload, and surcharge placement should also show the changing ground elevation. Settlement readings should be evaluated by Earth Consultants, Inc. if a licensed surveyor performs the settlement monitoring. Foundations Following successful completion of the preload and surcharge program, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional, continuous, or individual spread footings. These footings should bear on at least two feet of compacted strucwral fill. The compacted fill material should extend at least one foot beyond the footing perimeters. For frost protection and support considerations, we recommend that foundation elements be bottomed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior foundations ~hould be provided with a minimum of twelve (12) inches of final cover. The foundation elements can be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. With foundation elements obtaining support as described, and with structural loading as expecied, estimated total post construction settlement falls in the range of one-half inch for the slab areas, and three-quarters inch for the column areas. A one-third increase in the allowable soil-bearing pressure can be used when considering shon-1erm transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 7 Passive earth pressures may be assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight. To calculate base sliding resistance, a coefficient of friction equal to 0.36 may be used. Lateral resistance has been calculated for compacted granular fills. Additionally, since movement is required to mobilize full lateral resistance, we have applied a factor of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 for the passive resistance and coefficient of base sliding, respectively. All footing excavations should be examined by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated in this report. Slab-on-Grade Floors With site preparations completed as previously described, suitable support for slab-on-grade construction should be provided. The slab should be provided with a minimum of six (6) inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-rnil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand should be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Excavations and Slopes Based on the preliminary grading plans, the site would not require cuts except for a small area located in the parking area of tbe southeast section of the site. We anticipate that this area will require approximately two feet of excavation and will have enough room to create a gentle slope to the property line. Soil conditions at the site fall into category "C' in accordance witb current OSHA regulations. Therefore, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height must be sloped at a minimum inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be neceS5ary. This shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. Site Drainage The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces must be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNlCAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 May Creek Business Park Page 8 February 6, 1991 at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in areas that are to be paved. In paved areas, a minimum drainage gradient of one and one-half percent should be used. We recommend the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operalions by ECJ's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, be more clearly defined. It is likely that seepage will be encountered in utility trenches excavated approximately tv,•o feet below the existing ground surface. If seepage is encountered, we recommend your contractor slope the bottom of the excavations to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive discharge point, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump by a system of permanent connector trenches. We recommend you install footing drains around the building perimeter just below the invert of the footmg, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be cormected tO the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you install cleanouts at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline system.I. As previously mentioned, the parking area centrally located between the three proposed buildings and towards the southeast site corner should be provided with subsurface drainage. This drainage will increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. The system should consist of · an excavated trench at the base of which a four-inch perforated drain pipe wrapped in fabric is placed. The pipe should be slotted and have a smooth interior surface, and sloped at not less than one-half percent to a permanent discharge point. The fabric wrap should consist of Mirafi 14D-N filter fabric or equivalent. The pipe should be bedded and backfilled in a clean, free draining aggregate meeting the grading requirements for a class 2 fine concrete aggregate per the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications. The drain pipe invert should be set at a minimum of four feet below the final pavement elevation. The drainage aggregate should extend a min.imum of four inches below the pipe and laterally ;:, minimum of twelve inches to either side of the pipe. Additionally, the drai[lage aggregate back.fill should continue to the pavement subgrade elevation. The proposed grading plan indicates that the storm sewer system indudes three lines which span most of the area of concern. Consideration could be given to installing the subdrain system in the same trenches excavated for the storm sewer. Alternatively, a single separate line can be constructed Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 9 with collected water taken to a point of permanent discharge. With cuts required in the southeast section of the site, and considering the groundwater level, it would be prudent to install the subdrain in this area prior to excavation. Utilities Trench backfill beneath building, parking, and roadway areas may consist of native granular soils or imported materials provided they are near optimum moisture content as determined by our field technician. During wet weather, we recommend using an imported structural fill, as described earlier. Compaction requirements for bedding and backfill are described in detail on Plate 5, Typical Utility Trench Fill. Pavement Areas Toe adequacy of site pavements is related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the top one foot of the existing site fills and any structural fill that will be added to the site should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78), as described in the Site Preparation section of this report_ · It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet, or unstable subgrade may exist. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas: Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life, and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck-trafficked areas the following sections: Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of A TB. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience Ear1h Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNJCAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 10 and engineeringjudgement. The condusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and to the extent of variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. We also recommend that EC! be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the stan of constructioJL Earih Consultants, Inc. (;f/.OVlLA.NO C D =>raj. No. 5144 Drwn. GLS !; / c;;" ,:!! ::i .' ... ----r ~--·------fl "' ' . I ". I c::, I~ I~ I~ I,:,,.; • is. ' -~ SL~t'".!.\ ---c;s----; ~ I I I I ----+------- ! I I I SlifE I Q.J I '1 ,u, I . . VI. I -----~----1- I "' I I \l I i {. ' I I ~- I I I I I 1 E Reference : Kino County Sy Th:>rros D:Jted 1990 / Map 27 Br.:,t hers Nbps Date Jon. '91 I Checked Vicinity Mop Business Pork Washington Moy Creek Renton, 08 Date i/24/91 I Plate J \, D . ., 9. r-r ' " ' " /~.J I ,j I ' ' ' ' ' ' --- ,,- ' , ' co (\) -' ' ' I I I I I I ' , __ ; --, ' I I I I ' , I I I I I ' I I _J C c I ' ' I I I ' I QI lJ/ C.,1 ',, -·· ,---", ' ,· C r- 1 ,--l --, ' ' ' ' ' ' l 'I I I ' I ' ' i I I ' I -~ __ : I ' ; ? ,--, I I r I• Lal I I Proj. No. NOTES: SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SURCHAME 00 · PRELOAD FILL I I I • Base consists of 3;• -inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 518 -inch diameter hole. • Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand. • Marker rod is V2 -inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. • Marker rod is al tached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. • Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 -inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached lo rod or base. • Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. • Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press -tit plastic couplings. • Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. • Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. ··.::-: I)~/! Iii TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL NAY CRSEK 9USINESS ?ARK R::NTON, l·!ASHINGTON 51~4 Drwn. G!...S Date Feb' 9 l Checked AN Dated 2-1-91 Plate 3 SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING t SLOPE TO DRAIN ~ /~;~ ~ ~-.. -.-1-_.,_\~Jo;:-:.:--J---------,-, ~ e • -. 'o c, ... ""' () ~ ,.,. • • Q . ... :·.;':)/:?.);:.<.: _.//:.? ,~'.::.:::" :."o;': ' . ."·.".".:. " -· ,. ·-/···;,:.:···-~_-(\'./\:/ :o .. o .. \ .. ~~',---..--~1~.~ "'•~ iai "0 ~o 0 •• 0 t) • 6 inch min. . . 4 .inch mm. ·';.-,:·;~·.·.·:·;;;•i'.'·-;.~ .. , <> .. "Oo "., .~ • ... 0 '"m"" -~i;t(t ~\.':. f ){:: \~) 2 inch min./ 4 inch max. I . 1~ i~c~ ~mrn. I LEGEND ~ . 0 . . Surface seal; na\':ve soil or other low permeabillty material. Gravel backfill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications, Sectron 9 -03. 12 I 21 , or Fine Aggregate for Portl~nd Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1121. Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots ·facing down; light jointed ; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing fines. ---Jmµermeable visqeen barrier or other impermeable material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. 18 inch min. I 2 inch min. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL MAY CREEK BUSlNESS PARK R~NTON, WASr.!NGTON Proj. No. 5144 Drwn. GL,S Dale Feb' 91 Checked AM Dated 2-1-91 Plate 4 Non-Load Supponing Areas ·.:_@ Floor Slab or Roadway Areas :::~~:'@~::~:': l Varies _:@ _.: / 1 Fool Minimum Backfill _ .. @· · .. _•@ Varies '"""' l Proj. No. 5144 Drwn. GLS LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or lmponed Selec! Fill Material as Described in the Si1e Preparation or the General Eanhwork Section of the Anached Report Text. Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Densrty as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Anached Repon Text. Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufaclurers Recommendations for the Type cl Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL flAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Date Feb' 91 Checked A!-1 Date 2-1-91 Plate 5 APPENDIX A E-5144 FIELD EXPLORATION Our field exploration was performed on January 15 through January 17, 1991. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling 12 borings to a maximum depth of 24.0 feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Subterranean Drilling, Inc., using a truck mounted mobile B-61 drilling. Continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping from existmg buildings on the site. Approximate boring elevations were determined by a topographic map provided by Wells Development, Inc. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A3, Legend. Logs of the borings represented in the Appendix on Plates A4 through A13. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and test!; of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one- hundred-forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows reguired lo drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. · Earlh Consullan1s Inc. ,-----------------,-------.----~-----------------~---, MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION COi!IH G1a1fle0' So,/s More n,an so· .. Ma1er,,1I La.tQer rn.:in No zoo S,eve s,,e F ,ne Gramed Sods More Thar\ so• .. Ma1er1aJ Smaller Tr,:m No, WO S•e~e $,2.e Gr a.el "' Gra,,.{'ily So.is Mori! Tnan 50' .. Cea,se ~rac1,on Reta1~ec o, No ' S,e.,..e- Sano MO Sanoy Sou~ More (r,;;1; so·~ Coarse trac1,on F'assmo No ' Srt>V'I! Clean G,avE:'f.-. (lr\111'" or no r,nes I Grave!~ Wi1n fines ( al)prec1ao1e imouni ot 1me5 1 Clo:>an Sc1r.o c 11111e ,, 00 llne5 J Sands W•lh fines I aDDrec,atile <1rnoun1 " lines) ._•••••.-GP ~ •• ' ~ gp • • • •G~ . • a II " • • • gm _; SP ,,,,,- ,,,,,-sp SM _,,---_,,---sm SC ,,,,,- -_;;.,-SC we,.·Graoec C,ra"~'!.. Grave•-San:i lvl.ri'JIC~. ·~1111e 01 t./o F,nes Poorly -Graded GiaveJS. Gra,,.el- Sand Mn11..Jres. Lime Q1 No F,nes S,lt~ G1ave1S. G,avel· 5and· S,11 M,xlures Clayey Gravels. Gra ... e1 ·Sano• Clay t~1~1ures We11-G,i1oeo Sanes. GiD~e11y S.anos. L,nle Or No i=:,n~s Poo11y • G1.iQea San as. Graveny S,:111(:J!;,; l•!lie Q1 No Firit>s S,lty Sanos, Sand. -Sdl Mixtures Ctaye'/ Sall·cts. Sand -Clay Mi~1ures 'IIJ/~ inorgan,c Sdl::o & Very Fine Sa~as, RocK F10Lr.S1t!~- C1ayey l=ine Sarias:Clayey Si11s w/ Slighl PLasl1r:11y Sill:; AOd Clays l1ou1d lim,t Less Tnan 50 1nor9an,c C!ay~ 01 Low Jo Mc-c1um P1.isl1cd:,<, Gravelly C!a)IS. Si111ay Clays. S,11y Clays, l.e;in Org.amc S~IS .And Or9ar,1i;;: S1liy C.1:ays Of I.ow PP.c1~!,<;11v 1nor,;;,an1c s,Hs. M,caceous Or 01atornaceous Fme s,11s AOC Clays l•Ou,d L1m1l Gr~ater Trian SO 0~ Sand Or s,ny SOLIS 1nor9ar,ic c1ays or H,gn Pfaslic11y, Fat Clays Or9an1c Clays Of Medium To H,gh Plas!1c,1y. Organic Sats H,Qhly Organ,c Sods ~...::.:...: .... -:::. Peal. Humus. Swamp Sc111s W,',h H,gn Ori;an,c Con1enrs ~ -,!.. ioocSod "• ·.·"·.~--··-::... ,,, ....... -Humus Ar.cl Dull Layer Fill The D1SCV$5!(Hl In Tt1e ll'!x! Of This Reoor•. Is Necess;Hy For A Prooer Unoers1ano1n9 01 Tne Nature or Tt1e Ma1e1,ai Presentecr in Tile Attac/1tld Logs I II p + 2 ~ Notes: Dua! symbols are used 10 indicate borderline soi! cJassifica1io11. Upper case leUcr symbols des1911a1e sample classifica1ions based upon lab- oratory testing; lower c.ase lener symbols designa1e cJassifo:;ations nm verified by labora,ory testing. 2-O.D-SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 2-4" LO. RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER LEVEL I DATE I WATE:A OBSERVATION WE;LL C TORVANE READING. ~s! qu PENETROMETI:R RE:ADJNG. tsf W MOISTURE. pereen1 of dry weight pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubrc h. LL UQUID LIMIT. percent P! PLASTIC INDEX LEGEND Proj. No. 5144 Date Feb' 91 Plate Al BORING NO. 8-1 I Logged By l'JH Date !-15-91 Elev. 26 -5 1 ::. us Depm !Nl w Graph cs Soi: Description {~) Sample Blows {%) Ft [i]lt SP Gray brown f i11e to l:H:!diun SAND with -l 23 c;ravel 1 trace si.!.t1 dense, wet 13 - -5 I !fl{ lll11{ 11 I : i 111 ! i 11 i nl :::;i:c:y s IT~T I nediUT'.1 stiff, saturate:d 10 29 ,- 10 .v,·v.;···r···· I m1nim sm Gray silty medium s&•,m, dense, ,-18 saturated 1imm:r1lii -I ~~pp,&/ ·oh 50 Organic SILT, log ...... )·~s-·l·.·,·: '--15 "·<'Ill J':'i ::tn ·:.--:;::i ·.:i<:tlJf-.t:' -''l)J'!f'\f -)fi iiHU SC\ Gray sil~y r,iediun SAND, l L)O:i8 1 I ,:;,iiJP saturated with organics, c3P.!'1Sf? -6 Jil:!hl! - :,1Jl)/Jli -20 :JfH,,,.,:, :;/rJ:1:tt!? -ti,tw,n .,.,k .-j+:-."l'l"!{"' -J:\httilt I3oring terr..inated at 24 feet bolow P.X:istinc; grade. Groundwaer encounterGd at 2 foet duri,1g drilling. 1 Borins backfillecl With cut.~i!"!c;.s, bent.onite ancl concrl:!te. 1 ' I i S11b111r1lC-.1 COO(!llaQfl! OtOidl,,j r-eo,-c-wm O\,lf Ot'H ...... !1Cn1, .II 1r.o hmt ilM IOC&l,On o,' 11'"! UplO<Tlory hole. IT>OOilt4,;l ll'J' e1>0,....,.f1"9 11tttS, lllill)-,.,1. ar-:= i""t19f.°!Nf1(. Tn.:y 1•& "'°' ~Ulll"r ,e,:tle-Mfll..t,1""11 C'I Oll"l~I t111ld 11r,C1 loc.ml(>r'4 """t-a-1"1~ 1.ct:c-~ 1.111X>n1,b1lny lcl Jl"lolP IJJ.t Cl" m1•rP1.l!i!,on 'l:r"( om,n 01 1n1~,on 1)/ttt-fTIIIO 01'1 mis io,;: ,,..~ -~ .. BORING LOG ~ ~:2:2}~?~~~.1~~.:!~!~5:· /.\A)' C.:Rl::EK 13USJJ~Er;s rr,1u~ P.f:NTON, \·/AS IH Nf.TO" Proj. No. 5L44 I Drwn. Gi..S I Date ~t~b I 91 Checked DB --I Date 2-1-9) I Plate A2 j I Graph !li!lilj/ I [I I J! 11 11 I I 11 BORING NO. 8-2 Logged By ~D~P-- Date l-lS-91 us cs sp ML. sp sp Soil Description ~·· asphalt conc~ete Light brown fine to coarse SAND, silt and s::avel, r:iediun dense, suturated -very dense wi t.h gravel -grades to gray, densP. Gray sandy SILT I mediurn stif.:1 saturated Gra)· nediur.i to coarse SAND with gravel, trace silt., very dense ( ,·c,:y de.-ise) trµce Depth (ft) h - -5 - - ....... 10 ... ... ,- -!5 ,- - -20 - - Sample 1 I I I I I T Boring te :-r.1ina ted a~ 24 feet below existing qra6e. Groundwater encounte::cd at 3 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled wit.h cuttings, b~ntonite and concrete. Elev. 27 '= (NI Blr,ws Ft. 15 40 21 9 6 59 63 w (%) 5.uMuraeB C0""11\,ol'4 010,,::i!IQ ~~rH our ~~1.or,~ nl (r.,; l•mt: u,o 1Dca1>0n ct nus wlOlonrlory Nlit, modflo&d bot tr>9.....,..l•"':J le-f\S. 1.1uiy,;.1s. •l">C r,,<l9'emt1,,t Tr,.ey 11'1' n~ r..¢nU.H•t •~•ff-l!lmel""' o: o,ner 1,~, 100 loc.&!"'4"1$, ~ c.anno1 a.<:c;(lc,1 1<r1,0¢nj.,Orttf)' ror 1~ 11 .. e Di N1llr!>fA!l!lt1n c,y oH'""r.i 01 m10<ffl ll'°11 pr~rn.o ,c,n ~ IO;j ~. 1i€:\ Earth Consultants Inc. \I.ill/ ~//\'C:,,); c.c,,;.,,:ivi,cal c/\ll;~fl;. \~t(J~ I,, l•.tWl'O'll'""\l.>lll'-<"'111<',•, BORING LOG 1/,,bY CKEEr~ Sl!Sir~;::ss !~;\RK J(E~:TON, l·?}\SH ING1':)i\" ' Proj. No. 514 4 I Drwn. GLS I Date F~b' 91 / Checked on I Date J -l -9 l I Plate ;, J Graph BOR!h!G NO. 8-3 Logged By ')D Date --'~, -~1 ~·,_-~9~1~ Elev. Jf 1 = us cs sp sr:1 ml St:1 Soil Oesaiption Gray-brown ~eciiurn to coarse SAND with o::-c.vel e:-iC silt., snt"J.:rt1:1?ci Gray sand~· SiLT, tr~ce grav~l. ~ediu~, sat:.ur,::ir.ed -lensE!s of pent Gray sandy S!LT, rnediu.r.1 stiff, saturated Grav ncdiu;;i <::o c;oarse SAND with g!:"avel, Q(~;'!,:;P :.;:.~,1r2:,..Ad .... " .... Deplh l~l 5 ~ .... .... .... -_ 10 G-:-ay ::.ilty ~edium SAND, r.iediun dense, - satura~F.!d ~ 15 Gi:-2.y neC:iun SAND Wit.h gravel, r.11;::.Ciu.n " dense, s.:1tur2·ted - 20 Gray silty nediu:r., SAND, tracE: gravel, -loose, i;c1tu.rar,eO Gray sandy SILT, mediur.. stiff, saturated/ Gr.-a.v Sll t.V satn::-atec-: ne.dJ..nr.i S~ND 1 -:: ..... ace o.,..av~-dense, S;irnple I I I I I I T T Soring terminated at 24 feet below exis~ing 9rade. Groundwate~ enCQuntereC at 2 :eet during Crilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite ann concrete. (NI BloWs Ft 9 7 15 23 12 13 6 w (%) 25 43 Su0t.i.H'11~ C(lr>011.aru. c•.()t(JN r,:~r,i aur ~.-...i,o,,, a: Int 1,m~ 1rrd lo,;:J'!'°1'1 oJ 11111 e.x()lQ,.iory r.o.:t, l'T>'.:drf'ff O)' •r>Cln.M,.or,~ .em, 1n1iy,u. a.r.c JU~IT'>tnl Th,,,,, &'1!' ~ '1,,e,(;esµr,1y ''"°'trs.el'll.¥1...-t (J.l O!Mr 1~ 1n(;I \OU"hQl'l\ ""'I!. '-V\flCI )ctoi:ri 10100<u,o,1~y ior lr>e u1t 0t 1ruorD,•!.l1'°" r,,, 'Olhtr-i 01 ,11\om,1.1,or, prn.amt<: on er,,, '°'ii BORING LOG !·C,\Y CRCEr P.llSrN~SS PARK Rl::NTO~, h'l\SHING:'':":!\ Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date !'eh' '.ell Checked DB -------'------J-..-----j Date 2-1-91 I Plate A4 BORING NO. 8-4 Logged By D" " Date 1-10-s1 Elev. )C.'~ us Depm (NI w Graph cs Soil Description (It) Sample Blows (%) Ft ·::~·'.:))/;!}~:;: ':o)j'-14-[:t>::· r 1]i11i1im ~ SM Brown finP. tn r.iediUr:l sil::y SAND Wl. th I l:J 23 'lrf :1,·P'.· (.:, .f:'·"''F IJT6V(;~, r.iedium dense, saturated f-$tf{,:~,Y,:j Hrff:V~{ -5 I r11/J1,L, -grades to dense 20 :): \ftf:t :)l::'.:<fl'i -:f\f·* -grades to gray with graved 1 :'. :i:L::'Uf 'Tf> ',. '. ',: '. <'''iJ'i'/ 25 :!Wl!'t r I 10 !/Ill/I II rol Gray sandy SILT, trace gravel, T 5 20 - rnedlur.. dense,, saturated - i[/lijlllli sm Gray sil~y Dt!diurn SAND, t-::-ace gravt:!l, I 10 ·r 'f '1 medium dense1 saturated - '.: ; '.'.ti· '=tfH: -15 ,: rl 'If r , •.• n 1'/ :iwni1 t- f1h!i 1 -grades to g::-a~: brown wi~h I-T "'1.,J.,.i., gravel, very aense 41 t· ~,.N,•,"..•:·. ! Boring terninated at 19 feet below ~xisting gr2.de. Groundwater ~ncountered at 3 !:eet during drilling. J Oaring backfilled with cutt:.ings and hentonite. SutistJn.1co ~\drtt0!"<$ <lt/llCl&<l r,icinum ov,-eo,.orvi.11Qr'IS 11 !~ 11mt •'1<l 1Q::li1Ql'I 011n,1 uc,1or,,,ory t'\Olc. m()d,!..,_d t>t •"9'°"flr'IIJ 1f'ffl. 1M~<s. 11\l:! JUC::9'1-' ...... r.t. lM-y "~ l"l(r. not-ce1ur11y lt1:11n.tna1,vt 01 C:/loer 1,,r,c1 HIO lc•; .. 11,0,,s. ~ ~nl'oQl &CCOOI 10,(»(IS•bll~)' In' I.ht' .... u 0, /nl11H0!•!11'°"1 r,, O\Mr:r. a! 1,ilOrm.&1101'1 C,,t1,tcnt4'0 l)ll 11'\G ~ GY·-BORING LOG i~~ Earth Consulrarits Inc. f'iJ\ y Cil:.F./'. BUSINESS i1ARt~ ~ 0;;J})\?j,)) L.o:-o'l'l""!Vlo("'!)I J'J\Air.....,..~. f...-ul,'llt<J~ I. ,-.,-,,·11n1'1-...,,1..i X-Wi'l~I~ R2NTON, l-.1,\SHV:bTOi\ Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. GLS I Date reb 1 9l Checked D~, Date 2-1-91 I Plate AS BORING NO. B-5 i..Dgged By DP Date l -J 5-~ 2 89v. J [l r :: us Depth {NJ w Graph cs Soil Description ltt.l Sample Blows I%) Ft )!ff?!!fff! ~" ~~sp:12J~ c,ro:-:crrt,· ~rrnm stl:.\· c.oJrse (' ,. ... l.'i t;lt ,!':f.J\I(: 1 I wet to sn ..,, .. ,LI " C' ;i ~ ·.::--,1 ere ir:11 11 ML Gri::~-· ~a;1d7· S 17.T 1 :J(.)fL, Slltt..:.ruted, I 4 27 11 I Ii trace gravel _5 l ,, // -2 95 LI,~52 ~£A% oh _B!"£:lE__f)r__~nJc SILT, so:t, saturuted Pl,=51 %::;,, ~;,;:; 1-I 1//i Pl= l nl Gray StLT, r.,ediun, dense, s·atura ted . I ., 1111 -10 ,I 1/J 1 - ii ,I II ~::\::::::::; sp Gray mediur.i to coarse SAND with -I gravel 1 trace silt:, very dense, 38 ~]~ ~ saturated _ 15 ~ sn Gray silty rne<liurn SAND with gravel, ~ T de2nse, se.turated 27 Boring terlilir.ated ac lB feet below exist.ing: grade. Groundwater encountered at 1. 5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttirn;s and bentonite. Sub1,,,nue. eondlloOIU oeti,C1t-e rto~fl'T ,o,.,, o~~Nlll,,;,M ll w i,~ 11:rn: 1oc.,1.q11 Cll 111•l utHo.-.ioty holt. Jn<;>(l,t,t,CI ti'!'", r19.-,r,91.-sa. ,.....,ir.i,i, •roe ,...c~n:. Tll.e-y .,., "IT. ll+C'CIS.U,flly !t'Or~r,a\-o! 01Mir IUJMJ lln(l ~1¢nJ. \",l,t C.1!1'101 &c;tool iasoo,11 . .rt),/~)' IOI lr.t ~ (Jo' 11"11-IPIC)l.,llllOn..,. QIII+~ GI mli;im,.Lt.iol"I prn-errrt<I o., rrvt \OC. j,(-:7'; 0 BORING LOG 'itlf( Eartll Consultants Inc. ~11\ 't CR~EK BUS1NS$S !"1t,R!'. ~~ / ~i...:ffj)) ~r"fT'l(1Cill £:\J<~ ~i:,:u. 4 t:,,,~1t.-..r,r-ri'l;li l-<~•~~1~ RENTOI.J, WA$flING'l'ON ?roj. No. 5\44 I Drwn. GLS I Date fob'')l Checked DP, I Date 2-1 -91 I Plate /\f, ·- -·----------------------------~ Graph BORING NO. 8-6 Lngged By __ :J_0_ us cs sp Soil Description 2'' asphalt concrete Red bro.-.•n rciedium co coar.se s;,...No \vi tL gravel, se.t.'..:.~c.:.ed Gray SlLT, ~ediu~1 sa~u~ated -s~~nes to s t.i-:: i c()a!"se SM.l'JD, satura.tP-d - - r '" - t- Depth !ft.I 5 10 Sample l T I I T T Bo=i~g terninateC ct 19 feet below existing g=ade. Groundw~~er encoun~ered at 3 feet du~ing drilling. 3oring bac~:illeC With cut~ings, bentonite and concrt~tP.. E! ~ ' • ev. --~· "c.' _. _ INI Blows Ft 2 7 ll 8 18 16 w (%) 36 52 S1,1::i111n;rc, cor,.:M0111 a~p..::,e,,;: r,,l)<.,.,.,l"M ovr iY.)1.o'l,...,loOM !1 the 1,me 1n-a ro:::noon ot 1n,s uo101111ory r,e,i, IT>OOr1o('~ l:>r' •""w'lf'>tl-ll"J'.9 1a~. ,ru1.,.,.,1_ i..l\d 1...09"IT'<!lll! 'T,.,..,. ,~ l"O; 1>eees~1~y f~l-trl,lH~ Q1 c:r.n-ar ,,,,...., lti~ >oc-.11~. ~ c.annC!I •ccot,'1 r•.$POf111t)<l'1)' 101 l"'t u,-e Cl ,nittr~•e111,on Cly O(~n; ol 1r1tormt1•:m pro,:;n111'd or, tf\r1 io,; BORING LOG :;r, Y Crt2£1Z DOS Il\"::~S ?MRI~ RENTON, \·JAS!Lli.: . .;-ro:-J Proj. No. 5l<i~ I Drwn. GLS I Date F~h 1 91 Checked :,;J Date 2-1-~l Plate r, 7 Graph ; I I I ; It/' i I IJII ! I II I : . 11 i 1111111 : I , 1 11 I BORING NO. B-7 Logged By __ ti._0 _ Date 2-16-91 us cs ml sm Soil Description 2" U.sphalt concrete Gr Ft:' silty m~diu@ SAND 'with gravel, loc.1se, saturated -------- Gray brown sandy SILT, tracG organics, soft~ saturated Gray SILT 1 loose, saturated Gray-brown .SII./J', trace sand and organics, soft, saturated Gr~y ~ilty nedium SAND, trace gravel, aediurn dense, saturated -grades to dense Gray silty SAND with gravel, ve=y Dense, ~aturated Depth 1ft) ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 - - - -10 ~ f- ~ .._ 15 ~ - ~ -20 C - - Sample T t I I I I -I Elev. 21 '= (NJ Blow,; Ft 5 4 4 14 15 36 w (%) 39 50 Sutaurllct CO<">dtilO<'\I. i:1u1,c,lo(I n~n'I o«I l)C,,.,,r,,ca.t!Qrr; 11 lrt4 t,mt 1.r.d ~alien QI th,, 11:,;,010.-.tory 1'ci,. moorl...:, t>,' 41"9•noer,l')Q lll'SIS. 11'1.1,Y,.~, 11\C JL>d9"f'l'>Or/_ They.,~ r,e,; r..t,cuJ.arily IC"IJl&Hnu1h'9 QI 1111'1«( 1!1T'ff lf\O ~lll'><'U. ~ c..anr>er. a.;:,:.oD\ tU00<114;111rjy h)l 1M 1/W Of lfll•f~Oi,1,0.,, ~ or~n. r:,I ,n10<m,1.oo,, P<TUftl.O on m,i 10Q BORING LOG !~Y CR~E~ BUSINESS PARK Ri::N1'0l~, WASK1NGT0N LL~44 PL~29 Pr~1s Proj. No. 5144 I Drwn. : GLS J Date F~b '91 Checked DR I Date ~-1-91 Plate AS Graph '!ll 'I I I I . Proj, No. BORING NO. B-8 logged By~- Date -~' --~'~r,---~~l~ 3()':: Elev. __ _ us cs ral Soil Deroiption Gray brown ~ilty coarse SAND, loose, '-'et Gray sanCy SILT, so~t, saturaLed Gray ncdium SAND, dense, saturat~d Gray brown SILT, trace sand, ~ediuD stiff, saturated (grades tc stiff) f- r - Depth 1ft) _s - - 10 r f- --15 - Sample I I 1 I T Boring terrainated at l9 feet below exi~~ing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. INI Blows Ft 4 19 9 13 16 w (%) 22 27 S11b1urUt"I o:>r,dlllQN O~O<o;;.eoC,.IX'H-l!rn o,,.,,r O:n.e""'-!tOl'l5 &t ll'le 1rm,e 1..-..:! Jocl!l•cm ol m,1 eq:,io .... 10,y l"lolot. modM19<1 l,f ll"IQ</"l1l'flllnQ 1nu.. 11'\1tir,..,I, 1NI IV<>pemton1. T~ an nu. MoCll"iM"IY r"'l""'Nl&lr-'!1~a1he111,ne1 •r.d \oC..Zl,o,u. ~ e..Jn/lQI. a,:;,::00\ re1001U,10,1,ty lot1r.. vn or mlotiPl~e;loOll fly c:>tr..n. cl 1n10l'Tn.1::,on D!Hcrrlttd o,, ffitS lo',l BORING LOG !·i.~.Y C~=-:EK BUS!NE'SS !?:IRK RENTOK, \·/ASH INGTON DE I Date ?-1-91 I Plate 514 4 I Drwn. GLS I Date Feb'~ 1 I Checked ________ _.. ____________ _ ' BORING NO. B-9 Logged By 8~ Date ,-lf-9i Bev. 28' :_ us Depth INI w Graph cs Soil Description (ft.I Sample Blows (%1 Ft. .......... ',j 2" asphalt concrete :,:::=::-:,: RCJd.-browri cnurse SAND "'1th grave 1, -:.':'·~.::}· :: '.:-"· sp loo.sf-> to r>RdiUl';'l dfH"\SP, 1-/~t ~fijl ::::;r., 3rov,:n sil::y r.iedium to coa:::-se SAND, -I loo.sei saturated 33 '" -5 -g!:"ddes to gray bJ.O't.'.')1 trace 8 ,:1:rh:J« silt '" ·:r-v:·(·· ~-l~ •:,,: :,:,) " .-.. -(·!·.-~· .·.·, ,yjl:f\:J'il I ·.··}-.. •.•.·.·,-.' ii/I/iii/ r:il I 3:-own SILT, trace organics 1 mediut;'I 6 stiff, saturated - 10 :-rH:,:{;;v:: sm Brown silty mr~diurn Sil.ND, loose, sa tur2!"'.C!c I ::,:ff/::ci:j 25 ·II I r:il Gray r.i1~dium SILT, tr-ace sane., mediur.i - I stiff, sa·turated " 7 28 '" 15 I ' I,, j - ' ------------" 'li hi sra Gray silty t.1ed.ium SAi~D, dense, -l lJ' r1 27 • { ·"-i l'tlli=h· saturated - ·Hl l-;tJ I i-20 T fl]tl:t.-':t Gray nediun coarse SAND, very dense, ~.it1,Jffi saturated -&J Soring te!:T.linated. a, 21. 5 f~et below existing g:-ade. Groundv1ater en'.:'ountE!red at 2.5 feet du.ring dr.illing. Boring back:"illed v.•i"c.h cutt.:i...nss and Centonite. • 1 j ' 1 ; l S.U~-.ir11.e11 oondl1,o"t' a,c,~ttl re~r"!I D<Jf (l~.....-sJT'fl.111 al !Ire l1mt •~ tt11oon r.t lhr~ ,~D1or11ory no1,. modrf..C t,y tol"IQl/\01!'11"tQ Intl, .1.I\.V)'111. at>C ~p,emoi\!. T~ ltt 1'10': fM>C~U,.{lr,ly ~·~ ...... I-o( o-.ru,, 1,m.o, lf"IG IO(.;q,Q,'U, ~ c..rillCl a.et;()O\ ,,~l;llll\y }Ct 11'141 UJ.i: Of 1n1tHlll\l!o()!'I try O(l>trl r:,I j in1c,rrnahan pr~n,~ c,.r, u,.s )oc;I .,,.-,..-..,, ,A;' BORING LOG ~~': Earth Consultants Inc Mh'i CREF.Y-BUSI1':Ess P,'\RK ~\;. / ~/\jl~/1 {~1'\"'f1(l'Gl,I t-J\'l,IV'l<"("T,, ~~;', ~ f'.J\\',fl"11'?'rr11,~ ~'lf"T\IN\ P.£t\TON 1 v!ASKINGTO;! .:., - Proj. No. 514{ I Drwn. GLS I Date Feh 1 S'l Chocked Df\ Date 2-l-91 Plate AlO BORING NO. B-:1 0 Logged By L'E? Date J-16-$1 Elev. '.., ' ~ " ' - us Depth IN} w Graph cs Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows (%) Ft :·~}\\)( -aspll.:l Lt c.:c,r.crc re sp Brown SAi\D .,,:i ch s i l r anrl cr.1vc l, loose, WC.t ~ i,: ; I Ii; f,11 Gtay-b:rown sanciy S:i:LT, soft., sa.:urated e j1lil /'1 e I 4 . ,:: i! ! llli1 11 e l:l!i [,; I G'::'0.\1-:Jrc:wn sil~y ::i.t:1;diur.1 SAN[i 1 j_onse r L_ 5 ~r:i sc:~U.::-c.L.ed I ., :.;-:.;.-:-.-:··· . ' . ' . ' ' I r.il Srow:i sr:.~. 50~~' .sc.tur-at1~d ·r 22 ·:ri·p1'( ::if:> :EJ:/: silty r.iediun SAND, loost, e .:::;:,.H~~:::.: ~D :a:roi,,m t?ltii I saturated [e 11 s,r:i .9!°own r.il!dium SAND with silt, mediur:1 - de:n~;e, s'7tu:-ated _ 10 T I oh :arown o~(Jan1i.:: S:i.:i.T, soft, sa"Cu=atec, I -7 89 "//'//#//// trac~ HoOci "'fl'fl'f' I Gray-brown silty rneC.i Ui.l S!illO, t:.race -~~flil~ sm T ,:j,E,l' !:,:ti gravel, loose, satura~ed -;,.1,j: ;,.,.,,j-,. 6 91 ;////////,:; I 0.1 3rown orgar1ic 5ILT,soft, sat.u::-a~ed ... '(11''"' if l· '.i f-15 tp:JHj e ~ p=:i-'··) Gray silty @ediuR SAND, med..:...'J..,'Tt de!':!se, ! .~fj; ,: Sr.1 ''!'·ll~ 'ri., saturated >-::~f~; ·:.:v-·:1 ;f:1:~D:{h / oh (~ I 7/////1'9' Brown organic SI:.T. cier..se 1 --0 :llillllll t:11 Gr.ay s I!JT I r.ic->diurn stiff, satu:r.at.e<l - ' 20 illrli 1 1:i[f I ,- S;;J Gray silty SAND, dense, sat.ura-:eC - T]fffHJ -T 23 Boring t.erni.'1a.ted at 24 .i.'.eu't bP-1.ow cxist.ing qr.acie. Groundwu-::.o:::!r encount~Yed at 3.5 feet during dYillinq. Bo::-ing hdck~il ltd with cut":i:-:s:. 1 bentcnitP. and conc~-ete. s.,_,,ur11ce coridrt,ori~ a~o,c,N) ,...,-mo,.,; o:n.e.....-.ct,cm, 1111~ i,mt 1r.<11oc111on o! 1r,,1 hP'Ott/Q,Y ~-mod,!~ t,y t~,1~ 1e$0 •Jl.tlylri. 1.-...:: J...C~ln-1 r'I:. Tt>ey lfll" fl:>I ......Cus.lNy recue-Mrrua, .... o( CIIM( l•l"!"',c,S .II.rid IOC.lcl..,11$, """: C,l.11'1o<ll ACC~CT, 111,c,,Qi\l•O>l~J' 1¢1 l/">41 I.IU Of 1ri1ero,•lll•(Hl ti)-0!"'411,: o/ mi.omw,o;, o,~rn..:i or11nr,. loQ. ~!'-''· """' BORING LOG f~: Earth Consultants Inc. f'1A y CREEK ,,USIK[SS PrttH: . /\ .... RENTON, \•;,\SnlNGTON \ .... I~'/ \~// {.,-(')l,"("l'n~·,l l·nil/O<T'?../....._,Wl'"-1"\ 11. f:,r,,W-"""'""T\l,Y :,,.('W.TI1L'".~ Proj. No. 514 ~ I Drwn, c~.s I Date F~h 1 91 Checked DB I Date 2-l-91 I Plate lil l BORING NO. 8-1 :1 Graph Logged By--~-"- Date i-Jf-91 us cs Soil Description Cray-bco1·::1 sil~)' fine to 11edium SAND, with lens~s of silt, loose, sacurated -grades to brown c- - - I- Depth ltt) C ~ ., ~-:+/~Jl~!l~/J~i/'f--_r.1_1--+-"'~=;~~w~u~~a=~~ce~I~=T,--,_t_r_a_c_e_p~e-a_t_,_s_o_f_t_, ____ -+r--10 :.,-:.:.-.·. sp B!:"oWn r.iedillr.l SAND, loose, saturated :11·111[/: '--t--------___J' r / j //J/i i.\l Gray SIL"f, medium stiff, saturared r t;\"'Jl:l_._"''ljr"''Jj~/1i·:_::--s-r.1--t---G-r-ay_s_i_l .-c y-r.1-ed_i_u:_::1_S_A_ND-.-l-oo_s_e_, ---,_ H /Jf!] saturated i ]l)jl' -15 ifi 1k1d sra Grav siltv medium SAND 1 very dense, satUratedJ 1--20 ,- Sample K T I T T I T Soring te~~i~ated at 21.5 feet beluw existing grade. G=ound~ater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. aoring back~illed with cutti~ss and benconite. Bev. 2·; 1 ± INl Blows Ft 0 6 5 9 J.4 40 w 1%) 25 23 28 S'lt<iurbcc co/\d~OQtU c11:c111:itt1 ntDf1t'l,.effl111u o-:norv111,on1 art"" hmc ll'Kl kx:&!w;,11 o11"" ot•PIQaiory l'>Olt. mt>drlo11CI t>J •09-n"9101U.. ,n1tys.L1-, l-!l,C JUOQ-il: .... 11;, Tra,, 1rt /'IQ! r.&Ct!U-&1.lly ft"tli't")lllrr1.JI-01 g:!)a( h~! lf\CI \oci11on1. VY,t U,.r>Ml ICCCP1 re,c~:ml-lt>lln>' 1,;:,, 1r.. lllll !lf !llll![l!"IOl>On t1y t(l>US o' lnlOrl'fl.1.hoo .Olttc,rt\e<l On tru1. lo,;; .,...._ /,--::,.; 0 ~ -~;; Earth Consultants Inc. \ ..;' \ .••• :!\ ...,;,;,, (..-o(~,-..n~~~. l...-.,l(JlllS,.., ~ c/'l,,,,....Wl',-~1~11 ~"""'"'' : Proj. No. S,44 I Drwn. GLS I Date ,eb' 91 Checked BORING LOG !-:.A Y CRF.EK BLJSINESS P,\HK REN'l'ON, "I\SIHNGTON OR I Date 2-1-91 I Plate / I\ l2 Graph :1 :1111_ r: i 'ii d:1 ! i/ ! Ii I! I BORING NO. 8-12 Logged By DP Date us cs sr:i i.ll Sr.) rol sp nl Sr.1 nl l-J7-~~ Deplll Sample Soil Des:riplion (ftJ 2 ,, a.sphalt r.nnr:rnte Brown-grey silty medium S/\ND wi t.h (;:-avcl, s~tn~ated - SILT, mudiur.i so±:t ss:i:'.:f, -I Gray sandy -:0 satura tC;:d :, r Drown SILT, loose, satura t.ed saturati.:d L Brown SILT, soft, -Brown nediur.i SAND, dense, .satu::-ated .... 10 I Gray and brown sandy s rr:::, 5 ("; :.,.;; , -!::iaturated ... +-JI Gray si2:tj' f.H.!<'!.i Ur,'l SA:,.iD, P.1P.Giur:1 Uense, ~ sc.;.t.ur.:i.-~et! 15 Gray sand:l SILT, stiff, sat:.urated -T 3o~ins terQinated at 19 foet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2.5 feet during drilling. Raring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite and :::cnc:::-ete. Bev. . ~ ' -.,:: IN} w Blows 1%) Ft. ?. 24 38 13 3 23 · : :-, •. -.~ :~ ~:·.·.:.s:1 "::,:-:~ ''~'M-Crr. 1;1,.,, ~~""l•O~ !: tr.t 1,cn1 •r>d ic,,;:ai,t)t'i ol \Tl•l ,._o,or.1110,y t",o,:~, mod,I..,:;) 11" •"'9'"-flr\91..S::I. 1rit~•s. i..nc · · ~--·· ....,._ 1 "f "":'" "<'<oe1~1 .. ~ <c-tJtlt'Mn-,'111•~ o: ~ri,er 1,l'n<li 1no IOC.!IOl\1 ~ c.a/\'10' .1c,e01 ,a1p0,u1c,,1~y 10, ir.. uu1 or 11\19!11f•l'1.ao t>Y01"1,r1 ol ··:----.._~., :-·"'.,,e,c o-.,,.,"1 1()-,. . BORING LOG -;!i· I . ,-,?t' Ec111h COilSUltants Inc. '--Pr·o~1--N~a--~~~-l.l_o_,_w~n--~-·'.-."~~-jL....:D~a~t~e~~'~'e:·~·,_'~c~-1'..__.li_=:Checked '.',i\'t Ck"Sl.::r", B.l)SIN~SS ?t:RK RCi':'TOX, \·;MSi!:i.l~GTON l Date ?-1-9: I Plate LL=38 PL=29 PI= 9 A!J General APPENDIX B E-5144 LABORATORY TESTING We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analyses and Atterberg Limits, on representative samples. Moisture determinations and consolidation tests were performed on representative samples. A brief description of each of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in this Appendix. However, it is imponant to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. Earth Consultants, Inc. (EC!) cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Soil Classilication As mentioned earlier, all soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they are obtained. They are subsequently packaged and returned to our Bellevue office, where they are independently reexamined by one of our engineers and the original description is verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of information obtained from classification tests, the samples are described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM Test Method D-2487°83. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual boring log and are qualitative only. The attached Legend Plate AJ, provides pictorial symbols that match the written descriptions. Moisture Densitv Moisture content and tests were performed on several samples obtained from the borings. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the existing in-place moisture content of the soil sample tested. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method. Earth Consultants, Inc. The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. Tne results of these tests are presented at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. P:irtic!e Size Analvsis Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on several of the shallow soil samples to determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The test is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-422-63. The information gained from this combined analysis allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in-place materials. The results are presented on Plates B 1 through B2, and classification symbols are provided as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs. Several consolidation tests were conducted on two relatively undisturbed representative samples taken with the Shelby Tube sampler to evaluate the consolidation characteristics of the site soil. In addition, the time readings were taken at several points of loading to evaluate the time rate of settlement. The results of this test are shown on Plates B4 and BS, Consolidation Test Data. Earth Consultants. Inc. Ii 0 ~ ~ " .<. 0 ~ ? C) (-< (/) ::J ~ • '" " O" ,o ~ ) ' , , ' ' 1 " " J -----·- c .... _~' " ,~, t ,:~) ... ;~ , CJ " -m :' :s :u tn 0 m ~ z v -I ] ....J ~ 1/) ol 1 C z , -m , -:u • (cl :::i r..r: Ill -< ~ / :::i m ~ . , C) ; :c ' --1 ~ :v >< G) C'J O :n ~'-1 )::,, 0 (r1 - zM 2 ~ • 7:. (r) -CD N :{;c m (/\ (n :,:~ p Hz 2 z"' :,,, G"l u, r ..., u, -< ~·a u, "' -:tr V, ~ SIEVE ANAL YSL~-I I IYDf10METE~_ANAL YSIS s1_Ll 01· Ul'ENIN(; tN [N_i:!J(~ -_ l ~~!\'lUEft _Of-~PEfflNfil U.S. STANO~riD [ -------=-=~ _ GBAIN SIU. IN MM N r,, _--, Va:, r,1 a:, '< 0 t,O O O 00 OO g t.D «j-M "I ..-~ ~ g 8 8 Q IO '<t r') N _·-".-.-,J" Ji ~ c-'5 .> to.-.-N r') ~ t.n(.C) 0:) 9 NO Q O q Q Q 0. 0; 0 0 0 ··--. a X" -,__ '-<;-----1-1--1=1= . ' I/HJ ----1·' .-~ I---1---'---[ ,,011··· ='=--= ~'=-,;;-~ = = = ·.:e ...... ~ .s,. f---,_ = = ==·= ~ ~~.= === ... = ~-=~ = === -------~-(--______ _..,__.. --~------------1~1------· --l-1--. ----l--__ (_ -~ -1-.--..-... -• • --I--------_,_ -1---I.---.J ---_-.I' . ~ 1-t---1------------i 80 -----1-1---j"\-l---=== :1 :----'.::-==I----=-~-,::..______ ---= -1-'---L-M --1 -------"'r---1-__ ..___. ~: -1-------1-.f--.1- _.._____ --1-~ ---, ,.._ ----~ ~--- --1----i---1--~\.---. f---I -1------W---I---"H-+-1--+----, --- IQ zo ) 0 1------1-----,-1---1--i . l-1-·=1=r-'d=1===1::1=={-f---t----l----+-l--+--1-J-itB~t: =1Ef~!= f-----t-<-== 30 ,=J=ti=tf=S:l=J=l=J=J=J==lli11-t=l=l==l-1---------t-----l-l-----l-l-1-k~m'-,-~-§j . . -·._ --- H~ -===--·, =-= 60 r--l-!=l=J=tt=l=l-i=l=1=1-1---'t-1->-------'-<- +-1-l------J ,o ----~-= -1-Fl--t:r~ -- so ------=,-, ' -' ----------,o ---. -- --------- ------ IO s::I' M N 0 0 0 C GflAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETEnS -. CO!lBLES I COAnSE I FINE I COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE GRAVEL SANO KEY \ Boring or DEPTH uses DESC/llPTION Test Pit No. /f L.I o--U-1 5 SP Gruy poorly graded Sl\ND wilh gravel <',.---B-2 10 ML Gray sandy SILT D········· B-4 2.5 SM Grny silty 51\ND l-...j=-1==!== +:l:.J=!= ~-,-->o --,~-- -1-H~ so · J· -,:: i.= -!-~--- ,~t=t=t==E -~ ,a ~ ro ~ 0 O O 0 0 FINES " n 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 Moisture Comcnt {%) l.l Jl 23 D 0 LL 100 "() m :0 0 In 2 -I 0 0 )> :D V, rn :D o:; -< ~ "" m G) :c -I Pl • " ;:; ,: 0 u, '" .. -" 0 :, ~ Cl r• (/l 0 ~ rn "' /0 tr ,o - n " ~ ;,c rn Cl. tJ "' ;::, " • '0 I D 0 " ' " -J \ ~) --r_ . , '- j ~I I ,i"'f-' ~ CJ " -m :;-:u n () m ::; z --, __, . r..r: .,., ".: ( z ' -, -m -Q) :0 ::i IJ) -< r..r: -::;, :::J m '! C) I --, •a• SC. :,J •< C) I '"n :n Z;_o ,, >-3M 2 ~[rJ 7' (f> :r tD N j; c-: m (/l (/l J> :r:: =.! I-<.,,._ :z z1~1 P C) VJ r-..., "' -< 0 'Cf ~ z:t,.. ~ "' 7' -----------,---------------- SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS S1L[ o°F=OPcN1Nf; IN INC""i!E NUMUErfOF MES/I PEfi INCH_..__U.S. StANl)AllQ___i_--____ G}lAlN SIZ_E--!N-MM "' .. ~ M N ·;......·i: ~-r.,., ,------i _ .-n ,ri J'' _c,) -1~'1 -<, .::."' 'It 0 -_ · --1---I,\ oo~ "' o 0 -·1'~'-= --==='-_-<~E":: ~ N M ';? 00 00 0 -_:-~ -------,: """ o,$! o"' <t M ~ _ -1-__ --_ ~-_ --=i;; _ N ~ O a N 00 ,o --_ _, ~ _,_ ----· 0 -0 o O o ------------L~ -~ --~L -I O O O O O N :)= ----------_ 0 O D ,...... T,_-~ ~:=-tr:~; ~ _.:s: __ =-;:: I= ::: : -_JJ~;; _--_ ' C ~I I ~o co ;::: cc: ='='.~=== == '==: -~-= o_::,;:;::~ :-:-= __ _ ~= =---~ 10 =-f------=f::J--'---=--:::s·-1-__ -,----------~-·-- -=1----_, -::t'=t=~,~=;::_: ---= == ,='----.-=~s: = --= = -_·--\~ ti --f-+-1=---I-I _D -_,==--=:::_'-__ ,.:.,:=/== --:---ld~-----I -__ , --~ -~--.__ ----:.= -------'--1-....--JD ~-__ ....___-------· -·-1 --. . __ 11---J'-. __:' --- N lDO I-·· '.)ll --·--,_ !Jfl ---po I ~~j=\=J=\=== -·-1:::1+\-'==1 : ~L::t= -~===1 '" SO 1==l~=l=f=f=i=l·=+~l=l=f=l==l~1==1=!-l-~-1~t=:1=1===1=1=1=i=l--~-lt1itti=l==t==~ C,O --,-,--1-1-1-1-1 -1-1--t--1-, ---1-1---,-,--~-1-r-1--1 -1·--- ~1-1---~-1-1-1-----,--,------·- ----,--,-,--1-r+----1--i----t-! ---t-t--1--1-i -t----;-j---1-t-!--/-t---l--- --•-1-1-1-1--\----!-\-I-\-I-I-I---H--/-f-----l-l----H-l-l--\-l-t--,-/-I-rl-~-t=--+----( GO so f--1--1-l-l-l-l-l-f-H-l---+-I------,-,----,-1--1-1~-1--- --1-1-1---1-1-1-1-1--1----l-l--l-l--t-l-l-f-f-l---1-t-t--i-1--,------)of==li-m~-~~-:-~ff-~~ ff@~-~~-~--,-~1-t§l -----------~ --------------------------------------- + --,->--1-\-· -;-~-- --f.-..j.- _ :j-=t=l==I ,o 1+-J-l-- --·-t--· --_,_, __ ,_ 1---1-1+---1-1--1-H-l--t-l H 0 ::):::-:\ l==-1 DO 20f----,--------------·-~-------------------·-·------------- 10 I"=---= -__ ---~ --= --.. ~-----= --=:: = ---.=' ------j 90 _______________ -1-JJ-E~~~i ~1,i:m~f§1rrn1@f~ 1=::J:--LJ . --l1Jl"J -o·-. --. ----~~-§illtl-_ --~--==J JOO -,----,-<--t-----!-l-l-l--t---1-1-1---f--t--!--- 00 000000 Omt0 ---- oo DCDlO'<l'('"]N ~ n N -~ © ·a 0 ..... Cl:! u'.! '<:I'. f":: I'! n N GHAIN S!ZE IN Ml LLIMETEllS COBBLES C0Af1SE I FINE I C0Ar'.!.S£ / MEDIUM GnAVEL SAND FINE norin9 or DEPTII uses Tctl Pit No. ((t. DESCf1JPT\ON KEY / o-!l-5 I 2. 5 ML Gruy s~•ndy SILT L.,---IJ-12 I 5 I I Brown SJLT ~ '" N ;:; ~ w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FINES ~ M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mo·rsltflC Content{~(,) 27 30 0 0 --------, ! LL ,, m :u n m z 4 n 0 J> :0 U) m :rJ IJ) -< ~ m C) I --, r, ,, ' 100 80 X 60 w 0 z >- f--u i= 40 ({) 5 D.. ' I ' I I ' I : I ! I I I I I : I ! ' ;, ' I ' I I I i I I : ! I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I ' ' I I I ' I I : I ' ' ; : : I I I I I I l I I I I I ! I ! I I I ! ' I I : I y ' ' I I I I ' I I I I I @j~I ..._ A-Line lA I I I I I I ~ I VI I I I I I I I : I 20 ,, I I I %-I I ! I I I :/ ar I CL-ML /j ~ : I/ I 0 20 4{J LIQUID LIMIT I I I Boring/ Depth I Key Soil Classification ' /Test Pit (ft.) i I I ! f 3-5 5.5 G!..·ay-brown organic S:i:LT .t. ::.-I 7.0 Gray SILT l1I ~-::.2 5.0 Brown SILT I I ' ' ...;;-, ,-- >'.,. ~· Eanh Consultants Inc. ..,.,,. -..._; (.-<>i"("]~b'\1!~( .. ~-"'Jll6.1.1 .. lv,...,""""'""'b<l~1t<.l, • I ' @IK@ I I i I I I i I I I I I ! i I 60 BO 100 Natural uses l.L. P.L. I I p I. Water Contem OH 52 51 l HL H 29 15 ML 38 29 9 Atterberg Limits Test Dato MAY CREEf, BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj.No. 5144 Date Feb'91 Plate B3 I ' I I ' . ' C Cl) u oi C - ~ Cf) Cf) UJ (IC a. ::;; 0 u ::: 9----, ~I i'--wl 11 I 1, 1· I I :. I !, ! II II 1', 1' I I l11i·~ , 111, i 2 L-...-:-1 ~I __j___l L-,'----1~ I ~11 ~"°'c_---'-~--;---1 I I I : i I I I I 11 ~ L--1-----1 ~I I _:___,+I I ~-:,,;~,-,--,-"'+-+--:I 1--,----;--i-\ --;-I -,-----,-------1 1-;-tti 6 L_ _ __;___.!.--\-;....!-...l.-l....g.. __ +---+~~-;--:.+:+-----;----i---+-i--:--t-tti I I '~I I I 8 L--)__!__I ...J--!.-1 _;______'_Ll-'--!_1 -+--+~~. 1 ----'--I ~, tii1 10 f-------t--r----i-i-\-i-?"1ic:::~::=:====:i:;::-t--t-i-riii';:--------r-~1---t~-r-ttr1 12 J____.___L_____L.__:l__.+-.l__..!_,-11 -+---~-------!I----, -,r-2-;..__-+-I -+1~: ,-ti ~-+-ilr+-oi--'\~",;------;-----;-1 ~r-t-t-tti I I I \ I 14 L.__ _ __J__-l--..L....../---:------!-L-l-:----+----,-,---i,-,...~+--t---k----t-----;--t-i----;---t--;-1 11 I I 16 L._ _ _L_J___J___J._!_...'..J_-'-"---_L___J_J___~..L.J._"-J_. __ .!____!___L---'-~..LU 0.1 0.2 2 =·: -; I De8tn ·.: I I;; i ' I I _ , -~ :_. _c I -. -i I I I I i IJSCSI I I ·-·.·-I 0.4 I I I I I I E;:irth Consultants Inc. I 0.8 1.6 3.2 v; ps ··- I Ill I I I 1', I I I I "'-I I 11 I \., I ', ;,_ I I I 11 I 11 I PRESSURE, kips Llou,d Soll Descnp11on Limn " " 44 6.4 12.8 25.6 I I l I I I I I I I I I / v--I I I I sJ I I i I I Plas11c , P1asr1cHy Moisture Limit lndex Cont en 1. \V ~~ o.· o, 9':?lOrE · At1er " ;o 29 15 41.0 30.0 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA HAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, h'ASHING'I'ON Ory Dens1rv lpcfi 80. 43 . ,I.:: ·1, "'• . .:.:... :_:•,r,1:;[CR'!NG b. CE:OLOGv Proj. No. S144 Date f'eb' 91 Plate B4 f • " I I I I I I /. 11 I I I ,; I I ! 111 c '" ::! 6 '" D. I I I 11 I I . z 8 Q 11 (,/) (,/) w cc 10 CL 2 0 0 12 11 14 I I I 111 I 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 l. 6 3 I I I~ ;,-. "' I I I 11 > 'O uN:: 2 I I I I I I I \ I I i 1111 \ 1 I I I 11 11 \ I I I I 11 0.8 l. 6 ·-·- I , I I I I I , I ' I I I I I I I I I"--. I °" { _I I I I~ ' I "1' ;f's_ ' I 1~-~ I I I I 3.2 kios . I : I I I I 3. 2 6.4 I I I I Iv I I 6.4 ' I~ I 12.8 25.6 I I I _,.o..._ I ''o 12.8 25.6 I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRESSURE, Key 0 Boring Dep1h No 1(11 uses So,1 Descrioc 10n B-12 5-7~ J1L Brown SILT Earth Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL (NGIN(E:RING & GtOL,QGY L1qu1d L1m1r o, " 38 Plastic _ Plas11c11y Moisture L1m1! Index Conten:. W% o, o, Belore Af1er " " 29 9 4l. 0 21. 2 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA MAY CREEK BUSINESS ?Ai<K RENTON, WASHINGTON Ory Dens11y lpd) 83.22 Proj. No, 5144 Date Feb' 91 Plate BS ATTACHMENT F Quendall Terminals, Update: Ecology Transfers Cleanup Oversight to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) wants to update you on the status of cleanup activities at the Quendall Tenninals site lo coted at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard, Renton. Comments are not being requested at this time. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes over lead in overseeing cleanup at Qncndall Terminals Ecology has officially transfeJTed oversight responsibilities for cleanup activities at Quendall Tenninals to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Why transfer cleanup at the site to EPA? Given the complex nature of the Quendall Tenninals site, cleanup will require substantial staff resources and funding. Ecology has been providing oversight for the cleanup of this site under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) since the 1980s. Cleanup actions have not yet been perfom1ed. EPA has additional resources to most effectively manage the oversight of this complex cleanup. In addition, current zoning of the properties adjoining this site are planned for a mix of residential and business uses. Cleanup alternatives will need to consider future possible uses of the property. What Happens Next? • EP A's site manager will be meeting with Ecology and the responsible parties over the coming months to plan next steps for the project. • A local Information Repository will be established in the project area where citizens can view EPA project documents. • A good way to keep up with EPA' s planned activities is to sign-up to receive future mailings for the site (if you received this update by mail, you will automatically be added to EPA's list for future mailings). • EPA will continue to update you on the status of the overall cleanup as the process moves along. Site Background Quendall Tenninals is a 25 acre property located on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington, in Renton, Washington. The site is located between the fonner Baxter site to the north and the Barbee Mill site to the south. From 1916 to 1969, the site was operated by Republic Creosote Company, later called Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation. Reilly manufactured creosote and other tar products at the site. Publication No. 05-09-055 August 2005 I Site docnments can be reviewed ·. at the following locations: WA Department ofEcology Northwesl Regional Office 3190 160th A venue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7190 1 (Call for an appointment) EPA Contacts: Kevin Rochlin, Project Manager 1200 Sixth Avenue(ECL-111) ·· Seattle, WA 98102 (206)553-2106 rochlin.kevin@epa.gov Charles Bert · Public Involvement Coordinator 300 Desmond Drive SE, Suite I 02 Lacey, WA 98503 (360) 753-8073 bert.charies@epa.gov Ecology Contacts: Brian Sato, Former Site Manager WA Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 E-mail: bsat46l@ecy.wa.gov (425) 649-7265 Justine Asohrnbom Public Involvement Coordinator WA Department of Ecology 3190 160th A venue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 E-mail: j uas46 l@ecy.wa.gov (425) 649-7135 . If you have special accomll).)dation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Justine Asohmbom at (425) 649-7135 (Voice) or 711 or 1..S00-833-6388 (TTY). . . The site was sold in 1971 to Quendall Terminals, a joint venture of J.H. Baxter & Company and Altino Properties, Inc. Since 1971 the property has been used intem11tte11tly for foel storage and as a log sort yard. Soil, ground water, surface water, and lake sedimeuts have been impacted by past use of the Quendall Terminals property. The primary chemicals of concern are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of the soil throughout the site have been contaminated by coal tar) pitch, creosote, and other tar distillates. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to the depths ofup to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same P AH and BTEX compounds detected in site soils and groundwater were detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Areas of sediment contamination have also been identified offshore from the largest on-site area of contamination and near the fom1er T-pier and dock. In 1993, Ecology negotiated an Agreed Order with Qnendall Tenninals that agreed to: • Complete a Remedial Investigation to characterize and define the extent of contamination • Complete a Baseline Risk Assessment to characterize potential health threats to humans and the environment; and • Complete a Feasibility Study to develop and evaluate cleanup options. A schedule for completion of this work was developed as part of the Agreed Order. The Remedial Investigation was completed in 1997. ln 1998, the Agreed Order schedule was amended when the City of Renton and Porl Quendall Company, a Vulcan Inc. affiliate, expressed interest in purchasing the Quendall Terminals property. Before the Agreed Order was amended, Ecology held a 30-day comment period from September 30 through October 29, 2002. The City of Renton and Port Quendall Company did not exercise their option to purchase the property. In 2004, Ecology continued negotiations with Quendall Tenninals to complete the Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study, pursuant to the Agreed Order. In accordance with the order, Quendall terminals submitted a draft Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study to Ecology. These documents have not yet been finalized under Ecology's oversight. Future project needs will be determined by EPA. How can you be involved? You can provide valuable local input and knowledge that will be helpful as the cleanup plan is developed and implemented. We encourage you to stay informed and involved by: • Signing up for the mailing list for this site (see contact information for Charles Bert, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, on page one); • Attending future EPA public meetings; • Becoming familiar with the cleanup process by reading fact sheets and other documents as they become available; • Providing feedback through public meetings and comment periods. "1 " i 1 ···· SURFACE SEOIMeNT HYDROCAReONS "\ ', __ · i I' PORT ; .·-.··· J_. ; ;:; ; '"--HYDROCMB()N ONAPl BJ>,RB~E MILL I J,H, BAXTSR Q • 400 \__ ______________________________ __, Figure 1 Port Quendall Terminals Cleanup Areas 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Quendall Terminals Site: Cleanup Update ATTACHMENT G .&EPA Quenda/1 Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 June 2007 ·------------------ Study Will Guide Cleanup Plans Altino Properties and J. H. Baxter & Company, two of the Responsible Parties of the Quendall Tenninals Superfond site, have begun a remedial investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) to better understand the site contamination and to develop a cleanup plan. The study will look at soils, groundwater, and lake sediment along the shoreline of the site. EPA expects to complete the RI/FS and select a cleanup plan in about three years. Earlier studies showed that contamination at Quendall Tenninals could pose a risk to people and the environment. How You Can Be Involved EPA is developing a community involvement plan to involve the public in the Quendall Tenninals cleanup, and we want to hear from you. If you would like to provide suggestions for this plan, please contact Suzanne Skadowski, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, at 206-553- 6689. We will be conducting community interviews this su111111er, and the resulting plan will be available for public review. An EPA technical assistance grant (TAG) is available to eligible groups whose members may be affected by this Superfund site. Most of the grant funds must be used to pay an independent technical advisor to help people in the community understand site-related technical information and participate in cleanup decisions. To receive more detailed information about TA Gs and qualifications, please call Sally Hanft, EPA Region 10 TAG Coordinator, at (206) 553-1207. Site Background Quendall Terminals is located on the south- eastern shore of Lake Washington at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton, Washington. The former creosote manufacturing facility has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other ,-------- 1 Lake IVashington ! Legend -C..rr1nt.Shlliffll• --fC<'!ne,r l.'.l)I Creek Q1.,mn1!1 Conner H~~~~ (Former Barbee MilQ (continued on back page) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, ETPA-081 Seattle, Washington 98101-1128 Qucnda/1 Terminals cj'!_pe1;jz1ndSite .. Renton, Washington June 2007 Site Background continued hazardous chemicals.In 2006, the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) added Quendall Terminals to its National Priorities List of contaminated sites targeted for cleanup. The Quendall Terminals site was used for over 50 years for manufacturing creosote and other coal tar products. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used to store crude oil, waste oil and diesel. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. For More Information, Contact Suzanne Skadowski EPA Community Involvement Coordinator 206-553-6689 skadowski. suzanne@epa.gov Lynda Priddy EPA Project Manager 206-553-1987 priddv.lv[lda@epa.go_y Quendall Terminals website: http://www.epa.gov!r10earth/ Click on Index A-Z, then on Q for Quenda/1 Terminals. @ Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper Pre-Sorted Standard Postage and Fees Paid U.S. EPA Permit No. G-35 Seattle, WA Public access to the Quendall Tenninals site and to the lake from the site is currently prohibited, due to health concerns. If you did not receive this fact sheet at home and would like to be added to EPA s mailing list for the Quendal/ Terminals site, please contact Suzanne Skadowski (sec below). Information about the Quendall Terminals cleanup is also available at the following locations: EPA Region 10 Superfund Records Center 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA Please call 206-553-4494 for an appointment. Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057 Call 425-430-6610 or visit the webpage: http:!!rentonwa.gov/living!default.aspx?id=B42 Jfyou need materials in an alternative format, please contact Suzanne Skadowsh TTY users please call the Federal Relay Service: 800-877-8339 fact Sheet Quendall Terminals Site Proposed for National Priorities List The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add the Quendall Terminals site to the National Priorities List (NPL). Quendall Terminals is located at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. It is the site ofa former creosote manufacturing operation where past releases of coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water, and lake sediments. Listing a site on the NPL notifies the public and other parties that EPA believes the site requires further investigation and possible cleanup actions under Superfund. Sixty-day public comment periods begins September 14 EPA will accept public comments regarding the proposed NPL listing during a 60-day comment period beginning September 14, 2005. See page 3 to find out where you can get more information and how to submit comments. Why is this site being proposed for the NPL? There is extensive contamination of the soil, ground- water, and lake sediments. Primary contaminants include cancer-causing polyaromatic hydrocarbons and benzene. These compounds are found at concentrations well above cleanup levels for industrial and residential sites. Releases of pollution into Lake Washington are of particular concern. The lake is used for a variety of recreational purposes. There are two swimming beaches located within one-half mile of the site. In addition, the southern end of the lake is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook (a federally threatened species) and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington about 2 miles from the site, supports the largest sockcyc run in the contiguous United States. What happens if the site is listed on the NPL? Once a site is listed on the NPL, it becomes eligible for remedial cleanup actions under Superfund. EPA's first step would be to evaluate all of the previous studies conducted atthe site, and then determine if there is sufficient information to select a cleanup alternative. Certain community involvement activities are also required for Superfund sites. This includes conducting community interviews, preparing a community involvement plan, establishing a local information repository near the site, and notifying the public about the availability of technical assistance grants that can be used to hire a technical advisor to help local citizens better understand and participate in the cleanup. Quenda/1 Terminals Sile Site background The Republic Creosoting Company, which later became Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, manufactured creosote at the 23-acre site from 1917 lo 1969. The facility refined and processed coal tar and oil-gas tar residues into creosote and other chemical products. Releases of tars and creosote products to the environment occurred in parts of the site where the transport, production and storage of the products were performed. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendal I Terminals, a joint venture of J .H. Baxter and Company and Altino Properties, Inc. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. In 1993, the Department of Ecology negotiated an Agreed Order with Quendall Terminals to complete a remedial investigation and risk assessment, among other tasks. The remedial investigation was completed in 1997, but the schedule for completing the remaining tasks was delayed when the City of Renton and Port Quendall Company (a Vulcan, [nc. afliliate) expressed interest in purchasing the proper(y for redevelopment. The City of Renton and Port Quendal I Company eventually decided not to buy the property, and the Department of Ecol- ogy resumed negotiations with Quendall Termi- nals in 2004 to complete the risk assessment and other tasks in accordance with the I 993 Agreed Order. These documents were not finalized before Ecology transferred oversight for the cleanup to EPA. All previous work done under the Agreed Order will be considered by EPA in developing steps for future cleanup of the site. September 2005 1 Why did Ecology transfer oversight of the cleanup to EPA? EPA and Ecology agreed that EPA would have more resources available to address cleanup of this complex site. In addition, there continues to be interest in redevel- oping the site for purposes other than industrial. The property is currently zoned to allow for business and residential developments, which would require more stringent cleanup. EPA's regulations under Superfund allow us to consider future uses of the proper(y in developing a cleanup plan for the site. Quendall Terminals is located at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Quenda/1 Terminals Site Where can I find more information? Notice of the proposed NPL listing was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2005. You may review materials suppo1ting the proposed listing during regular business hours at the following locations: EPA Region 10 Records Center 1200 Sixth Avenue, 7th Floor, Seattle, WA Hours: M-F, 8:30am -4:30pm (by appt.) 206-553-4494 Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA Call ahead for hours 425-430-6610 You can also view information on line at: www.epa.gov/superfund!siteslnpl How do I submit comments? Comments on the proposed NPL listing must be submitted to EPA Headquarters at the address listed below. Mail the original and three copies of your comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5305T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention Docket ID# SFUND-2005-0005 [Please note you must use a different address if you send your comments by Express Mail or couria Refer to the Federal Register notice.for more information.} You may also submit yourconunents electronically at http.!!wwwrequlations.qov. September 2005 What happens to my comments? EPA will consider all comments received during the public comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA will publish in the Federal Register if, and when, the site Questions? If you have questions about the NPL listing or comment process, please contact: Denise Baker Region 10 N PL Coordinator 206-553-4303 baker.denise@epa.gov For other questions about the site, please contact: Charles Bert Community Involvement Coordinator 360-753-8073 bert.charles@epa.gov Lynda Priddy Project Manager 206-553-1987 priddv.lynda@epa.gov If you did not receive this fact sheet at home, and would like to be added to EPA's mailing list for the Quenda// Terminals site, please contact EPA at one of the numbers listed above. For people with disabilities, please call Charles Bert aJ 360-753-8073 with .. requests for reasonabJe accommodation. TTY users, please call 800-877-8339. ff EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------------------------ 1200 Sixth Avenue, ETPA-081 Seattle, Washington 981 01-1128 Quenda/1 Terminals Site Proposed for Superfund National Priorities List Renton, Washington September 2005 &EPA <> Working with you for a better environment <> ~---------------------·---~--- ATTACHMENT H QUENDALL TERMINALS RENTON; KING COUNTY, WASHI~GTON EPA FACILITY ID: W.t\0980639215 SEPTE~ER ::30, 2'006 . November 30, 2006 ;;-; 1._·,;:-,1i 11.,i ,'q ! ;,U!i:,\11 h1 s1ili1 fi•l~(·d indh·idu: ,ii,--, :)Jfd (:, !1:ti,:>•. l\-;Vd !.lH '-''.1.,.'h hs;[uh ;{',. t!1t: (H.iiW~'. U!d c\.kil! Ff ,.;;Hl:1.1111 i"t,1i_1,'<1L j Ilic,.::,; b<cn:.'.f 1,f <Jf bt,;n;n; vxpi)<,Uf,} ( in,__·!i1,Jm1; fl nund or :;;11rf;h_:c t\\th1 r ( Hi~c1Hi I IHili.'.n ,;ir;.; n,h>•i, 'l i:::i, uwJ 11 Knl ,:hnin -C,'ii\Ufri lilJ')i,. rn ), ;h: .,) r.c iiild poh.:JH wt H./h;.'J~pl:ibiiily \;f 1 ht:-difl\.lHUfli!:, , ... !;j.[,1 dr: ;:.-f lhc ill' ,:x:p\>~·kd lH.nnnn ,'xpn"i-rH,/ L,:-..i•1,;: i.n ihi' ~hi11i-h:nn mld 1<'f!n l]'.;-;;/1!1 idn11.ificd h21atdnu:.,;; ;q;h.Slcifh\'.lJ ~tnd wiy :uailabk rc.:.:.nnmi:nrkd t:Apns~m~ m '.n!t:n-.n1·,: ti111ih f 1f :;udi fu1;,-;u-..i1>1.!,"' '>Hh~tau..:\Its, ;tnd lh,.: cnmpari:.on of m,;rhi,foy rrnd m-ona.Hly data trn: dni 11F.1) l'-1.' ;-1vx'>,:ii~te·:d w\ih !he ,'-h;~G,cd !,:v.i:L'\ n{ c·:ql-fis.urc lln: A<lmin}:,.Hnt11f of /\°TSfJR ~hall w-.. ¢ HpprnpJ !~1t d<H;,1. t•~.k r:,,o;1;,-;n:.;nh, 1 j-:.L .,,,;-;h1;HJ;.,;1-.. ,nd ·;:t1._.tdf;.;:, it\·aibhle !h:Hn th,,c /\dmini,.,lrnliw lJf EPA" d;iw ;\~khliilf\al puhil,: h,,;,d\h .a,,,,,_-,m}('ilh may ht ,:r;rH:lur.:1.cd fnr i!ii:i ~it~ i,~, HJPJ( infuwmtiou f-,1~;.:,Jl;\f:-;,, ,w~11i1th!e ln Al'SDH l h<.;' ,,:lllv.lv ,iiHh ~nid tTt.:,m1m<ndc1!.k}n~ prt'::.tHilL'd in :l!i'.\ pcibh· h1:11!1h n~s,;,,:-.smni1111rt th: r"C"'.'..Uh:.. ni ;.inn!y1,i:.;, ;,n\1 Jfv >i·.; 11, he cH ~d ,;.r q:.rn[UI ii. ,,ilia ,:vidl!iJtinns t!r pubfh: )11:nhh ak.:1;;;;;1rn:ms l \,:-ni" u c\i.k i"ii\Oh:.:, h f:..ir idcmifi,;:>Hioo nr1ly ;,rnJ doei'\ !l()f co-o.stiHHC t:'JHJnr:-;cmem h)'' !he Public f-k:dth 1)cr'.'L\: (\f U1e.· U.S . .l.JqxuHnern of Health and Hum.an Services j; I f f 1. i ' l)u,,11dall lenninab IN[TlAL RltLEASE PllllLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUENDALL TERMINALS RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON EPA FAClL!TY JD: WAD9&0639215 Prepared by: Washington State Department Health Under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances und Disease Registry Initial Rde,;se This in/imna!io11 i., dislributed solely for !he purpose of pre-disseminmion public commenl under applicable information quality guidelines. it has not been formally disseminated by the Agency for foxic Subslances and Disease Re1;is11y. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any agency detamination. or policy QucndalJ renninnls T111tlal i:teleZJsc Draft Table of Contents Summary and Statement of Issues .......................................................................................... I Background ................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Site Description ................................................................................................................. 2 8. Site Operations and History ............................................................................................ 2 C. Regulatory History and Activities ................................................................................. 3 D. Land Use and Natural Resources Information ............................................................ 3 E. Demographic Information ................................................................................................ 4 F. Site Visit ............................................................................................................................. 4 Environmental Contamination .................................................................................................... 5 A. On-Site Contamination .................................................................................................... 5 8. Off-Site Contamination .................................................................................................... 5 Pathways Analysis/ Public Health Implications ...................................................................... 5 A. Completed Exposure Pathways ..................................................................................... 6 B. Potential Exposure Pathways ......................................................................................... 6 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 9 A. Contaminants of Concern ............................................................................................... 9 Chemical Specific Information .................................................................................................... 9 Community Health Concerns ..................................................................................................... 9 Children's Health Concerns ...................................................................................................... I 0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. Io Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 1 o Public Health Action Plan ......................................................................................................... 10 Author ........................................................................................................................................... 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 12 Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 15 ()ucndall I errrnnals Initial Release llraft ------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Tables Table 1 -POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS··-· .......................... __ ........... -.................... 8 ii Qucndall Terminals Initial Release Draft ··--·---~--~--·-------------- List of Figures Figure 1. Demographic Statistics Within One Mile of the Site* -Renton, King County, Washington ................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2. Quendall Terminals Site Map -Renton, King County, Washington .................. 14 Ill Quendall Terminals Initial Release Draft Surmna1·y and Statement of Issues The Vhshine;ton State Depaitment of Health (DOH) has prepared this health assessment at the request oflhc U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of this heallh assessment is lo evaluate the potential health hazard posed by contaminants in soil, lake sediment and groundwater sampling data at Quendall Terminals in King County, Renton, Washington. DOH prepares health assessments under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for T(lxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Currently 110 completed human exposure pathways have been identified for the site. The envimnment,d da1a from previous environrnentul investigations needs to he organized for completeness as the data varies significantly and there is limited laboratory quality assurance/quality control information available for the data. Quendall Terminals poses au indetenninate public health hazard. The existing data need to be organized to document human exposure. Currently there is potential for human exposure to occur at the site. EPA has oversight for the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) which will ftU'lher characterize the nature and extent of contamination at Quendall Terminals. As environmental data become available, EPA should provide the data to DOH for evaluatioa of human he,d th effects . .. . ...... ... ·--··--·-···-···-·-· -·· -···· -·------------- 1 Querida/IT erminals Initial P.clease Draft Backgrou ml The Washington Slate Depanment of l·foalth (DOH) prepared this public health assessment under a cooperative agreement \,~th the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This health a5Sessment is mandated by the Comm:,eJiensive Environmental Response. Compensation, imd Li.ibilily Act (CERCLAl of 1980. On September 14, 2005, EPA proposed to place Quendall Tenninals on the National Priorities List (NPL) in accordance with Section I 05 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. [2] The NPL is EPA's list of theNation's most contaminated haz,mlnus waste sites, also known as S.unerfund sites. ATSDR is reqllited to conduct a public health assessment for all ha7.ar<lous waste sites proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities I.ht On April 19, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially listed the Quendall Terminals site on the NPL. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether tl1e site poses a public health threat as well as make recommendations and take appropriate act.ions based on that determination. While a risk assessment conducted under EPA's Remedial Investigation/Peasibilitv Study (RliFS) proces:; is used to suppmt the sel.ection of remedial measures at a site, the Public Health Assessment (PHA) is provides the community with information on the site-specific public health implications. It ickntifies populations where furlher health actions or studies are needed. [JJ Therefore, different assumptions and methods may be used that reflect the different purposes for risk assessments and public health assessments. A. Site Description Quen(fall Teiminals is "25-acrc property located on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton, King County, Washington. The Barbee Mill property and May Creek border the site to the south. The former J.H. Baxter property (Port Qucndall now owns) borders the site to the north. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of~way borders to the cast, and about 4.000 feet of Lake Washington shoreline borders to the west. l\fay Crc,:k nows mward tbe southern end of the site along the Barbee Mill prope1iy. The site is relatively flat today due Lo filling and grading. The entire site has lill ranging from one foot to as rnttch n;: I 'l feet in places I I. 4]. The fill consist of silt. sand, gravel, wood, brick and glass. B. Site Operations and History The site w,,s pmi of a homestead patented lo Jeremiah Sullivan in 1874 and was deeded to James Coleman in 18761.1, 21. May Creek originally flowed through the middle of the si1e. The upland areu of the site was oee,upied by a shingle mill prior lo l 916. The site was later deeded to Pe1er ltcilly in l 9 l 6. The lowering or Lake Washington in 1916 exposed more nf the May Cn:ek delta thus increasing the parcel size [I, 3]. The site operated as a conl tar refining plant from 1916 to 1969 by Republic Crcosole Company. The name lalcr changed to Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, which manufacturing creosote ,md other tar products, Tar was purchased from Seattle Clas Company on Lake Union and 2 I I I ; t, ! ' I t I QuendalJ Terrnir:als Inltial Release Draft ----, --·---·-- shipped via rail or barged on Lake Washington to the site. The tar was pumped through transfor lines, which rnn along two docks (T-dock and the southern pier dock) to two, 2-million gallon storage tanb in the tank farm area. ln 1971, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals, and the site has been used periodically tor fuel storage and as a. log sorting yarrl. Quenrlall Terminals is a joint venture former! by J.H. Baxter and Alli no Propc,1ies (owners of Barbee Mill). Currently, the northeast part of the site is used for log sorting and storage, while the southwest part is used for staging and storage for waterfront barge operations. Al! of the buildings except for the of/ice building have been removed from the site. A series of settling ponds are located along the western edge for st01m water management. C. Regula.tory History and Activities ln lhe l 970s the Washington State Depaitmcnt of Ecology and Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) learned of possible contamination at the site [5]. Several investigations have been carrieJ out on the site, starting in 1971 with the sale of the property [I, 4}. ln 1984, the site was inspected and rm1ked by Ecology. The site was tl1en proposed for inclusion on the EPA's National Priorities List (NPL), thereby making El' A the lead for site activities. In t 986, the site was removed from tbe proposed NPL sites. Since then Ecology has been providing oversight for the cleanup under the state's Model Toxics Control Acl (MTCA). In the cflrly 1990s, Ecology conducted studies on offshore sediments al the site [6, 7, 8). In 1993, Ecology negotiated ,m Agreed Order with Quendall Terminals [2J. As part of the Agreed Order, Quendall Terminals completed a remedial investigation[!]. In 1998, the Agreed Order was amended when the City of Renton and Vukan Inc., expressed interest in purchasing the site. In 1999, the City of Renton submitted a draft Remedial Investigation and Focus Feasibility Study to Ecology [4]. However, the City of Renton and Vulcan Inc. declined the purchase and redevelopment option for the site. Ecology continued negotiations with Quendall Tenninals to complete !he Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study, in accordance with !he 198) Agreed Order. In late 2003, Ecology requested EPA to evaluate the site using the Ha7..ard Ranking System (HRS). In bite Jamwry 2005, Ecology requested that EPA take the lead for overse-eing cleanup al the site. !n September 2005, !lie site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL list. In April 2006, the site wns added as an NPL site. Currently, EPA and Qucndall Terminals are in negotiations. D. Lm1d Use and Natural Resources .Information Quendall Terminals was originally wncd for industrial use. In tJie late 1990s, the City of Renton later zoned this property and the surrounding properties as "Commercial Ofticc Rcs.idcntial." Qucndall Terminals is allowed lo continue using the property as it is used; however, they may not change or expand the existing operatim1. The site is located on the southeastern shore or Lake Washington, east of Seattle, Washington. Tile lake i.,: approximately 28 krn long and 65 m deep (87.6 km 2) [9]. It is used for a variety of rccrcalional. commercial, and industrial purposes. There arc two swimming beaches located 3 Qucmlall Terminals Initial Release Ocaft within a half mile o C the site. Lake Washington is an impomml sport am! tribal fishery resource with several varieties of native and introduced fish species in the Lake Washington basin [9]. The lake is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Cbinnok (a federally threatened sp,,cics) and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River and May Creek enter Lake Washington within 2 miles ofQucndall Terminals. The Cedar River supports the largest sockcye run in the contigum1s United States. The \\iash.ington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and three Pugel So!lnd ludiau tribes (Mucklc,hoot, Suquamish, and TLLlalip tribes) cooperatively managed Lake Washington soekeye salmon [l()]. The annual spawning goal for Lake Washington is 350,000 sockeye salmon, When the run exceed this goal, the surplus fish are available for harvest by sport and Tribal fisheries [ I ilj. As of August 4, 2006, tbe current couut for sockcye relum is about 466,000 fish. E' Demographic lnforn1atiou According to the 2000 census, King County had a population of 1,737,034 (U.S. Census Bureau l 990; 2000). Similarly, the 2000 census shows the population of Renton is approximately 50,052. Approximately 5,005 persons lived within a 1-mile radius of the site. Tbe majority of people are white (-85%), bul about 10% of the population in the area are comprised of Asian and Pacific !slanders (A['ls). Studies have shown that Al'ls consume more fish than Caucasians, Tl1ercforc, potential implications fur fisb consumptiorr exist from contaminated fish in the area. Figure 1 presents additional demographic infomrntion for residents within a !-mile radius of Quendall Terminals site. F. Site Visit On April 14, 2006, a site visit was conducted by DOH and EPA staff, and Robert Cugini of Qucndall Tcnninals. [he follnwing observations were made during the physical inspection of the site: • The site is very easy lo access from the road on the eastern side or from the lake via boat. • 1 lkgal dumping of household products occurs at this site. • A series of settling ponds are located on the northwestern of the site presumably to control stormwater runoff. • The log sorting operation bas disturbed and mixed surface and sub-surface soil in the north central und eastern prmions of the site. • nw soulhwcsl corner oi' the site is used for loading. ofl~loading barges, and storage of poles und other equipment 4 Quc11dall Terminals Initial Release Draft Euvironmental Contamination A. On-Site Contamirrntion Envirorunental investigations of the Quendull Terminals site have identified polycyclic aromatic l1ydrocarbo11s (PAI-ls), naphthalene, benzene, toluene, ethylbemene, nnd xylene (RTEX) and dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAP L) associated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other tar distillates contamination in subsurface soils, groundwater, and freshwater sediments. Potential contamination sources include historical chemical storage tanks areas, spill areas and loading areas. Much of the existing contaminant data arc from 1980s and 1990s, and are poorly organized. EPA has questioned the quality of the data. Recently, EPA has required Quendall Terminals to validate all the data and compile it in one place electronically. Soils Altlmugh a number of environmental investigations have been conducted at the Quendall Terminals site, the data are mainly from depth and have sho'h-11 soil contamination. Very few surface samples arc evident. Groundwater Several groundwater monitoring wells were installed on-site during previous investigations conducted. Naphthalene, PAIis, BTEX and DNAPL have been detected in on-site monitoring wcl.ls. I:l. Off,Site Contamination Surrounding propc11y has been, and is currently being, evaluated for contamination as part of the rcdcvcl optncnt prn,icct in lhc area. The former J .I l. Baxter properly that borders the Quendall Terminals lo the north has undergone environmental clemu1p and is now the future site of the Seallk Scalmwks foo1ba!l tcam headquarters. The sawmill on I.he Barbee Mill property that borders lhc site lo the south has been dismantled and the site is slated for redevelopment. Pathways Analysis/Public Health Implications In order to determine if exposure to contaminants from the Quendall Terminals site has occurred, exposure pnthways arc evaluated in this section. Completed exposure pathways contain the five listed clements below and indicak that exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currently occurring, or may occttr in the fillure. /\n exposure pathway contains the following clements: • ;\ source or contamination. • Transport of contamination through an environmental medium (soil, water, air). • A point at which humans may be exposed. 5 Quencll-lll rcrr1;Hwls lniticil /h:lcase Draft ----·-·------ • A route nf human exposure (ingestion. inhala(ion, or dermal contact). • A receptor population (on-site workers or residents)_ Potential exposure pathways indicate that contaminant exposure may have occurred in the past, could presently he occu1Ting, or could possibly occur in the future. However, an exposure pDlhway is removed from consideration if one of the live clements is rnissing and will never be present. A. Completed Exposure Pathways Presently, no completed human exposure pathways have been identified for the site. However, 1he environmental data from previous environmental investigations needs lo be organized for completeness as the data varies significantly and there is limited laboratory quality :issurnnceiquality co,1trol information available for tl1c data, B. Potential l<::q,osure Pathways Several pO!ential human exposure pathways exist at lhe site from contaminants present in surface soil, subsurface soil. groundwater, fish, and sediments. Potential, human exposure pathways that may have occurred in the past, are cun-ently occurring, or could occur in the future at the site are !isled in Table L S111/i11:c Soil Pathway Potential routes of exposure are ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of wind"bom dust by on-site workers or remedial workers from contaminated surface wil. The extent ofStlrface soil contamination is presently unknown. Characterization of surface soils (0 -3 inches in dep1h) at the site is necessary to assess the public health implications of the surface soil pathway. This represents a data gap. S11bs11(/lt(:e S'oi/ Pmhway Polenlial romcs of exposure are ingestion, d,'rmal contact and inhalation ofwind-bom dust by on-sire workers or remedial workers from contaminated subsurface soil. During excavation or remediation activities, soil disturbing activi1ies may lead to contaminated subsurface soil being exposed. Subsurface soil investigations have been conducted to determine the extent of contamination on"site. However, since EPA took over the management ofthis site, they r\,<)HCstcd Qucndall Terminals validate all the data and compile it in one place electronically. Grm111dl!'i1/cr Pathway Potential routes or exposure to contaminated groundwater are ingestion, inhalation, and dermal rnntacl. The number of wells located within a I-mile radius of Quendall Terminals that could be used us a S'<.HH'CC of drinking W'dlcr or for occupalional purposes is presently ururnnwn_ It is necessary w determine the cxislcnce of wells to understand the public health implications of the groundwater palhway. 6 Quencla:I Termin,1ls Initial Release Draft ------·---------------------~ Surf,,ce Water Pathway Due to the proximity of Lake Washington to the site, smface waler runoff into the lake presents a potential for contamination. Potential routes of exposure lo contaminated surface water include acci(fonlal ingestion, and dermal contact while swimming in Lake Washington, Sediments PwhwC/y Surface water runoff is a primary transportrnechanism for contaminated soils into surface water and sediments. Potential routes of exposttre from contaminated sediments may include dermal contact by remedial workers during site cleanup activities and recreational beach users. Fish Ingestion J>C/thway 1\ potential route of exposnre from contaminated fish is i11gestion by recreational anglers, subsistent and tribal fisher. Past, current, and future exposure from ingestion of contaminated fish harvested from Lake Washington is possible. An existing fish advisory is in place for Lake Washington northern pikcminnow, yellow perch, cutthroat trout, largemouth bass, and smallrnouth bass due to elevated mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels [9]. 7 _.L_ __ ----·-----······················· ....... . • QuendaH Termmais lnftfar Release Dr~:ft Pathway Name I I Source Surface Soils I Treated wood transfer areas. Subsurface Soils chemical spills and leaks areas Sediments chemical spills . and transfer areas Groundwater chemical spills, storage and transfer areas Surra.cc Water chemical spills and transfer areas Fish chemical spills and transfer areas ATSDR Allf~~;c'a:t~J.'1::0- JIJ<;~~U'l'.Ff Table l -POTENTIAL EXPOSURE P ATHWA VS Environmental Pathwai· Elements I Time i Environmental Point of I Route of I .Exposed I I Media Exposure Exposure I Population I i Surface Soils On-site soil I Ingestion I On-site & Past ! Inhalation Remedial Presem I Denna! Contact Workers Future Subsurface Historic Process Ingestion Remedial Futw·e Soils and Storage Inhalation Workers Areas Denna! Contact ' Sediment Nearby Public I Ingestion Recreational Past Beaches & site I Dermal Contact I Users& Present shoreline Remedial Future I Workers Groundwater Historic Process I Dermal Contact Industrial Past and Storage J Ingestion Users Present Areas Inhalation Future Surface Water Lake l I . i ngesnon Recreational Past Washington I Dermal Contact Users Present i Future I Fish Tissue Lake I Ingestion Recreational Pas1 Washington I & Subsistence Present User$ Future e w• -"""'"',-''"'.'"''·'.~''""'1!"".'!'-'U'·'~iiiY, ,"i ·,::,<,o/:,<'WJ0"' · f l 1 q I l I Quendall Temiinals InitL::d Release Draft Discussion A. Contaminants of Concern Past soil sampling revealed BTEX PAHs etc. at various depths as well as DNAPL. Very few samples were taken from the surface. The data is currently not well organized. Many samples are old and validity is unknown. These issues render available environmental sampling results Ltnsuitable for determining contaminants of concern and for evaluating human exposures. Since El' A took over the management of this site, they requested Quendall Terminals validate all the data and compile it in one place elcetronicaily. Consequently, contaminants of concern will, hopefully, be addressed in the public release dral1 of this health assessment. Chemical Specific Information A. Toxicological Evi1hrntion Presently complct.ed human exposure pathways have not been identified at the site. The environmental data from previous environmental investigations needs to be organized for completeness as the data varies significantly and there is limited laboratory quality assurnnce!quality em1trol information available for the data. Since EPA took over the managemcn1 of this site, they requested Quendall Tet1J1inals validate all the data and compile it in one place electronically. Consequently, the toxicological evaluation will be addressed in ihe public release drall of this health assessment. B. Henlth Outcome Data Evaluation Currently no health outcome data have been evaluated for areas adjacent to the Quendnll Terminals si!e. There are no known completed human exposure pathways or community health concerns documented alleging health effects from exposure to contaminants present at th.is site. Community Health Concerns DOH normally identifies community health concerns through meetings or c01Tespondc11ce with community members, federal, slate and local officials. Some of this information is gathered from silc persormcl and review of site documents. including record of decisions (RODs) and Community Relations Plans. DOH is planning to meet with representatives of the Muckleshoot, Suquamish. and Tulalip tribes tu discuss tribal concerns about current and or fo.ture use of Lake Washington as a source for harvesting fish. DOH will compile any concerns that the community may have rcgm-ding site-related contamination associated with Quendall Terminal and Lake Washington in future releases of this public health assessment. 9 Qur:nd,:11! Tcrrnin;:il:, Initial Rclr:ase Draft Children's Health Concerns The unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special attention in communities that have contmninmion of their water, food, soil, or air. The potential for exposure artd subsequent adverse health effects often increases for younger children compared. with older children or adull~. ATS DR and DOH recognize that children are susceptible to dcvck,pmental toxicity that can occur at levels much lower than those causing other types of toxicity. Conclusions An indeterminate public health hazard exists for Quendall Tenninals. Existing data are not suf!icient for evaluating human exposure. A potential for human exposure exists at the site, but existing data arc not sufficient for evaluating potential exposures. Recommendations 1, Qucndall Tern1ina!s validate all the environmental data and compile it in one place eleetronically. 2. Further characterize the extent of surface soil contamination within Quendall Terminals. J_ Sample and analyze resident fish for site related contamination. 4. ldentify drinking water wells within one mile of the site. Public Health Action Plan The Public Health Action Plan (PBAP) for Quendal I Tcm1inals ideutifies actions to be taken by DO[T and other parties subsequent to the completion of this preliminary public health assessment. The purpose ol'111c !'HAP is to ensure that this public health assessment not only identifies public health hazards, but provides a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent adverse hunrnn health effects resulting from exposure lo hazardous substances in the environment. I. EPA has oversight for the Rl/FS, which will further characterize the nature and extent of contamination at Quendall Tcm1i11als. As ctwironmental data becomes available, EPA will provide the data to DOH for evaluation of human health effects. L EPA is presently planning additional sampling as part of the on-going Remedial lnvcsligalion and Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) for Quendall Tenninals that should address these data gaps. 3. EPA is presently plannin.g fish sampling as part of the on-going R[/FS for Quendall Terminals that should addres~ this tlata gap. · 10 l 1 I I Qiiendall Terminals Initial Release Draft Author Lenford O'Garro Washington State Department of Health Office of Environmental Health Assessments Site Assessment Section Designated Reviewer Wayne Clifford, Manager Site Assessment Section Office of Environmental Heallh Assessments Washington State Department of Health ATSDR Technical Project Officer Robert Knowles, Commander Cooperative Agreement Program Evaluation Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 11 --------------------~ Quendilll Terminals Initial Release Draft References I. Final Rcrnc"'1ial Investigation, Quendall Terminals Uplands, Renton, Washington, Volume I and JI: HrutCrowser, April 10, 1997. 2. State of Washington Department of Ecology, August 27, 1993, Agreed Order No. DE92TC-N335, In tbc Matter of Remedial Action by Quendall Terminals. 3. United Stutes Environmental Protection Agency. Hazard Rru1king System Documentation Rei:ord, Quendall Terminals, August 15, 2005. 4. Drall Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study for the Quendall Terminals Properly, Prepared by Exponent for the City of Renton, November !999. 5. Quendall Terminal (UDJ/.2 X-3) -NOAA's Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reports; Washington. http;// archive. orr .noaa. gov /cpr/wastesitcs/PD Fs/1985/0uendal! Terminal. pdf 6. Effects of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbom (PAI-Is) in sediments from Lake Washington on freshwater bioassay organisms and benthie macroinvertebrates, Pttblication No. 92-cOl: Washington State Department of Ecology: Olympia, Washington, June 1992. 7. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quenda!l Tenninals/J.H. Baxter S.ite, Publication No. 9 l-e39; Washington Stale Depat1ment of Ecology: Olympia, Washington, May 1991. 8. Results of Sediments Sampling in the J.H. Baxter cove, Lake Washington -Jtme 1991 Publication No. 92-cSO: W,1shington State Department of Ecology: Olympia, Washington, May 20, l 992. 9. Final Report, Evaluation of Contaminants in Fish from Lake Washington King County, Washington. Washington State Department of Health: September 2004. IO. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (\VDFW), Lake \Vasbington Snckcyc. lill!i://wdfw. wa.gov/fish/sockeyellkwashintro.btm l l. US Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessmenl (Review Draft). NCEA-F-0644 July 1999. Available at internet: http://www.epa.gov/NCE.,Yraf/eancer.htm. 12. ATS DR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. A TSDR Fact Sheet: Cancer. Updated August 30, 2002. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services. A vai I able al inLernct:Jlllir/ /w1yw.atsdr.cdc.gov/COM/cancer-ls.html. 12 I l f i Quendall Term,nals initial Re!ease Dra~t Figure l. Den:c,grnphic Stntistics Within One Mile of the Site* -Rent0n, King County, \Vashington. "Calculated using the arc.1 proponion techniqul?. Soun:e: 2000 U.S. CENSUS ~;:~Pop::ation -·. ____ -~=-J:i;~/ ·:s1ac1< : 7~ I !An1·er_1can,.i"ri'ciiao.···e;ii1mo:Aieut··----·-"· l · -: 2ri' 1 r~::.~ ;.:c,no ,,,.noe, _ : 5~~ I ;Hispanic Origin ; 143 I rchi!dren· AQed''fta;.;1rYou·;;ge;.· --· r416 ! >~duits Ag~d es ano Older ---... _, __ \534 I Fr::~·::.:g::.:~;44:·=~-----· ~I )To1t1l Aged _unaer 18 · _ · ;t10a·1 J~~~l H~~g Units ,, _____ i2~ --------·-----·----------------- 13 I ! Quendall Terminals Initial Release Draft Figure 2. Quenclnll Te1111inals Site Map -Renton, King County, Washington. 14 h"1Il..filli! ~/1\11{/lf, L.(,illili:w -"'= Gvw1;y Rt;;¥:! -11' fte<'I/-N{lj lm;,11 /?1,.-1:.i ,:;mJ fb,rd 'Jl(,(>li,lb~ t•:i1,:w\(h\l'l',\l;;W./ f{;l;1;l 81\wH (!rmnr\;,!o r: . .1 fl<:,c~ 1f!16 c:·1 Wh,ni 1J2-i:l tH•mms(Hl) Rto:·11wrn\M c1,1111c:fi~.,, f'~;"0 l! s,.1,r1,R< 111:;!.-"(IJ ,:_:, • ,;M•M f.11JHl1•1'tl S1r.11 i,1'•Hl MM"]' hr> ---. 0, htr :M~ r,i.,111 ,,,.. --- ·. Qucndall Terminf:lls Initi-a! Release Draft I t Agem~y for Toxic Suhstnnc.cs and Disease Registry (ATSDR} A<tuifor Canl":cr Risk .Evuluntlnn Guide (CREG) C11 nccr Slope 1-'aetor Carcinogen Cumparisnu 'Value Contuminant Dermal Cout:-u.'.t Dose (for L'hemicn1s that arc not radioact"ive) E.oviroumcnrn1 Media t::n1lu;1tion Guitk (EMEC) Glossary The principal federal public hculth agency involved witll hazardol!s waste issues, responsible for preventing <>r reducing the hannful effects of exposure to hWlrdoui substances 011 human health and quality of life. ATS DR is part of the lJ .S. Departrnent of Health and Human Services. An underground formation composed of materials such as sand, soil, or gravel that can store and/or supply groundwater to wells and springs. 111c concentration of a chemical in air~ soil or \Yater that is expected to cause no more than one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a lifetime. 111c CREG is a compariso_n value used to select contu.rninants·of potemial hcaltl1 concem and is based on the cancer slope fart or (CSF). l i I I I ·-i A number assigned to a cancer causing chemical that is used to estimate its ability to cuu.se cancer in humans. i Any substance that causes cancer. CaicUlated COncefltration ofa subSia:nce In aif, water~ fuod~ OiSi>ii that.is· unlikely to cause hal'mful (adverse) health effects in cxpo.,ed people. The CV is used (1.S a screening. level during the pub He health assessment I ' proce1s. Substances found in muo,mts greater than thcirCVs might be i selected for.further evaluation inthe public health assessment.ecoces,. ·----'1 A substance that is either present in an environment where it does not I belong or is present at levels that might cause harmful (adverse) health 1 j_c!f,c_!s. -----·-. -----··-, ··-······ . --1 Contact with (rouching) the skin {sec route of exposure), I The am0::~~{~:-~:b,ta11c:,: whi:-1, -a ~-en-,o-n -;~ expo5e<l over some time period. Dose fs a measurement of exposure. Dose is often expressed as J milligrn111 (amount) per kilogram (a measure of body weigl1t) per day (a !I measure of time-) when people eat or drink contaminated water> foodi or soil. In general, rhe greater the dose, the greater the likelihocd of an effect. II An "exposure dose" is how much of a substance is encountered in the cnvirmunc-nt. An ~'absorbed dose'i is the amount of a .substu.nce that actually got i11to the body through the cyt-s, skin, stomach, intestines. or ... lun:J.S. . ··--······ . ... -······ ! A co11ccn1ratio11 in air, soil, or water below which adverse non-cunccr ··1, health effects are 1101 expected to <>CCur. The EMEG ts a comparison value used to sdcct conimnin,mts of potential health concern and is based l)n ATS1?f30:§r11i11imtd ris_k/evef (MIJ,~L . -------·· ·-----··-------· 15 j -_I Q11cndaJI Terminals Initial Release Draft I I. ! Eovii·onm-cnta1 Pro(t•ctiou Age11cy (IWA) Exposutc Groundwater J,fazanlous substance lngesfitm Ingestion rnte Inhalation Inorganic Lowest Observed Advet-se Effect Level (LOAEL) Mt1:ximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Nfodia ------------- ..... ! I I ··············-·· ----- United Stat"'' linvirnnmental Protection Agency, Contact wi1h a substance by swallowing~ breathing, or touching the: skin or eyes. Exposure may be short-term [acute cxpos111"cj, of intcm,edintc duration, orl!?)!g•tetm [chronkex_nosurej .. -------------···········--·-· Water beneath Uie earUi's surface in the spaces between soil particles and between rock surfaces Tc-om pare with sutfoce \Yater]. Any material that poses a threat t<> public health andlorthc environment. 'l'ypical hazardous substances are materials that .are toxic.. cormsive, ignitable, explosive, or chemicnliy_ reactive. The act or swallowh1g something through eating, drinking, or mouthing objecls. A hazardous subsumee can onterthe body d1is way [see route of exposure] . ·nw amount ofan environmental medium that could be ingested typically on a daily basis. Units for IR are usually liter/day for watel', and mg/day for soiL .... .J The act of breathing. A ha2ardo1c~ substance can enter the body Utis way [see route of CX1]0SU1-.J. Compouuds. composed ufmineral materials~ inc!udfrig elemenhll salts and metals such as iron, aluminum. mercury. and zinc. The lowest tested dose ofa substance thm has been reported to cause hannful (adverse) he:ihh effects. in people {1r animals. A drinking water regulation established by Ille fodernl Safe Drinking Water Act. rt is the maximum pem1issiblc concentration ofa contaminant in water that is delivered to the free flowing outlet of the ultimate user ora public water system. MC Ls are enforceable standards. Soil, water, air, plant's, aninrnl$:, 01· any other part of the environment that c.:an t:ontain contaminants. ··---------------------- 16 I Quendall Terminals fnitia! Refer15e Dra~ Mirtim.11 Risk Level (MRL) Model Toxics Control Act {MTCA) No apparent public heal.th hazard No Observed Advet·se , Effect Level (NOAEL) 1 1.· ·····-::.:11 Reference Oose (Rill) ' \· Organic P}il'"ts per billion {ppb)/Parts pci" milliun (ppm) Plume Jlcfcrence Oosc Media Evaluation GuiUe (RMF.G) Roule of cxpmam.: ------·---·· An ATS DR ~~timat:~~f daily ;uman e~;.~osure to a hazard:·us subs;m~~n a~-·-~ .. , or below which that substance is unlikely to pose a measurable risk of ham1ful (adversc)1 noncancerous efft."tts. MRLs are calculated for a route of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, internte<llate, or chronic). MRLs should not be used as predictors of ham1fol (adverse) healih etTccls [see rcfctence dose]. The haza:rd(nts waste cleanup faw for \Vus.l,ington State. ... I I I A category used in ATSDR's public health assessments for sites where human exposure to c-0ntaminatcd mcdin might be occurring; might. have occurred in the past, or might occur to the future, but wl1ere the exposure is not expected to cause any hannfut health effects. The highcs:L tested dose of.a substance that has been repm1ed to hf1vc no harntl'l!l (adve1se) health etTects on people or animals. An amount of chemical ingested into the body (i.e., dose) below which health effects arc not expected. RfDs are published by EPA. Compounds <.::Qmposed of carbon, including materials such as solvents, 01/s, and pesticides that are Ml easily dis.solved in water. Unils commonly u.s.ed to express low concentrations of contaminant,;. 'for example, l ounce of trichlorot..'1.hyfone (TCE) in 1 miliion ounces of water is I ppm. I ounceofTCE i11 I billion ounces ofwnter isl ppb. lfone drop orTCE is mixed in a competition size swimming pool, tho water will contain about I ppb ofTCE. A volume of a substance that moves from its SO\Jtce to places farther away from the source. Plumes can be described by the volume of air or water they uccupy and the dlfectfon they move, for example, a plume can bi.! a column of smoke from a chimney or a sub!ltance moving with groundwater, A <:onccntration in air, soil. or water below which adverse non-cancer health effects are not expected to occur. The RMEG is a comparismr w1lue used to select Cf\ntmninants of potential health concern and is based on EPA ·s ornl rcforence dose (RfD). The way people come tnto contact with a hazardous substance. llm:-e rout rs or exposure are brealhing [inhalation!, eatlng or drinking. lingcsthml, or contact with the skin [dermal contac!J. 17 Surface Water Vohttile orgauk co,opoimd (VO() Water on tho surface of the car1h 1 such as in lakts, rivers, s1rcarns 1 ponds, and springs [compare with groundwater]. Oi-ganic compounds that evaporate readily into rile air. VOCs include subshmces such m: bcnzenc1 toluene, methylene chloride. and methyl <.:hlorofonn. 18 ----···--·--··-------~-------!- " Quenclall Terminals Initial Release Dra~ Certification This Quendall Terminals Health Assessment was prepared by the Washington State Department of Health under a cooperative agreemet\t with the Agency for Toxic Substances. and DiseaS<l Registry (ATS DR). It is in aceordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the time the health assessment was begt1n. Editorial review was completed by the Cooperative Agreement partner. The Di.vision of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health assessment and concurs with the findings. 19 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 JO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A B C D E F G H I I K L Index of Attachments King County Salmon Watcher Program, Afay Creek Shade Crusade: Why City Trees Are Good Medicine Infiltration Through Compacted Urban Soils and Effects on Biofzltration Design 2009 Geotechnical Report 1991 Geotechnical Engineering Study Washington Dep't of Ecology, Quendall Terminals Information U.S. EPA Environmental Fact Sheet ATSDR, Public Health Assessment for Quendall Terminals Excerpts from 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Excerpts from the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, App. C Teclmical Information Report Photograph of chemical seep NOTICE OF APPEAL -25 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061621·8868 Fax; (206) 621-0512 ATTACHMENT A tQ King County Salmon Watcher Program May Creek Page I of 4 On this page you will find illustrations of salmonid species that you may see in your stream. These drawings will be proportional to one another to aid in identification. Also, whenever possible, we will include hints to identifying fish in your specific stream and additional photos if we have them. The name of each species is also a link to additional information about identifying that particular species. 1. Fish that have been reported by Salmon Watcher volunteers in this stream and that you are most likely to see here: Sockeye Salmon • length 20- 28 inches • NO spots • brilliant to dark red bodies • pale to olive green heads • spawn August through December • more sockeye info/images 2. Fish that have been seen in your stream by Salmon Watchers, but have not been seen commonly: Chinook Salmon • length 24- 60 inches • blotches http ;//www.kingcounty.gov/environment/ animalsAnc!Plants/salmon-and-trnnt/sa lmnn-w~tr 7 /1 r.nooo Page 2 of4 on back and dorsal fin • spots cover entire tail • black gums • colors of olive, copper, or almost black • more chinook info/images Coho Salmon • length 17- 38 inches • dark (blue) backs and heads • maroon to reddish sides • spots on tail only on upper half • red gill cover • spawn mid- Octoberto January • more coho info/images Cutthroat Trout • usually not larger than 18 inches • small black spots on head and body • spots are on all fins http:/ /www.kin2:countv.2:ov/envlronmP.nt/:::tnirn~ k A nrlPhnfo/,:,,;i lt~,,""-'l...,,-1 h-ro.ni-/,., ... 1 ........ ~~ n•~•-.-, 11 r ,,..,r.,-.,r.. • blunt heads Page 3 of4 • spawn February and March • more cutthroat info/images Kokanee Salmon • length 8- 18 inches • spots on their backs • brilliant to dark red bodies • pale to olive green heads • spawn August through January • more kokanee info/images If you see fish that have not been reported in your stream previously, please let us know right away so we can talk to you more and possibly come out and verify the sighting. This program is conducted in cooperation with the King County Water and Land Resources Division, Bellevue Stream Team, Redmond Stream Team, and the cities of Seattle, Bothell, Kirkland, Renton, Woodinville, and the Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust, with support from the King Conservation District. Hom~ I Privacy I Accessibility I Ierms of use I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by tenms and conditions of the site © 2009 King County http : //www .king county. gov/ environment/ animalsAndPlants/ salmon-and-trout/ salm nn-wa tc 7 /1 6/? ooo Page 4 of 4 httn ://www .kin2countv. ~ov/environment h:mim::i l, A nrlPl::mt.i;;:/i:::~ 1mrin-~mrLtrn11t/c-:1 h,.,n1'1-1u,;if,-. 7 /1 f;/')/)/\Q ATTACHMENT B Columrn Magazine -The University ofWashinglon Alumni Magazine -Colmm1s Magazi.. Page 1 of4 Shade Crusade: Why City Trees Are Good Medicine IM~ V'Jrit1cn by Sandra Hines A shopping blog for 'green, eco~friendly pet owners" features a dog collar made from recycled inner tubes and lined with silver seatbelt material. A so-called "eco-luxury" vodka uses only locally grown grain and comes in a bottle of recycled glass for what the Missouri distiller says is, a "vodka with a green state of mind." And now you can go green to the grave with biodegradable coffins. It's composting at its best, says the owner of Natural Burial in Portland, Ore., which sells products like the Ecopod, a kayak-shaped coffin made out of recycled newspapers. Seems like everything and everybody is going green these days. But where is the green going? American Forests, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, found that America's largest cities have lost rnore than a quarter of their tree canopies since 1972. In Seattle, the city's urban forester Mark Mead, '82, '87. says that 18 percent of the city has canopy cover, down from 40 percent just 35 years ago. That's about half of what is recommended for a city of its size, according to American Forests. "lf we don't have urban green in our surroundings, our lives are diminished," says Kathleen Wolf, a research scientist with the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources. "And it's usually taken for granted until it's gone." Urban forests provide many obvious benefits. When rains inundate cities, as they did in western Washington this winter, trees and green spaces help reduce stormwater runoff. One study found that the canopy of a single, leafy, 38-foot-tall tree Intercepts and holds rainwater, reducing runoff by 290 gallons. Urban tree canopies and green spaces also remove pollutants from air and water, soak up the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and provide cooling shade for concrete-laden cityscapes. Scientists estimate that a mature tree canopy in a city center, for example, reduces air temperatures up to 1 Oo F and can even influence indoor temperatures of nearby buildings. Along with the environmental gains, there are other benefits less obvious to the casual observer: studies show that urban greenery makes us healthier and happier. says Wolf, who is an environmental psychologist. • ln one study, scientists put their subjects through stressful mental exercises and then showed them images of nature or of urban environments without any green. During the tests, they measured physiological responses such as heart rate and blood pressure. The subjects who looked at nature shots had lower stress levels than those exposed to urban images, and their responses returned to normal faster. • Environmental psychologists looked at TuYo parts of a public housing site in Chicago: one with more trees, grass and plants than the other. The "green" housing area had fewer domestic disputes, lower levels of fear, less crime and better relationships among neighbors. • Greenery even affects how we see the world. Jenna Tilt, '01, asked her subjects to estimate the walking distance in settings with lots of greenery and settings with less green. If the neighborhood has more street trees and other plants, people judge walking distances to be less, even if the distances are the same in both settings. Why is that important? If you feel that it's easy to walk someplace, you just might be more inclined to do so, something that's important in the face of the mounting medical costs of inactivity and obesity among Americans · A Japanese study looked at elderly people living in high-density Tokyo. The elderly with green in their neighborhoods were, during a five-year period, healthier and had a lower mortality rate. The researchers controlled for such things as age and the health of participants at the start of the study. 'To me this is very exciting," Wolf says. "It means in green environments, where people are able to walk about, you get the http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march08/index2.nhn?ontion=r.nm rnntient!&t 7/11,/?(l(IQ Columns Magazine -The C111versity of Washington Alumni Magazine -Columns Magazi ... Page 2 of 4 recommended moderate-activity levels and health benefits. "If we don't have contact with nature on a daily basis, we become more stressed, less able to focus on tasks at work and at schooL We need green around our homes, schools, places of business.·· Wolf's research in central busi:iess districts, for example, found people were willing to pay more-up to 12 percent more-for the same products if the business district had large trees. Not only were customers willing to pay more, they judged the merchants to be more helpful and the products to be of higher quality. Currently Wolf is looking for a way to assign a dollar value to these health and psychological benefits. Environmental psychologists need help from economists to do that, says Wolf, who has submitted a grant proposal to tackle the question. There's a pressing need to understand the economics because saving trees is not going to be easy as cities become denser. Infill development is a way to concentrate housing in existing urban areas to avoid sprawl and ever-longer commutes. But setting aside land for trees could make housing even pricier. "We're all for trees, and we think they make communities more livable; the problem is with regulations that take away inventory for buildable lands," Tim Harris, an attorney with the Building Industry Association of Washington, said in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer article. 1n a blog about efforts to save urban trees, one citizen wrote, "Can the tree huggers just hug the trees on their own property where they pay the taxes and just leave the rest of us alone?" Another wrote, '·Pack houses into srnafl areas and oh, by the way, save room for trees and make the houses affordable? When is the next election?" e,-,--,.,,--,~~-,,,eo.,• • "'>"'='"'~-w,m,n -'"'"'""'''=--·---· UW Research Scientist Kathleen Wolf rs looking for a way to assign a doUar value to the health and psychological benefits of urban greer:ery. Photo by Mary Levin. Having the economic benefits In dollars and cents would make the case for urban trees and green more compelling, Wolf says. We already know there's an economic value when someone increases their physical activity: A study in 2000 said that annual mean medical costs are reduced by $865 per person when inactive adults engage in regular moderate activity. What needs to be determined is just haw much green spaces contribute to people's motivation to head out for a walk, ride a bike or go for a run. Knowing just what Increment of that motivation can be attributed to the landscape would give researchers a way to assign a dollar value to that contribution Even while awaiting the economic studies, the importance of health and social benefits from green spaces is beginning to be incorporated into building and community planning. For example, the organizers behind LEED-the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification process for green buildings-are partnering with those participating in a Sustainable Sites Initiative to better develop the sites around such buildings. There are some standards now but they're considered weak by those in the field. More thought needs to be given to the environment around the buildings, not just the environment within them, Wolf says. Wolf and colleagues across the nation have been considering the amount of vegetation and how to manage water and other materials on the grounds of buildings. Because of her involvement, the goals for sites were recently expanded to recognize environmental psychology. A new human well-being subcommittee wlll be formed, the first group of its kind in the nation, and Wo!f will be a leading member. While Wolfs research is about "why" green is important, others are busy with the "how." Over in the UW's Green Futures Research and Design Lab the talk is about how to preserve and enhance "green Infrastructure." !f roads, sewer systems and bridges are examples of gray infrastructure, then open spaces, parks, wetlands-even ditches and gardens in parking strips-are examples of green Infrastructure, according to Nancy Rattle, associate professor of landscape architecture and director of the UW Green Futures lab. It's all about helping communities understand how to plan for and establish green spaces. In a recent project, for example, the lab helped the community of Lake Forest Park, north of Seattle, with a 100-year legacy plan. Citizens and city officials determined the elements they would like to see in the future-habitat corridors, trails, parks and access to Lake Washington and streams in the area_ Priorities were then set for the next six years with funding approved by the Lake Forest Park City Council. "lf you don't plan for green infrastructure first, it's much more costly to go back and do it once development has occurred," Rott!e http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march08/index2.oho?ootion=com contentk.t 7 /1 /\/?()()() Colu11ms Magazine -The University of Washington Alumni Magazine -Columns Magazi ... Page 3 of4 says. '·Seattle's existing green-space framework, for example, was the result of visionary planning and acquisition 100 years ago that anticipated Seattle's growth into a world-class city.·· She hopes her lab's faculty and students can help with the next 100 years. The need is pressing. In her own neighborhood she says she's seen eight-plex after eight-plex going up, mowing down every tree in tl1e process. That's something Wolf's students also noticed. "Students are always out there and so they see things we may not be paying attention to. About five years ago students started saying, 'We're losing big trees in the cities.'" Wolf is talking about trees with trunks bigger than 12 inches across. "! didn't really pay attention to it but now it's becoming an issue in the arborist and urban forestry community in the state. As we do infill development, what we're left with are tiny spaces where only tiny plants can exist. With real estate values escalating, it's much more difficult to convince the public to acquire spaces for green." The Evergreen State has a spotty record with its urban forests says Wolf. Robert Carletta, '02; Noe! Studer, '03; and Sean Dugan, '04; conducted statewide assessments for the Washington Department of Natural Resources since 2000 that found: Only 10 percent of communities had up-to-date tree inventories. Only 12 percent of communities had management plans; the rest don't have clear goals and objectives for tree care. About 20 percent of communities do routine tree care; the challenges include poor pruning practices and failing to replace trees w!1ere they have been removed. While 47 percent of communities have tree ordinances, many reported needing better enforcement. "Communities are trying but their efforts are often hit-or-miss and money is not consistently budgeted," says Wolf, "Part of the problem is that when you say 'nature,· people tend to think about the Cascades or the Pacific Coast. They don't realize the incredible value of nature niches in our cities." She points to one of the nature niches on the UW campus, the popular Medicinal Herb Garden, where Steve Brueggerhoff, '01, surveyed people about what they learned there. Other than formal class groups, what he discovered was that people were at the herb garden not to study plants but rather as a respite from sitting in their offices. They went there and claimed lt enhanced their productivity when they went back to their desks," Wolf says. "That's what we humans need in urban settings to function at our very best, to optimize our abilities. ''There's a peril in ignorlng this for individuals and entire communities." • Sandra Hines is a science writer for UW News and Information. Purple and Gold and Green The UW is one of the premier research institutions in the nation, so it Is only natural that it is playing a key role in environmental initiatives at the international, state and campus levels. Here Is a sample of recent UW contributions: Last fall when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, more than 50 UW faculty, affiliate faculty and students could claim a part of the credit. They served as lead authors, contributing authors and reviewers for the IPCC's major reports over the years. "As the wording of the Nobel Prize citation emphasizes, it is not just having the scientific knowledge, but also getting public understanding and affecting policy that will alter the outcomes of our changing climate," says Arthur Nowell, dean of the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences. "UW scientists, policy experts and analysts have been important players in all three aspects from the oceans, the atmosphere and the policy dimensions." In the midst of International Polar Year, UW researchers conducted projects on the ice near the North Pole, camped beside some of the Earth's greatest glaciers and published papers about startling changes detected in the Arctic. "The UWs expertise in polar sciences includes some of the leading oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, glaciologists, biologists, chemists and computer modelers in the nation,'' says Dick Moritz, director of polar sciences at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. The state has asked the UW's Climate Impacts Group to conduct the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of climate change on Washington. Among other things, the study includes the first statewide look at how climate change may affect the health of residents-for example, by potentially increasing the incidence of West Nile virus or Lyme disease, according to Edward Mlles, professor of marine affairs and director of the Climate Impacts Group_ The project also marries the UW's climate tools with Washington State University's agricultural expertise to create the most detailed examination ever of how climate change might affect agriculture here. • At the campus level, the UW was one of six institutions achieving an overall grade of A-or better on a report card issued by the Sustainable Endowments Institute which considered 200 universities in the United States and Canada. The institute said that since his arrival, President Mark A. Emmert, '75, has created an Environmental Stewardship Advisory Committee and an environmental stewardship coordinator position. The President has also formalized a policy focused on campus sustainab11ity. http://www.washington.edu/alumni/co lumns/marchO~/inrlPY7 nhn?nntinn=rnrn rnntPnt.l'd Columns Magazine -The Cnivcrsily of Washington Alumni Magazine -Columns Magazi ... Page 4 of 4 Among other things, the institute noted that the UW has been working on energy conservation measures since the 1980s and all of the Seattle campus's electricity purchases are from re11ewable and carbon-neutral sources. • /\lsc last yecr, Emmert committed all three UW campuses to minimizing global warming emissions and integrating sustainability more firmly into the curriculum when he signed onto the Leadership Circle of the American College & University Presidents Climate Commltment.-Sandra Hines Close Window http://www. washin12:ton.e<lu/alumni/c:n lnmnc;;;,/m :::irr.hrnV-inflp,v'J nhn?n.ntln.n="nm ,..,-......,t,::,,.,....t .r.t- ATTACHMENT C Presented at the Lmv Impact Development Roundtable Conference, Baltimore, l\'ID, .July 2001. Infiltration Through Compacted Urban Soils and Effects on Biofiltration Design Robert Pitt, 1 Shen-En Chen,2 and Shirley Clark 3 1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL 35226 3Postgraduate Research Program, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education National Risk Management Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Abstract .... Background .. Infiltration Mechanisms .. Horton Equation .. Soil Modifications to Enhance Infiltration Edison, NJ 08837 Groundwater Impacts Associated with Stormwater Infiltration .... Relative Risks Associated with Stormwater Infiltration of Various Contaminants Disturbed Urban Soil Field Infiltration Measurements ................ . Experimental Design and Measurement Methodologies .... .. Infiltration Rate Measurements .. . Soil -Water Measurements ........ . Soil Texture Measurements ... . Soil Compaction Measurements. Infiltration Test Site Descriptions Results ..... Laboratory Compaction Tests, Method Results. Soil Amendments to Improve Urban Soil Performance .... Water Quality and Quantity Effects of Amending Soils with Compost ...... Selection of Material for use as Soil Amendments Conclusions . Acknowledgements. References. Abstract . ....... 1 . ..... 2 .. .......... 3 .. ...... 4 ...... 5 .. ..... 5 .......... 6 .. ........ 8 .. ...... 8 . ...... 9 ...9 ...9 . 10 .... 10 IO . 16 16 . .. 21 .. .... 25 .. 25 27 .28 ... 30 30 The effects of urbanization on soil structure can be extensive. Infiltration of rain water through soils can be greatly reduced, plus the benefits of infiltration and biofiltration devices can be jeopardized. This paper is a compilation of results from several recent and on-going research projects that have examined some of these problems, plus possible solutions. Dasie infiltration measurements in disturbed urban soils were conducted during the EPA- sponsored project by Pitt, et al (1999b), along \Vith examining hydraulic and water quality benefits of amending these soils with organic composts. Prior EPA-funded research examined the potential of groundwater contamination by infiltrating stormwater (Pitt, et al, 1994, 1996, and 1999a). In addition to the information obtained during these research projects, numerous student projects have also been conduced to examine other aspects of urban soils, especially more detailed tests examining soil density and infiltration during lab-scale tests, and methods and techniques to recover infiltration capacity of urban soils. This paper is a summary of this information and it is hoped that it will prove useful to both stormwater practice designers and to modelers. Prior research by Pitt (1987) examined runoff losses from paved and roofed surfaces in urban areas and showed significant losses at these surfaces during the small and moderate sized events of most interest for water quality evaluations. However, Pitt and Durrans (1995) also examined runoff and pavement seepage on highway pavements and found that very little surface runoff entered typical highway pavement. During earlier research, it was also found that disturbed urban soils do not behave as indicated by most stormwater models. In an attempt to explain the variations observed in early infiltration tests in disturbed urban soils, tests were conducted in the Birmingham, AL, area by the authors, assisted by UAB hydrology students. About 150 individual double-ring infiltration tests were conducted, separated into eight categories of soil conditions ( comprising a full factorial experiment). Factors t)1Jically considered to be responsible for infiltration rate variations are texture and soil-water content. These Alabama tests examined texture and soil-water content, plus soil compaction (as measured by a cone penetrometer). It was also hoped that age since disturbance and cover condition could also be used to explain some of the variation, but poor distributions of these conditions over the complete range of the main experimental test conditions did not allow complete statistical examinations of these additional factors. The initial exploratory analyses of the data showed that sand was mostly affected by compaction, with little change due to soil-water content levels. However, the clay sites were affected by a strong interaction of compaction and soil-water content. The variations of the observed infiltration rates in each category were relatively large, but four distinct soil conditions were found to be significant, as shown in Table I. The data from each individual test were fitted to the Horton equation, but the resulting equation coefficients were relatively imprecise, with the noncompacted sandy soil tests being the only soil category that had obvious infiltration rate variations that were well described by time since the start of the tests. Vvhen modeling runoff from most urban soils, it may be best to assume relatively constant infiltration rates throughout an event, and to utilize Monte Carlo procedures to describe the observed random variations about the predicted mean value. Table 1. Infiltration Rates for Significant Groupings of Soil Texture, Soil-Water Content, and Compaction Conditions Group noncompacted sandy soils compact sandy soils noncompacted and dry clayey soils all other clayey soils (compacted and dry, plus all wetter conditions) Number of tests 36 39 18 60 Average infiltration rate infhr 13 1.4 9.8 0.2 cov 0.4 1.3 1.5 2.4 Amendments to the soil were also found to significantly improve both the infiltration capacity of the soils and to better capture pollutants from the infiltrating water, significantly reducing the potential of groundwater contamination. Some organic amendments may leach nutrients for several years, but all were found to significantly reduce the transport of toxicants. Background Early unpublished double-ring infiltration tests conducted by the Wisconsin DNR in Oconomowoc, \VI, (shown in Table 2) indicated highly variable infiltration rates for soils that were generally sandy (NRCS A and B hydrologic 2 group soil.s) and dry. The median initial rate was about 75 mm/hr (3 in/br), but ranged from Oto 600 mm/hr (0 to 25 in/hr). The final rates also had a median value of about 75 rnm/br (3 in/hr) after at least two hours of testing, but ranged from Oto 400 mm/hr (0 to 15 in/hr). Many infiltration rates actually increased with time during these tests. In about l/3 of the cases, the observed infiltration rates remained very close to zero, even for these sandy soils. Areas that experienced substantial disturbances or traffic (such as school playing fields), and siltation (such as in some grass swales) had the lowest infiltration rates. It was hoped that more detailed testing could explain some of the large variations observed. Table 2. Ranked Oconomowoc Double Ring Infiltration Test Results (dry conditions) Initial Rate (in/hr) Final Rate (after 2 hours) Total Observed Rate (in/hr) Range (in/hr) 25 15 11 to 25 22 17 17 to 24 14.7 9.4 9.4to17 5.8 9.4 0.2 to 9.4 57 9.4 5.1 to9.6 4.7 3.6 3.1 to6.3 4.1 6.8 2.9 to 6.8 3.1 3.3 2.4 to 3.8 2.6 2.5 1.6to2.6 0.3 0.1 <0.1 to 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 to 3.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 to 0.2 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 to0.6 <0.1 <0.1 all <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 all <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 a!I <0.1 Source: unpublished data from the WI Dept. of Natural Resources Infiltration Mechanisms Infiltration of rainfall into pervious surfaces is controlled by three mechanisms, the maximum possible rate of entry of the water through the soil/plant surface, the rate of movement of the water through the vadose (unsaturated) zone, and the rate of drainage through the bottom of the vadose zone. During periods of rainfall excess, infiltration is the least of these three rates, and the runoff rate after depression storage is filled is the excess of the rainfall intensity greater than the infiltration rate. The infiltration rate typically decreases during periods of rainfall excess. Storage capacity is recovered when the drainage from the vadose zone is faster than the infiltration rate. The surface entry rate of water may be affected by the presence of a thin layer of silts and clay particles at the surface of the soil and vegetation. These particles may cause a surface seal that would decrease a normally high infiltration rate. The movement of water through the soil depends on the characteristics of the underlying soil. Once the surface soil layer is saturated, water cannot enter soil faster than it is being transmitted away, so this transmission rate affects the infiltration rate during longer events. The depletion of available storage capacity in the soil affects the transmission and drainage rates. The storage capacity of soils depends on the soil thickness, porosity, and the soil.water content. Many factors, such as texture, root development, soil insect and animal bore holes, structure, and presence of organic matter, affect the effective porosity of the soil. The infiltration of water into the surface soil is responsible for the largest abstraction (loss) of rainwater in natural areas. The infiltration capacity of most soils allows low intensity rainfall to totally infiJtrate, unless the soil voids became saturated or the underlain soil was much more compact than the top layer (Morel-Seytoux 1978). High intensity rainfalls generate substantial runoff because the infiltration capacity at the upper soil surface is surpassed, even though the underlain soil might still be very dry. The classical assumption is that the infiltration capacity of a soil is highest at the very beginning of a storm and decreases with time (Willeke 1966). The soil-water content of the soil, whether it was initially dry or wet from a 3 recent storm, will have a great effect on the infiltrntion capacity of certain soils (Morel·Seytoux 1978). Horton (1939) ls credited with defining infiltration capacity and deriving an appropriate \Vorking equation. Horton defined infiltration capacity as " ... the maximum rate at which water can enter the soil at a particular point under a given set of conditions" (Morcl-Seytoux 1978). Horton Equation One of the oldest and most widely used infiltration equations used was developed by Horton (1939). This equation was used during these studies to compare the measured equation parameters with published literature values for a commonly used infiltration method. The equation is as follows: where: f= infiltration capacity (in/hr), f0 = initial infiltration capacity (in/hr), f, ~ final capacity (in/hr), k = empirical constant (hr"1 ) This equation assumes that the rainfall intensity is greater than the infiltration capacity at all times and that the infiltration rate decreases with time (Bedient and Huber 1992). The capacity of the soil to hold additional water decreases as the time of the storm increases because the pores in the soil become saturated with water (Bedient and Huber 1992). The Horton equation's major drawback is that it does not consider the soil storage availability after varying amounts of infiltration have occurred, but only considers infiltration as a function of time (Akan 1993). It is recommended that(:, f0 , and k all be obtained through field data, but they are rarely measured locally. More commonly, they are determined through calibration of relatively complex stormwater drainage models (such as SWMM), or by using values published in the literature. The use of published values in place of reliable field data is the cause of much concern (Akan 1993 ). The following lists include commonly used Horton infiltration parameter values: Soil Type Dry sandy sor1s with little to no vegetation Dry loam soils with little to no vegetation Dry clay soi!s with little to no vegetation Dry sandy soils with dense vegetation Ory loam soils with dense vegetation Ory clay soils with dense vegetatioo Moist sandy soils with little to no vegetation Moist loam scits with little to no vegetation Moist clay soils with little to no vegetation Moist sandy soils with dense vegetation Moist loam. soils with dense vegetation Moist clay soils with dense vegetation Soil Tvne fc tin/hf) Clav loam, siltv clay loams o to 0.05 fo (in/hr) 5 3 10 6 2 0.3 1.7 1 3.3 2 0.7 k l1/min) 0.069 Sandy clay !oam 0.05 to0.15 0.069 Silt loam, loam 0.15 to 0.30 0.069 Sand, loamv sand sandv loams 0.30 to 0.45 0.069 Source: Akan 1993. The above k values are not divided into categories; a single value is used for all conditions (Akan 1993). The k value units are listed as I/minute instead of I/hr because the time steps commonly used in urban hydrology are measured in minutes, even though the infiltration rates are commonly measured in units of inches per hour. 4 Soil 1\1odifications to Enhance Infiltration Turf sci en tis ts have been designing turf areas \Vith rapid infiltration capabilities for playing fields for many years. It is thought that some of these design approaches could be used in other typical urban areas to enhance infiltration and reduce surface runoff. Several golf course and athletic field test sites were examined in Alabama during this study to document how turf areas can be constructed to enhance infiltration. These areas were designed to rapidly dry-off following a rain to minimize downtime due to excessive soil-water levels. Turf construction techniques were reviewed at three sites; an intramural playing field at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), the UAB practice football field, and a local golf course. The UAB intramural field has a simple drainage design of parallel JOO mm (4in.) wide trenches with a filter fabric wrapped pipe laid 30 cm (12 in.) deep. A thick sand backfill was used and then the area was recapped with sod. The drainage pipe was directed to the storm drainage system. The drainage for the UAB practice field was done by a local engineering firm that chose a fishbone drainage design. A trunk line of I 00 mm (4 in.) corrugated pipe is lhe "spine" of the system with smaller 75 mm (3 in.) pipes stemming off from the main line. All the pipes rest on a gravel base with a sand backfill. This system feeds to a larger basin that collects the stormwater and takes it to the existing storm drainage system. The golf course used the same basic fishbone design noted above, but differed in the sizes of the individual pipes. The drainpipes are 3 m (IO ft.) apart in trenches filled with 75 mm (3 in.) of gravel. The pipes are then covered with 30 cm (12 in.) of sand with the top 50 mm (2 in.) of the sand consisting of a blend of sand and peat moss. This particular mixture is known as the USGA greens sand mix and is readily available because of its popularity in golf course drainage design. If the backfill sand particles are too large, clay is added to the mixture to slow the drainage. However, if the sand particles are too small, the soil will compact too tightly and will not give the desired results. In all of these cases, standing water is rare after rain has stopped, even considering the generally flat playing fields and very high rainfall intensities occurring in the Birmingham area. It is likely that similar soil construction (without subsurface drainage in most cases) could be used in high density urban areas to enhance stormwater infiltration. Other modifications include amending the soil with other materials. A later discussion in this paper summarizes the results of tests of amended soils and the effects on infiltration and groundwater protection. Groundwater Impacts Associated with Stormwater Infiltration One of the major concerns of stormwater infiltration is the question of adversely impacting groundwater quality. Pitt, et al. (1994, 1996 and 1999a) reviewed many studies that investigated groundwater contamination from stormwater infiltration. They developed a methodology to evaluate the contamination potential ofstormwater nutrients, pesticides, other organic compounds, pathogens, metals, salts and other dissolved minerals, suspended solids, and gases, based on the concentrations of the contaminant in stormwater, the treatability of the contaminant, and the mobility of the contaminant through the vadose. Stormwater salts, some pathogens, 1,3- dichlorobenzene, pyrene, fluoranthene, and zinc, were found to have high potentials for contaminating groundwater, under some conditions. They concluded that there is only minimal potential of contaminating groundwaters from residential area slormwaters (chlorides in northern areas remains a concern), especia1ly if surface infiltration is used. Prior to urbanization, groundwater recharge resulted from infiltration of precipitation through pervious surfaces, including grasslands and woods. This infiltrating water was relatively uncontaminated. With urbanization in humid areas, the permeable soil surface area through which recharge by infiltration could occur was reduced. This resulted in much less groundwater recharge and greatly increased surface runoff and reduced dry weather flows. [n addition, the waters available for recharge generally carried increased quantities of pollutants. With urbanization, new sources of groundwater recharge also occurred, including recharge from domestic septic tanks, percolation basins and industrial waste injection wells, and from agricultural and residential irrigation. In arid areas, the groundwater recharge may actually increase with urbanization due to artificial irrigation, resulting in increase dry weather base flows. 5 The following paragraphs (from Pitt, et al. 1994 and 1996) describe the stonnwater pollutants that have the greatest potential of adversely affecting groundwater ql1ali ty during stormwater infiltration, along with suggestions on bow to minimize these potential problems. Relative Risks Associated with Stormwater Infiltration of Various Contaminants Table 3 is a summary of the pollutants found in stormwater that may cause groundwater contamination problems for various reasons. This table does not consider the risk associated with using groundwater contaminated with these pollutants. Causes of concern include high mobility (low sorption potential) in the vadose zone, high abundance (high concentrations and high detection frequencies) in stormwater, and high soluble :fractions (small fraction associated with particulates which would have little removal potential using conventional stormwater sedimentation controls) in the stormwater. The contamination potential is the lowest rating of the influencing factors. As an example, ifno pretreatment was to be used before percolation through surface soils, the mobility and abundance criteria are most important. If a compound was mobile, but was in low abundance (such as for VOCs), then the groundwater contaminalion potential would be low. However, if the compound was mobile and was also in high abundance (such as for sodium chloride, in certain conditions), then the groundwater contamination would be high. If sedimentation pretreatment was to be Used before infiltration, then much of the pollutants will likely be removed before infiltration. In this case, all three influencing factors (mobility, abundance in storrnwater, and soluble fraction) would be considered important. As an example, chlordane would have a low contamination potential with sedimentation pretreatment, while it would have a moderate contamination potential ifno pretreatment was used. In addition, if subsurface infiltration/injection was used instead of surface percolation, the compounds would most likely be more mobile, making the abundance criteria the most important, with some regard given to the filterable fraction information for operational considerations. This table is only appropriate for initial estimates of contamination potential because of the simplifying assumptions made, such as the likely worst case mobility measures for sandy soils having low organic content. If the soil was clayey and/or had a high organic content, then most of the organic compounds would be less mobile than shown on this table. The abundance and filterable fraction information is generally applicable for warm weather stormwater runoff at residential and commercial area outfalls. The concentrations and detection frequencies (and corresponding contamination potentials) would likely be greater for critical source areas (especially vehicle service areas) and critical land uses (especially manufacturing industrial areas). With biofiltration through amended urban soils, for example, the lowered groundwater contamination potential shown for surface infiltration with prior treatment, would generally apply. With gravel-filled infiltration trenches having no grass filtering or other pre-treatment, or with discharge in disposal wells, the greater groundwater contamination potentials shown for injection with minimal pretreatment would generally apply. The stormwater pollutants of most concern (those that may have the greatest adverse impacts on groundwaters) include: • nutrients: nitrate has a low to moderate groundwater contamination potential for both surface percolation and subsurface infiltration/injection practices because of its relatively low concentrations found in most stormwaters. However, if the stormwater nitrate concentration \¥a.S high, then the groundwater contamination potential woold also likely be high. • pesticides: lindanc and chlordane have moderate groundwater contamination potentials for surface percolation practices (with no pretreatment) and for subsurface injection (with minimal pretreatment). The groundwater contamination potentials for both of these compounds would likely be substantially reduced with adequate sedimentation pretreatment. Pesticides have been most!y found in urban runoff from residential areas, especially in dry-weather flows associated with landscaping irrigation runoff 6 Table 3. Groundwater Contamination Potential for Stormwater Pollutants (Source: Pitt, et al. 1996) Compounds Mobility Abundance Fraction Contamination Contamination Contamination (sandy/low in storm-water filterable potential for potential for potential for organic soils) surface infilt. surface infilt. sub-surface and no with sediment-inj.with pretreatment ation minimal retreatment Nutrients nitrates mobile low/moderate high law/moderate low/moderate low/moderate Pesticides 2,4-0 mobile low likely low low low low y-BHC (lindane) intermediate moderate likely low moderate low moderate malathion mobile low likely low low low low atrazine mobile low likely low low low low chlordane intermediate moderate very low moderate low moderate diazinon mobile low likely low low low low Other voes mobile low very high low low low organics 1,3-dichloro-low high benzene high low low high anthracene intermediate low moderate low low low benzo{a) intermediate moderate very !ow moderate low moderate anthracene bis {2-intermediate moderate likely low moderate low? moderate ethylhexyi) phthalate butyl benzyi low low/moderate moderate low low low/moderate phthalate f!uoranthene intermediate high high moderate moderate high fluorene intermediate low likely low low low low naphthalene low/inter. low moderate low low low penta-intermediate moderate like!y IO'>N moderate low? moderate chlorophenol phenanthrene intermediate moderate very low moderate low moderate pyrene intermediate high high moderate moderate high Pathogens enteroviruses mobile likely present high high high high Shigella IO'>N/inter. likely present moderate low/moderate low/moderate high Pseudomonas low/inter. very high moderate IO'>N/moderate low/moderate high aeruginosa protozoa low/inter. likely present moderate low/moderate low/moderate high Heavy nickel low high low low low high metals cadmium low low moderate low low low chromium inter.Ivery low moderate very low low/moderate low moderate lead very low moderate very low low low moderate zinc low/very law high high low low high Salts chloride mobile seasonally hi h high high high high • other organic.s: 1,3-dichlorobenzene may have a high groundwater contamination potential for subsurface infiltration/injection (with minimal pretreatment). However, it would likely have a lower groundwater contamination potential for most surface percolation practices because of its relatively strong sorption to vadose zone soils. Both pyrene and fluoranthene would also likely have high groundwater contamination potentials for subsurface infiltration/injection practices, but lower contamination potentials for surface percolation practices because of their more limited mobility through the unsaturated zone (vadose zone). Others (including benzo(a)antbracene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, pentachlorophenol, and phenanthrene) may also have moderate groundwater contamination potentials, if surface percolation with no pretreatment, or subsurface injection/infiltration is used. These compounds would have low groundwater contamination potentials if surface infiltration was used with sedimentation pretreatment. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may also have high groundwater contamination potentials if present in the storm water (likely for some industrial and commercial facilities and vehicle service establishments). The other organics, especially the volatiles, are mostly found in 7 industrial areas. The phtha!ates are found in all areas. The PAHs are also found in runoff from all areas, but they arc in higher concentrations and occur more frequently in industrial areas. • pathogens: enteroviruses likely have a high groundwater contamination potential for all percolation practices and subsurface infiltration/injection practices, depending on their presence in stormwater (likely if contaminated with sanitary sewage). Other pathogens, including Shigella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and various protozoa, would also have high groundwater contamination potentials if subsurface infiltration/injection practices are used without disinfection. If disinfection (especially by chlorine or ozone) is used, then disinfection byproducts (such as trihalomethancs or ozonated bromides) would have high groundwater contamination potentials. Pathogens are most likely associated with sanitary sewage contamination of storm drainage systems, but several bacterial pathogens arc commonly found in surface runoff in residential areas. • heavy metals: nickel and zinc would likely have high groundwater contamination potentials if subsurface infiltration/injection was used. Chromium and lead would have moderate groundwater contamination potentials for subsurface infiltration/injection practices. All metals would likely have low groundwater contamination potentials if surface infiltration was used with sedimentation pretreatment. Zinc is mostly found in roof runoff and other areas where galvanized metal comes into contact with rainwater. • salts: chloride would likely have a high groundwater contamination potential in northern areas where road salts are used for traffic safety, irrespective of the pretreatment, -infiltration or percolation practice used. Salts are at their greatest concentrations in snowmelt and early spring runoff in northern areas. Disturbed Urban Soil Field Infiltration Measurements Experimental Design and Measurement Methodologies A series of 153 double ring infiltrorneter tests were conducted in disturbed urban soils in the Birmingham, and Mobile, Alabama, areas. The tests were organized in a complete 23 factorial design (Box, et al. 1978) to examine the effects of soil-water, soil texture, and soil compactness on water infiltration through historically disturbed urban soils. Turf age was also examined, but insufficient sites were found to thoroughly examine these effects. Ten sites were selected representing a variety of desired conditions (compaction and texture) and numerous tests were conducted at each test site area. Soil-water content and soil texture conditions were determined by standard laboratory soil analyses. Compaction was measured in the field using a cone penetrorneter and confirmed by the site history. Soil-water levels were increased using long-duration surface irrigation before most of the saturated soil tests. From 12 to 27 replicate tests were conducted in each of the eight experimental categories in order to measure the variations within each category for comparison to the variation between the categories. The categories tested were as follows: Category Soil Texture Compaction Soil-Water Number Content of Tests 1 Sand Compact Saturated 18 2 Sand Compact Dry 21 3 Sand Non-compact Saturated 24 4 Sand Non-compact Dry 12 5 Clay Compact Saturated 18 6 Clay Compact Dry 15 7 Clay Non-compact Saturated 27 8 Clay Non-compact Dry 18 Soil infillration capacity was expected to be related to the time since the soil was disturbed by construction or grading operations (turf age). In most new developments, compact soils are expected to be dominant, with reduced infiltration compared to pre-construction conditions. In older areas, the soil may have recovered some of its infiltration capacity due to root structure develoPment and from soil insects and other digging animals. Soils having a variety of times since development, ranging from current developments to those about 50 years old, were included in the sampling program. Again, because these sites were poorly distributed in their representation of the other primary test conditions, these effects were not directly determined. The WI Dept. of Natural Resources and 8 the University of Wisconsin (Bannerman, personal communication) have conducted some soil infiltration tests on loamy soils to examine the effects of" age of urbanization on soil infiltration rates. Their preliminary tests have indicated that as long as several decades may be necessary before compacted loam soils recover to conditions similar to pre-development conditions. Infiltration Rate Measurements The infiltration test procedure included several measurements. Before a test was performed, the compaction of the soil was measured with the DICKEY-john Soil Compaction Tester Penetrometer and a sample was obtained to analyze soil-water content. TURF-TEC Infiltrometers were used to measure the infiltration rates. These small devices have an inner ring about 64 mm (2.5 in.) in diameter and an outer ring about 110 mm (4.25 in.) in diameter. The water depth in the inner compartment starts at 125 mm (5 in.) at the beginning of the test, and the device is pushed into the ground 50 mm (2 in.). The rings are secured in a frame with a float in the inner chamber and a pointer next to a stop watch. These units are smaller than standard double-ring infiltrometers, but their ease of use allowed many tests under a wide variety of conditions to be conducted. The use of three infiltrometers placed close together also enabled better site variability to be determined than if larger units were used. Three infiltrometers were inserted into the turf within a meter from each other lo indicate the infiltration rate variability of soils in close proximity. Both the inner and outer compartments were filled with clean water by first filling the inner compartment and allowing it to overflow into the outer compartment. As soon as the measuring pointer reached the beginning of the scale, the timer was started. Readings were taken every five minutes for a duration of two hours. The incremental infiltration rates were calculated by noting the drop of water level in the inner compartment over the five minute time period. Soil -Water Measurements The soil-water content at each test site was an important test factor. The weather occurring during the testing enabled most site locations to produce a paired set of dry and wet tests. The dry tests were taken during periods of little rain, which typically extended for as long as two weeks with no rain and with sunny, hot days. The saturated tests were conducted after through artificial soaking of the ground, or after prolonged rain. The soil-water content was measured in the field using a portable meter (for some tests) and in the laboratory using standard soil-water content methods (for all tests). The soil-water content, as defined by Das (1994), is the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in a given volume of soil. This was obtained by weighing the soil sample with its natural water content and recording the mass. The sample was then oven dried and its dry weight recorded. Saturated conditions occurred for most soils with soil-water contents greater than about 20%. Soil Texture Measurements The texture of the samples were determined by ASTM standard sieve analyses to verify the soil conditions estimated in the field and for comparison to the NRCS soil maps. The sieve analysis used was method ASTM D 422 -63 (Standard Test Method For Particle Size Analysis of Soils) for particles larger than the No. 200 sieve, along with ASTM D 2488 -93 (Standard Practice for Description and ldentificatian of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure). The sample was prepared based on ASTM 421 (Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle Size Analysis and Determination a/Soil Constants). After the material was dried and weighed, it was then crushed for sieve analysis. The sample was then treated with a dispersing agent (sodium hexarnetaphosphate) and water at the specified quantities. The mixture was then washed over a No. 200 sieve to remove all soil particles smaller than the 0.075 mm (75 µm) openings. The sample was then dried and a dry weight obtained. The remaining sample was then placed in a sieve stack containing No. 4, No. 8, No. 16, No. 30, No. 50, No. 100, No. 200 sieves, and the bottom pan. The sieves were then shaken in a mechanical shaker and separated onto their respective sieve sizes. The cumulative weight retained on each sieve was then recorded, and the amount of clay, silt, and sand was determined. The designation for the sand or clay categories follows the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D 2487. Sandy soils required that more than halfofthe material be larger than the No. 200 sieve, and more than halfof that fraction be smaller than the No. 4 sieve. Similarly, for clayey soils, more than half of the material is required 9 to be smaller than the No. 200 sieve. The "clayey'' soils category included soils having from 30 to 98% clay, 2 to 45% silt, and 2 to 45% sand. This category included clay and clay loam soils. The "sandy" soils category included soils having from 65 to 95% sand, 2 to 25% silt, and 5 to 35% clay. This category included sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam soils. No soils were tested that were predominately silt or loam. Soil Compaction Measurements Tbe extent of compaction at each site was also measured before testing using a cone penetrometer. Cone penetrometer measurements are sensitive to water content. Soils, especially clay soils, are obviously more spongy and soft when wet compared to hard conditions when extremely dry. Therefore, the penetrometer measurements were not made for saturated conditions and the degree of soil compaction was also determined based on the history of the specific site (especially the presence of parked vehicles, unpaved lanes, well-used walkways, etc.). Compact soils were defined as having a reading of greater than 300 psi at a depth of three inches. Other factors that were beyond the control of the experiments, but also affect infiltration rates, include bioturbation by ants, gophers and other small burrowing animals, worms, and plant roots. Infiltration Test Site Descriptions Birmingham, Alabama, near many of the test locations, has about I 370 mm (54 in.) of rain per year, distributed between about 110 events per year. Typical antecedent dry periods range from about 2 to 5 days. It is rare to have more than 10 days without recorded rainfall. The driest months are October and November, averaging 66 and 91 mm (2.6 and 3.6 in.), respectively, while March is the wettest month averaging 460 mm (6.3 in.) of rainfall. Snow is rare, with snowfalls of at least 125 mm (5 in.) occurring only about once every 10 years. The growing season (higher than -2° C, or 28° F) is at least 243 days per year in 5 out of 10 years. Average daily maximum temperatures are about 32° C (90° F) in the summer months (June through August) and about 13° C (55° F) in the winter months (December through February). Average daily minimum temperatures in the summer are about 18 to 21 ° C (65 to 70° F), and in the winter are about I° C (34° F). The extreme recorded temperatures in Birmingham have ranged from about -18 to 43° C (0 to 110° F). Many of the sandy soil tests were located near Mobile, AL, where the rainfall averages about 250 mm (10 in.) more than in Birmingham, and the summers are even hotter and more humid. Table 4 briefly describes the test locations and site conditions, while Figure 1 is a soil texture diagram showing the distribution of the soil texture classifications at the different test sites. Results The first analysis involved the preparation of 3D plots of the infiltration data, illustrating effects of soil-water levels and compaction, for both sand and clay. These plots are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Four general conditions were observed to be statistically unique, as previously listed on Table I. Compaction has the greatest effect on inti ltration rates in sandy soils, with little detrimental effects associated with higher soil-water content conditions. Clay soils, bowever, are affected by both compaction and soil-water content. Compaction was seen to have about the same effect as saturation on these soils, with saturated and compacted clayey soils having very little effective infiltration. The Horton infiltration equation was fitted to each set of individual site test data and the equation coefficients were statistically compared for the different site conditions. Figures 4 through 7 are the plots showing the observed infiltration rates, and the fitted Horton equation parameters for the four general conditions. Figure 4 is for the noncompacted sand conditions, the urban soil conditions having the greatest infiltration potential. In addition, this condition is the only one of the four major conditions that had an obvious decrease in infiltration with time dming the tests. The observed infiltration rates occur in a relatively even, but broad, band. Three of the 36 tests had very low initial rates, but were within the typical band of observations after about ten minutes. Some initial wetting or destruction ofa surface crust was apparently necessary before the site infiltration rate stabilized. Table 5 summarizes the observed Horton equation parameter values, compared to the typical published parameter values, for sandy soil conditions. 10 Table 4. Infiltration Test Site Locations and Conditions Site# Location Predominant Land Use Age Texture Compaction (vearsl l~sil 1a Homewood Park Recreational >40 Clay loam 100-200 1b >300 2a Chadwich, Helena Medium density residential <1 Clay loam 150 2b Clavloam >300 3a South Lakeshore Drive Commercial >25 Sandy loam >300 3b Sandy loam 225 3c Clavloam 280 4a Private Residence Backyard Low density residential >30 Clay loam 200 4b (West Jefferson) Clay loam >300 4c Sandv loam 200-250 5a Private Residence Backyard Medium density residential >30 Clay loam 150-200 5b fTrussvifle) Sandv loam >300 6 U!t!efield Farms Aaricultural >10 Sandv loam >300 7a Wildwood Apartment Complex High density residential <1 Clay loam >300 7b IHomewoodi <150 8 Private Residence Backyard Medium density residential >30 Clay loam >300 I Birrninaharn l 9a Jasper Golf Course (Walker Recreational <5 Sand 150-175 9b County) <5 Sand >300 9c >10 Sand 100 10 Private Residence Backyard Medium density residential >20 Loamy sand 100 (Gulf Shores) per14r.! ti"..f)d ""7,.0·····~---·· Figure 1. Soil texture classifications for test sites. 11 Figure 2. Three dimensional plot of infiltration rates for sandy soil conditions. Figure 3. Three dimensional plot of infiltration rates for clayey soil conditions. 12 Table 5. Observed and Published Horton Equation Parameter Values for Sandy Soils f, in/hr\ t, in/hr\ k 11/min\ mean/ range mean/ range mean/ range ty~ical tvoicat '"nical Observed noncomoacted sandy soils 39 4.2 to 146 15 0.4 to 25 9.6 1.0 to 33 Observed comnact sandv soils 15 0.1to86 1.8 0.1 to9.5 11 1.8 to 37 Published values 5 1.7to10 0.30 to 0.45 0.069 The observed conditions differ greatly from the published values. The published values reflect soil-water content effects, while the observations indicated very small effects associated with soil-water for sandy soils, but very large effects associated with compaction. The observed constant final infiltration rates were greatly larger than typically assumed, with infiltration rates for noncompacted sandy soils of about 350 mm/hr (14 in/hr), ranging from about 125 to 635 mm/hr (5 to 25 in/hr) during the tests. The comparable published rates were less than 25 mm/hr (I in/hr). The infiltration rates leveled-off to the constant final values after about 30 to 45 minutes. Figure 4 shows the observed infiltration rates and fitted Horton equation parameter values for compacted sandy soil conditions. The observed rates arc significantly less than for the above non~compacted conditions. The effects of compaction on sandy soils is very large, reducing the rates by between 5 and 10 times. Some initial rates are still very large, but the rates decreased quickly. After 20 to 30 minutes they are all within about Oto 500 mm/hr (0 to 20 in/hr), with most of the 39 observations less than 125 mm/hr (5 in/hr). Figure 5 is a similar plot for clayey soils that are dry and noncompacted, the highest infiltration rate category for clayey soils. No significant changes in infiltration rates are seen as a function of time, Mth all test average values within the range of 8 to 500 mm/hr (0.3 to 20 in/hr), with a mean rate of about 230 mm/hr (9 in/hr) for all 18 tests combined. Figure 6 shows the observed test results for the other clayey soil conditions (dry and compact, and all wetter conditions). These rates were the lowest observed. Some saturated noncompacted initial values were greater than later values, although most of the 60 sets oftest data indicated infiltration rates within a relatively narrow range ofless than 125 mm/hr (5 in/hr). Table 6 shows the observed Horton equation parameters compared to published values. The mean clayey soil infiltration rates observed were all greater than the published values, although the compacted and saturated clayey soils were much closer to the published values than the observed dry clayey soil rates. Because of the wide range in observed rates for each of the major categories, it may not matter which infiltration rnte equation is used. The residuals are all relatively large and it is much more important to consider the random nature of infiltration about any fitted model and to address the considerable effect that soil compaction has on infiltration. It may therefore be necessary to use a Monte Carlo stochastic component in a runoff model to describe this variation. Table 6. Observed and Published Horton Equation Parameter Values for Clayey Soils . f0 in/hr' fc (in/hrl k (1/minl mean/ range mean/ range mean/ range typical tvnica! tvnical Observed dry noncompacted 18 2.5 to 58 6.6 0.1to24 8.8 -6.2 to 19 clavev soils Published values for dry clayey 1 to 2 0 to 0.05 0.069 soils Observed for all other clayey soils 3.4 0 to 48 0.4 -0.6 to 6.7 5.6 o to46 (compacted and dry, plus all saturated conditions) Published values for saturated 0.3 to 0.7 Oto 0.05 0.069 clavev soils 13 ,:: j ;t\1'.±"i'i I :r.~l)n M1..'t~·- f Wi:~ 'ii): • ((1;1',; • I '>:t.J r ...... r:i.r.r g ! ' j .. I • ~ • • ~ '" • • • ,..,, ' • "' ¢ 1/,· 1' " ~--· ¢i)) Q.4'$ t • I 0~$(1 • I • I I • • !a/.lt ~!VI W~ :'.Ci Hi.\• W.1 "l.}J S.i! ltf. U) Q.-Q 1).~ a;.~ ;.'..'4.~ :Z<.\.~ 1\-i, C.1 ,14 ~ w rm t t • f • I I • i"~I L' ''• .... • • • ; • • I ' • ! ·--------··--------J 1.(<(', 'frrM,-t~ Figure 4. Infiltration measurements for noncompacted, sandy soil, conditions. 1'r. l=U+(9.1•i,$}xJl"l'{-ll,4xQ I<> ,~ rr!,!:M; /ii'!,'>'il''.!f· !'.'l· i,f'.I\M,;, • rr~. (;t'-;-'1 .\f.l c1a:rbu .,,, •!j V t....-:. • • • <!) • ,) t~i)n-1\i, 1t\.~ BS 1",1 ::?.1 i):1,1 !• • <> (:, • • • til""'l k (1/r,',b\) W.Mt1 tst5 t-wl"1 1.6" i"! i: 1.4 ~? M ~ ::.~ '"' ',\Ji -0. 1 "i.$ I),(\ l:l.\:i ;jf,' "-• 1,.j-n.r Li- M ~ a,] ~ • • • ~ • • '. .. i,l!f. Tin», 1 \hw-r•} Figure 5. Infiltration measurements for compacted, sandy soil, conditions. -~'"""(IM>I HI l)!; ~3 0-.~ 1:D.i.t 1.:l !l!.' : 0-Wet ; !_~Dl¥_1 • 0 I t' '·"' 14 0, •• ···----······--·---·---------------------. ' 0'.i ,j I + l .. G',~. • • "" • t t•A.1 +tHn r tU).Y &µ. {--$.."1 Kt} r,,Q,&: ~~~-;im ~,<m'.r, fo t~r,iM 11,.?, HtB HJ,1 1:.1 111<)'.}' ~r.1t i.Y.JV t,!J: \1\ !iri.·)tj, • itfi J.':1 t.ft "J.1 ;;,1,,; u: i:.fitnil!{ 5,...1) ~,t /J..fi'; {,2 1:] .. t l.L! l<J,Uil ·W.1". jl•~.'tirj ¥,44,'lltf:,~J.~as. ~0 E·£ at, $A 14.R $JI 00 IJ.i} 51.5 ~:! • 1.~• i;l folml";Jt! -·-------. -·r~...l!_._ .. ~··~ 1? --·---'~'----~rn~----='a • • • • .. • • • • .. i • t • t • • • • • ! * • + i • * + • • +· + • • • .. • ·I t • • • • i t • • * • t + • + i • • ! • .. Figure 6. Infiltration measurements for dry-non compacted, clayey soil, conditions. w 'll:'iX7' :1'.i,&M wit tlev. .'ff(l tG(!n/f-1(1 kN-'>liti} 04 ... 0.?. 3,..;. fiJ} 1~ -9.') ff,() ~.7 .. , ,.a L'\ "' $3 4 a A I> A 4 1.ii111l,1 U,;i;ti11r~(ht~) :':&.drut 1'1f'1..!!. r.~~1x1 C:S. e.t O.d c .• ().;. M (i,'.) M ... ... u 1.7 .. !i<l A A " i i.1 l .. i .. :.z.~oc& i Figure 7. Infiltration measurements for wet-noncompacted, dry-compacted, and wet--compacted, clayey soil conditions. 15 As one example ofan appro.'lch, Table 7 shows the measured infiltration rates for each of the four major soil categories, separated into several time increments. This table shows the observed infiltration rates for each test averaged for different storm durations (15, 30, 60, and 120 minutes). Also shown are the ranges and COV values for each duration and condition. Therefore, a routine in a model could select an infiltration rate, associated with the apprupriale soil category, based on the storm duration. The selection would be from a random distribution (likely a log-normal distribution) as described from this table. Figures 8 through I I are probability plots showing the observed infiltration rates for each of the four major soil categories, separated by these event durations. Each figure has four separate plots representing the storm event averaged infiltration rates corresponding to four storm durations from 15 minutes to 2 hours. As indicated previously, the infiltration rates became relatively steady after about 30 to 45 minutes during most tests. Therefore, the 2 hour averaged rates could likely be used for most events of longer duration. There is an obvious pattern on these plots which show higher rates for shorter rain durations, as expected. The probability distributions are closer to being log-normally distributed than normally distributed. However, with lhe large number of zero infiltration rate observations for three of the test categories, log-normal probability plots were misleading. The .soil texture and compaction classification would remain fixed for an extended simulation period (unless the soils underwent an unlikely recovery operation to reduce the soil compaction), but the clayey soils would be affected by the antecedent interevent period which would define the soil-water level at the beginning of the event. Recovery periods are highly dependent on site specific soil and climatic conditions and are calculated using various methods in continuous simulation urban runoff models. The models assume that the recovery period is much longer than the period needed to produce saturation conditions. As noted above, saturation ( defined here as when the infiltration rate reaches a constant value) occurred under an hour during these tests. A simple estimate of the time needed for recovery of soil-water levels is given by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (previously the Soil Conservation Service, SCS) in TR-55 (McCuen 1998). The NRCS developed three antecedent soil-water conditions as follows: • Condition L soils are dry but not to the wilting point • Condition II: average conditions • Condition III: heavy rainfall, or lighter rainfall and low temperatures, have occurred within the last five days, producing saturated soil. McCuen (1998) presents Table 8 (from the NRCS) that gives seasonal rainfall limits for these three conditions. Therefore, as a rough guide, saturated soil conditions for clay soils may be assumed if the preceding 5-day total rainfall was greater than about 25 mm (one inch) during the winter or greater than about 50 mm (tv.ro inches) during the summer. Otherwise, the "other" infiltration conditions for clay should be assumed. Laboratory Compaction Tests Method Previous research (Pitt, et al. 1999b), as summarized above, has identified significant reductions in infiltration rates in disturbed urban soils. More than 150 prior tests were conducted in predominately sandy and clayey urban soils in the Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama, areas. Infiltration in clayey soils was found to be affected by an interaction of soil moisture and compaction, while infiltration in sandy soils was affected by soil compaction alone. The tests reported in the following discussion were conducted under more controlled laboratory conditions and represent a wider range of soil textures and specific soil density values than the previous field tests. Laboratory permeability test setups were used to measure infiltration rates associated with different soils having different textures and compactions. These tests differed from normal permeability tests in that high resolution observations were made at the beginning of the tests to observe the initial infiltration behavior. The tests were run for up to 20 days, although most were completed (when steady low rates were observed) within 3 or 4 days. 16 Table 7. Soil Infiltration Rates for Different Categories and Storm Durations 15 minutes mean 19.5 median 18.8 std. dev. 8.8 min 1.5 max 38.3 COV 0.4 number 36 --~~--- 15 minutes Sand, Non~compacted 30 minutes 60minutes 17.4 15.2 16.5 16.5 8.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 33.8 27.0 0.5 0.4 36 36 Sand, Compacted 30 minutes 60minutes 120 minutes 13.5 15.4 6.0 0.0 24.0 0.4 36 120 minutes mean 3.6 2.2 1.6 -------~~---~~---~~--1.5 median std. dev. min max cov number mean median std. dev. min max cov number 2.3 1.5 0.8 6.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.8 20.4 9.0 1.7 1.6 1.3 39 39 39 Clay, Dry Non-compacted 15 minutes 30 minutes 60minutes 9.0 8.8 10.8 5.6 4.9 4.5 9.7 8.8 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 26.3 60.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 18 18 18 0.8 1.9 0.0 6.8 1.3 39 120 minutes 9.3 3.0 15.0 0.0 52.5 1.6 18 All other clayey soils (compacted and dry, plus all saturated conditions) 15 minutes 30 minutes 60minutes 120 minutes mean 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 median 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 std. dev. 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.4 min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 max 9.0 9.8 9.0 2.3 GOV 1 2 1.9 2.5 2.4 number 60 60 60 60 17 ;.~~ T-----·--·· li~ l ~.) • • lnfi!~atlon nJ!llS ~r,11r) Figure 8. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for noncompacted, sandy soil, conditions. ~ i-· .. ---,,-,,,------(1---·---.-···----··---·-·- S>,1 i ~ti ~ 10Z ·~\ ~ =t . 'f 1! -i " , _______ _ " ~-----.r • 15((1{fU,1~ [i c, au. mJru.te, •'. • oo minWM , I V 100 n1J)1.i;tw Figure 9. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for compacted, sandy soil, conditions. 18 0 • I i ·O • I ,o Figure 10. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for dry-noncompacted, clayey soil, conditions. ®[-···---1 OO VY Q. ~. "" . i ~. !,;,ii • i 80 ,J\} I M~ 'ro. I :.... I 00 !;.~ I 40. I ,io I lll ! :1 I ,-----··;::::-, • 16 Jrdi'lVs!: I , ,., 00 rrar""'• I I -. St! j'fflj1i.t9';li ~ -I I ~ 1x(; ,n~iw ·j --l ~..-.-~....-. 0 10 ,a SU ,n .,, ll(! Figure 11. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for wet-noncompacted, dry-compacted, and wet- compacted, clayey soil conditions. 19 Table 8. Total Five-Day Antecedent Rainfall for Different Soil-Water Content Conditions (in.) Dormant Season Growing Season Condition I <0.5 <1.4 Condition 11 0.5 to 1.1 1.4 2.1 Condition Ill >1.1 > 2.1 Test samples were prepared by mixing known quantities of sand, silt, and clay to correspond to defined soil textures, as shown in Table 9. The initial sample moistures were determined and water was added to bring the initial soil moistures to about 8%, per standard procedures (ASTM DI 140-54), reflecting typical "dry" soil conditions and to allow water movement through the soil columns. Table IO lists the actual soil moisture levels at the beginning of the tcsls. Three methods were used to modify the compaction of the soil samples: hand compaction, Modified Proctor Compaction, and Standard Proctor Compaction. Both Modified and Standard Proctor Compactions follow ASTM standard (D 1140-54). All tests were conducted using the same steel molds (I 15.5 mm tall with 105 mm inner diameter, having a volume of 1000 cm\ The Standard Proctor compaction hammer is 24.4 kN and has a drop height of 300 mm. The Modified Proctor hammer is 44.5 kN and has a drop height of 460 mm. For the Standard Proctor setup, the hammer was dropped on the test soil in the mold 25 times on each of three soil layers, while for the Modified Proctor test, the heavier hammer was also dropped 25 times, but on each of five soil layers. The Modified Proctor test therefore resulted in much more compacted soil. The hand compaction was done by gentle hand pressing to force the soil into the mold with as little compaction as possible. A minimal compaction effort was needed to keep the soil in contact with the mold walls and to prevent short-circuiting during the tests. The hand compacted soil specimens therefore had the least amount of compaction. The compacted specimens in the compaction molds were transferred to the permeability test setup. The head for the permeability test was 1.14 meter (top of the water surface to the top of the compaction mold). The water temperature during the test was kept consistent at 75°F. Table 9. Test Mixtures During Laboratory Tests Pure Sand Pure Clay Pure Slit Sandy Clayey Loam Silt Loam Clay Mix Loam % Sand 100 72.1 30.1 19.4 30 %Clay 100 9.2 30.0 9.7 50 %Silt 100 18.7 39.9 70.9 20 As shown on Table 10, a total of? soil types were tested representing all main areas of the standard soil texture triangle. Three levels of compaction were tested for each soil, resulting in a total of 21 tests. However, only 15 tests rcst1Ited in observed infiltration. The Standard and Modified Proctor clay tests, the Modified Proctor clay loam, and all of the clay mixture tests did not result in any observed infiltration after several days and those tests were therefore stopped. The "after test" moisture levels generally corresponded to the "saturated soil" conditions of the earlier field measurements. Table 11 is a summary table from the NRCS Soll Quality Institute 2000, Urban Technical Note 2, as reported by Ocean County Soil Conservation District. The bulk densities of the laboratory soil test specimens are seen to cover the range of natural soils for the different textures, with the Modified Proctor tests causing conditions that would restrict root growth and the hand placed specimens generally within the ideal range for plant growth. 20 Table 10. Soil Moisture and Density Values during Laboratory Tests Soil Types Compaction Dry Bulk Before Test After Test Method Density Before Moisture Moisture Test {glee) Content(%) Content{%} Silt Hand 1.508 9.7 22.9 Standard 1.680 8.4 17.9 Modified 1.740 7.8 23.9 Sand Hand 1.451 5.4 21.6 Standard 1.494 4.7 16.4 Modified 1.620 2.0 16.1 Clay Hand 1.242 10.6 N/A Sandy Loam Hand 1.595 7.6 20.2 Standard 1.653 7.6 18.9 Modified 1.992 7.6 9.9 Silt Loam Hand 1.504 8.1 23.0 Standard 1.593 8.1 27.8 Modified 1.690 8.1 27.8 Clay Loam Hand 1.502 9.1 24.1 Standard 1.703 9.1 19.0 Modified 1.911 9.1 14.5 Clay Mix Hand 1.399 8.2 42.2 Standard 1.685 8.2 N/A Modified 1.929 8.2 N/A Table 11. General Relationship of Soil Bulk Density to Root Growth based on Soil Texture (adapted from NRCS 2001) Soil Texture Ideal bulk density (g/cm") Bulk densities that may Bulk densities that restrict affect root growth (g/cm3 ) root growth (g/cm3) Sands, loamv sands <1.60 1.69 >1.80 Sandv loams. loams <1.40 1.63 >1.80 Sandv clav !oams <1.40 1.60 >1.75 Loams, clav loams <1.40 1.60 >1.75 Silts, silt loams <1.30 1.60 >1.75 Silt loams, siltv clav loams <1.10 1.55 >1.65 Sandy clays, silty clays, clay <1.10 1.49 >1.58 loams (35 to 45% c!av\ Clavs (>45% clav) <1.10 1.39 >1.47 Results Figures 12 through 17 show the infiltration plots obtained during these compaction tests. Table 12 presents the calculated Horton equation coefficient values for these tests, using the nonlinear curve fitting routines in SigmaStat, (SPSS, Inc.). Also shown on this table are the ANOVA tests for the complete model, indicating if the complete models were significant (or ifa constant infiltration value should be used), and if the individual equation coefficients are significant. Only seven of the models were significant at least at the 0.10 level. All of the calculated Fo (initial infiltration rates) were significant, except for the hand compacted sand and the Modified Proctor compacted sand. Fewer Fe (final infiltration rates) and k (rate constants) were significant. 21 Table 12 Horton Equation Coefficients and ANOVA Results Soil Types Compaction Overall Overall Fo Significance of Fe Significance of k value Significance of Method Significance of Model value Fo coefficient value Fe coefficient (1/h,) k coefficient Model (ANOVA Adjusted R2 (in/hr) (ANOVA P (in/hr) (ANOVA P (ANOVAP P valuea value}a value\a value)~ Silt Hand <0.0001 0.96 3.001 <0.0001 0.717 <0.0001 7290 0.99 Standard 0.99 0 0.034 <0.0001 0034 <0,0001 0.13 0.99 Modified 0.45 0.02 0.003 <0.0001 0.003 <0.0001 0.21 0.73 Sand Hand NA 0 3.03 0.97 3.09 1.0 -0.004 1.0 Standard 0.088 0.18 0.60 <0.0001 -0.076b 0.99 0.25 0.94 Modified NA 0 3.21 0 91 3.16 1.0 0.004 1.0 Clay Hand <0.0001 0.87 0.157 <0.0001 0.108 <0.0001 0.039 O.Q15 Sandy Loam Hand <0.0001 0.75 32.0 <0.0001 -350° 0.95 -0.007 0.95 Standard <0.0001 0.81 7.15 <0.0001 -209" 0.94 -0.007 0.94 Modified 0.028 0.85 2.63 0.002 1.04 0.006 0.060 0.17 Silt Loam Hand 0.022 0.70 2.50 0.0003 1.13 0.0018 4.33 0.15 Standard 0.11 0.96 0.0269 0.0014 0.0276 0.0018 0.052 0.22 Modified 0.12 0.59 0.0015 0.0004 0.0018 <0.0001 0.089 0.54 Clay Loam Hand 0.10 0.37 0.30 <0.0001 0.87 0.99 -0.0038 0.99 Standard 0.50 0 0.0166 <0.0001 0.0154 0.0068 0.021 0.82 • AN OVA P values of <0.05 are typ1calty accepted as being s1gn1ficant. If the P value 1s large, the Fe and Fo values are likely very close m values, and the k parameter is likely close to zero and insignificant. Under these conditions, very little changes in the infiltration rates were observed during the duration of the tests. b negative Fe rate values should be considered as zero. 1000 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Sand 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth ----e---Hand compacted .. .,...,. Standard eompa~ion prO(;:edure Modified compac!lon procedure ... •-,--~ =·:·.--.~.· ... ·.: ...... --=·-, n ••• g I . ' I I .. i • 1 .. '""-cl .. '·········~ .... · ...... ·.····.· :"·--.-1 .... ':"'l 0.1 +----~-~------r-------+----~-'j 0.001 0.01 0.1 10 Time (hours) Figure 12. Sandy soil laboratory infiltration test results. 22 100 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Sandy Loam Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth ! . . " i __ _..;__..... ··-_:. ...... ~~ .. :-.-. :: .. :.· " ; ~·:r•: ;.. · .. ':. : ..••. ·.1·.J : .•...... · .. : : '. ~-'~{" .. 'f'W'-. ' ' ; : . : . ' I I Hand compa.,;;lect Standard compaction procedure !Vlodlfied compaction procedure 0.1 -1--'====c;=====~---'--'-+-'---_J__J_-+--~ 0.01 1 10 100 Time (hours) Figure 13. Sandy loam soil laboratory infiltration test results. Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Silt 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth _....... Hand compacteQ ~-Standard compaction procedure . N ··~ ... : ... :··············II . ·· .. -: .• : Modlfiedcompaclio~:r-Oeedure .·•···· .. ······~ T I 1 <:-<: .§. <l) 1ii 0:: 0.1 C 0 • I .,, Jg I ,l "' .E 0,01 I 1 0.001 -l--~--'---+----4---'-~-l-----'----_J 0.01 0.1 10 100 Time (hours) Figure 14. Silty soil laboratory infiltration test results. 23 ,;:, ,E C: = 11l o:'. 0.1 C: 0 "' ~ "" -" 0.01 0.1 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Silty Loam Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth -+-Hand compacted , ~¥-Standard «imp.;ctkln procedure Modified compaction procedure 10 Time (hours) 100 Figure 15. Silty loam soil laboratory infiltration test results. 0.00-1 01 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Clayey Loam Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth -+-Hand compacted --'¥'-Standard compaction procedure '1''" i :.r 10 Time (hours) Figure 16. Clayey loam soil laboratory infiltration test results. 1000 100 24 -c:- E C: v ., 1ii O'. C 0 ~ £; q: £ 100 10 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Hand-Compacted Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth -e---Slit .. -v······ Sand Clay 0.1 +---._-+---~~-'--"-+-----~--'---'---'-"'·,,= -0.001 0 01 0.1 1 10 100 Time (hours) Figure 17. Comparison of hand compacted test results for sand, silt, and clay. Soil Amendments to Improve Urban Soil Performance Water Quality and Quantity Effects of Amending Soils with Compost Another component of the EPA-sponsored project that included the field infiltration tests was conducted by the College of Forestry Resources at the University of Washington (under the direction of Dr. Rob Harrison) in the Seattle area to measure the benefits of amending urban soils with compost (Pitt, et al. 1999b). It was found that compost-amended soils could iinprove the infiltration characteristics of these soils, along with providing some filtration/sorption benefits to capture stormwater pollutants before they enter the groundwater. Existing facilities at the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture were used for some of the test plot examinations of amended soils. Two additional field sites were also developed, one at Timbercrest High School and one at WoodMoor High School in Northern King County, Washington. Both of these sites are located on poorly-sorted, compacted Glacial Till soils of the Alderwood soil series. Large pl)"Nood bays were used for containing soil and soil-compost mixes. At lhe U\V {est facilities, two different Alderwood glacial till soils were mixed with compost. Two plots each of glacial till-only soil and 2: l mixtures ofsoil:compost were studied. The soil-compost mixture rates were also the same for the Timbercrest and Woodmoor sites, using Cedar Grove compost. The two composts used at the UW sites were Cedar Grove and GroCo. The GroCo compost-amended soil at the U\V test site is a sawdust/municipal waste mixture (3: 1 ratio, by volume) that is composted in large windrows for at least 1 year. The Cedar Grove compost is a yard waste compost that is also composted in large windrows. Plots were planted using a commercial turfgrass mixture during the Spring 1994 season for the Urban Horticulture sites and in the fall of 1997 for the Timbercrest and Woodmoor sites. Fertilizer was added to all plots during plot establishment (16-4-8 N-P 20 5-K20) broadcast spread over the study bays at the rate recommended on the product label (0.005 lb fertilizer/ft'). Due to the poor growth of turf on the control plots, and in order to simulate what would have likely been done anyway on a typical residential lawn, an additional application of 0.005 lb/ft2 was 25 made to the UW control plots on May 25, 1995. At the new test plots at Timbercrest and Woodmoor, glacial till soil was added to the bays and compacted before adding compost. Cedar Grove compost was added at a 2: 1 soil:compost rate and rototilled into the soil surface. Once installed, all bays were cropped with perennial ryegrass. Sub-surface flows and surface runoff during rains were measured and sampled using special tipping bucket flow monitors (Harrison, et al, 1997). The flow amounts and rates were measured by use chipping bucket type devices attached to an electronic recorder. Each tip of the bucket was calibrated for each site and checked on a regular basis to give rates of surface and subsurface runoff from all plots. Surface runoff decreased by five to ten times after amending the soil with compost (4 inches of compost tilled 8 inches in the soil), compared to unamended sites. However, the concentrations of many pollutants increased in the surface runoff, especially associated with leaching of nutrients from the compost. The surface runoff from the compost-amended soil sites had greater concentrations of almost all constituents, compared to the surface runoff from the soil-only test sites. The only exceptions being some cations (Al, Fe, Mn, Zn, Si), and toxicity, which were all lower in the surface runoff from the compost- amended soil test sites. The concentration increases in the surface runoff and subsurface flows from the compost- amended soil test site were quite large, typically in the range of5 to 10 times greater. Subsurface flow concentration increases for the compost-amended soil test sites were also common and about as large. The only exceptions being for Fe, Zn, and toxicity. Toxicity tests indicated reduced toxicity with filtration at both the soil- only and at the compost-amended test sites, likely due to the sorption or ion exchange properties of the compost. Compost-amended soils caused increases in concentrations of many constituents in the surface runoff However, the compost amendments also significantly decreased the amount of surface runoff leaving the test plots. Table 13 summarizes these expected changes in surface runoff and subsurface flow mass pollutant discharges associated with compost-amended soils. All of the surface runoff mass discharges from the amended soil test plots were reduced from 2 to 50 percent compared to the unamended discharges. However, many of the subsurface flow mass discharges increased, especially for ammonia (340% increase), phosphate (200% increase), plus total phosphorus, nitrates, and total nitrogen (all with 50% increases). Most of the other constituent mass discharges in the subsurface flows decreased. During later field pilot-scale tests, Clark and Pitt (l 999) also found that bacteria was reduced by about 50% for every foot of travel through columns having different soils and filtration media. Table 13. Changes in Pollutant Discharges from Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flows at New Compost-Amended Sites, Compared to Soil-Only Sites Constituent Surface Runoff Discharges Subsurface Flow (mass), Amended-Soil Discharges (mass), Compared to Unamended Amended-Soil Compared Soil to Unamended Soil Runoff Volume 0.09 0.29 Phosphate 0.62 3.0 Total phosphorus 0.50 1.5 Ammonium nitrogen 0.56 4.4 Nitrate nitrogen 0.28 1.5 Total nitrogen 0.31 1.5 Chloride 0.25 0.67 Sulfate 0.20 0.73 Calcium 0.14 0.61 Potassium 0.50 2.2 Magnesium 0.13 0.58 Manganese 0.042 0.57 Sodium 0.077 0.40 Sulfur 0.21 1.0 Silica 0.014 0.37 Aluminum 0.006 0.40 Copper 0.33 1.2 Jron 0.023 0.27 Zinc 0.061 0.18 26 Selection of Material for use as Soil Amendments Additional useful data for soil amendments and the fate of infiltrated stormwater has also been obtained during media filtration tests conducted as part of EPA and WERF-fundcd projects (Clark and Pitt 1999). A current WERF-funded research at the University of Alabama also includes a test parallel swale where amended soil (with peat and sand) is being compared to native conditions. Both surface and subsurface quantity and quality measurements arc being made. The University of Washington and other Seattle amended soil test plots (Pitt, el al. 1999b and Harrison 1997) examined GroCo compost-amended soil (a sawdust/municipal waste mixture) and Cedar Grove compost-amended soil (yard waste compost). In addition, an older GroCo compost test plot was also compared to the new installations. These were both used at a 2: 1 soil:compost rate. As noted previously, these compost-amended soils produced significant increases in the infiltration rates of the soils, but the new compost test sites showed large increases in nutrient concentrations in surface runoff and the subsurface percolating water. However, most metals showed major concentration and mass reductions and toxicity measurements were also decreased at the amended soil sites. The older compost-amended test plots still indicated significant infiltration benefits, along with much reduced nutrient concentrations. Table 14 shows the measured infiltration rates at the old and new compost- amended test sites ln the Seattle area (aU Alderwood glacial till soil). Table 14. Measured Infiltration Rates at Compost-Amended Test Sites in Seattle (Pitt, et al. 1999b) Average Infiltration Rate fem/hr in/hrl UW test nlot 1 Alderwood soil alone 1.2 0.5 UW test olot 2 Alderwood soil with Ceder GrOYe comnost lold sitel 7.5 3.0 UW test olot 5 Afderwood soil alone 0.8 0.3 UW test n!ot 6 Alderwood soil with GroCo compost (old site\ 8.4 3.3 Timbercrest test olot AlderwoOO soil alone 0.7 <0.3) Timbercrest test olot Alderwood soil with Cedar Grove comnost /new site\ 2.3 (0.9\ Woodmoor test clot Alderwood soil alone 2.1 (0.8t W oodmoor test ( lot Alderwood soil with Cedar Grove comnost /new site l 3.4 (1.3\ The soil that was not amended with either compost had infiltration rates ranging from 0.7 to 2.1 cm/hr (0.3 to 0.8 in/hr). The old compost amended soil sites had infiltration rates of7.5 and 8.4 cm/hr (3.0 and 3.3 in/hr), showing an increase of about 6 to 10 times. The newer test plots of compost~amended soil had infiltration rates of 2.3 and 3.4 cm/hr (0.9 to 1.3 in/hr), showing increases ofabout 1.5 to 3.3 times. The older compost-amended soil test sites showed better infiltration rates that the newer test sites. It is likely that the mature and more vigorous vegetation in the older test plots had better developed root structures and were able to maintain good infiltration conditions, compared to the younger plants in the new test plots. Therefore, the use of amended soils can be expected to significantly increase the infiltration rates of problem soils, even for areas having shallow hard pan layers as in these glacial till soils. There was no significant difference in infiltration between the use of either compost during these tests. Our earlier work on the performance of different media for use for stormwater filtration is useful for selecting media that may be beneficial as a soil amendment, especially in providing high infiltration rates and pollutant reductions. As reported by Clark and Pitt ( 1999), the selection of the media needs to be based on the desired pollutant removal performance and the associated conditions, such as land use. The following is the general ranking we found in the pollutant removal capabilities of the different media we tested with storrnwater: • Activated carbon-sand mixture (very good removals with minimal to no degradation of effluent) 27 • Peat-sand mixture (very good removals, but with some degradation of effluent with higher turbidity\ color, and COD) • Zeolite-sand mixture and sand alone (some removals with minimal degradation of eilluent) • Enretech (a cotton processing mill waste)-sand mixture (some removals with minimal degradation of effluent) • Compost-sand mixture (some removals but with degradation of effluent with higher color, COD, and solids) All of the media performed better after they are aged because they have the potential to build up a biofilm that will aid in permanent retention of pollutants. These materials act mostly as ion-exchange materials. This means that when ions are removed from solution by the material, other ions are then released into the solution. In most instances, these exchangeable ions are not a problem in groundwaters. During these tests and for the materials selected, the exchangeable ion for activated carbon was mostly sulfate; while the exchangeable ion for the compost was usually potassium. The zeolite appears to exchange sodium and some divalent cations (increasing hardness) for the ions it sorbs. Conclusions Very large errors in soil infiltration rates can easily be made if published soil maps are used in conjunction with most available models for typically disturbed urban soils, as these tools ignore compaction. Knowledge of compaction (which can be measured using a cone penetrometer, or estimated based on expected activity on grassed areas, or directly measured) can be used to more accurately predict stormwater runoff quantity. In most cases, the mapped soil textures were similar to what was actually measured in the field. However, important differences were found during many of the 153 tests. Table 2 showed the 2-hour averaged infiltration rates and their COVs in each of the four major groupings. Although these COY values are generally high (0.5 to 2), they are much less than if compaction was ignored. These data can be fitted to conventional infiltration models, but the high variations within each of these categories makes it difficult to identify legitimate patterns, implying that average infiltration rates within each event may be most suitable for predictive purposes. The remaining uncertainty can probably best be described using Monte Carlo components in runoff models. The measured infiltration rates during these tests were all substantially larger than expected, but comparable to previous standard double-ring infihrometer tests in urban soils. Other researchers have noted the general over- predictions of ponding infiltrometers compared to actual observations during natural rains. In all cases, these measurements are suitable to indicate the relative effects of soil texture, compaction, and soil-water on infiltration rates. However, the measured values can be directly used to predict the infiltration rates that may be expected from storm water infiltration controls that utilize ponding (most infiltration and biofiltration devices). Table 15 summarizes the overall test and analysis results from the laboratory tests. In many cases (those with significant and close Fe and Fo rates, but insignificant k coefficient), uniform infiltration rates would be most appropriate to describe soil infiltration. Some tests also indicated significant model results with differing infiltration equation coefficients (except that many of the rate coefficient values were not significant). Obviously, it is unlikely that any other infiltration model would provide significant coefficients for the conditioos where no, or constant infiltration was observed. However, those conditions that generally were described by the Horton equation could likely be modeled successfully using alternative equations. These tests indicate that both texture and compaction were important in determining the infiltration rates, with time since the beginning ofrain only important for less than half of the conditions tested. Additional tests are planned in the field to compare the earlier infiltration rates observed by Pitt, et al. 1999b for a broader range of soil conditions. In addition, in-situ soil density values will be determined for comparison to these laboratory test results. Finally) tests should be conducted to compare rain induced infiltration with double-ring infiltration rates. Our earlier work indicated that the double-ring values could be substantially greater than observed during actual rains, but would be useful for designing biofiltration and other infiltration stormwater controls. 28 The use of soil amendments, or otherwise modif)'ing soil structure and chemical characteristics, is becoming an increasingly popular storm water control practice. However, little information is available to reasonably quantify benefits and problems associated with these changes. An example examination of appropriate soil chemical characteristics, along with surface and subsurface runoff quantity and quality, was shown during the Seattle tests. It is recommended that researchers con~idering soil modifications as a stonnwater management option conduct similar local tests in order to understand the effects these soil changes may have on runoff quality and quantity. During these Seattle tests, the cumpost was found to have significant sorption and ion exchange capacity that was responsible for pollutant reductions in the infiltrating water. However, the newly placed compost also leached large amounts of nutrients to the surface and subsurface waters. Related tests with older test plots in the Seattle area found much less pronounced degradation of surface and subsurface flows with aging of the compost amendments. In addition, it is likely that the use of a smaller fraction of compost would have resulted in fewer negative problems, while providing most of the benefits. Again, local studies using locally available compost and soils, would be needed to examine this emerging stormwater management option more thoroughly. Table 15. Sianificant Infiltration Models Soil Types Compaction Dry Bulk No Observed Model Not Significant, Use Horton {or other) Infiltration Model) (use Method Density Infiltration Use Constant coefficients shown on Table 12) Before Test during Tests Infiltration Rates fclccl (use O in/hrl linlhrl Silt Hand 1.508 X (knot significant) Standard 1.680 X (0.034) Modified 1.740 X (0.003) Sand Hand 1.451 X(3.06) Standard 1.494 X (use O for Fe, knot significant) Modified 1.620 X(3.19) Clay Hand 1.242 X (al! coefficients significant at <0.05) Standard NIA X Modified NIA X Sandy Loam Hand 1.595 X (use O for Fe, knot significant) Standard 1.653 X (use O for Fe, knot significant) Modified 1.992 X (k significant at 0.17 level} Silt Loam Hand 1.504 X (k significant at 0.15 level} Standard 1,593 X (0.027) Modified 1.690 X (0.0017) Clay Loam Hand 1.502 X (increase rate with time, Fe and knot significant} Standard 1703 X (0.016) Modified 1.911 X Clay Mix Hand 1.399 X Standard 1.685 X Modified 1.929 X These data can be utilized by stormwater modelers to better predict the behavior of urban soils, by site developers to better plan and compensate for detrimental effects on soils associated with development, and by stormwater managers and drainage engineers for more appropriate designs of stormwater control devices. As an example, SLAMM, the Source Loading and Management Model (Pitt and Voorhees 1995, \VW\v.winslamm.corn) incorporates this soil information (and Monte Carlo components) in the evaluation ofbiofiltration and infiltration devices, enabling more efficient evaluations of alternative stormwater controls and development options. It is relatively straight-forward to incorporate the effects of disturbed urban soils in many stormwater management 29 models. Hmvever, site~specific calibration and verification monitoring is still highly recommended for the most useful results. Acknowledgements Much of the infiltration measurements were carried out as class projects by University of Alabama at Birmingham hydrology, experimental design, and soil mechanics students. Choo Kcong Ong directed the laboratory compaction tests, while Janice Lantrip directed the field infiltration tests. Specific thanks are given to the following students who assisted with the projects summarized here: Robecca Martin, Stacey Sprayberry, Muhammad Salman, Wade Burcham, Brian Adkins, Sarah Braswell, Scott Lee, and Jennifer Harper. Partial support was provided by the Urban \Vatershed Management Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ for portions of the field measurements, including the amended soil tests. Thomas O'Connor was the EPA project officer and provided valuable project guidance. References Akan, A. 0., Urban Stormwater Hydrology: A Guide to Engineering Calculations. Lancaster. PA: Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., 1993. American Society of Testing and Materials. 1996 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. West Conshohocken. PA: ASTM vol. 04.08, 1994. Bedient, P.B., and Huber, W.C. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1992. Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G., and Hunter, J.S .. Statistics for Experimenters. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978. Clark, S. and R. Pitt. Stormwater Treatment at Critical Areas, Vol. 3: Evaluation of Filtration Media/or Stormwater Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPN600/R-001016, Cincinnati, Ohio. 442 pgs. October 1999. Das, B.M. Principals ofGeotechnical Engineering Boston: PWS Publishing Co., 1994. Gilbert, R.O., Statistical Methods/or Environmental Pollution Monitoring New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing Co., 1987. Harrison, R.B., M.A. Grey, C.L. Henry, and D. Xue. Field Test a/Compost Amendment to Reduce Nutrient Runoff Prepared for the City of Redmond. College of Forestry Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. May 1997. TurfTec International. TurfTec Instructions. Oakland Park, Florida. 1989. Dickey-John Corporation. Installation Instructions Soil Compaction Tester. Auburn, Illinois:, 1987. Horton, R.E. "An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity." Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. Vol. 20, pp. 693 -711. 1939. McCuen, R. Hydrologic Analysis and Design, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall. 1998. MoreJ.Seytoux, H.J. "Derivation of Equations for Variable Rainfall Infiltration." Water Resources Research. pp. 1012-1020. August 1978. NRCS. Soil Quality Institute 2000, Urban Technical Note 2, as reported by Ocean County Soil Conservation District, Forked River, NJ. 2001. Pitt, R. Small Stor/}/ Urban Flmvand Particulate Washof!Contributions to Outfall Discharges, Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, November 1987. Pitt, R, S. Clark, and K. Parmer. Protection of Groundwater from Intentional and Nonintentional Stonn.water Infiltration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/SR-941051. PB94-165354AS, Storm and Combined Sewer Program, Cincinnati, Ohio. 187 pgs. May 1994. Pitt, R. and S.R. Durrans. Drainage of Water from Pavement Structures. Alabama Dept. of Transportation. 253 pgs. September 1995. Pitt, R. and J. Voorhees. "Source loading and management model (SLAMM)." Seminar Publication: National Conference on Urban Runoff Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. March 30 -April 2, 1993. Center for Environmental Research Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPN625/R-95/003. Cincinnati. Ohio. pp. 225-243. April 1995. 30 Pitt, R., S. Chirk, K. Parmer, and R. Field. Groundwater Contamination from Stormivater Infiltration. Ann Arbor Press. Chelsea, Michigan. 218 pages. 1996. Pitt, R., S. Clark, and R. Field. "Groundwater contamination potential from stormwater infiltration practices." Urban Water. Vol. 1, no. 3,pp. 217-236. September 1999a. Pitt, R., J. Lantrip, R. Harrison, C. Henry, and D. Hue. Infiltration through Disturbed Urban Soils and Compost- Amended Soil Effects on Runoff Quality and Quantity. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA 600/R-00/016. Cincinnati, Ohio. 231 pgs. December 1999b. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service). Soil Survey of Chilton County, Alabama. October 1972. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Alabama. August 1982. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Soil Survey of Shelby County, Alabama. July 1984. Willeke, G.R, "Time in Urban Hydrology." Journal of the Hydraulics Division Proceedings oft he American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 13-29. January 1966. 31 ATTACHMENT D Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotcchnical Engineering • Materials Te.~ting • Special Inspection • Environmental Consulting June 4, 2009 Mr. Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing, LLC P.O. Box 188 Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 Geotechnical Investigation -Draft Report Hawk's Landing Lake Washington Blvd. N and I-405 Renton, WA Project No.: 09B044 Dear Mr. Mitzel: ' -i) . ' Q/;VELOPM!filf. · ~r°'•i''"' CITY Ofi'llfo . ' J\G ... ' ,,. . I' 'JUN f I ?Jt@. .,, < Re. ea•·· .. , . ~ ·_,, ;;; t .. l' ·f'' In accordance with your request, Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) has conducted a soils investigation and geotechnical engineering analysis for the referenced project. The results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are contained in the following report. To investigate the site, we excavated seven test pits, obtained soil samples for laboratory testing, conducted one ground water inflow measurement and performed geotechnical engineering analysis. In addition, we reviewed two previous geotechnical engineering reports by others. Water levels were measured in the test pits. We plan to return to the site and measure water levels a second time this coming winter when water levels' are estimated to be near their highest levels. An addendum to this report will be submitted with the second set of water level readings at that time. Questions related to soil conditions often arise during design and construction of a project. We would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical consultants during the project planning and construction. We also have a keen interest in providing materials testing and special inspection during construction of this project. We will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these services. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if MTC can be of any further assistance please call us at (360) 647-6061. Respectfully Submitted, MATERIALS TESTING & CONSULTING, INC. Corp-Orate -777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington. WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax {360) 755-1980 NW Region -2126 East Bakerview Rd., Suite #IOI • Bellingham, WA 98226 • Phone ('.l60) 647-6061 • Fax (360) 647-8111 SW Region -21 I 8 Black Lake Blvd. SW • Olympia, WA 985 [ 2 • Phone (360) 534-9777 • Fax (360) 534"9779 Visit our websile: www.mtc-inc.net 1 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Table of Contents l\tlaterial!ii Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 1.J Purpose.. . ...... 3 1.2 Scope.. . ........................................................................................................ 3 2.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 General Description......................... . ....................... 4 4.0 Field Exploration ................................................................................................................. 4 4.1 Excavation & Sampling Procedures .............................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 6 6.1 General Suitability for Planned Development........................................... . ............ 6 6.2 Suitability of Existing Soil for Re-Use as Structural Fill ....................... . . ...................................... 7 6.3 Recommended Changes to Previous Recommendation by Others .............. . ··········· 7 .... ············ 7 6.4 6.5 7.0 Grading ...................................................................................................... . Groundwater Control .................................................................................................................................... 8 Additional Services and Limitations ................................................................................... 9 Appendix A. Site Plans ............................................................................................................. JO Appendix B. Logs of Test Pits ................................................................................................. 12 Appendix C. Laboratory Results .............................................................................................. 20 Appendix D. Limitations and Use of This Report .................................................................... 23 n Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 }Iatcrials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 1.0 Introduction This report presents the results of a soils investigation for the proposed Hawk's Landing complex to be constructed south of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and Interstate 405 in Renton, WA. This investigation was conducted for Hawk's Landing, LLC, who provided written authorization to proceed on May 5, 2009. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to review existing geotechnical reports by others, determine the various soil profile components, determine the suitability of re-using existing soils for structural fill, provide additional ground monitoring points, and provide estimates of ground water inflow for design of a dewatering trench. 1.2 Scope As detailed in our proposal for geotechnical services dated January 22, 2009, the scope of services included: Subsurface Exploration • Excavate 6 test pits • Log the soil and ground water conditions • Obtain representative grab samples of the soils • Measure water levels • Conduct ground water pump-down and record rebound volume vs. time Laboratory Testing • Gradation • Moisture content Geotechnical Report • Subsurface soil conditions • Ground water • Suitability of re-using the existing soil for structural fill • Estimate of ground water inflow rate • Review existing soils reports and amend recommendations if necessary We were not requested to provide an environmental site assessment for this property. Any comments concerning on-site conditions and/or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. Information in this report is not intended to describe, quantify or evaluate any environmental concern or situation. 3 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 096044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 2.0 Project Description The project will consist of a 120,000 square foot, five story hotel. The hotel will be of conventional wood frame construction with a cast-in-place concrete parking garage basement with a post-tensioned roof slab. Structural loads had not been developed at the time of this report, however, we understand a similar project you developed in Marysville, WA was designed with shallow spread footings utilizing allowable bearing pressures of 2500 pounds per square foot (pst) and column footings measuring up to 14 by 14 feet in plan dimension. The ground floor elevation will be at elevation 3 8 feet; the parking garage finish floor grade will be at elevation 28 feet. The existing elevation of the site is about elevation 30 feet. Development plans include a permanent dewatering trench at the site perimeter to allowable excavation for site grading and excavation of footings without ground water intrusion. Two previous geotechnical engineering investigations have been conducted on this site by others. The first report is: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnica/ Engineering Study -Proposed May Creek Office Building, prepared for the Ranier Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., October 8, 1985. The second is: Geotechnical Engineering Study -May Creek Business Park, prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., February 6, 1991. Detailed descriptions of area geology, seismicity and subsurface soil conditions are contained in these reports and will not be repeated here. 3.0 Site Description 3.1 General Description The project site is located on a property measuring approximately 800 feet along Lake Washington Boulevard North 960 feet along I-405 and about 730 feet along the south property line. The site is currently occupied by wood and metal framed industrial warehouses and support structures and a wood frame administrative and sales office for pre-fabricated homes. Much of the site is paved, but includes gravel surfaced areas and limited brush and trees in peripheral areas along a portion of the northwest property line. A small lawn fronts the sales office and landscaping borders the entry drive accessing the north corner of the site. The site is relatively level, for the most part, increasing in elevation from 30 to 3 8 feet from north to south. More abrupt topography occurs as road embankment fills along the periphery at Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and Interstate 405. A 13 foot-high fill forms the entrance driveway. 4.0 Field Exploration On January 4, 2009, our geologist visited the site and conducted a subsurface exploration of the soil and groundwater conditions. The field investigation included excavation of seven geotecimical test pits, ground water flow measurements in a perforated casing and measurement of water levels in two existing monitoring wells installed by others. A site plan supplied by the project engineer was used to position the test pits. Test pits were located by pacing and sighting off of existing buildings and landmarks and are presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. 4.1 Excavation & Sampling Procedures Test Pits were excavated using a track-mounted excavator and operator supplied by the client. Grab samples representative of each soil type were obtained from each test pit. The samples were classified in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS, see Appendix B), identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in plastic bags to protect against moisture loss 4 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. and transported to the laboratory for testing. June 4, 2009 The Logs of Test Pits are shown in Appendix B. To measure the ground water inflow rate, we installed a 6 inch diameter PVC pipe into Test Pit 5 to a depth of7.0 feet below the ground surface or 3.4 feet below the water level. The pipe was slotted with numerous saw cuts and wrapped with filter fabric. The annular space around the pipe was backfilled with soil excavated from the test pit and four inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of the pipe. The time required to re-fill the casing is summarized in Table 2, below. The pipe was removed at the end of the test and the hole was backfilled. Table 2. Water Table Recovery Rate Elapsed Time (Minutes) Depth Below Ground Surface (Feet) 0 6.67 15 5.00 25 4.25 38 3.75 65 3.50 The results of the water level recovery test indicate a ground water inflow rate of 4.3 gallons per hour. 4.2 Laboratory Testing Upon demobilizing from the field, laboratory testing was conducted on selected samples to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. The laboratory testing included supplementary visual classification, moisture content (ASTM D2216), and Grain Size Analysis (ASTM Cl 17, Cl36). The results of these tests are presented in Appendix D. 5.0 Subsurface Conditions Soil profiles were somewhat variable across the site. Three distinct soil units were observed in the test pits. The identified units are as follows with increasing depth below the surface: Table 1. Observed Soil Units with Decreasing Depth Topsoil (OL, SM) Dark brown orgamc silt and sandy silt encountered in Test Pit I, 2 and 4 and 5 to depths of 0.6 to 1.5 feet. The topsoil was overlain by 0.3 feet of gravel fill in Test Pit 4. Uncontrolled Fill (UF, GP, ML, SPSW, SM-ML) Encountered in Test Pits 3, and 5 through 7, Varying from sandy gravel as crushed surfacing top course to sawdust. The fill ranged m thickness from 1.4 to 3 .3 feet thick. The sawdust (Test Pit 3) and organic silt (Test Pit 4) and was 2.8 and l.2 feet thick, respectively. 5 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 AUuvium (GW, GP, SW, SP, SP-SW, SM, ML, OL) Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Encountered in all test pits to the depths explored (4.5 to l l.2 feet). Encountered as [ayers 0.5 to 4.4 feet thick with thin interbeds within the [ayers. Granular soils were loose to dense and fine grained soils were medium stiff to stiff. Naturally occurring wood debris in the form of fine orgamcs, roots and branches was encountered in Test Pits 3 through 6. The water table was encountered in all test pits at depths ranging from 2.1 to 7.5'. Two water level monitoring wells had been previously installed by others, one in front of a warehouse building near the east property line and one in a parking area in the north west comer of the property as shown on the site plan. The water level in the warehouse well was measured at 3.4 feet below grade and in the parking area at 1.2 feet. During a previous site visit on January 28, 2009, we measured the water level in these wells at 3.8 feet and 1.3 feet, respectively. We plan on returning to the site in early June in order to hand auger through selected test pit backfills and measure water levels again. 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 General Suitability for Planned Development Based on the results of our field investigation, laboratory tests and review of the two previous geotechnical reports, we conclude that the recommendations contained in the Hart Crowser report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project. We conclude the loads for this structure lie somewhere between those contained in the Hart Crowser report (7 to 8 story, cast-in-place concrete building with column loads of 220 to 1250 kips) and the Earth Consultants report (2 story warehouse/office buildings with 150 kip column loads and 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot perimeter footing loads). The Earth Consultants report recommended pre-loading the site and providing shallow spread footing foundations for support. The Hart Crowser report recommended auger-cast concrete piles of about 50 feet deep. We conclude that the loads for your structure will be on the order of 500 kips per column and that foundations gaining their support from denser soils at depth will be required to limit differential and total settlements to tolerable levels. This is especially true because of the variable nature and density of the fill and alluvial soils, the relatively shallow water level, the presence of organic material in the soil and the design ground floor elevation of the structure. We understand that for deep foundations, you are considering aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations. Aggregate piers may be a viable solution for this site. These systems are typically designed by specialty contractors based on soils information supplied by others. They may be able to design a system based on the existing reports cited above. However, it will be beneficial if additional geotechnical information specific to this site and project were obtained for design of deep foundations. MTC would be keenly interested in providing you and your aggregate pier contractor with additional subsurface information at this site. We would be pleased to meet with you and your aggregate pier designer to plan the additional geotechnical investigation. 6 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 6.2 Suitability of Existing Soil for Re-Use as Structural Fill Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 The soil encountered in at 1.8 feet in Test Pit l and 4.5 feet in Test Pit 2 consist of sandy gravel and silty sand, respectively. These soils are suitable for re-use as structural fill provided the recommendations presented below are followed: Native soil used as structural fill should be near optimum moisture according to the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D1557) and as determined by MTC. Soils not meeting optimum moisture content should be moisture conditioned by wetting or drying prior to placement. Soil with a moisture content exceeding 3% of optimum should be spread in thin lifts or wind rows, aerated, and turned over until it reaches near-optimum moisture conditions. The shallow soils encountered in the remaining test pits vary considerably in makeup from very organic fill to sand. Some of these soils may be suitable for re-use as structural fill, but since the deposits appear to be isolated selective excavation will be required during grading if any are to be re-used as structural fill. 6.3 Recommended Changes to Previous Recommendation by Others Because the building pad will be in about two feet of cut, no surcharge fill is required. However, prior to placing the floor slab, MTC should check the condition of the exposed subgrade to check for the presence of unsuitable, soft or deflecting soils. Where these soils are encountered, they should be removed down to firm unyielding soils and replaced with compacted structural fill. The recommendations for grading and fill placement presented in the previous reports should be followed with the exception that all structural fill should be compacted to 95% of maximum density in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 modified compaction test method. 6.4 Grading Excessively organic and loose soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads. This is detrimental to the behavior of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills and foundations placed upon them. Therefore, excessively organic and loose soils should be stripped from these areas and wasted or stockpiled for later use. If very loose soils are encountered underlying the recommended stripping depths, these soils will need to be re-compacted or replaced with structural fill. Table 2. Stripping Depth Test Location Reference Location Stripping Depth (Feet) TP-1 820' N, 270' W of SE Property Corner 1.0 TP-2 835' N, 325' W of SE Property Comer 0.6 TP-3 275' N, 385' W of SE Property Comer 3.3 TP-4 110' N, 60' W of SE Property Corner 1.5 TP-5 240' N, 40' W of SE Property Comer 0.3 TP-6 390' N, 25' W of SE Property Corner 0 TP-7 690' N, 10' W of SE Property Comer 1.0 Exact depths of stripping should be adjusted in the field to ensure that the entire root or loose zone is removed. The final exposed subgrade should be inspected by MTC to verify that all organic material has been removed. Any soft spots or deflecting areas should be removed to firm unyielding soils and replaced with structural fill. 7 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 6.5 Groundwater Control Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 As described above, ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during this investigation. Flow measured in Test Pit 5 averagec.l 4.3 gallons per hour. Ground water in the Earth Consultants report was measured at 2.0 to 3.5 feet deep in February, 1991. The Hart Crowscr report indicated water levels of 5 to 9.5 feet deep in August 29, 1985; water levels measured in two of the borings on September 5, 1985 indicated water levels higher by 1.3 and 2.4 feet. Ground water infiltration will affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. Water level will vary seasonally. We understand the project civil engineer will be designing a dewatering trench in order to draw down the water level on this site in order to mitigate dewatering problems during and after construction. 8 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 098044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 7 .0 Additional Services and Limitations We recommend that MTC be engaged to review the plans and specifications to check that the recommendations presented in this and previous reports are adhered to. MTC should also test and evaluate the exposed subgrades before placing slabs or structural fills to determine that the soils meet the required bearing capacities and that unexpected conditions arc not present. Monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fills and that they are properly placed and compacted. MIC should be present during foundation installation to check that the expected bearing soils are as described in the previous soils reports and assumed by the designer and to make recommendations for modifications if necessary. The work described in this report is considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the site development. MTC should be notified of any revision in the plans for the proposed structure from those presented in this report so that we may determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should also be brought to our attention. MTC warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained in this report, have been developed after being prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practice in the fields of soil mechanics and engineering geology. No other warranties are implied or expressed. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Hawk's Landing, LLC and their retained design consultants. Findings and recommendations within this report are for specific application to this site and proposed project. 1-7/14/10 Randolph R. Ross, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 9 'Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 10 Materials Testing & Consulting, [nc. June 4, 2009 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Ref: Grading Plan By: Sound Development Group Dated: May, 2009 /,/ /I/ : ·1 ,-• I I Materials Testing & Consulting, lnc. June 4, 2009 0 JOO 200 JOO Scale : Feet ''i ' ::: • ,1•• ; Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix B. Logs of Test Pits Unified Soil Classification System Chart Sampler S)mbol Description ~ SLandard Penetration Test (SPn Major Divisions Graph Coarse ' 0 d •• 0 Grai oed Soils Gravel ~ .o·: Clean Graw ls • • More Tl13n ·t:~-~-50%of Coarse Frac-? • d Inn Retained , :~ More 1han 50% On No. 4 0 Retained On Sieve Gravels Wi':h Fines ~ 0 No. 200 Sieve :·_,A Sand Clean Sands More Than .. ·-.. 50%of Coarse Frao-. J ton Passing No. 4Sieve · .. ··.·. Sands With FirJ:s j() Fine Grained II il Soils !i Silts & Clays Li.:\ uid Limit Less // Than 50 More TI.-i.n50% Passing The : No. 200 Sieve : I I Silts & Clays Li:juid Limit 1// Greater Than SO ~;%: -· HighJy Organic Soils - Soil Consistencv Granular Soils Fine-grained Soils Density SPT Coruisf£ncy SPT B/owcocmt Blowcount Very [..{Jose 0-4 Very Soft 0-l Loose 4-10 Soft l-4 Medium 10-30 Finn ..a Dense Dense 30-50 S1iff 8-15 Ver'j Dense > 50 Very Stiff 15-30 Hacd > JO uses GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Typical Description Well-graded GraV1:ls, GraVel-Sand Mix- nm Poorly-Graded Gravels, GraveJ.SaM Mixt1Jes Silty Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Silt Mixtures Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand-Clay Mix- t,res Well-graded Sands, Gravelly S300s Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands Silty Sands, Sand.-Si!t Mixtures Chyey Sarrls, Cb.y Mixtures lnorgamC Silts, rock Fkia, Clayey Silts With Low Plastdty loorga.nic Clays of Low To Mediwn Plastidy Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays of Low Plasticity lnorganX: Silts ofModerate Pbsfoiiy [norganic Clays ofHigh PrutK:ity Organi;; Clay.,· Ard SiltsofMediumto High Plasticity Peat, Humus, Soils with Predominantly Org;.mic Content Grain Size [llJ Sheby Tube t8] Grab or Bulk Ei California (10'' O.D.) I Modified California (2.5" O.D.) Stratigraphic Contact ~ sz • D~1inct Stratigraphic Contact Between Soil Strata Gradual Change Between Soil Strata Approximate location of stratagraphic change GroUJJdwater observed at time of e1,p\oralion Measured groundwater level in exploration, welLor piei:ometer Perched water observed at time of exploration Modifiers Description % Trace >5 Some 5-[2 With >[2 DESCRJPTrON SIEVE GRAIN SlZE APPROXJMATESJZE SIZE Boukiers > 12" > 12" Larger tlml a basketba 1l Cobbk!s 3 · 12" 3 -12" Fist to basketball Coarse )/4 -3" 3/4 -J" Thumb to fist Gravel f,,. #4. 314" 0.19-0.75" Pea to thurrb Coar.;e #IO -#4 0.079-0.19" Rock salt to pea Sand Medon #40 -#10 0.017-0.079" Sugar to rock salt Fm< #200-#40 0.0029-0.017" Fknr to Sugar Fires Passing < 0.0029" Fbt£ and srrn.ller #200 12 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09!3044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 1 ! Hawk's Landing Renton, WA Dale Started Dale Comple1ed Sampling Melhod Location (Page 1 of 1) : 5-8--09 · 5-8-09 : Grab sampling Geotechnical Site Investigation Logged By : 820' N. 270' W of SE Property Comer . A. Isle w • "- .£ Surf. £ Elev ~ 34 • 0 Oc 34 . - . 1-f-33 . - 2-32 3--31 4-30 - 5-29 6-26 . - 70 27 ' 8c 26 . - 9-25 -- 10..: 24 11-• 23 12- "' u "' :J OL - GW u I Cl. c2 (_') DESCRIPTION Dark brown organic SILT (Topsoil) Grey GRAVEL with sand, medium dense to dense, wet, rounded gravel to 3" diameter Wei! defined rust line 5" thick at 1.5' with heavy mottling below with inlerbedded sandy layers at 2.3' Seepage at 2.4' Moderate seepage at 3.4' \.Stabilized water level at 3.3' D 1----------"'5""'------------L---'------j Bottom of boring at 4.5'. Pit walls cave readily below 2'. 13 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 2 • • u_ .S t • 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hawk's Landing Renton, WA Data Started Date Completed Sampling Method Location (Page 1 of 1) : 5-8-09 · 5-8-09 : Grab sampling Geotechnical Site fnvesti ation logged By 835' N, 325' W ol SE Properly Carner : A. Isle Sert Elev 30.5 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 !al :,: "' a. 0 ~ "' ::, CJ OL SP DESCRIPTION Dark brown organic SILT (Topsoil) Grey brown silty SANO, medium dense, moist, with some gravel, light mottling throughout Grey SAND, medium dense, wet. with some sill and trace gravel, light mottling throughout Gray sandy GRAVEL, medium dense to dense, saturated, sandy upper 0.2', rounded to subrounded gravel to 3" diameter, with moderate mot11ing throughout With sandy (SW) layers throughout With interbeds of heavily mottled silty sand throughout. Root zone to 2-2.0 Seepage at 2.0' Grey to blue gray fine SAND, medium dense, wet, with si/t'clay interbeds, mottling to 3.5' Bottom of boring at 6.5'. Pit wans cave readily below 1.3'. 14 June 4, 2009 • > 0 j • a. I E ro "' [J Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 i\1aterials Testing & Consulting, Inc. ~ N ~ Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 3 • • "- .S £ ~ • 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 Hawk's landing Renton, WA Date Started Date Completed Sampling Method Location · 5-8-09 5-B-09 Grab sampling (Page 1 or 1) Geotechnicaf Site Investigation logged By : 275' N, 365' W of SE Property Corner : A. lsle Surf. Elev. "' 0 33.5 "' :, 33 32 UF 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 " 22 0 I n. c2 "' DESCRIPTION Grey brown sandy GRAVEL, dense, moist Uncontrolled Fill, with gravel and construction debris (wood, brick, plastic), matrix soil is brown si!ty sand, loose Sawdust layer at 1.5', 1' thick on south side of pit and 1.8' on north side Green grey silty SANO, loose to medium dense, moist with trace roots and fine organics to 5-6' Perched seepage at 5.9' Very slow seepage at 7 .5' all sides of pit; 1' accumulation of water in bottom of pi\ after 5 minutes Bottom of boring at 9.3'. Pit walls cave readily below 1.3'. 15 June 4, 2009 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 0913044 IVlaterials Testing & Cornrnlting, lnc. ! ~ Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 4 • • ~ .e ~ 0. • 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hawk's Landing Renton, WA Date Started Date Completed Sampling Method Location · 5-8-09 : 5-!!-09 Grab sampling (Page 1 of 1) Geoiechnical Site Investigation Logged By : 110' N, 60' W af SE Property Corner : A. Isle u Suri. r Elev. "' n. DESCRIPTION u i:i 35 "' C> "' 35 Sandy GRAVEL (Crushed Surfacing Top Course) Brown sandy organic Sll T, soft, moist, with roots to 1/4" diameter (Topsoil) 34 Grey SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist to saturaled, rounded gravel to 1' 33 diameter, with sandy and silty sand layers lhroughout SP Perched waier level a1 2.8' " Brown SILT, medium stiff, moist, with lrace organics 31 30 Grey sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, saturated 29 Grey to brown SILT with sand, medium stiff. moist. large naturally occuring wood debris north 28 side of test pit from 6.5' to 7.5' ML 27 26 Brown organic sandy SILT wl\h clay, medium stiff, moist, with some wood debris and roots to 6~ diameter 25 24 Grey SANO, medium dense, moist Bottom of test pit at 11.2'. Pit walls cave readily at 5.4' 16 June 4, 2009 • > • • -a. ~ ;. E • rn "' 3: [J CJ G Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. ~ Ii Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 5 1ii • ~ .S £ ~ • 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hawk's landing Renton, WA Date Started Date Completed Sampling Method Location · 5-8-09 · S-8--09 Grab sampling Geotechnica! Site Investigation logged By 240' N, 40' W of SE Property Corner A. Isle u Surf. 'i: Elev. "' a. DESCRIPTION u i:2 34 "' ::, Cl 34 Dark brown silty SAND (T opsoi!) Brown crushed surfacing TOP COURSE, with roots to 1 ', plastic at 1' 33 Dark brown sandy SILT, medium stiff, moist, with trace gravel 32 Red silty SAND medium dense to dense, wet, with gravel (Uncontrolled Fil!) Grey SAND, medium dense, wet 31 Brown silty SAND, medium dense, heavy mottling decreasing at 3.7' Sparse roots to 3.5' 30 29 Blue grey SAND with some gravel Becomes coarser with depth SP-SW " Bottom of test pit at 6.5'. 27 26 25 24 23 17 June 4, 2009 (Page 1 of 1) w > • • • _, 0. " E • ~ "' [,J 0 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09!3044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 6 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Dale Star1ed . 5-8-09 Renton, WA Da1e Completed · 5-8-09 Sampling Method Grab sampling Location 390' N, 25' W of SE Proper1y Comer Geotechnical Site Investigation Logged By : A. Isle • .. • ~ 0 > E Surf. r " • • ~ £ Elev "' 0. DESCRIPTION C. li ~ 0 c? E • 34 "' • • 0 ::, " u, ;; 0-34 SM ASPHALT PAVEMENT Brown gravelly SAND, dense, moist SW 1-33 -ML I Brown SILT with some sand, medium stiff, moist, with some roots throughout, with trace gravel 2-1-32 Grey brown SILT, medium stiff to stiff, moist heavily mottled throughout . 8 ' . 3c 31 ML I . I I -- 4c 30 I - Brown to grey brown SAND, medium dense, moist to saturated, with gravel to 2' diameter, 5-29 heavily mottled throughout 0 .I SW 6-28 ML 1111111 Dark grey brown SILT, stiff to medium stiff, moist, with some sand, with smaU roots to 1/8" Gl 7-27 diameter throughout, with small pockets of organic debris (partially decomposed wood) Bottom of test pit at 7.0'. 8~ 26 ' . 9-25 - 10-24 11-23 12- 18 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09IJ044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. 0 ~ ~ ~ Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 7 • ru u_ .S £ 0. ru 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hawk's Landing Renton, WA Date Started Dale Compleled Sampling Method location : 5-8-09 5--8-09 Grab sampling (Page 1 of 1) Geotechnical Site Investigation Logged By : 690' N, 10' W of SE Properly Corner : A. Isle Sort Ele11. 32 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 (.) r U) n. (.) cf U) ::, <!J DESCRIPTION ASPHALT PAVEMENT Brown sandy SILT, soft, moist, mottled with roots throughout (Filf) Grey sandy SILT, soft to medium stiff, moist, heavily mottled throughout, trace sman roots {Fi!I) Light brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist, heavily mottled, with trace gravel Pit walls cave readily below 2' at 3.0', small inlerbeds of sand, slow seepage Grey SAND with trace gravel, medium dense, saturated, sand fine grained Bottom of test pit at 6.5'. 19 June 4, 2009 D 3 Ha,·vk's Landing Job No.: 0913044 .Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix C. Laboratory Results Sieve Report Project: Hawks Landing Project#: 09B044 Client: Hawks Landing, LLC Source; TP-1@ 1.8 Sample#: 090061 Specifications No Specs Date Roceived: 8-May-09 Sampled By; A. Isle Date Tested: l 5-May-09 Tested By: T. Baggennan Sample MeetsSpeC5? Yes Actual Interpolated 1----~~-=-----;Cumuh•tive Cwnulative.~~-~-~---JI Sieve She Percent Percent Specs Specs US Mehic Passini! Passill!!: Mex Min 6.00" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1.75" 45.00 100% 100_0% 0.0% 1.50" ]7.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1.25" ]1.50 100''/o 100.0% 0.0% l.00" 25.00 79% 79% 100.0% 0.0% 7/8" 3/4" 5/8" 1n." 318" l/4" 114 #8 "0 "16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #60 #80 #100 #[40 11170 #200 Co 22.40 19.00 !6.00 12.50 9.50 6.30 4.75 2.360 2.000 l .180 0 850 0.600 0.425 0.300 0.250 0. I 80 0.150 0.106 0.090 O.D75 72% 54% 44% 34% 29% 26% 16% 6% 3% 1.7% 76% 100.0% 0.0% 72% 100.0% 0.0% 64% 100.0% 0.0% 54% 100.0% 0.0% 44% !00.0% 0.0% 37% 100.0% 0.0% 34% 100.0% 0.0% 29% I00.0% 0.0% 29% 100.0% 0.0% 27% I00.0% 0.0% 26% 100.0% 0.0% 20% 100.0% 0.0% 16% 100.0% 0.0% 9% 100.0% 0.0% 6% 100.0% 0.0% 4% 100.0% 0.0% ]% 100.0% 0.0% 2% 100.0% 0.0% 2% 100.0% 0 0% l. 7% 100.0% 0 0% S II' &, "'°""~ &. TodfU,al Savia:, PS, 1996-9! ASTM D-1487 Unified Soils Classification System GW, Well-graded Gravel with Sand Sample Color: Bro-wn Di.i 1= 0.2!8 mm % Gravel = 66.0% Coe ff of Curvature, Cc= 0.32 0(111)""' 0.)18 mm % Sand= 32.3% Coe ff of Unifonnity, Ctr= 0.02 Dooi = 2.660 mm %Silt& Clay= 1.7% Fineness Modulus= 5.62 D1}oJ= 11.178 mm Fracture%= nla liquid Limit""' 0.0% 0{60) = 14.603 mm Moisture%, as sampled= nla Plastic Limit= 0.0% D<~ni"" 34.920 mm Plasticity Index= 0.0% Grain Size Distribution 0 ;o :,? !""fff,~rr 1 ; f .. "'~ : ~ ~ & H i§ r2 ~ 100Yo •,r-.,·~·,..~· .. ·-·~-iirn+--h~ ~~ ~1, "T ,-, -• I fl I I I \ I 1111 I I I I lat Ir I I I i II I I I I I ),1111 I I 11111 I I I 11111 I I , 1"11 I I I 9Q% IJLr_,_ J __ JIJII_I_I l __ Jl!_l_lJJ_\. __ !.ILll I j_l __ 11 I I r I I ct 111 I I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I f111 I I I I fl 11 I I I I 11111 I I I 111 I I I T I 111 Fl I I 1 'I I I I I I I I 111 'I I I I 1111 I I I I 60% '~~:~-:\~ --~;~:~~ -:-~ --.~:~:~~ ~-~ --~:~:~ ~ ~ -~ -- I I I I I I I •, '11 I I I I r I 111 I I I I I , I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I • , 11 11 I I I I •II I 1 I I I I • I 11 I r I I I 70% ~ ~:-:-:--:y-,-;:~:-: ~ -11-~ --~:~:~~ ~ -~ --:;·;;;~ ~ ~ -~ -- 11111111•'11'1111 '11111111 '11111111 60o/. DIJLI_I_I_J,_'J'.!1_1_1_1_1 ,111,1, I I 111111 TI CJ o 111111 I I •111111 I I --,j"ri"t-1l_1_1--,l1l1lll_1 __ c r1111111.•11111111 •111,.111 111i,111 'iii IILI I I r I \1111 I I I I 'lr<I r I I I 1111' I I I ID 50% ~I.JLl..J-1-..I.-Jl.11-1..J-1-1---.JIJ.I..I.J..I-L __ ,(IJ.IJ.JJ_L_ 8!. rt111r111 111111•1 111111,r "1"11111 • ~ 111 I I c I I 'I 11 1 I r I 1111 I I I J 11 J Fl I I I 111 I II ! I ,\,. r, I I I • 'I I I I 1 , I , 11 I I I 1 ! I 40% nri,-1-, ---"To\n,-,-r --,"T1Tr--i, ,-r --·r1r1, "T 1-r -- I 11 I I I I I ·I I '~\! F I I 'I I I! I I I I 1 111 I I I I r,111 I I I 1111 _....._I I ·1,111 I I I ,11111 I I I JO% 1111 1_1_1_ J __ IJIJI_I_I~ ! __ ,Jl!.I_IJ _I_!_ __ !_l!_IJ .! J_ 1 __ .. :::-:::: ,:::::::·,~, • .:.~1:::::: ;:::::::: 111111 I I 111111 I I I .•\111 I I "111111 I I 20% .j..tULI..J_I_ J --'.JI.IU.J_I_ J. --·.l.lJ.._.,i.J J_ I-__ .1-111.J .J J -L _ r1111 I I I ·l!II I I I I '111!,I I I 11111 I I I 111111 I '11111 I I I 11111•,, I •11111 I I I )-i I 'I I I I 11 11 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I 10% 1nrn-1-,--,,1,n-,-1-r--n1-ri,, .-,--·rini"T--i-r - ij 111 I I I I 1111 I I I I 11111 I r\ I !1111 I I I I l-1111 I I I I 'II II I I I I 11111 I I '• 011111 I I t 1000% 00.0% 00.0% 70.0% 60.0% 00.0% 40.0% 3JO% 2J.0% 10.0% ,, ••• ,. ·'····!•:,1111 0% ,1/,li.al ........... ,U,H,,L..C.,j,..-.<jj.lJ,JL._ ... ,-lo.-.ii;.,CLLI~L-J Q.0% 100.00 10.00 1.00 Particle Size (mm) --MuSpoa --MinSp,:,<> 0.10 0.01 ,111 rrsult; •;,pl} on!,-lo xfu,l 1oolion• a'll re.,lerills ,,,-1,d A, a rnul,r,1 rn,C,:,;;lioa le dirn•.,. !h: ruhl,car,1 """"~·,s, ,11,.po,t; or.: submiH,O :>< lh,<006""11 i'll propc,'J-o/ di«11. an:l ,o\hori,:,.!Jon fo, poblico!rn nof,lalorn<nl>. a,nd,,ion; ore;tr,.,IS frornor ""P'Wll' oUTrtpo~, 1>T<s<rv<d p,n,Hag ""' wtlnm •pprov,I. Comments: Reviewed by: .,y,,../1 /~-------··- 20 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 Materials T csting & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Sieve Report Project: Hawks Landing Project ff: 09B044 Client: !!awk.s Landing, LLC Source: TP-2@ 4. S Sample#: 090063 Specifications No Specs Date Received: 8-May-09 Sampled By: A. lsle Date Tested: 15·May·09 Tested By: T. Baggem1an Sample Meets Specs? Yes Actual lnterpo[a(ed Cumul8tive Cwnulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Spec, Specs us Metric Passine: Pusim:r M" Min 6.00" 150.00 LOO% 100.0% 0.0% 4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 3.00" 75 00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1.75" 45.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1.50" 37.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1.25'' 31.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% 1.00" 25.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 718" 22.40 100% 100.0% 0.0% 314" 19.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 5/8" 16.00 100%1 100.0% 0.0% lfl" 12.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% 3/8" 9 50 100% 100.0% 0.0% 114" 6.30 100% 100.0% 0.0% #4 4.75 100% 100.0% 0.0% #8 2.360 100% 100.0% 0.0% #10 2.000 100% 100% 100.0% 0.0% #16 I 180 100% 100.0% 0.0% #20 0.850 100% 100% 100.0% 0.0% #JO 0.600 97% 100.0% 0.0% #40 0.425 95% 95% 100.0% 0.0% #50 0.300 73% 100.0% 0.0% #60 0.250 65% 65% 100.0% 0.0% #80 0.180 47% 100.0% 0.0% #100 0.150 40% 40% 100.0% 0.0% #140 0.106 33% 100.0% 0.0% #170 0.090 I 30% #200 oms 27.8% 27.8% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 00% C ,-" S<><>n o""'""ir» & T«tnieal S==• rs, 1996-98 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification S:yskm SM, Silty Sand Sample Color: Gray D(,1 = 0.013 mm % Gravel = 0.0% Coeff. of Curvature, Cc= 0 72 D1101= 0.027 mm % Sand= 72.2% Coe ff of Uniformity, C11"' 0.28 D1_,n 1 = 0.088 mm % Sill & Clay""' 27.8% Fineness Modulus= 0.89 D(~o,= 0.191 mm Fraciure % = n/a Liquid Limit= 0.0% D(wl"" 0.232 mm Moisture%, as sampled= n/a Plastic Limit= 0.0% 0(~01= 0.519 mm Plasticity Index= 0.0% Grain Size Distribution O ;< r'~ri~~,..ff~.: ~ f C: ;;:~ : ~ ~ i u ,s1 ~.ii 100 Yo ,+1"',•~•i"~'°~•••~•.•.;,•~~•.-.•M",a,•..,-,-..•••.-•."r,•"4,!o I ill .. ~ ~1, -r , -r --100.0% 111111 I I ll'IIII I I Ill!,_~ I I '111111 I I ~tlll<tt 111111111 ,11111<11 11111111 90% ~:~ ~:-:-:-{--:~:~:-:-:-:-~ --.{:~:-: ~-:· -_I}:}:~{~-~ -- ~1111111 ,11111111 ,i1111r11 111111,1 9J.O% 1111 I I I I •II 11 I I I I 111 I I I I I ,, 11 I J I I I 0, C •• • • .. " 60% ~ 1-l '-l.-l -I -J. --...I 1-l 1-1 ..J -1 -.I. --'-! I.J. 1-l J ~ -I--_ 'l,11-1--1 .j ...I -I--- 1111111 ·1111,111 ,111111\1 1111111, 1111 I I I 11111 I I I 111111 I 11111 I I I l,1111111 flllflll ,111111•~1 11111111 70% ',nn,-1--i--'l"nn,-1-r--mT1o,, r -nn,,,-r-- 111 I I I I I 11 < 11 I I I 111 I I I I I I I II I I I I ~II I I I I I 11'1 II I I 1111 I I I\" I 1111 I I I I 60% ::~~:-:-:-+-~: :-: : : }--+:::-:~~ ~ -t:t:~+~-:--- 11 I I I I I 11 11 I I I I II <I P I I 1111 I < I I I I I I I I < I I< II I I I I I II II I I f II I I I I I I 50% .J..ll-J L.1-l-1-.j --..ll..!1-1..J _,_ .I---.J.1.1-1-l..l _J --'llll..l .J. ...I -1-- 11 I I I I I 11111 I I I 11111 I I • 11111 I I I 11111 I I '11111 I I I 11111 ! I I\ '11111 I I I 11111 I I "11111 I 111111 I I tllllll I I 40% n r1 ,-, • ·, --,,r11-1,-,-r --,-r1r1,-r ,-r-• -,nn, -r, -,---- 1111111 ·1!11111 I 11111111 1\;1111111 I lilrll I 1111111• I oillllll I •'1111111 I 30% :+:-:-:: +--:+:~:-:-:-:-+--:+:+:-:~-:-+--~t~J:~~-:-:- 11111 I I I '11111 I I I illll I I I I 'lil11 I I I 00.0% 70.0% 00.0% -~ 5'.l.0% • ij .. " 40.0% 3J.0% I' I II I I I 'i 111 I I I J 11111 I I r I 11 Pl I I I 20% ULI.J-I_.J. __ lJ1-ll-l.J_1_,_ __ ,-1.1.1.1..JJ_J_l-__ .,_,u_1JJ_I-_ 20.0% II I I I I I '1111 I I < I II Ir II I I 'It I I I I I 111 I I I I I II II I I I r I I I II I I I t 111 r I I L 10.0% 111 I I I I I 'Ill I F 1 I I 'II II I I I I II I I I I I ! 10% nr1-i-1--i--:,1-rn,-1-r--·,1rn,,-r--nr1111-r- 1111 FI ' ' ,11111 ' ' ' •111111 ' ' 'Ill< I ' ' ' 1111 ' ' ' '111 I I ' ' ' 11'111 ' ' lllf I ' ' ' 0% . . .. " " "'' . . . 0.0% 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 Particle Size {mm) + Sie><Siza --M»Sp<e1 --MroSp<a All r=lf:l opply on~ to ;i,o!\l,l l,xali<n1 •n:I ,m1ena\s 1,rted k• m""'•l pro,<cikm lo d.ionls. !I< J'l'bhem! oo,,d,a, ,II n: orl:! '"' ..,bmiflocl., \h<ton66:n\ial p,-op«ty of di<,,1~ tn:I aulho,,,.lion forpublitotionofsl:!.lemml mnch.<Fo" orena:L< fmmor "~·~ our«po~si>t=,...•d p,,ndinJuu, wrinen•pprov,I Comments: Reviewed by: -/-./1 ./?k{._,,,L----- 21 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09Fl044 Sample ID 090061 090062 090063 090064 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Moisture Content-ASTM C-566, ASTM D-2216 & AASHTO T-265 Locat'1on Tare Wet+ Tare Dry+ Tare Wgt Of Moisture Wgt. Of Soil % Moisture TP-1@ 1.8 912.4 3502.7 3300.2 202.5 2387.8 8.5% TP-2 @l 2.2 918.6 3024.0 2805.5 218.5 1886.9 11.6% TP-2@ 4.5 849.4 2601.0 2326.0 275.0 1476.6 18.6% TP-7@ 2.0 7 47.5 2698-6 2281.0 417.6 1533.5 27.2% An r=l«•wlyo")' ,. ,.,.,.r b"'"""' aw,,,. .... ~ .. ,,.d ,.,, ,,,. ... 1p,,,•«non 10 c1,.n,. ,i,, pub>< .,d """"""'· ,1 «;,on,.-. <tJlmn,d., ,i. """'"'""lpropo-,yofd,a,u,"'d nm..,,.,.,, m f""''"'""" ol """""'"''"".;.'""'"' .. , .. .,, iom..-1<p..J1ng= '"'°'" , ,.,.,..a1 pcndi,,g ""' ,.,u,, '1'1""'"~- Reviewed by: 22 ,_ .. ' Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 _Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix D. Limitations and Use of This Report The following is adapted from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report" provided by ASFE The Best People On Earth; www.asfe.org; and "The Gcotecbnical Engineering and Environmental Services Standards of Care with Respect to Mold Potentials 1998 -2003" by ASFE The Best People On Earth. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) services are structured to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, prepared solely for the client, no one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. This report may not be applied to any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geo technical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors The scope of study for which this geotechnical report was prepared considered several unique, project- specific factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless MTC specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: not prepared for you; not prepared for your project; not prepared for the specific site explored; or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can reduce the reliability and application of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; compositions of the design team; or project ownership. Changes made to the project following completion of this report should be made known to MIC so that MTC can assess the potential impact of such changes and make any necessary modifications to our interpretations and recommendations in writing. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report may be affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as constrnction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or grow1dwater fluctuations. MIC should always be contacted to determine if the report is still reliable. Most Geotechnical Findings Arc Professional Opinions Site exploration utilizes test borings and/or test pits that are widely spaced over ground area relevant to a unique scope of work; additionally, soil samples are taken at variable spacing over the depth of exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions may exceed that of the site investigation program. MTC reviews field and laboratory data and then apply professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual site subsurface conditions may significantly deviate from those indicated in this report. Retaining MIC to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 23 -• ' , Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. The recommendations in this report are not final; they are developed principally from the judgment and opinion of MTC staff. MTC's recommendations are contingent upon observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. MTC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if MTC does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Report May be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the project design team not employed by MTC can result in costly problems. This risk may be reduced by having MTC confer with appropriate members of the design team after submittal of this report. MTC should be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. To avoid misinterpretation of this report by contractors, MTC may be retained to participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences, and by providing construction monitoring. Do Not Redraw The Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproductions are acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors A Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposed of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with MTC and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific type of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Limitations Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, MTC includes limitations in this report. Read the limitations closely and contact MTC if you have any questions regarding these provisions. Environmental Concerns Are Not Addressed In This Report The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental site assessment study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations. 24 ATTACHMENT E ' j .. ' ' ' .. l L"- LI - .. "" ..._ I PREPARED FOR MAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON,WASHINGTON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERJNG STUDY E-5144 February 6, 1991 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 • 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 -· ' ~ _. -I ' ..J L L L ,/ l' l w INTRODUCTION TABLE Of C01'.'TEJ\'TS E-5144 General ............................................................................................................................................... .. ·Project Description ............................................................................................................................ . 1 1 SITE CONDITIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2 Surface................................................................................................................................................... 2 Subsurface............................................................................................................................................ 2 Groundwater........................................................................................................................................ 2 Seismic Considerations...................................................................................................................... 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................... 3 General ................................................................................................................................................ .. Site Preparation and General Earthwork. .................................................................................... . Pre-Load and Surcharge Program ................................................................................................. . Foundations ......................................................................................................................................... . Slab-on-Grade Floors ....................................................................................................................... .. Excavations and Slopes .................................................................................................................... . Site Drainage ...................................................................................................................................... . Utilities ................................................................................................................................................ .. Pavement Areas .................................................................................................................................. . LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... . Additional Services ............................................................................................................................ . APPENDICES Appendix A • Field Exploration Appendix B -Laboratory Testing Earth Consultan1s. Inc. • .J 4 5 6 7 7 7 9 9 9 10 a II LI r \... ~ ~ 11 • w L,; l ! L L:_ l I L l Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate Al Plate A2 through A13 Plates Bl and B2 Plate B3 Plates B4 and BS ILLUSTRATIONS E-5144 Vicinity Map Test Boring Location Plan Typical Monitoring Plate Detail Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Typical Utility Trench Fil! Legend Boring Logs Grain Size Analyses Atterberg Limits Test Data Consolidation Test Data Earth Consultants, Inc. February 6, 1991 Wells Development Company 11100 Northeast Eighth Street Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attention: Mr. David Grein Gentlemen: ~ .·>\. , ..... , .·. ~\-~fr:: Ea11ll Consultants Inc. \· .1, ·,}\~,,:) (_..,,,.~1,1n,,dlr,~1111,·1,i.•1,l,,g1,1-.<1<l1H1f1,ilnu·111,1l . ...,"·11l,s,h :.,J' --""' E-5144 \Ve are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechrrical Engineering Study, May Creek Business Park, Renton, Washington:' This report presents the results of our field exploraiion, seleciive laboratory tests, and engineering anal~·ses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 30, 1990 proposal and authorized by Mr. Wells on January 8, 1991. Our study indicates that the site is underlain by approximately one to three feet of loose to medium- dense fill consisting of silty sand and sand with gravel. Underlying the fill, a soft saturated sandy silt, loose to dense silty sand and some organic silt was encountered to depths of 12 to 16 feet Below these strata, dense tci very dense silty sand and stiff silts were encountered to a maximum e:1.1Jloration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, and the soil conditions encountered, it is our opinion that the proposed structures can be supponed on conventional spread footing foundations, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program 'is completed first. All the foundation footings should bear upon at least rwo feet of compacted structural fill after the fill induced settlements have been completed. ;305 -l36ih Place NE. Suile 101. Bellevue. \'/asnmq1on %005 222 E. 261h Sireet. Sui1e 101 T·icom;i_ \\1r1stw:01nn ';18.J I l·9P98 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY .'A ;;y ,~reek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 1 We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, EARTII CONSULTANTS, INC. jMJr1 /J1<1fkkJ DB/AM/TJS/ah [E5 l 4<-R.O 1 J Enclosure Earlh Consullanls, Inc. General GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY !vlAY CREEK BUSil\'ESS PARK Renton, \Vashington E-5144 INTRODUCTION This report presents the resultS of the Geotechnical Engineering Study completed by ECI for the proposed May Creek Business Park. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, on this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. From our discussions and review of the project site plan we understand that you intend to construct three warehouse/office buildings. The proposed buildings will consist of first-floor warehouse facilities with second-story office space. The project will also include paved parking areas and paved access roadways to all the warehouse facilities. Based on the preliminary design, the buildings will be con.structed at finished floor elevation 32. The site's present grade ranges from approximately 26.0 to 34.0 feet in elevation from west to east. Based on the building information provided to us, maximum total dead plus live loads are expected to be as follows: o Wall loads -3 to 4 kips per lineal foot, dead plus live o Maximum Column loads -150 kips, dead plus live o \Varehouse Slab loads -250 pounds per square foot (psf) If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth Consultants, Inc. (EC!) be retained to perform a general review of the final design. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY : .. : __ , , :i-c:ek Business Park Februa11· 6, 1991 SITE CONDITIONS Surface E-5144 Page :z The proposed site is situated on a parcel of land that is east of Lake Washington Blvd. North, west of imerstaie 405, north of May Creek, and south of the intersection of Northeast 44th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. The property is approximately 720 feet in length along the west, 745 feet along the east, 310 feet along the north, and 730 feet along the south. The site is presently occupied· by Pan Abode Inc., as a lumber processing facility. An office, model borne, three warehouses, and a production building are located on the site. The remaining area i.s paved predominantly with asphalt; isolated sections are paved in concrete. The asphalt is in poor to fair condition. Some areas of the asphalt have numerous cracks and show signs of a soft soil sub grade. It is our understanding that the existing structures will be removed in sequence as construction of the new facilities begins. The site is relatively flat and slopes gently from the north and east to the west sides of the property. Elevations at the site range from 26 to 34 fee1 above sea level. The adjacent roadways that border the property to the north, east, and west are all higher in elevation than the subject site. The south side of the property parallels May Creek and is several feet higher in elevation than the creek. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling 12 borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A 4 through A 13, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location e>.-plored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, during our field study we encountered two to three inches of asphalt pavement that is underlain by one to three feet of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt pavement and fill, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of saridy silt and organic silt was encountered to a depth of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. Dense to very dense siltv sand and stiff silt were encountered below these soils to a maximum exploration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater The groundwater seepage level observed while drilling ranged from approximately 2.0 to ~.5 feet below the existing surface and are shown on the boring logs. Groundwater )evels were measured at 4 t0 7 feet below the ground surface during an earlier Hart Crowser, Inc. ge0technical study of the site. The Hart Crowser, Inc. study was completed during September of !9S5. Earth Consullanls, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY :· '·" !' ·0 ek Business Par!; ,.\Uj ,,! 1,.. February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 3 The groundwater seepage level is not static; tbus, one may expect fluctuations in the flow and level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. However, flucruations in the groundwater seepage flow should be expeeted, with higher levels typically developing during the wetter winter months. Seismic Conditions The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the (UBC) Uniform Building Code. In their present condition, the upper ten feet of some on-site soils do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. However, with addition of the proposed preload fill, we have calculated that the potential for soil Jiquefaetion would be minimal. Our liquefaction analysis was based on an analytical procedure presented in "Soil Dynamics" by Shamsher Prakash. Additionally, soil conditions are classified as a type Si by the UBC with a corresponding S factor of 1.5. DISCUSSION TO RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our geotechnical srudy, it is our opinion that the proposed warehouse buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing upon a compacted structural fill, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program is completed first. The preload and surcharge program is designed to induce settlements equivalent to those that are anticipated due to the slab and column loading. These recommendations are based on the amount of structural fill necessary to bring the finished floor slab surface to Elevation 32. With current grades, the site will require approximately one to five feet of structural fill to attain the proposed subgrade elevation. A small section of the parking area in the southeastern portion of the property will require excavation of approximately two feet. No other site cuts appear necessary. ff the finish floor elevation of the buildings change, EC! should be notified and allowed to re-evaluate our recommendations. Due to the poor condition of the site's near surface soils, we recommend that a minimum of two feet of compacted structural fill be placed below all footings. A minimum of one foot of compacted structural fill will be required beneath all slab-on-grade and pavement areas. The majority of the site will require more than two feet of structural fill to obtain the proposed subgrade elevation. Only in the southeast sections of the east and south buildings does it appear necessary to over excavate and replace with structural fill. This requirement should be verified by observation at the time of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ., .~_. ~·,eek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 4 After the required structural fill has been placed, two feet of surcharge material should be applied to the southeast building areas. The surcharge will be required on areas where less than two feet of fill material will be needed to bring the building pads to subgrade elevation. Groundwater seepage wa, encountered during our field study from 2.0 to 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore, a subfloor capillary break and perimeter footing drains should be installed. Additionally, the pavement area located centraily beiween the three buildings and the southeast section of the site should be provided with subsurface drainage to increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. Specific details concerning the parking area subsurface drainage is presented in the subsequent Site Drainage Section of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the Wells Development Corp. and their represematives. No other warranry, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures, foundations, slabs, existing utilities lines, surface vegetation, all organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Where structural fill depths will be two feet or greater, it is our opinion that removal of existing asphalt from below slab-on-grade areas would not be necessary. It will be necessary, however, to remove the asphalt from below interior and perimeter footing locations. ln these areas the asphalt removal should extend laterally a distance of two feet from the edge of the footing. Following the stripping and excavating operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Structur.:il fill under floor slabs and footings should be p!Jced in horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed within _±2 percent of their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and ll'alks should also Earlh Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY _.;~;, .: , eek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 5 be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of their maximum dry density, as detennined by ASTM D-1557-78. Beneath pavements, the upper 12 inches should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent per this same standard. Based on our laboratory test results, the moisture content of the on-site soils at the time of our exploration was well above optimum. Therefore, unless the moisture content can be reduced, it will be necessary to use imported granular soil as structural fill. Ideally, particularly during wet weather conditions, structural fill should consist of a free-draining granular material. This material should have a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Given the fine-grained nature of the native soils, it is strongly recommended that earth work operations be undertaken and completed during the dry summer months. Pre-load and Surcharge Program As discussed, we recommend that pre-load and partial surcharge program be implemented prior to construction of the facilities. As indicated earlier in this report, we recommend that two feet of surcharge material be placed above the southeastern building slab areas where less than two feet of fill will be necessary to bring the pads up to the subgrade elevation. In other areas, where the fill depth wiJI range from three to five feet, additional surcharge would not be necessary. The program is designed to pre-consolidate the compressible soils, in a manner that will limit post construction movements to within a tolerable range. Based on our analyses, we estimate that the preload and surcharge fill material will induce approximately two to three inches of settlement across the building foundation area. Based on the results of our laboratory testing of the site soil samples, we estimate that this settlement should take about four weeks to occur. The surcharge material, where placed, may be removed when the required settlement rate has been reached. A smaller settlement than estimated could indicate that the soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely,.a larger settlement than that estimated could be interpreted as indicating the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and additional measures, such as more surcharge or a longer surcharge period will be needed to obtain satisfactory results. As stated, it is important to note that surcharge fill is in addition to the fill required to bring the site to subgrade. The surcharge and fill should extend, at full height, a minimum of five feet from the building perimeters, and then slope outward at IH: 1 V (Horizontal:Vertical). Earlh Consultants, Inc. 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 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial ) Development Permit LUAl0-041, BCM, SM, ) Brad Nicholson, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) VS. ) ) CITY OF RENTON, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________ ) l. Identity of Respondent. CASE NO. SHB#l0-016 RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respondent City of Renton (hereinafter llRenton") files this Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. 2. Respondent's Request. Renton respectfully requests that the Board deny Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Petitioner's MS/) and grant Renton's Motion for Summary Judgment because Petitioner has not shown that there are any genuine issues as to any material fact in his favor. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057--0626 Phone: (425) 430-MIIO Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 3. Issues Presented for Review. Whether Petitioner has established that any genuine issue as to any material fact entitles him to a judgment as a matter of law? 4. Evidence Relied Upon. A. Each exhibit previously provided in Renton's Motion for Summary Judgment, and; B. Dedaration of Mr. Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment {hereinafter Dedaration of Mr. Steve Lee II). 5. Statement of Facts. A. Factual History: Permitted Project. Renton's Lake Washington Boulevard North Storm and Water System Improvement Project (LWB project) encompasses infrastructure improvement on a strip of land, roughly the width of a sidewalk, on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard, west of 1-405, and immediately south and west of the Pan Abode or "Hawk's Landing" site.1 This infrastructure improvement project has generally been called the "Hawk's Landing" project, which is misleading.2 "Hawk"s Landing" more accurately refers to Alpert lnternational's proposed "Hawk's Landing Hotel, that has not begun construction because of a insufficient financing. 3 LWB project is funded by a $1.7 million State of Washington Public Works Board grant.4 LWB project will proceed even if the Hawk's Landing Hotel is never constructed.' 1 See Declorution of Mr. Steve Lee. Exhibit A. and Exhibit c. p. 4·5, and Declorution of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit A. 2 See Declarotian af Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit A, p. 3-4, 6-7; and Capital Agreement between: City of Renton and Public Wo1*.s Board, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. 3 See Declarotion of Mr. Steve Lee and Declarotion af Mr. Spencer Alpert. 4 See Dec/orotion of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 22. Renton City Attorney 10052"'51 PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 LWB project consists of an extension of a water line through existing conduit over May Creek, a new storm drainage system catch basins and a bio-swale to clean and improve the quality of water discharged into May Creek and from May Creek into Lake Washington.6 The project does not involve a hotel or hotel surface water treatment. B. Procedural History: Petitioner's arguments have failed. On or about July 19, 2010, the Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued an Environmental {SEPA) Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated {DNS-M) for Renton's infrastructure improvement project.7 ERC found that the project "does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment" but did require some minor mitigation.8 On August 9, 2010, Mr. Chip E. Vincent, the Renton Planning Director, issued a Shorelines Substantial Development Permit for the infrastructure improvement.9 Petitioner appealed the determination to this Board. 6.ArgumenL The arguments in Petitioner's MS/ revolve around one central issue that is buried in the middle of his motion-"[t)here is no doubt that the merits of Hawk's Landing [Hotel] may not be litigated here, but there is nothing in the decision in Samuels that prevents the board from inquiring here into the 'scope and intent' of the Hawk's Landing [Hotel] original permit approval and reversing this instant permit because it is S See Declaration af Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5, Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, p. 3, and Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, p. 4. 6 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. 7 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit E. 8 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit E, p. 1. 9 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit F. ·:·,;;cc,11 10~ w fvio[1on tor SurnrnMv JUdoinH:"t1l -3 Renton City Attorney 1oos2""s1 PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057--0626 Phone: (425) 430-MBO Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 inconsistent with that final approval and because it has been revised without following the rules for shoreline permits according to WAC 173-27-100."10 A. Petitioner correctly states that "there is no doubt that the merits of Hawk's Landing [Hotel] may not be litigated here." Petitioner believes that "there are no facts making this case any different than the Hawk's Landing [Hotel] case."11 He could not be more mistaken. Contrary to the revisionist history offered by Petitioner, he was the Appellant during the Hawk's Landing Hotel appeal; and he lost the appeal as the Renton City Council affirmed the Hearing Examiner decision that the hotel project was more than two-hundred feet from the ordinary high water mark of May Creek.12 1. Lack of Standing. Petitioner does not have standing to appeal Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development permit decision. First, living almost a mile from LBW project site is insufficient. The state Supreme Court has declared that private persons who did not own the property adjacent to or even in the vicinity of protected body of water did not have standing to bring an action.13 Second, contrary to Petitioner's claims, May Creek as it currently exists near the project site, and as depicted in Petitioner's video exhibits, does not afford the public a place to walk, boat, bicycle or swim.14 Third, Petitioner has not shown that any proceedings were improper or that the designs are not appropriate 10 Petitioner's MSJ, p. 13 I. 20. 11 Petitioner's MSJ, p. 5 I .21. 12 See DeclanJtion of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, p. 3 1.23 -p. 4 1.2. 13 Cowiche Conyon Conservatory, 118 Wn.2d at 808; Petition for Review, p. 11. I. 24. 14 Petition for Review, p. 11. I. 24. ~ Y O Renton City Attorney Q@~ 1DDS2"St .!JD PO Box 626 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057..0626 ~ -~ Phone: ( 425) 43D-648D ~N'fo Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 because Hawk's the LWB project designs are for municipal infrastructure not a hotel or hotel water lines.15 Fourth, Petitioner has not shown prejudice, likely prejudice, or "injury in fact" because the LWB project provides better water quality, and increases visual and possibly recreational amenities without harming wildlife.'6 Finally, the fact that no one challenged his standing during the Hawk's Landing Hotel hearing is irrelevant to whether he can prove standing during this LWB project SMA appeal. 2. Separate and Distinct Projects. The LWB project is a separate and distinct project from the Hawk's Landing Hotel project. Petitioner has not cited any authority that would require Renton to conform its definite public project to a separate and indefinite proposed private project. These separate and distinct projects were proposed at different times-2010 for LWB project and 2009 for the hotel; by distinct proponents, the City for LWB project and Alpert International for the hotel; have distinct financing, the state for LWB project and currently non-existent for the hotel; for distinct purposes, public infrastructure for LWB project and commercial for the hotel; and at distinct locations, along the Lake Washington Boulevard for LWB project and at the former Pan Abode location for the hotel.17 For the foregoing reasons, there is no reason for Renton to conform its LWB project to the proposed hotel project. 15 Petition for Review, p. 12. I. 3 16 Petition for Review, p. 12. I. 5. 17 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21 . .._ ~ Y O Renton City Attorney Q~~ 100 S 2" St .!JD PO Box 626 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057-0626 l1J ~ Phone: (425) 430-o480 !i3Ner0 Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 Consider the result of both projects if and when they are completed. The City infrastructure improvement provides a public benefit in the form of cleaner water, a continuation of the sidewalk and better water pressure. The Hawk's Landing Hotel, or any future development at the former Pan Abode site, will provide private profits to the owner(s). Renton will be able to tax those profits as it would with any private business, but it will not be an owner, possessor or decision-maker for the proposed development. Simply put, Renton is not a partner in a business-sense in the proposed project. If Renton sought to exercise the control or dominion over the property or project as Petitioner suggests, Renton would violate the state and federal constitutions, by taking the property without providing compensation. LWB Project is not primarily intended to serve any new development at the former Pan Abode site, but rather it is intended to improve the collection of WSDOT and Lake Washington Boulevard North runoff that cu"ently settles in a ditch between the Pan Abode site and Lake Washington Boulevard, to use a wet bios-swale to clean that roadway run-off, and to provide pipe stubs for existing areas that drain into the ditch.18 The LWB Project is a standalone project to assist the entire 1-405 Exit 7 area to discharge better quality water, deliver more reliable water volume and pressure to combat fires, and potentially to provide a framework for a soft-surface trail for the general public.19 Renton provides utilities, such as water and sewage, to the public and the property owner and/or developer is responsible for connecting to that utility. 18 See Declarution af Mr. Steo,e Lee, p. 4; Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee II, p. 2 -3. 19 See Declarution of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 4; Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee II, p. 3. <'\:Y O Renton City Attorney 0~;,,;,; 100S2""St .!JDi PO Box 626 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057-0626 ~ -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ?[,N'i'O Fax: (425) 255.5474 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 3. Renton's City Council makes the financial decisions for Renton's development and infrastructure projects. Petitioner suggests that reversal of the permit is warranted because Renton's infrastructure "project would be serving a project that is unknown, undisclosed, or unlikely, and that the permit would be serving those same uses that decidedly have two very different site plan approvals."20 This is the nature of an infrastructure project. Some are done before the location has been developed and others are done after. The fact that the Hawk's Landing Hotel does not have financing does not mean that Renton cannot upgrade and improve its infrastructure near that location. The decision to upgrade the infrastructure is a financial decision which is within the inherent authority of the Renton City Council; it is not something that requires Alpert lnternational's or the SHB approval. The case that Petitioner relies on, Hayes v. Yount where the "permit did not describe respondent's proposed use in sufficient detail," is distinguishable. 21 Here, the lWB project is detailed enough to have received a state grant for water treatment and possibly a soft-surface trail.22 There is no discussion about building a hotel or building hotel-specific drainage. It is also very significant to note that Petitioner never cited or referenced anything that proved that the Hawk's Landing Hotel permit involved city infrastructure improvements. Finally, Mr. Lee's declaration explains that "the net result 20 Petitioner's M5J, p. 41.16 21 Hayes v. Yount, 87 Wn.2d 280, 295; 552 P.2d 1038 (1975). 22 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration a/Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. ~ Y O Renton City Attorney Q~;.¢; 1 DDS 2"' SI .!.It) PO Box 626 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057..0626 ~ ~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ~N<fO Fax: (425) 255.5474 ·:,~~n,_1 -..,it1on to f\rionon tor Sumrna1·v jum0.n1t'P1 -7 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 of the LWB project is a more reliable water flow or pressure, and cleaner and improved water quality discharging into May Creek and ultimately into Lake Washington."23 4. Hawk's Landing Hotel is not within the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Hawk's Landing Hotel is not under the SMA. It is undisputed that the Hawk's Landing Hotel project is outside the two-hundred-foot boundary of the shoreline. 24 The Hearing Examiner's decision that the Hawk's Landing Hotel is outside of 200-feet is a stands unchallenged because Petitioner chose not to appeal under RCW 36.70C.060 (4). In fact, the neighborhood detail map shows an area between the former Pan Abode site and May Creek; that area is private property that presently prevents any direct access between the proposed hotel project and the shoreline.25 By failing to exhaust his administrative remedies in the LUPA matter, Petitioner has waived his ability to challenge the City Council's decision.26 Petitioner's authority to file his SMA Petition for Review comes from RCW 90.S8.180{1) which provides that the SHB and the SMA regulate activities within or on the shoreline. RCW 90.58.180(1) states that a "person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state" may "seek review from the shorelines hearings board [sic]." Having conceded that the Hawk's Landing Hotel permit is not within the shoreline, Petitioner must also concede that if there was any alteration of the Hawk's Landing Hotel master 23 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 6 1.24; Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee II, p. 2 -p. 3. 24 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G, p. 19. 25 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G, Exhibit 2. 26 Citizens for Mount Vernon v. The City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861; 947 P.2d 1208 (1997). The Court stated that RCW 36. 70C.060 required "'exhaustion of administrative remediesH and there the Petitioners "participated in all aspects of the administrative process." 133 Wn.2d at 868-870. ~ Y O Renton City Attorney ()~~ 100S2"'St .!.m PO Box 626 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057-0626 ;1J -2'; Phone: (425) 430-6480 ""!!}N,rO Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 plan, it is not within the jurisdiction of the SHB to review it. Petitioner cannot take the SMA, and expand it to convey jurisdiction to the SHB to review LUPA matters. Because Hawk's Landing Hotel is a LUPA and not a SMA matter, this Board should not exercise jurisdiction over it or rely on it. 5. The LWB permit is consistent with RCW 90.58.020 of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. Ultimately, Petitioner's claim fails because Renton's permit decision was consistent with RCW 90.58.020. LWB project is not uncoordinated or piecemeal because, in one effort, the infrastructure project will result in the installation of water treatment enhancements, the upgrading of the waterline, and the installation of a sidewalk. 27 If Renton successfully acquires the private property abutting May Creek, and if the funds are available, it will install the soft-surface trail.28 At the present time, as shown by Petitioner's videos, May Creek near the LWB project site provides little public use due to aggressive overgrowth of invasive vegetation.29 In sum, there is no damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area as the LWB project will enhance the water going into May Creek and the public's ability to enjoy May Creek. 30 B. The Samuel's Furniture decision does not allow Petitioner to co/laterally attack Renton's permit decision. While Petitioner is correct that "the merits of Hawk's landing may not be litigated here," he is not only wrong to suggest that the SHB could inquire into the 27 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-6. 28 See Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit A, p. 3-4, 6-7 and 9. 29 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 1-2. 30 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms .. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit A, p. 3-4, 6-7 and 9. ~ Y O Renton City Attorney Q~;.¢; 100 S 2"' St .!m PO Box 626 + ~ + Renton, WA 98057--0626 ;1J -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ~N?fo Fax· (425) 255-5474 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 "'scope and intent' of the Hawk's Landing [Hotel] original permit approval", but he has also failed to provide any authority to support his suggestion. Under Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. The Department af Ecology, the Washington State Supreme Court held that: If Ecology fails to file a LUPA petition under such circumstances, it cannot collaterally challenge the local government's determination that the project is not within the shoreline jurisdiction by bringing independent enforcement actions against the property owner or developer. In this case, because Ecology failed to file a LUPA petition challenging any of the City's land use decisions relating to the Samuel's expansion project within 21 days, it can no longer challenge the City's determination that the project is not within the shoreline jurisdiction.31 Like the Department of Ecology in Samuel's Furniture, Petitioner failed to appeal the Renton City Council's Hawk's Landing Hotel final decision.32 And like the Department of Ecology in Samuel's Furniture, after failing to appeal that decision, Petitioner cannot collaterally challenge the final determination for the proposed hotel project;33 Petitioner cites Arjan Bhatia v. Department of Ecology in support of his motion, but the facts in Arjan are dissimilar to the facts in this matter. In Arjan, there was a single entity that controlled the financing, project, etc. Here, Hawk's Landing Hotel and LWB project are separate projects with separate financing, proponents, and purposes. The scope and intent of the Hawk's Landing Hate/ is irrelevant to the LWB project. Petitioner claims that the "the instant permit (LUAl0-041) is outside the 'scope and intent' of the original Master Site plan and Site plan approval."34 Petitioner has failed 31 Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. The Department of Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440, 463-464; 54 P.3d 1194 (2002). 32 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit H, p. 1. 33 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G, p. 19. 34 Petitioner's MSJ, p. 6 I .10. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057..0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 to cite any authority that requires Renton to conform its definite public project to a separate and indefinite proposed private project. Based on these distinctions, there is no reason for Renton to conform its LWB project to the proposed but unfinanced Hawk's Landing Hotel. Petitioner is asking the SHB to inquire "into the 'scope and intent' of the Hawk's Landing original permit approval" and reverse the LWB permit approval. This is a transparent and legally unsupported attempt by Petitioner to illegally tie the LUPA Hawk's Landing Hotel to this SMA LWB project. Not only that, since the SMA is limited to the shoreline, this issue illustrates how Petitioner has no basis to refer to the Hawk's Landing Hotel when addressing the LWB project. Petitioner claims that WAC 173-27-100 supports his request. WAC 173-27-100 states that permit revision is required "whenever the applicant proposes substantial changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit." (Emphasis added). The plain language of the statute defeats Petitioner's claim. The applicant for the LWB project is not the same as the applicant for Hawk's Landing Hotel. As explained by WAC 173-27-010, "[t]he provisions of this part implement the requirements of chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act." Petitioner has not shown how to lawfully apply WAC 173-27 to a non-shoreline related project such as the Hawk's Landing Hotel; and that is because it cannot be applied to a non-SMA matter. Finally, a substantial change under WAC 173-27-010 would be a change to the LWB project permit not a change to a permit that is not under the SMA. Petitioner has Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 not alleged that the LWB project design, terms or conditions has changed since the permit was approved. WAC 173-27-010 does not support Petitioner's claim. C. CONCLUSION Petitioner's failure to allege any facts in support his motion for summary judgment warrants its denial. Indeed, as demonstrated above, all undisputed facts demonstrate that the City's motion for summary judgment should be granted. DATED THIS 19 November 2010, at Renton, Washington. LAWRENCE J. WARREN RENTON QTY ATTORNEY By: ____________ _ Garmon Newsom II, WSBA No. 31418 Attorney for Respondent City of Renton Renton City Attorney 100S2"'St P0Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 • 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 Motion for Summary Judgment November 5, 2010 Without Oral Argument BEFORE THE SHORLINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUAl0-041, BCM, SM, Brad Nicholson, Appellant, v. CITY OF RENTON, Respondent. Case NO. SHB#l0-016 Declaration of Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment Steve Lee hereby declares under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge: 1. That I am over 18 years of age and am competent to testify in this matter. Declaration in Support -Page I Renton City Attorney 100 S 2...s St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.9678 Fax: 425.255.5474 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 2. I have previously provided my education and experience information in the Declaration of Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Motion for Summary Judgment under CR56 Motion, and I respectfully ask this board to continue to rely on that declaration. 3. Petitioner makes a number of assertions and assumptions that are factually and/or scientifically incorrect in his Motion for Summary Judgment that I would like to address. 4. The new drainage pipe is not primarily intended to serve the proposed hotel, but rather the area upstream including a large amount of WSDOT roadway runoff, Lake Washington Boulevard and a small portion of any private property abutting the drainage pipe system and ditch. The majority of the drainage flow carried within the storm pipe is from upstream areas. As required by Renton and state drainage requirements, the drainage will maintain its present course and not be redirected elsewhere to another basin or discharge point. s. If the abutting properties, including the former Pan Abode site, have any future development, they will need to account for their own water quality and quantity controls prior to discharge into this proposed 800 feet 24-inch diameter drainage pipe. 6. Therefore the purpose of the new "swale" and drainage system is primarily intended to serve the surface water drainage flow from areas outside of the current Pan Abode site. While the ditch will be partially filled for a portion of the project length, the present runoff course for areas to the east of the road will still be directed to a revised centerline ditch next to the existing building. The present ditch alignment near the proposed low impact development pourous sidewalk and wet bio-swale will be redirected to the wet bio-swale that will contain wetland vegetation to promote water quality treatment prior to discharge back into the Declaration in Suppon -Page 2 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 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 existing 24-inch pipe that discharges into May Creek. 7. This project will improve fire safety to the area by improving water volume and pressure and by adding hydrants for fire fighting. As with any other right-of-way project, the LWB project will provide water or storm stub outs that may be needed in the future regardless of what the private property owner will seek to develop on the private property. 8. The net result of the LWB Project is a more reliable water flow to the area, and cleaner and improved water quality discharging into May Creek and ultimately into Lake Washington. DATED THIS 18 November 2010, at Renton, Washington. Declaration in Support -Page 3 CITY OF RENTON Steve lee Civil Engineer, P.E. City of Renton Renton City Attorney 100 S 2n11 St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 -··' 2 J 4 j 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ll 14 ll 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2) 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No: SHE 10-016 ) Development Permit LUAI0-041, ECM, SM: ) ) Petitioner Brad Nicholson's response Brad Nicho ]son, ) ) to City of Renton Motion for Summary Petitioner, ) ) Judgment dated 05, November, 2010 V. ) ) City of Renton ) ) Respondents. ) ) Response to (1) Renton asks for dismissal of the appeal in its entirety, based upon misconstruction or misinterpretation of excisting case law and code and statute and asks for dismissal of additional issues that are not the issues stated in the pre-hearing order. The City incorrectly bases its request to dismiss on lack of Standing on th misconception that it be essential that Petitioner own property immediately adjacent to the site, does not identify the magnitude and frequency of the injury in fact, and that no proceedings are improper and all o the design work and processes are appropriate. If true facts be told, May Creek is a very important part of the community where Brad Nicholson resides and is ultimately very important to Brad Nicholson. He uses it frequently. Brad Nicholson owns property and resides less than a half mile upstream of the project immediately adjacent to May Creek and uses and enjoys the area of the development. And the harm that Brad Nicholson alleges is indeed impacts to visual amenities and fish and wildlife that are symbols of environmental quality in his community. The City violates RCW 90.58.020 and Renton's Shoreline Management plan in numerous respects. The City is not entitled to Summary Judgment in this case. Brad Nicholson is entitled to reversal of the ·permit captioned above for compliance with the SMA.. Response Brad Nicholson Pagel of2J __ , 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll Response to (2) This response is drafted on the same form that was submitted to the Board for review in the original PFR, and the issues and the facts that were shown on its accompanying declaration. The City has attempted to change the issues in this motion. The main reason for the change of issues is that the City want to avoid review of any and all facts related to Hawks Landing. Because the City has not addressed their piecemeal, haphazard plans, or addressed the incomplete and conflicting nature of their plans, there can be no summary judgment in their favor. Evidently, the City relies exclusively on its standing argument. Even though interests that are within the SMA are before the Board and Brad Nicholson has alleged injury in fact to those interests, Brad Nicholson responds by setting forth specific facts proving genuine standing issues exist for hearing, making dismissal for lack of standing unjustifiable. Brad Nicholson has alleged concrete, specific, and perceptible harms in the PFR. He has also established facts proving standing in 12 third declaration of Brad Nicholson. I J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Response to (3) Counsel for the City has not transferred the issues into the Motion from the pre hearing order. The issues posited here do not read the same, and have substantial differences. Additionally, the City Council did not approve the Shoreline development permit as alleged in their motion. Chip Vincent did. Petitioner supplied a copy of the receipt from the City Clerk for the reproduction ofRenton's Shoreline Management Plan that was used to frame the issues. It was in the original list of exhibits and was the document used to frame the issues. The City change of issues is untimely. Perhaps the City is using a different version of the Plan. Perhaps the City Clerk supplied the wrong shoreline plan. In any event, if the City wanted to change the issues, it should have requested the changes prior to the time that the pre hearing order was issued. The City had ample time to do it. All of the information was included the PFR. Response Brad Nicholson Page 2of23 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 I) 14 ll 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Response to ( 4) The exhibits presented are numerous, however there are quite a few factual allegations contained in the declarations that are not true. The evidence proving it is contained in the City documents and exhibits. As an example, Vanessa Dolbee in no. 16 of her declaration, states the opposite of what she stated on the face of the Permit and its supporting documents. The Storm water swale is taking place on the property o the Hawks Landing project and will be connected to the project and other unidentified projects taking place on the property; structurally, by pipe, and in conflict with the project Master site plan and site plan approvals that were decided by the Hearing Examiner because of her testimony. ft is already final under Samuels Furnilure along with the facts that standing is established in the Hawk's Landing case. On no. 7, she incorrectly states that petitioner is misleading and incorrect, the reason being that because she does not mention that she is one of the parties that is responsible for creating the most misleading and impossible for the City to resolve issues of all in this case. She said that "all of Hawk's Landing would be farther than 200 feet from the May Creek ordinary high water mark" Before the Hearing Examiner, she testified under oath that "all of the development is outside the 200 foot area" see page 2 of the HEX report Hawks Landing. Vanessa Dolbee needs to revise her testimony as to who is misleading in this case. It is not Brad Nicholson. It is her. Now they are bulldozing a storm water facility on the area within 40 feet of the Creek. Further, Steve Lee has evidently not read the statement of issues or read the proper sections of the SMP. He evidently does not construe the meaning of the word "maintained" contained in Renton's Shoreline management plan. The fact that he attributes the orange biological scum to vehicles and not the huge rusted metal building on the site further illustrates the need for the enhanced basic water quality menu to be used. May Creek has a metal problem that is due consideration. See Petitioners exhibits 4, 9, 10, PFR. Steve Lee is the applicant for the project and the Environmental Checklist page 7 incorrectly states that n threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. That is untrue. Steve Lee being the applicant, was the party that filled out the Environmental checklist so carelessly. The bio filtration swale proposed is not approved by the 2005 manual to remove metal or dissolved pollutants. The project increases water flow into May Creek according to the City's own calculation. See the SEPA Environmental checklist page 4. Water flow to May Creek attributable to the site will be increased around 8 % thereby altering stream flow according to his present calculation. Presently, 57.2% is impervious, Resporise Brad Nicholson Page J of23 2 3 4 ; 6 7 8 9 10 I! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61.9% impervious has been approved in violation of the Shoreline management plan prohibition on Stream alteration. Further, he probably does not !alee into account the future development that will further strip the site of vegetation. The increases in flow are prohibited by Renton's Shoreline plan regulations concerning stream alteration and he doesn't know what will be developed in the future. He ignores the recommendations contained in the Gray and Osborn study recommending that a Storm filter CF be used to preserve land area and treat runoff for metal and dissolved pollutants on the shoreline and instead advocates getting the bulldozer out for the shoreline vegetation and reproducing and replacing a swale that is no more effective than what is already existing. Steve Lee approves of such a project when there is very nearly 4.5 acres of featureless development abutting the facility that will drain into his project and he does not even know what the character of that development will consist of. They could ask for the facility to be located elsewhere on that 4.5 acres. See petitioner's Motion for summary Judgment. He does not even know if Hawk's Landing will take place and considers the storm water facility to be per code without review of a site plan. He is disregarding and disposing of previous and final Master and site planning. The entire site is most likely and probably going to be used as a large parking lot for Seahawk games. This fact is not on the plans. One area of concern where he is correct in this case, is that Quendall Terminals is not any issue with water flow anymore. He has now designed the project so that every drop of water from whatever development occurs from the entire site, will go directly by surface flow to May Creek and onto Salmon that rely on the Creek for survival. Steve Lee never made any review of a definite, actual project to make his declaration. Response to (5) (A) The full size drawing of the storm water facility is much easier to read and shows the project is not "roughly the area of a sidewalk" The storm water facility can be scaled to be 60 hy 175 feet with cut and fill of 5000 cubic yards. It can not be built without clearing more area than that. They will need to bulldoze and/or excavate to a point 30 feet from May Creek, and 70 or 80 feet in. Those are not the dimensions of a sidewalk. The sidewalk is unjustifiably permitted here in the place where the ditch was supposed to remain. The swale is evidently being moved to facilitate another access road into the featureless portion of the site for the future undisclosed development. The City or someone else probably knows what it is but will just not disclose it. This project would permanently block areas that quite possibly are the best locations to connect to the May Creek trail and while at the same time alter the Rcspome Brad Nicholson Page4of23 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 15 esthetics and view to the detriment and damage of Brad Nicholson. Wildlife enjoyed use the area for cover and that cover will be removed to build the utilities infrastructure on the shoreline of May Creek. Stripping the area will obviously affect the biodiversity of the shoreline. The view of the area will then not be the pleasant break but a storm water facility, and blocking the area from connection to May Creek trails plan, and replacing the natural area with a huge pit and a view of whatever other development might occur on the adjacent property. (probably a parking Jot for football or retail tax generating development) There is no way anyone can say that the action would enhance the natural characteristics of the shoreline. With the storm water facility located as depicted, the trail would need to be within 30 feet of the ordinary high water mark even if it was right up to the swale access road. Contrary to accusations, the trail that is alleged to he "coveted" by the Petitioner would in all likelihood be too close to May Creek in certain areas of the shoreline including that area in the estimation of Brad Nicholson under what has been incorrectly permitted here. The trail location, like the storm water facility location, should be considered and determined free of coercion from pre established parameters. They are trying to argue that the facts indicate that no standing facts are present but that the area is coveted by Brad Nicholson. That is not consistent with the allegations offered by the City with regard to standing. 16 Information on the various projects is undisclosed and therefore it is impossible to make a determination 17 or comment as far as how the trail might be designed and harmonized with other development that may or 18 may not occur in the area. Evidently, the City is saying that it is appropriate to do the design of the 19 connection to the trail last and bulldoze the Storm water area first. That is where the problem is. They still 20 do not understand the fact that it is necessary to prioritize the features to implement water related use and 21 protect the ecology and wildlife and vegetation and other requirements according to RCW 90.58.020 in 22 the context of the entire plan and a complete application. This is not a SEP A appeal for a single unlawful 23 segment of the total project. 24 25 If the City wants others to believe that the project is not tied to Hawk's Landing then either revise Hawk's 26 Landing or withdraw it. The two projects are not compatible right now so it can not proceed. The SMA is 27 not amenable to speculation as to the type and character of a project. The City is proceeding even though 28 they do not even know what they are doing. Response Brad Nicholson Page 5of23 2 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 Response to (6) (A)j The question that the City posits here is not the true issue that is before the Board. The issue as stated on the prehearing order is as follows: Issue no 1: Whether the permit decision should be reversed because it is inconsistent with Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations§ 5.03.0l(D) reading as follows, "To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities" and, "Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" ll City inaccurately accuses petitioner of intentionally altering the meaning of the Shoreline management 14 plan. The City has altered all of the issues to II)' to create a false impression. There has never been any 15 attempt in this permit to redesign to permit pedestrian waterfront activities. A copy of the shoreline 16 management plan and receipt was included with the PFR and marked exhibit 5. Evidently there is more 17 than one plan document and the reason why the wording is somewhat different is because the City 18 provided a different document. The City should have objected to the wording in the issues sooner. They 19 have known about the copy of the shoreline plan that was used ever since it was served on them. The 20 issue that is in the pre hearing order is the issue. If the City wanted to appeal the statement of issues based 21 upon the wrong SMP being used the appeal should have been made at the appropriate time. The City now 22 states that they plan to acquire property for the trail but they are going to try to do it later if it is possible. 23 That is totally inconsistent with Renton's Shoreline Master Program. Evidently, they will also contend 24 that they need to dictate its location and situation at that later stage without ever considering the 25 environmental effects of its location or features. It would either need to go 30 feet from May Creek or 21 26 feet from the Creek. There would be no consideration of any other distance or layout. There is no 27 evidence available in the record to indicate that the project has been redesigned to permit pedestrian 28 waterfront activities, and therefore, the permit should be reversed for compliance. Brad Nicholson Page6of23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2{) 21 22 (A)!! Again the issue is not the same. However in this issue the main point has been stated so that it is has the same element as what is stated in the pre hearing order. The issue is as follows: Issue no 2: Whether the permit decision should be reversed because it is inconsistent with Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Landscape Native Vegetation regulations§ 7.19.01 (A) (1) reading as follows, "The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" The construction of a municipal ordinance is construed using the principles of statutory construction. The same rules apply to a municipal ordinance as do they apply to a statute. See World wide video v. City of Tukwila 117 Wn. 2d at 3 82. Statutes must not be construed to render a provision superfluous or meaningless. There is no need to construe unambiguous statutes. See State v. Silva 106 Wn. App. 586. A dictionary is used to ascertain the meaning of ordinary words. See Weyerhauser v. Pierce County Health Department 123 Wn. App. 59 Black's Law Dictionary (revised 4th edition) defines the word "maintained" as follows: carried on, kept possession of; to hold possession of; to keep effectively; Similarly, Black's Law dictionary defines "maintain" citing Maryland Casualty Company v. City of Seattle 11 Wash. 2d 69, Maintain, is defined as its structure indicates, it signifies literally to hold by the hand. It means to keep up· preserve; preserve from lapse; provide for rebuild, repair, or replace; In the negative sense it is defined as not to lose or surrender; not to suffer or fail or decline; 23 Websters Dictionary (ninth collegiate) defines "maintain" as follows: To keep in an existing state; 24 preserve from failure or decline; to sustain against opposition or danger; uphold and defend; to support 25 and provide for; 26 27 The area at issue on the Shoreline where the storm water facility is proposed has at least 20 trees that are 28 proposed to be cut including alder and maple trees, a half a dozen of them are 10 -12 inches in diameter Response Brad Nicholson Page7 of23 that should be defended "whenever possible" That is fact. Specifically, where vegetation that is growing, 2 reproducing itself naturally in the area and belonging to the area and living and growing in the area it 3 must be carried on, kept from danger, in its existing state and against decline, while being defended, 4 "whenever possihle 11 5 This project does not even know what the layout of the adjacent 4.5 featureless acres will be or how the 6 entire project might be harmonized. Since locating the facility elsewhere is not impossible and the 7 provisions of the SMP have not been followed, reversal of the pennit is appropriate. "The native 8 vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" does not mean to take a Track-Hoe and excavate a 9 I 0,000 square foot pit to install a stonn water swale and cut down all of the trees and vegetation because IO it is thought by a City Engineer to be better to make his own u.ltimatum. There are less consuming types 11 of menu features or locations that could be used. It is especially egregious when it is not even known wha l2 the adjacent area development will consist of or how another scenario might be laid out. The trees use a 13 lot of water that would be diverted to May Creek. It is entirely possible to locate the facility elsewhere or 14 use a feature that does not use so much of the vegetation for its existence. See Gray and Osborn 15 recommendation dated April 13 1 2010 at 15. That is a City exhibit. Steve Lee erroneously believes that 16 preserving alder and maple trees and other vegetation does not have any possibility on the shoreline. He 17 just dictates how to fast track the project through. He erroneously believes that the stonn water facility 18 takes priority without looking at any number of other possibilities, or knowing how the total layout of the 19 site will eventually look. Petitioner has never said that the shoreline area could "never be touched" 20 However, it seems clear that not knowing what they are doing the project for, or how it will be laid out, 21 justifies holding off on the lay-out until the proper planning has been accomplished by obtaining the 22 necessary infonnation that would be sufficient to carry out the SMA and maintaining the native 23 vegetation "whenever possible" In this sense, not "touching" the area would be prudent especially that is 24 really what the City originally said that they would ensure. The City and Spencer Alpert are the parties 25 that have stated that the area would "not be touched" and that virtually "all" development would be 26 outside of the 200 foot line in previous and final plans. The City should not be able to change position 27 from one segment to the next. They could use an underground facility from the menu and place it in the 28 Response Brad Ni<holson Page 8 of23 parking lot on the future development, or use the same feature set back a larger distance, There is nothing 2 proposed there right now, In any event, the permit will need to be reversed for further planning. 3 4 (A) iii. 5 Steve Lee argues that the metal problem with May Creek is with the road and not with the huge rusting 6 zinc galvanized buildings. However the City's answer states that one of the large buildings determined to 7 remain is not the subject of any development application and that Hawk's Landing is speculative at best 8 Perhaps the City should think about requiring the deteriorating buildings to be removed. They are a 9 nuisance. 1bere is a metal problem no matter how the City decides to argue now so they may as well 10 demand removal of the buildings in a new application and use the proper menu. The KCSWDM 11 recognizes that the "swale" that is proposed does not effectively remove metal or anything dissolved and 12 outlines the type of facilities that do. But, as Steve Lee argues, the metals problem comes from the cars 13 and not the buildings. 14 Just because the City does not want to spend the extra effort to comply with the requirement to reduce 15 pollution discharges to the maximum extent practicable does not mean that the provisions do not refer to 16 the permit requirements of the NPDES phase 2. For this type of project, that is, an undisclosed or unlikely 17 speculative at best development, where it is unknown what the criteria for designing requirements or not 18 that are subject to the permitting requirements of the Department of Ecology, Army Corps of Engineers, 19 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Simply put, when he does not know what he is designing 20 to, he can not claim that he is complying with the requirement lfthere is metal coming from the cars and 21 traffic that is good enough reason to use the enhanced basic menu. He does not know how many cars or 22 trips would be generated because he does not know what the development would consist of Metal and 23 high temperatures, pollutants, and biological pathogens being discharged to the Creek harm Salmon that 24 are present there. Perhaps the various parties in the City do not know this because they are not from the 25 Kennydale Community like Brad Nicholson is, 26 27 28 Response Brad Nicholson Page9 of2l (A) iv. 2 Renton incorrectly argues that May Creek is "not a unique and fragile area"' in total disregard of the 3 SMA. May Creek Shoreline in this area is one of the most unique and fragile areas in Renton. The 4 legislature has already decided that it is: 5 RCW 90.58.020 6 Legislative findings--State policy emmciated--Use preference. 7 The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of 8 its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their 9 utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation. IO The argument that is made by the City that May Creek will not be altered is not consistent with the 11 Environmental Checklist submitted for the permit. They are increasing the impervious area by 12 approximately 8-10%. Additionally, they probably do not calculate facts indicating the transpiration rates 13 that will change from cutting down all of the trees, will alter the flow rate and increase erosion even more. 14 Additionally, it is not known what will occur on the site. With all new composition roofing, and new 15 asphalt, say for sake of argument, a new and rather large impervious parking areas, the temperature would 16 radically increase during certain climactic events in the Creek and cause harm to Salmonids and the Cree 17 with the additional impervious area. Cleaning and maintenance agents will be added. An infiltration 18 feature that would minimize those effects has not been considered because it would take additional area o 19 Land that is being preserved for economic gain. 20 Catch basins and a swale will not prevent harm to May Creek. Petitioner enjoys the Salmon and wildlife 21 in the area of the Development and will be harmed even without disregarding provisions promulgated to 22 protect the habitat and those fish. Basically, it is outrageous to state that May Creek is not a unique and 23 fragile area. If Steve Lee wants to have his view that May Creek is not unique and fragile implemented, 24 he is in the wrongjurisdiction. He should go to the Legislature and have them reenact the SMA and make 25 new fmdings. 26 27 28 Response Brad Nicholson Page !Oo[23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (B) The City claims that there is nothing piecemeal about the project but they have not followed the revision procedures of WAC 173-27-100 to revise the previous site plan to become consistent with this permit, they plan to do the remaining work of designing by the Trails Master plan on another inappropriate project segment, and they claim that cutting down 20 trees and excavating a 10,000 square foot pit on the shoreline to support "speculative at best, and unknown development will do nothing to damage the shoreline area. Basically, the City would have the Board believe that it is impossible to do anything else. All future development in the area would necessarily need to utilize this development layout according to City demands.There are three different concerns under the issue ofpiecemealing. The first is a desire for the totality of identified projects constructed within the shoreline to be reviewed comprehensively, and simultaneously under the SMA and its regulations. This is to insure the project is reviewed under the same, as opposed to different rules, regarding the uses of the shorelines of the state. Another aspect is the coercive effect the construction of one segment of a project would have upon another part of the project. In other words, does approval of one part of the project dictate a result for the remainder of the project. The third concern pertaining to piecemealing is whether a particular development would serve as a detrimental precedent to future development. The Shorelines Management Act recognizes the need to protect against the cumulative impacts o piecemeal development through coordinated planning of all development, not just substantial development. Skagit County v. Ecology, 93 Wn. 2d 742, 750 (1980); Hayes v. Yount, 87 Wn. 2d 280 ( 1976). Whether a particular development will serve as precedent for later development depends upon th circumstances, such as the similarities and distinctions in locations. Hayes at 291. It is simply disingenuous and an invitation to coerced development and further segmentation of future projects, that invite similar or the same proponents of projects to segment their future proposals, to seek a building permit with no or inadequate shoreline review, and then argue, later shoreline permit requirements were trwnped by failure to appeal the permit decision for the storm water swale. The trail as well as development that will occur should he well planned by delineating it on the application and subjecting it to review at the same time and in the same document pursuant to WAC 197-11-060. If it is placed on the plans later the location and configurations of the total development including the trail will Response Brad Nicholson Page II of23 ~ 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be dictated by the limitations that this project places upon it. The type and location of future buildings and storm water features has facts that are no less persuasive. This is precisely the type of piecemeal development that is prohibited by the SMA There is no way that the project can be in complete compliance with RCW 90.58.020 because they do not even know what is going to be built in the area. This project is just one coercive piece of a larger un-deliberated and uncoordinated and unconsidered project. Future projects would have to use it. A brief of the requirements for RCW 90.58.020 is contained in Petitioner's motion for Summary Judgment and is alleged as if fully incorporated herein. A copy of petitioners motion is in the City's possession at this time. The project does not comply with RCW 90.58.020. The permit is not complete within itself and it does not contain enough detail to determine compliance with the SMA. (C) The City has changed the issue to different wording in this motion. The City states their new issue as follows; Whether Petitioner may argue any facts or findings related to the proposed Hawk's Landing hotel development project, when he failed lo exhaust his LUPA remedies and when the SHB does not have jurisdiction over that permit? The original question the City presented for review by the Board and in the pre hearing order is as follows: Responre ISSUE NO 11: "May petitioner, under the Samuels Furniture case, 147 Wn.2d 440, ask the Board to impose shoreline jurisdiction on Hawk's Landing hotel and argue that the appealed permit is improperly segmented from the adjoining Hawk's Landing hotel when he did not file a LUPA appeal from the decision that Hawk's Landing Hotel is more than 200 feet from the shoreline and his attorney basically conceded that issue? Brad Nicholson Page 12 of23 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 ll 14 15 16 17 18 [9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The conflict between the issues that the City poses illustrates the City's double talk. First, they wanted the Board to find that no Shoreline jurisdiction could be imposed on Hawk's Landing because it would be farther than 200 feet from the shoreline. Now they want to preclude the arguing of "any facts" related to Hawk's Landing. They want the Board to close their eyes to the scope and intent of Hawk's Landing and its obvious interrelation to the present project like they have done. The City correctly states that "no one" including the City are exempt from the requirements of Samuels. Brad Nicholson is not required to exhaust administrative remedies when such administrative action would be futile. Orion Corporation v. State, 103 Wn. 2d 441 The Washington Supreme Court clearly recognized the importance of finality in land use decisions in a recent shoreline case: Samuel's Furniture v. Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440 (2002). With regard to the City's hypothetical question, the answer is yes in certain aspects of their question of law and fact. SamUl!l's never confronted the possibility of litigating deception or changed position during the process. SamUJ!l's involved attempts by Ecology to re-litigate interpretation of the location of some lines on a map .... those issues are not present here. There is no doubt that the merits of Hawk's Landing may not be litigated here, but there is nothing in the decision in SamUJ!ls that prevents the Board from inquiring here into the "scope and intent" of the Hawk's Landing original permit approval and reversing this instant permit because it is inconsistent with that final approval and because it has been revised without following the rules for shoreline permits according to WAC 173-27-l 00. Although Hawk's Landing original application had very little detail on the storm water plan, that issue was argued extensively and in the final decision it was clearly decided that the type of feature and location details were to the satisfaction of all. It was final. That is a fact that is appropriately before the Board here. See City Council decision, Hawk's Landing. It was to use the "ditcll' to convey the water to May Creek, and that "all" development activity would take place farther than 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. And Brad Nicholson has standing. If the City does not like the fact that Brad Nicholson has standing they should have filed a LUPA appeal. The City should not be able to pick and choose which part of the substance and merits of Hawks Landing project is final and which is not final. There is no law or procedure available to them stating that they can pick and choose like that. Response Brad Nicholson Page ll of2l Having part of the decision final and part of the decision improperly revised with another permit to the 2 benefit of their position is certainly not an aspect of the decision in Samuels that works to benefit the J City's shoreline permit. 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Standing in Hawk's Landing can not be reversed here, because the Hearing Examiner and City Council already decided Brad Nicholson has standing. The scope of the original decision is final, but it is appropriate for the Board to inquire into what the scope of the instant project actually consists of, that is that the Hotel Master Plan and Site plan was approved, with all development activity taking place farther than 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, and that the ditch would be utilized to discharge the water to May Creek, while presently it is stated that it is/or a speculative at best and development not the topic of any development application. The scope of the original project certainly excluded development of the shoreline area with infrastructure such as storm water facilities. Evidently, the City is also contending that the development that is not the topic of any application is already final by using the feature permitted here. That would be absurd. In Samuels, the Court applied the concept of finality in Land use decisions to certain types of Land use decisions. With regard to the original substance and scope, this case is one of them and Samuels should be fully applicable. The merit of the original Hotel project Master site plan and Site plan and the scope and substance are not disputable here. In Samuels, the City of Ferndale authorized the extension ofan existing store without any shoreline permits because tbc City determined the project was not within the shoreline jurisdiction based upon some map interpretations. It was later disputed because of some discrepancies with the maps, delineations, and descriptions. The case involved an interpretation of documents concerning flood plain designation and location and there was some disagreement as to whether the project was on the shoreline floodway or not. They originally decided that it wasn't and held to that. In the case of Hawk's Landing and the instant permit, there has been no interpretation disputed at all-just a clear determination that was made about the project's scope based upon unambiguous and undisputed testimony and subsequently issuance of a shoreline permit inconsistent with the findings and approval. The location of the "ordinary high water mark" or the lines are not in dispute here. The proponent in Hawk's Landing stated that the Respome Brad Nicholson Page 14of23 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 area within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark "would not be touched' and no interpretation of maps or flood plain documents took place or was necessary. It was simply taken as true that the words could be honored. The Hearing Examiner made the finding and incorporated it into the Master site plan and Site plan approval. In Samuel's, Ecology argued it was not contending the fill and grade or the building permits were issued improperly, hut only that a shoreline permit was required. Because the city did not issue a formal shoreline permit or decision regarding the shoreline jurisdiction, Ecology reasoned there was nothing for it to appeal. That is not the case here. One issue here is the substance and scope of the original site plan approval (with standing) has been ignored in a shoreline permit here that is captioned above and under review by the Board. Other issues like how to determine compliance with RCW 90.58.020 are also present in this case. The instant case respectfully distinguishes Samuel's Furniture in certain ways. The City has not contended that the instant project is outside Shoreline jurisdiction otherwise there would not be a shoreline permit captioned above. The Shoreline permit captioned above and at issue here is intended, (according to the permit face) to "meet the infrastruclure needs of future development including Hawk's Lmuiing" (which is in reality a revision to an undisclosed or unknown and speculative at best project) In this case, the City processed and issued a shoreline permit for a part of the project, but failed to include information as to the scope of the project that it determined it to be serving. That was the point in time when the inappropriate connection was made. Unlike Samuel's Furniture, this case involves an appeal capable Shoreline Permit, (LUAI0-041) for an inappropriate segment of the total project, which is now before this Board. The Shorelines Hearings Board was never asked in Samuel's Furniture, to interpret the Shoreline Management Act and its regulations for the Samuel's project because no permit was in existence. Here it is evidently contended that the City can basically revise the scope of the final, original permit, without mentioning that it is in reality the final substance and scope of the Hawk's Landing speculative at best project that is necessary to inquire into here, with the instant permit approval, to be able to consider whether the act has been carried out. Samuels is not about how to change a final decision with another improper segment, it is about respectin the original segment. It is simply too difficult to imagine that the Shoreline Management Act, which was Brad Nicholson Page 15 of23 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 approved by the voters of Washington, can be construed to allow a Shoreline Permit, such as in this case, to render the Shoreline regulations omnipotent while allowing development in conflict with a final Maste site plan and Site Plan approvals. That would replace the State wide uniformity and consistency of the interpretation of the Shoreline Management Act by this Board with a clever tactic that would circwnvent legitimate review of their actions that could then be used by anybody. That is exactly what Mr. BhaJia tried to do, and what the City attempts here that is so inappropriate. It seems to be thought by the City that as ifby magic and a few deceptive words, the City can shield the instant pennit from deliberations and review. lf this type of permit is allowed to proceed, then all any applicant would need to do is pledge that no development would take place within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark during the site plan approvals, (which generally comes first) then following with the revisions that could never be reviewed. Coerced development details could then proceed and prevail at wil! with the SMA reduced to a whim. The very core of Shoreline jurisdiction is at stake in this case because it will create a precedent for future decisions. The type of clever tactic should not be allowed. Brad Nicholson does not have an issue with the Hotel concept or the scope of the original approval. It is final. Brad Nicholson is motivated by compliance with the SMA, protection of vegetation and habitat, wildlife, the visual esthetic enjoyment of those interests and other interest that he has a right to under the SMA. Brad Nicholson prevailed on the issues in Hawk's Landing that are material to his concerns, and this case, and is not attacking the previous decisions here. He does not have to agree spiritually with everything the City does or decides. He raised the issues in a previous appeal and subsequently prevailed and "basically conceded' according to the City the issues based upon the testimony and commitments of the various parties, including City Staff and the proponents. In that sense, the term "basically conceded" is deceiving. There is no citation of authority available to suggest that Brad Nicholson was under any obligation to 24 25 26 27 28 appeal an issue (where he had standing) that he considered that he prevailed on and therefore the Board need not consider the suggestion. See Rural Residents v. Kitsap, 95 Wn. App 383 id. at 393 There the Court decided that when a party on appeal does not cite any authority in support of a claim, it is assumed that counsel found none after a diligent search. The City can cite no authority for the proposition that a LUPA appeal was needed by Bra Response Brad Nicholson Page 16of23 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nicholson. Under Samuels, the City needed to file a LUPA appeal. The applicability" of Samuel's Furniture v. Ecology, l 47 Wn.2d 440 (2002) works in favor of Brad Nicholson and summary judgment should be entered in favor of Brad Nicholson on issue I! as described. It is final that the Hotel concept is approved and that the scope of the project is that "no development will take place within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark'' and that the "ditch be used to convey the water to May Creek'' The storm water facility may not be situated where it is without revising the scope of the original approval. (DJ The City's accusations that standing is not present are most incorrect, based upon authority 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 distinctly different than the present case, and not accurate. Standing with regard to the development of Hawk's Landing has already been established as final and Brad Nicholson has standing that the project "will be farther than 200 feet.from the ordinary high water mark and that the "ditch" will be used to convey storm water to May Creek" according to Samuel's Furniture v. Ecology, 147 Wn.2d 440 (2002) If the City did not like the decision, they were obligated to file a LUPA appeal to reverse it. Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6). RCW 90.58.180 (I). In order to maintain the petition, the petitioners must show they are aggrieved persons within the meaning ofRCW 90.58.180. The term "person aggrieved" has been interpreted to include anyone with standing to sue under existing law. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wash. App. 290, 299, 936 P.2d 432 (1997). This requires the petitioners to show they have suffered an injury in fact within the zone of interests protected by the statute and that the Board has authority to redress the injury suffered. CORE v. Olympia, 33 Wash. App 667,567 P.2d 790 (1983). "To show an injury in fact, the plaintiff must allege specific and perceptible h=." Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap County, 92 Wash. App. 816,829,965 P.2d 636 (1998). The "injury in fact'' test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself (or herself) among the injured. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563, 112 S.Ct 2130, l 19 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). A party asserting general enforcement ofa statute does not have standing unless he or she is "perceptibly affected by the unlawful action in question." Id at 566. Moreover, no standing is Respoos< Brad Nid10lson Page 17 of23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ll 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 conferred to a party alleging a conjectural or hypothetical injury. Snohomish County Property Rights Alliance v. Snohomish County. 76 Wash._App. 44, 53, 882 P.2d 807 (1994). The party asserting standing bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Center for Environmental Law & Policy v. Department of Ecology, No. 96-165 ( 1997) ( citing Lujan at 561). To survive summary judgment in this case, Petitioners need only set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts, which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true, demonstrating that they are entitled to standing. Lujan at 561; see also Trepanier v. City of Everett, 64 Wash. App. 380,383, 824 P.2d 524 (1992). Brad Nicholson has set forth an affidavit that must be taken as true for purposes of this motion. See third declaration of Brad Nicholson. Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR S6(c). "The motion will be granted, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, only if reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion." Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wash. 2d 491,495,951 P.2d 761 (1998). Standing is established in this case by the setting forth of specific allegation and specific facts demonstrating that Brad Nicholson has standing. The City accusations are simply not accurate. As an example, the City claims that Petitioner can not enjoy the pleasant break the shoreline provides and cannot fish with his family in May Creek. Brad Nicholson third declaration sets forth facts proving the claims to be incorrect. The claim is based upon a totally inaccurate presumption. See third declaration of Brad Nicholson. Fishing regulations for May Creek is open during summer months. Sockeye fishing seasons occur on Lake Washington when salmon returns are sufficient to sustain Salmon runs. Petitioner alleged he wants to fish with his family and lives 10 blocks away from the project and owns property adjacent to May Creek. He loves, enjoys, and respects the visual amenities of the area and will be harmed by the faulty planning associated with this project. 24 25 26 27 28 The runoff from the project will impact May Creek and species he enjoys. Development and the storm water facility and road will negatively impact upland wildlife and the appearance of the shoreline of May Creek as well. Those specific harms adversely impact Brad Nicholson and cause injury in fact to Brad Nicholson. If the truth is told, the development and impervious area on the site will impact the diversity of all species and all Citizens in the area. Response Brad Nicholson Page 18 of2J 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 ]) 14 15 16 17 !8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eagles and raptors feed on salmon and fish, small mammals, amphibious creatures and other animals. All of the species rely upon clean water and shoreline habitat. These animals have been relying on the cover and the trees and the diversity of the area that will be destroyed by this very development. The swale will tum into a duck pond increasing flow and temperature where none currently exists altering and damaging the Shoreline. Mammals essential to the diversity that will be harmed rely on the cover of the shoreline will be driven farther from view. The storm water facility is nothing more than a nuisance to the amenitie that are intended to be protected by the SMA. Obviously, keeping the area in a state where the natural diversity can be enjoyed is the protection measure envisioned by the act and the vision of Brad Nicholson as well. Those priorities have never even been considered let alone carried out. The City relies exclusively upon Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley 118 Wn.2d, 808. In Cowiche, the proposition that since no party making a claim had anY.interest in the removal ofa Burlington Northern railroad trestle which was not a substantial development that they had no claim of standing against it. In Cowiche Canyon, the parties claiming standing had to trespass to be able to assert their interests. Those facts are not present here. Brad Nicholson is alleging damage to the appearance of the City and Community where he resides and alleges damage to wildlife and vegetation that he enjoys. Trespassing has not been required for him to do so. In the instant case, Brad Nicholson has alleged impairment and harm to the aesthetic quality and appearance of the City and May Creek caused by the excavation of the storm water facility, stating "we enjoy the pleasant break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it" "On a few occasions I have eojoyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the permit will bulldoze and fence" Evidently the City did not read the PFR and instead demands the exact level of magnitude and frequency of use of the shoreline. No citation to authority can be found or cited where there is any such hurdle that must be cleared for the number of times that frequency of use must be determined prior to a determinatio of"injury in fact" Magnitude and duration are not part of the test. Brad Nicholson enjoys the area often enough for standing and lives in the area and is negatively impacted by the project. True facts indicate that the magnitude of harm alleged in the PFR is intense. Third declaration of Brad Nicholson. To have standing, one need only have a protectable interest that bas been invaded or is about to be invaded. See Orion Corporation v. State, 103 Wn. 2d 441 Response Page 19 of2J Brad Nicholson 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 27 28 In other words, an interest that is capable of being protected. It should be found to be very offensive for the City to imply that the interests sought to be protected are not "protectable" by the Board or Washington Law. As has been articulated in Petitioners Motion for Summary Judgment, there are numerous Board cases establishing that the esthetic quality of the Shoreline is a protectable interest. Brad Nicholson alleged that, "As a result of the City's improper segmentation and fractionated review an decision making with regard to the shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed review of a single true project application and the projects lack of attention to design criteria and shoreline management purposes. "He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walks, boat, fish, bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of May Creek surroundiug the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project" and "The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake Washington or May Creek" "He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and will be injured by the City's denial of the right to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline Permit and consideration of all the facts that are relevant to this appeal" There is absolutely no evidence that the City can produce that plaintiffs in Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosl.ey 118 Wn.2d, 808 alleged even a similar set of injuries in their complaint. In Cowiche, unlike here, they tried to amend the complaint later to allege injury in fact. Brad Nicholson alleged all of the above in the PFR. All that was involved in Cowiche Canyon was a protest against tearing out a trestle that was in all likelihood contaminated with heavy creosote, dioxins, furan, and poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They were protesting the removal of a nuisance and the fact that they could no longer trespass. Brad Nicholson is aggrieved from the destruction of visual amenities he should have access to and be protected by the SMA and the unjustifiable installation of a nuisance to those amenities in his community. Cowiche Canyon consisted of a totally different set of facts and is inapplicable here. R"'J'OOS< Brad Nicholson Page20of23 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court in Allan v. University of Washington 140 Wn. 2d 323 accepted the view articulated in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992), There, where United States environmental groups sought to chaJ!enge, under the Endangered Species Act, the impact of a regulation upon animal species in foreign countries, the Court acknowledged that "[o]fcourse, the desire to use or observe an animal species, even for purely esthetic purposes, is undeniably a cognizable interest for purpose of standing." Id. at 562-63 (emphasis added) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 31 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1972)) The City recites only some of the standing declaration but leaves out other areas. For example, the declaration states, "I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the entire proposal because I would like t have my community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton's Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58, and a compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do. I am aggrieved by the City's denial of my rights to such a community and aggrieved by the fact that development planning does not appear to be properly prioritized. By ignoring State policy and the procedural and substantial protections contained in the Renton Municipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's' decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is contrary to the letter and the spirit of those laws" and, "I have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing Salmon and Trout. A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in May Creek. I have seen sockeye in the Creek just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we live above the May Creek Basin and know that they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I Response Brad Nicholson Page2I of23 have enjoyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the 2 permit will bulldoze and fence" J Response to 7. Conclusion: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There is no way that Renton can salvage this permit without revisions and additional detail being articulated within a new permit. The permit here can only lead to preventable damage to the Shoreline Environment of Brad Nicholson's community to his detriment and injury. Renton has failed miserably by trying to fast track the project through and making up arbitrary arguments as they go. Renton can not prevail on the dispositive issues here because the SMA has been violated in so many respects. The City has utterly failed to design the project consistent with previous approvals, not properly considered or situated the storm water facility and its roads, the City is blatantly altering May Creek in violation of their own shoreline plan., and attempting to piecemeal and coerced review for future development with a facility that directs polluted water to May Creek, a Shoreline of the State, while using issues that are not even the issues that are before the Board. The project has obviously been designed to facilitate speedy an economical benefit in the form of increased revenue and not for compliance with the SMA. The City misinterpreted and/or misconstructed numerous sections of State law and their own Shoreline Management plan, and mistakenly relies upon Samuel's Furniture while in reality it works against the permit that has been so erroneously and arbitrarily decided. They now try to re word the issues to escape the mistakes that have been made. Finally, it is quite outrageous that the City would contend that the permanent addition of such a large storm water facility and its construction on the shoreline "Preserves the natural character of the shoreline"; and that altering water in May Creek and careless situating of the facility while inconsistent with their Master site plan and Site plan "results in long term over short term benefit; protects shoreline ecology; and increases public access to public owned area of the shoreline. It is quite amazing that the City claims that they "may" be able to increase recreational opportunities for the public in these circumstances, with 4.5 acres of featureless mystery area that could possibly be used instead of the Shoreline. No water dependent uses have ever been identified. The City has decided the permit without ever attempting to prioritize the important values that inhere in the SMA. The City will block the area from public access and destroy the natural character of the shoreline in the process and dictate future Response Brad Nicholson Page 22of2J 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 site layouts. The permit creates no opportunity to access the shoreline at all and uses the fragile and unique May Creek Shoreline for a storm water facility to serve private interest and not the public. SMA elements are not in the plans or application and neither is the character of the actual development that will take place that relies on this infrastructure. The Permit is fatally inconsistent with the Master site plan and Site plan. The permit approved by the City does nothing more than reduce the SMA to a whim. Signed, Responie Brad Nicho~on Page 23 of23 -2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 !6 !7 18 !9 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal ofRenton's Shoreline Substantial ) Case No: SHB 10-016 ) Development Permit LUAJ0-041, ECM, SM: ) Third Declaration of Brad Nicholson ) Brad Nicholson, ) In response to City's ) Petitioner, ) Motion for Summary Judgment ) ~ ) ) City of Renton ) ) Respondents. ) ) _______________ ) I, Brad Nicholson, declare the following: 1. I am now and at all times mentioned a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, City of Renton, over the age of eighteen years, competent to make this declaration, and make this declaration from my own personal knowledge and judgment. 2. The City very incorrectly implies in its Motion for Swnmary Judgment that I just merely drive by the area and have very little interest in May Creek and trespass against their project. The implication is equally as offensive as it is inaccurate in my opinion. I feel very offended by such an assertion. I have memories of May Creek and Lake Washington that are nearly as vivid in my mind and heart as they were when they first were experienced over 40 years ago. I have caught but one fish in May Creek in my entire life but the memory of my experience stands out etched in my mind like it was yesterday. I was only about IO years old. I remember the overcast day, the rain had stopped at mid morning -it was around 200 feet below where I now live. The magnificence of the moments I know is very difficult to capture with words. Declaration Brad Nidiolron Pagel of 4 2 3 4 l 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I used to hike, bike, explore, and enjoy the wildlife and trails in all the area of May Creek when I was a boy, well over 40 years ago. I love the area and that is why I decided to live here. The first Trout that I ever caught by myself and without instruction was in May Creek, one reason why I feel such a strong connection to May Creek now. May Creek is a fishing Creek and all that anyone needs to do is look it up in the Fishing Regulations of Washington State to know. I certainly can fish in May Creek with my family, Renton's accusation that it can not be done is simply hogwash. I loved the area then as much as I still do, in fact I used the money from a paper route I had as a teenager as the down payment to buy my property overlooking the May Creek basin just a short distance from the permit that is at issue here. This is where I consciously decided that I wanted to live because of May Creek and its virtues. I have enjoyed viewing the shoreline and May Creek from the Bridge and area right in front of the proposed swale bulldozing area many times over the years of my life. I now consider this place in my community to be my home. I don't see why IO blocks away from the permit is so far as to be insufficient to have an interest in the area. It is not insufficient. I can walk to the pennit site in 15 minutes or so, I can bike there in less than 5 minutes. I do not consider that I am just a casual passerby that is not really interested in the health, diversity and esthetics of May Creek because I go by there and enjoy it all the time. I have invested everything I have ever made except my 40 I K plan into my home and property that shares its property line and vicinity with May Creek, because I love and feel so stongly about May Creek. The May Creek basin is my home, and I take offence to comments that I should be dismissed because I am just an uninterested and theoretical passerby with no interest in the area. I love the area and I am sincerely interested in protecting it. If they do not believe me that I either do or desire to boat, fish, bicycle, or swim and I am interested in protecting the aesthetic qualities of the Creek maybe they could come by some time and l could get on the bike or walk down there to the site and show them. We could take the usual and frequent bicycle ride to Newcastle Beach Park and perhaps see and enjoy the same things that I do, riding right by where they wil bulldoze in their storm water facility. Perhaps I could show the City Attorney my property overlooking May Creek, or show him how to rig up a fishing rod for fishing in Lake Washington and show him my boat and fishing equipment to prove the kinds of things I enjoy and want to protect Declaration Brad Nicholson PaRe2of 4 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Or I could show him how find and rig a caddis fly larvae that can be abundantly found on the banks of May Creek, to entice a fish, or how to avoid the nettles. If they would do it as often or as sincerely as I do, then perhaps they will see the Shoreline as I do. I can tell them the stories and explain to them how the changes to area that is where I live and respect will in fact injure me. My true belief is that the City desperately wants to justify their position, by whatever means necessary, including creating the false impression so that no standing exists and the case would be dismissed without having had ever considered the actual facts such as how they will coerce and piecemeal the project together. They are using my tax money to do it to benefit some people and business that really does not need any money or protection at all. I think they know a lot more about what is going to occur and transpire in the area and are keeping their true plans secret. How I can explain the feeling of seeing a rare Steelhead rise and then disappear from behind a down log is a not easily described with only words, and seeing a Steelhead could not be accomplished upon demand. Salmon can be viewed from the May Creek Bridge in mid October and I have been going there to look for them a number of times almost every year. Maybe the City Attorney and I could stop on the May Creek Bridge and gaze at where the storm water facility will locate and take a break to look at the waters and capture the valuable and fragile nature of its beauty and value I could explain to them how I feel it is so very important to be able to do for the future. Salmon and Steelhead and birds and other wildlife do not show up in May Creek all of the time or with a certain frequency, but they are there and fish do spawn in May Creek and I enjoy them all when ever I can and will be injured by their loss, and injured by the loss of the pleasant atmosphere that exists in that area. I take offence to the allegation that I have no interest in the area. In my mind, the area symbolizes how my family will live and thrive in the future and captures the very essence of the qualities of the area I have chosen to call my home. They have not maintained the native vegetation whenever possible, redesigned the project for pedestrian waterfront activity, and they are altering the natural character of Ma Creek to my detriment and injury in fact. Declaration Brad Nid\olson Page3of4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and 2 correct. 3 4 DATED this 15th day of November, in Renton, Washington. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration Page 4 of4 Brad Nicholson 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 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN ANO FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUAl0-041, BCM, SM, Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, vs. CITY OF RENTON, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________ ) CASE NO. SHB#l0-016 RESPONDENT'S REPLY AFFIRMATION Petitioner's assertions in Petitioner Brad Nicholson's response {sic] to City of Renton Motion for Summary Judgment dated 05, November, 2010, (hereinafter "Response"), like every allegation that Petitioner has offered in each of his pleadings, are unsupported by independent, reliable, admissible sworn statements. Petitioner has not provided any basis for the SHB to believe that he understands groundwater civil engineering design support, remediation technologies, construction engineering, water drainage issues, hydrological modeling, or hydrological designs better than Mr. Steve Lee Renton City Attorney 100 S 200 St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 --------------- 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 and/or the Department of Ecology. In fact, reviewing his declarations, Petitioner has failed to swear or affirm that he has any technical, scientific, public works, ecology of fish and wildlife background. As a result, everything of a technical nature that he has offered is either opinion or unsupported and unsubstantiated "facts," and he has failed to comply with CR 56(e). 1. Standing Petitioner claims that in order to have standing, he does not have to live adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the LWB project site. Petitioner does not support this claim with any authority. The Washington State Supreme Court disagrees. In Cowiche Canyon Consetvancy, the Court unequivocally stated that private persons who did not own the property adjacent to or even in the vicinity of protected body of water did not have standing to bring an action.1 Since Petitioner has failed to challenge this statement with any subsequent case law or a statute, this argument is effectively undisputed. Petitioner claims that he can walk to the site in roughly 15 minutes. A 15 minute walk is not even remotely comparable to a person whose home abuts a body of water. Again, Petitioner makes unsupported "factual assertions." In response to Renton's argument relying on Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, Petitioner states "I don't see why 10 blocks away from the permit is so far as to be insufficient to have an interest in an area. It is not insufficient." This statement that it is not insufficient cites to no authority. 1 Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801,808; 828 P.2d 549 (1992), citing Marincovich v. Tarabochia, 114 Wn.2d 271, 274; 787 P.2d 562 (1990). Renton City Atto.-ney 1oos2"'s1 P0Box6Z6 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Petitioner claims that the Division One decision in Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County provides that he does not have to cite any authority.2 First, this decision was reversed in part by the state Supreme Court;3 and second, and more importantly, in In re Cassel, the case that Division One relied on in Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, the state Supreme Court stated that because "[n]o legal argument or authority is made or cited in support of this proposition" "[w]e, therefore, will not consider it."4 Petitioner misunderstood the significance of the decision he read. Under In re Cassel, the SHB is required to disregard unsupported claims or facts. Petitioner erroneously concludes that he and any person who has ever walked along or seen a shoreline has standing.5 Under Petitioner's reasoning everyone who has ever admired May Creek, Lake Washington or any other shoreline, even if it was many years ago or only once has standing. That is not true. Petitioner claims among other things that he lives a short distance from the infrastructure improvement site; that he uses the May Creek shoreline; that his alleged damages are "increased damage to the shoreline quality" in the form of "lower water quality," a "loss of visual and recreational amenities," and harm to wildlife.6 He also 2 Associ<Jtion of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 95 Wn. App. 383,393; 974 P.2d 863 [Div I, 1999). 'Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, 141 Wn.2d 185, 4 P .3d 115 (2000). 4 /n re cassel, 63 Wn.2d 751, 755; 388 P.2d 952 (1964). 5 See Response, p. 17 -22, and Third Declaration of Brad Nicholson In response [sic] to City's Motion for Summary Judgment (Third Dedarotion}, passim. 6 Petition for Review, p. 11 I. 24 -p. 12 I. S. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St POBox626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone, (425)430~0 Fa,;: (425) 255-5474 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 swore that "[h]efrequently enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basis areas,frequentlywalks, boat[s], fish[es], bicycle[s], or swim[s] with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of May Creek surrounding the proposed project."7 (Emphasis added). Regarding May Creek, he claims that "[h]e uses it frequently."8 These claims are contradicted by his Third Declaration. He has "caught but one fish in May Creek" in his entire life: He does not even claim that he caught it near the LWB project site. He "used to hike, bike, explore and enjoy the wildlife and trails in all the area of May Creek when [he] was a boy, well over 40 years ago."10 (Emphasis added). He does not Jive adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity as he lives more than 10 blocks from the project site.11 His admissions illustrate that Petitioner does not have standing to challenge to LWB project permit. Petitioner claims that he and his family "enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park, just a short distance upstream from the proposal."12 Any distance up stream means that what he is doing is across 1-405, which is a major thoroughfare in the South King County area. Petitioner is not referring to the LWB project site. 'Petition for Review, p. 12 I. 14. 8 Response, p. 11. 22. ' Third Declaration, p. 11. 22. 10 Third Declaration, p. 2 I. L 11 Response, p. 18 I. 21, Third Declaration, p. 2, I. 12. 11 Response, p. 211. 20. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' SI P0Box626 Renton, WA 98057..0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 ---------------------------------~-----------------·----------------- 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 In response to Renton's observation that it is currently impossible to walk, boat, fish, bicycle, and swim in May Creek, Petitioner now claims that that he "certainly can fish in May Creek" not that he does fish in May Creek.13 So Petitioner now admits that he was misleading the Board by claiming that he could do all of those things in May Creek now. Petitioner is correct, in a technical sense, that there are fish and therefore a person (with permission to enter private property) can fish; but the land around May Creek near the LWB project site is private property, and a person unlawfully entering private property, as Petitioner did in his videos, is committing a crime. Only a person under 1S years of age can fish in May Creek.14 So as a legal matter, an adult cannot lawfully fish in that area. Factually, he has not and cannot do any of the things that he claims he did more than 40 years ago. Thus, Petitioner does not have standing to challenge the permit decision. Penultimately, as to standing, Petitioner still has not shown any substantiated prejudice, likely prejudice, or injury in fact. "To claim standing, a party must allege a justifiable controversy based on allegations of substantial, rather than speculative or abstract, personal harm.15 Petitioner supports Renton's argument by noting that a person "does not have standing unless he or she is 'perceptibly affected by the unlawful action in quesUon."'16 13 Third Declaration. p. 2, I. 5 14 Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee Ill, p. 4. "Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 124 Wn. App. 858,863; 103 P.3d 244 (Div 11, 2004). "Response. p. 171. 27. citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. 504 U.S. 555, 563; 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992). <i'. Y O Renton City Attorney ()~:,.;; 100 S 2"' St .!JD PO Box 626 -S + ~ • Renton, WA 98057..0626 :'$l -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ?§.1\J<fO Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 Petitioner claims "lower water quality" "loss of visual and recreational amenities;" harm to various wildlife; and "an inability to comment on a full and completed review of a single true project application."17 Petitioner has not offered a single supporting declaration, study or report; and as a result, his allegations do not constitute actual, specific or substantial prejudice or "injury in fact." His allegations are more than specious, they are wrong. It is a documented and scientific fact that the LWB project will improve the water quality in May Creek.18 Thus, whether it is because he does not own the property involved in the project, adjacent property or even property in the immediate vicinity to the project site, or because he has not shown any injury or damages, Petitioner does not have standing. Finally, Petitioner in an attempt to circumvent the LUPA appeals rules and without citing any legal authority, suggests that the Shoreline's Hearings Board can "inquire into what the scope" is of the LUPA Hawk's Landing Hotel (HLH) project. In one breath Petitioner states that "there has been no interpretation disputed at all,"19 but he states that Renton should require certain buildings to be removed,20 and that if Renton "wants others to believe that the project is not tied to Hawk's Landing then either revise Hawk's 17 Petition for Review, p. 12, I. 5. 1B See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. 19 See Response, p. 14 I. 24. 20 See Response, p. 9 I. 8. Renton City Attorney 1 00 S 2"" St P0Box626 Renton, WA 98057--0626 Phone: (425) 430-&IBO Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 Landing or withdraw it."21 This appeal is just what Renton has always said that it is- Petitioner's attempt to unlawfully challenge the HLH decision. 2. Separate and Distinct Praiects. a. The projects are obviously distinct. Petitioner, attempting to justify his unsupported claims, intentionally chooses not to understand that the LWB project is different from the HLH project. Once again, HLH is a private commercial enterprise, LWB project is a public infrastructure improvement project; HLH and LWB projects have separate and distinct proponents, a private entity for HLH and Renton for LWB project; they have distinct sources for financing, no financing at the current time for HLH and the state for LWB project; they were proposed at different times, 2009 for HLH and 2010 for LWB project; and HLH was and is a LUPA matter since it was found to be outside of the 200 feet high water mark for May Creek, while LWB project is a SMA project because it is within 200 feet of May Creek.22 In sum, the LWB project is a complete and separate and distinct infrastructure improvement project. Petitioner cannot and has not proven that the projects are one in the same. And as stated before, if the HLH or any other project is built at the former Pan Abode site, the developer will have to construct their own water treatment process before that water can enter the LWB project updated city water lines.23 21 See Response, p. 5 I. 25. 22 See Declaration of Mr. Spencer Alpert, Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. 23 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee II. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2N St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430.-6480 Fax: {425) 255-5474 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 b. Declarations of Ms. Dolbee and Mr. Lee. Petitioner accuses Ms. Dolbee of being untruthful in her declaration without specifying the source of his claims by writing "it is contained in the City's documents and exhibits."24 The first page of the LWB project permit states that the project location is "[i]n existing ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N."25 (Emphasis Added). Ms. Dolbee's declaration is consistent with her statement in the project permit. Petitioner also claims that Ms. Dolbee misled the hearing examiner when she stated that "all of Hawk's Landing [Hotel] would be farther than 200 feet from the May Creek ordinary high water mark."26 The hearing examiner reviewed the reports and agreed with her.27 There is nothing complex or deceitful about Ms. Dolbee's statement. Ms. Dolbee accurately testified that the HLH project, unlike the LWB project, is completely outside of the May Creek shoreline. Petitioner makes suppositions based on his inaccurate or incomplete reading of Mr. Lee's declaration.28 In his first declaration, contrary to Petitioner's claim, Mr. Lee did not attribute the orange substance in the roadside ditch solely to vehicles; quoting Mr. Lee, "the orange water substance in the ditch cannot be attributed to one source since it could be from the abandoned building's [sic] rusting roof, brake dust from vehicles on I- 24 Response, p. 3 I. 3. 25 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit F. 26 Response, p. 3, I. 12. 27 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G, and Response, p. 3 I. 14. " Response, p. 3 I. 19. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2..,. St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 405, and/or possibly the soil substances or minerals that could be naturally occurring in the soil."29 likewise, Petitioner makes other claims that are untrue and/or baffling. 3. Petitioner's arguments simply untrue and/or misleading. In his zeal to justify his arguments, Petitioner unjustifiably attacks public servants. He claims that Mr. Lee, "incorrectly states that no threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site."30 Looking at that document, p. 7, section S(b), Mr. Lee wrote that the "Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead in May Creek are a threatened species."31 It cannot be any clearer that Petitioner is wrong again, and that he either does not comprehend facts or is trying to mislead and deceive the SHB. Petitioner claims that Renton's calculations show that the "project increases water flow into May Creek."32 Mr. Lee addresses his increased water flow, a storm filter, and surface water run·off claims in the attached declaration. Mr. Lee points out that any additional run off into May Creek would be "less than 0.1 cfs for the 100 year peak flowrate between the existing and proposed project conditions;" that in the same document that Petitioner relied on, it states that "this project is exempted from needing to provide for flow control;" that the LWB "project has followed and exceeds the minimum requirements administered in accordance with the Western Washington Municipal Stormwater NPDES Phase II Permit as required by the Federal Clean Water Act" 29 See Declaration of Mr. Steve lee t, p. 4 1.23. "Response, p. 2. 23. See also, Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit D. 31 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhib;t D1 p. 7-8. 32 Response, p. 2. 23. See also, Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit D1 p. 4. ~ Y O Renton City Attorney Q~:& 100S2~St .!JD PO Box 626 . + ~ + Renton, WA 98057-0626 :'iJ -K; Phone: (425) 430-0 ~.Kr"fQ Fax: (425) 255-5474 ----~ --"~·------- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and that it "does not trigger enhanced water quality treatment since the average daily traffic count (ADT) is much less than 7,500 trips per day for this project location."33 Petitioner claims that the sidewalk "is unjustifiably permitted here in the place where the ditch was supposed to remain."34 While it is unclear why he would prefer to have a ditch rather than water cleaning process, he does not support his claim with any authority or exhibit. He also claims that "[w]ildlife enjoyed use [sic] the area for cover" without any support.35 Is this from 40 years ago also? There is no evidence, in any form, that establishes that Petitioner knows or understands the minds of wildlife. Petitioner concludes this string of allegations by claiming that if Renton wants others to understand that the LWB project is not tied to HLH that it should revise HLH or withdraw it. 36 Petitioner fails to ask himself, how does Renton revise or withdraw what is not the City's. Petitioner's argument suggests that Renton do something that is not legal or something that it does not have the authority to do. The final example of Petitioner's disingenuous arguments is his claim that while the HLH "original application had very little detail on the storm water plan, that issue was argued extensively."37 Petitioner does not tell the board that the plan related to the HLH project drainage water, and not primarily for the 1-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard " See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee Ill, p. 2--4. 34 Response, p. 4 I. 24 35 Response, p. 5 I. 1. " Response, p. 5 I. 25 37 See Response, p. 13 I. 18. Renton City Attorney 1 00 S 2"" St PO Box 626 Renton. WA 96057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-648D Fax; (425) 255-5474 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 North water drainage that the LWB project addresses.38 The Hearing Examiner required that "[s]tormwater will be collected and conveyed to what the applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and then conveyed to an offsite ditch;"39 and that the "applicant shall use the best available science in treating storm water before conveying it to the roadside ditch."40 This has been Renton's basis for stating that any future development at the site must treat its water prior to letting it run into the municipal drainage pipe.41 4. Renton's permit decision was consistent with RSMPD regulotians §§5.03.01(0), 7.19.0l(A) (1/, 7.19.04(0/(1), 7.17.02(A) and (B/. a. Renton Shoreline Master Program Design §5.04.01(0}. RSMPD §5.04.0l(D), entitled Designation of the Urban Environment-Public Access, states that: In this Master Program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban environment. Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for permanent public access to the water in the Urban environment shall be accomplished through the Master Program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be linked to non-motorized transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths (emphasis added). Petitioner altered the meaning of the last sentence in the aforementioned section by writing in his Petition for Review, "Where practicable, various access points ought to be 38 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G 39 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G, p. 21, section 27. 40 See Declaration of Ms. Vanessa Dolbee, Exhibit G, p. 25 1 s.ection 9. 41 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5. Renton City Attorney 100 S znd St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425)430~0 Fax: (425)255-5474 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 linked to non-motorized transportation routes such as bicycles and hiking paths," to make it appear as though the "where practicable" related to the bike and hiking paths rather than to pedestrian waterfront activities. Petitioner now denies what he signed and submitted to the board. Whatever his excuse is for intentionally altering the language of the RSM PD, the fact remains that the LWB project improves public use by adding a sidewalk for a better and safer view of May Creek from Lake Washington Boulevard, and possibly a soft-surface trail.42 b. RSMPD §§ 7.18.0l(A)(l) and (D){l). RSM PD §7.18.01, is entitled Utilities -Landscaping -Native Vegetation, and RSMPD §7.18.04, is entitled Utilities -loco/ Service Utilities, Specifications. RSMPD §7.18.01(A)(l) states that "native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible." RSMPD §7.18.0l(A)(2) states: When utility projects are completed in the water or shore land, the disturbed area shall be restored and landscaped as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new landscaping is determined to be more desirable. Under RSM PD §7.18.0l(A)(1), "native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible (italics added)." The condition "whenever possible" qualifies the requirement that native vegetation shall be maintained. Contrary to Petitioner's illogical and impractical claim, that does not mean that native vegetation can never be removed. 42 See Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit A, p. 3-4, and 6-9, and Exhibit 8, p. 20-21. ~ Y O Renton City Attorney 0~~ 100S2~St .!m PO Box 626 -1 +-~ + Renton, WA 98057-0626 ~ -~ Phone: (425) 430-6480 ~Nif9 Fax: (425) 255.5474 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 There is little to no native vegetation where the pipes are being replaced and where the bio-swale is being installed.43 Presently, there are a few generally small alders, maples and a variety of weeds and grasses.44 Petitioner's claim of 20 trees of 10-12 inches in diameter is not supported by any exhibit or reference to the record.45 Interestingly, Petitioner does not disagree with Renton's assertion that becau·se this is a utility project, RSMPD §7.18.0l(A) (2) applies. Under RSMPD §7.18.0l(A) (2), if any native vegetation exists to be disturbed, Renton will be responsible for restoring and landscaping "as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new landscaping is determined to be more desirable." Renton believes that there is little to no native vegetation that will be disturbed or altered, but of any is disturbed or altered, Renton will comply with RSMPD §7.18.0l(A) (2).46 c. RSMPD § 7.18.0l(D){l}. RSMPD §7.18.04(0) (1) states that pollutant discharges "into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge." RSM PD §7.18.04(0) (1) does not apply because Renton's LWB project is not exacerbating any current discharge of pollutants, but rather it will reduce drainage water pollution, by use "See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 7, and Exhibit C, p. 1-2, and 4. " See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, Exhibit C, p. 1-2, and 4. 45 See Response, p. 7 L 27. 46 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, Exhibit C, p.1-2, and 4. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of catch basins and a bio-swale, which will improve the quality of water being discharged into May Creek.47 Under RSMPD §7.18.04(D) (1), there is no significant issue of fact. d. RSMPD §7.16.02{A) and (8). Petitioner claims that RSM PD§ 7.16.03(A) will be violated. RSMPD § 7.16.03(A) prohibits stream alteration "in unique and fragile areas." Renton is not altering May Creek.48 The bio-swale will be approximately 40 feet from May Creek, and the only significant change is that the bio-swale will clean water before it is discharged into May Creek.49 And contrary to Petitioner's unsupported claim, the cleaner water will be at the same or nearly the same volume as the water currently enters the stream.50 May Creek, west of 1-405, near Lake Washington Boulevard, under the RSM PD §5.04 is an Urban Environment, and it is zoned as a mixed-use commercial location. The LWB project abuts the HLH project/former Pan Abode industrial site. That is why Renton stated that it was not unique and fragile. Petitioner's remaining speculative claims are unsupported and therefore cannot be intelligently addressed. 5. Ren ton's permit decision was consistent with RCW 90.58.020. In accord with RCW 90.58.020, there is nothing uncoordinated or piecemeal about the LWB permit or project. In one effort, the infrastructure project will result in the installation of utilities, specifically a waterline, a bio-swale, a sidewalk, and possibly a soft- 47 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. " See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 6. 49 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. SUzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. '° See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 7. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"" St PO Box626 Renton. WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-648D Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 surface trail if certain matters fall into line.51 Also, the ecology and environment of the shoreline area will not be damaged and there will not be interference with the public's use of May Creek as the LWB project will provide cleaner water to the stream and its inhabitants.52 In May Creek's current condition, near the LWB project site, there is little to no public use of May Creek due to aggressive overgrowth of invasive vegetation. 53 LWB project will give the public greater access to enjoy May Creek near the project site.54 6. WAC 173-27-100 does not apply under these facts. WAC 173-27-100 does not apply. WAC 173-27-100 states that [a) permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit." The LWB project applicant has not proposed any substantive changes to the design of the LWB project. 7. Conclusion. As a result, Renton has shown that Petitioner does not have standing to challenge the shoreline permit; that he has failed to raise a genuine issue as to a material fact; that his claims are unsupported; that he has not proven any substantial damage or prejudice; and that Renton is complying with every requirement of RCW 90.58.020, and its RSM PD. "See Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit A, p. 3-4, 6--7 and 9. 52 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 5-7, and Declaration of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit B, p. 20-21. 53 See Declaration of Mr. Steve Lee, p. 1-2. 54 See Declarotion of Ms. Suzanne Dale Estey, Exhibit A, p. 3--4, 6-7 and 9. ~y 0 0-\-~, -1 ·~ + ;il; o'<-"".N"' Renton City Attorney 100 S 2",l St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057--0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fa.: (425) 255-5474 -----------------------------------·~·----------------- 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 Therefore, Renton respectfully requests that the Board grant Renton's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Review in its entirety, and any further relief as the Board my deem just and equitable. DATED THIS 29th day of November, 2010. II, WSBA No. 31418 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St PO Box626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: (425) 430-6480 Fax: (425) 255-5474 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 Motion for Summary Judgment November 27, 2010 Without Oral Argument BEFORE THE SHORLINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUAl0-041, BCM, SM, Brad Nicholson, Appellant, v. CITY OF RENTON, Respondent. Case NO. SHB#l0-016 Declaration of Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Reply Affirmation (Declaration of Steve Lee 111). Steve lee hereby declares under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge: 1. That I am over 18 years of age and am competent to testify in this matter. Dc-c!,trnLion in Suprurt -Page l Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St P0Box626 Renton, WA 98057-o&26 Phone: '25.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 --~·----------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 2. I have previously provided my education and experience information in the Declaration of Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Motion for Summary Judgment under CR56 Motion, and I respectfully ask this board to continue to rely on that declaration. 3. 4. Attached hereto as exhibits are true and correct copies of the following: a. Gray & Osborne Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report (G&O H/H), by Gray & Osborne, Inc., (hereinafter "Exhibit A"); b. 2009 King County SUrjace Water Design Manual (2009 Design Manual), (hereinafter "Exhibit B"); Petitioner repeatedly claims that I have made false and inaccurate statements about the technical merits of the Lake Washington Boulevard project (LWB) without identifying a justifiable, reliable, factual, or scientific piece of evidence. 5. For the purpose of refuting and clarifying some details I am submitting this declaration. 14 6. Renton is not required to install this bio-swale but is doing so based on the G/0 15 H/H recommendation.1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7. Petitioner misleads the SHB by claiming that "The bio filtration swale proposed· is not approved by the 2005 manual to remove metal or dissolved pollutants. The project increases water flow into May Creek according to the City's own calculations."' 8. While the LWB project does increase surface water runoff into May Creek, the increase is less than 0.1 cfs for the 100 year peak flowrate between the existing and proposed 'G&O H/H, p. 15. 'Petitioner Brad Nicholson's response [sic} to City of Renton Motion for Summary Judgment dated 05, November, 2010, (hereinafter "Response•, p. 31. 25). Dcc!:1rcnlon in Supporl -Page 2 Renton City Attorney 1 00 S 2"" St P0Box526 -. WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5'174 project conditions, and therefore is within the City's discharge threshold limits. 1 2 9. According to the adopted 2009 Design Manual with City Amendment 3 requirements as specified on page 1-34 of the City's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual, this 4 project is exempted from needing to provide for flow control. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10. Incredibly, Petitioner fails to mention this is stated in the G&O H/H,3 and the 2009 Design Manual, Section 1.2.3.1.A. 11. Furthermore, Petitioner claims that I failed to incorporate a "recommended" water quality treatment option as mentioned within the G&O H/H Report.• Petitioner again misleads the SHB and attempts to discredit my experience by withholding key information. 12. The G&O H/H report, consistent with the Department of Ecology's (Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual), and Renton's manual (2009 Surface Water Design Manual} that follows the King County manual (2009 King County Stormwater Manual}, states that the project is f!Ot required to provide a water quality facility since the total net increase of impervious area is 1,480 square feet. 13. The manuals state that the threshold to treat new and replaced impervious 1e pollution generating surfaces is 5,000 square feet, with utility trenches and overlays not 19 included in the "replaced impervious surfaces" definition. 20 21 22 23 24 25 14. The LWB project has followed and exceeds the minimum requirements administered in accordance with the Western Washington Munidpal Stormwater NPDES 'Exhibit A p. 6. • Response, p. 4 I. 4. Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"" St P0Box626 Renlon, WA 9805Hl629 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Phase II Permit as required by the Federal Gean Water Act. 15. The LWB project does not trigger enhanced water quality treatment since the average daily traffic count (ADT) is much less than 7,500 trips per day for this project location. Even though this project is not required to treat runoff, the applicant is choosing to provide retrofit water quality treatment using the Basic water quality treatment menu as recommended by G&O and the manuals. Among the basic water quality treatment options recommended is a wet bio swale that lends itself to an 'open' and aesthetically pleasing wetland type facility within the 200 feet shorelines area as opposed to a facility that is difficult to maintain. 16. The net result of the LWB Project on water quality will be improved discharges 11 into the creek where.there is currently no treatment occurring. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17. Finally, based on a cursory investigation I have confirmed that only persons less than 15 years of age can lawfully fish in May Creek. DATED THIS 29 November 2010 RENTON, WASHINGTON. CITY OF RENTON Steve Lee Civil Engineer, P.E. City of Renton Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"' St PO Bol<628 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF RENTON AMENDMENTS TO THE KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL City of Renton Public Works Department Surface Water Utility February 2010 PrVIWi on Recycled Paper --------------------------~ 12.2 CORE REQUIREMENT #2: OFFS!TE ANAL YSJS conveyllllce system naisance problem is identified through offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2, no additional onsite flow eontrol is needed, and no oflsite impmvanents are necessary. 1.2.2.3 WATER QUALITY PROBLEM IMP ACT MITIGATION The "Water Quality Problem Impact Mitigation" section, as written in 1he King County Manwtl, is not applicable at this time, but special requirements/mitigation for known water quality problems may be added in the future. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment City of Renton 1-27 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide ansite flow control facilities or flow conlrol BMPs or both to mitigate the impacts of storm and surface water runoff generated by new impemo11• surface, new pervwus surface, and ...,,Iaced impervious nrface targeted for flow mitigation as specified in the following sections. Flow control facilities must be provided and designed to perform g as specified by the ami-specific flow control facility requirement in Section 1.23.1 (p. 1-29) and in accordance with the applicable flow control facility implementation requirements in Section 1.2.3 .2 (p. 1-40). Flow eontrol BMP1 must be provided as directed by the flow control BMPs requirement in Section 1.2.3.3 (p. 1-45) and applied as specified by the flow control BMP requirements in Section 5.2. Intent: To wsure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. The level of conlrol varies depending on locatioo and downstream conditions identified under Core Requirement #2. CJ EXEMPTKlNS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #3 There are three possible exemptions from the flow control provisions of Core Requirement #3: 1. Basic Exemption A proposed project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 sqnare feet of new plus rq,laced lmpen>io11s surface will be created, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feel of new pervwus sutface19 will be added. 2. Impervious Surface EJCei nplion fur Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed transportation ndevelopment project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervwus su,face18 will be added, AND c) The total new impervio11s su,face within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redndopment project on a single or multiple parcel site i,, exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervlo11s su,faee will be created, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feet ofnewpervwussu,face19 will be added, AND c) The valuation of the praject's proposed improvements (including inrerior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50"/o of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. 19 Note: tf lhe project's new-pervlous surface exceeds 7,000 SQUare feet lhe .soU molsb.lre holdi"lg capacity of lhe new pervlous .surface must be proteded. The duff fayer and nattYe topsoil shall be retained In an uncflsbbed state to the ma:clmum extent praollcable. Any duff layer or lopsoll removed during ~ shai be s1odtplled onsl1e In a deolgnaled, conlrolled area not adjacent lo publlc resources ald a1Had areas. The material shall be reappled ID other portions of the sfta v.ner& teaslbla Except as ot>«wtse roted below, an>as that have been clmred and graded shal have !he sol! molslufe holding capaolty restored to hit of Iha original undisturbed solt naive to the sJht ., Ile rnaunum extent praclic:able. The soH in any area that has been wcq: 1 e d or that has had some or al of the duff layer-or underlying "1p$Od remoY8d shall be amended to mffigate for lost moistU,e-holdlng capaclly. The amendment shall take place between May 1 and October 1. Replaeed IOpsoll shal be a mlnlmcn of B inches thid<. unless ..., applicant demanslrales Iha! a dlfferont lhld<ness will provide condlllons equivolefll to Ille sol! -a,paclty native 1o !ho -· Roploced IOp,;ol ohell have an <><gunk: matlof content of ooiw-i B and 13 pe,a,nt dry weight and a pH 9Jllable lor the proposed landscape plants. Tots requoement does oot apply lo areas that at project complellon are =-ed by on impeMOUS sooace. inco<porated Into a drainage facility, or ~ as s.tn,ctural fiH or slope. City of Rontoo 1-28 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL 1.2.3.1 AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW CONTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT I Projects subject to Core Requirement #3 must provide flow control facilities as specified by the area- specific facility requirements and ercq,tions for the designated flow control aru in which the proposed project or threshold dlsciuJrg• ttrl!II of the proposed project is located as descnl>ed in Subsections A, B, andCbelow. 2009 SUTTilce Water Design Manual Amendment City ofR.cnton 1-29 ------------ SECTION 1.2 a>RE REQUIREMENTS Note: In subsequent sections, chapten<, and appenmces, where the King County Manual uses flow control tenns, they should generally be replaced as noted below, unless otherwise directed by the City: .. -,,,. ') .t,, ,;.: 't" .• . ; ,! '-, -!', •Ji~~;(·'ll 1· ; ! • _;, Basic Flow Control Area (also refem:d to as Level l Peak Rate Flow Control Standard flow controJ\ nlus l 00-vr nealc malclrinE Conservation Flow Control Area Assuming Existing Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Existing Site Conditions ( also referred to as Level 2 to existing Site Conditions site conditions) Conservation Flow Control Area (also referred to •• Flow Control Duration Standard Matclnng Forested Level 2 to historic siie conditions' Site Conditions Flood Problem Flow Control Arca (also referred to as Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Level 3 flow control) City of Rc:ntoo 1-30 2009 Surface W-Dcsign Manual Amendment ~ ·---···-······ -------------------- 123 CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL :; : ~:_~"~.:· --~'~-::=:· :·:. ~~~:jJZ: :· ~;; ;,;~~~~--~~=]:~:~ ~~] ~~:-.: ~ ~ '-~''' .-:~ :· :~-~ ~-~~ -~ ,.~·-~~ ~~~~ . IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AREA-SPECIFIC FLOW COKTROL FACILITY REQUIREMENT DOWNSTREAM Flow Control DuraUon Flow Control Duration Peak Rate Flow Standard Standard Cootrol Standard Natcl1ing Exlsllng Matching fon,sted Flood Problem Flow Areas Condition Areas Condition Areas Control Standard -... No Problem ldentlfled Apply Peak Rate Flow Apply the Flow Control Apply the Flow Control Apply the existing or Apply the minimum area-Control Standard Duration Standard, Duration Standard, historic site specific flow control whict, matches the 2·, "'1ldl matches the flow which matches the floW condlllonsflcrw porfo<mance crlteda. 10-, ,V1d 100-year cloration of pn,-clora!ion of pre-Control Duration peaks. cleveloped rates for developed rates for Standard flow control ex/stJng slle forasted (hlslorlc) sHe standard (,.!,lct,8\ler Is condltlons over the conditions over ths appropriate based on rw,ge ol flows extending range of flows downstream 1low from 50% ol 2-year up extending from 50% of coolrol eroas) AND to 1he full SO-year flow. 2-y....-LI' lo the full 50-match e,c/stlng .s/lo year flow. conditions 10().year '--"·. Type 1 Drainage Problem A!ldttlonill Flow Qgotrol Addllioaill Row Control No additional now No addltiooal now Conveyance System Hold 10-yea peak to The City may require control or other control or other Nul.sllnce Problem overflow T, peak"'3l design adjustments to mmgallon n-. mltigalfon needed. meet the Flow Control Duration Standard matching forwted fhlstoricl conditions. Type 2 Drainage Problem Allditlot ,!ii Flow D.;ia!IQI A!ldltlnnlill Row Conttlll No edd!tlonal flow No additional now Severe Erosion Apply 1he Flow Control Apply ll>e Flow Control con/ro/ /s needed, but con/ro/ Is needed, but Pmblem Dunition Standard Duration Sbndard other~ may /Je other miUF"" may /Je matching forested matching forested needed.14 needed.I• (historic) (historic) condttlons.!SX4l condltlons.<3X'l Type 3 Drainage Problem &!!lill!l!li!I Flow !.&ot!21 All~lil!ll .. Flaw C2nt!l!l Ad<ition;ii Flow !.&lllllll {lgdillonal Row Control Se"""' Flood{ng Apply the Flow Control Apply the Flow Control tt flooding Is from a tt flooding is from a Problem Duration Standard Duration Standard closed depression, closed <lapression, matching foruted malchlngforested make design maksdeslgn (historic) conditions. (historic) conditions. adjustments as.-"'*"'lments as needed tt flooding Is from a If flooding Is from a to meet the "special to meet Iha "special dosed depression, closed depression, provisbl for closed pro'lislon for closed rnake design make design depressions. ""X5l depressions.""'" adju6lm8ntS as needed adjuotments as needed to meet the "special to meet the "•pedal provision for clooed I ~ions. "'3XIS) provision for closed rwvess1ons.-..f3>1:I:)) PotenUal Impact lo All!lliwill El!llll Conlroi Addillonal Fk>N Control Additional Flaw !,Qa!IQI Additionlll Row !.&at!21 Welland Hydrology as The City may require The City may require The City may requim The City may require Determined through a design adjustments per d<,s;gn adjustments per design ad'jUSlmants per design adjustments per Crtdcal Alea Review per the wetland hydrology the wetland hydrology the -d hydrology the -hydrology RMC TIiie IV protection guidelines In protection guidellnes in protection guidellnes In protection guidelines In Reference Section 5. Reference Section 5. Reference Section 5. Referen::e Section 5. Notes: OJ More lhoo one ....i of ~spedllc perlormance criteria may apply if llMl o.-roore oo-stmam drainage problems are Identified through ofblte analysis per Core Requtn,ment #2. tt this ~. lhe perfonnance goals of each appllcable ~ aiteria must be met. This can require extensive, ttme--consumlng analysis to Implement multiple sels of outflow perfoonanoe criteria if additional onsile flow control is the only viable option for mitigating impacts to these problems. In these oases, ~ may be easier and more pn--.i to implement the Row Control Duntfion Slit-matching rorested conditions In place of the olhO!Wise area-epeclflc required standard. u.., of the Flow Control Duntlon Slandanl ""'lchlnr, forested conditions satisfies the.-~ ·--~rmance criteria for all the · and nmhlern-.......,_ -•rernents 2009 Surface WatC' Design Manual Arneodmmt Qty of Renton 1-31 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS except ~ adjusimenls ,... required per lhe spedal pr<MSion for closed deprnsslons descrlhed below in Note 5. "' Overflow T, is the relum period of oon~ system overflow. To determine T, raqulras a mlnlmu:n Laval 2 OO'MlS!ream anaJy5is as detailed In Sact1on 2.3.1.1. To avoid this anW)/$ts, a T, of 2 yeEl'l!, may be assumed. <» Offslte improvements may be lmplemen!ed in lieu of or in ~ with additional flow control as allowed In Section 12.2.2 (p. 1-24) and dalailed in S8Cllon 3.3.5. <•> A lightllne system may be required reg!ltlless of the flow control standard bek1Q applied If needed to~ lhe discharge requirements of Core Requl,<,menl #1 (p. 1-19) or the outfall requirements of Corn Requir,,ment #4 (p. 1-49), or if deemed necessary by lhe City of Renton where the risk of severa damage is hlgt,. C&> Special Promlon for Closed Depreeslons with a Sewra Flooding Problem: IF the proposed project dlsdwges by overland flow or conveyance system to a dosed deprassa,n experiencing a"""""' lloodlngprob/emANDlheamountof new,,__. •urfa"" area proposed by lhe project is graaterlhan or equal to 10% of lhe 100-year water surface area ol lhe closed depmssion, THEN use the "point of oompllance analysis technique" -ed In Section 3.3.6 to verify that wale, surface I"""'" are not increasing for Iha relum frequencies at which floo<lng occun, up to and Including the 100-yearfreqUency. If necessary, itera1lvely adjust onslte flow aintrol perfumianceto pravent Increases. Noto: The point of comp/lance analys/• re/las on cerl&Jn f/e/d measw-ements taken c/h,ct/y al Iha -~ (o.g., sol1s lasts. topography, elc.). If permission lo antor private property for such me.-S is denied, the Glly of ReirlM may waive this provision and apply the Flow Control Duration Standard matching fon,sfed conditions -.d8rd with a mandaloly 20% safely foclor on /he slora/l8 w/ume. City of Renton 2009 Surl'ace Water Design Manual Amendment 1-32 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL Cl DIRECT DISCHARGE EXEMPTION Any onsite natllral dniimlge uea is exempt from the flow control facility requirement if the area drains to one of the major receiving waters listed in Table 1.2.3.B at right, AND meets the following criteria for direct discharge to that receiving water. a). The flowpath from the project site discharge point to the edge of the I 00-year floodplain of the major receiving water will be no longer than one-half mile, except for discharges to Lake Washington, AND b) The conveyance system between the project site and the major receiving water will extend to the ordinary high water mark:, and will be comprised of manmade conveyance elements (pipes, ditches, etc,) and will be within public rigbk>f-way or a public or private drainage easement, AND c) The conveyance system will have adequate capacity to • -• _ "~':?" :{: \ ";_.I; : : ! ._-.r·,)\::._: : i , ' r •• , ' t• •· --~ ~~ ~ -~ • Cedar River do\Nn6tr8am of Taylor Creek confluence • Lake Washington • Johns Creek downstream of lnterstal&-405 (l-405) east right-of.. way Note: The major receiving waier.s listed above do no/ include -· adjacent or associat9d channels, spring-or grouncJwater.fed slraams, or --.. convey the 25-yearpeak flow (per Core RcquiICment #4, Conveyance System) for the entire contnl>uting drainage area, assuming build-out conditions to current zoning for the equivalent area portion ( defined in Figure 1.2.3.A, below) and existing conditions for the remaining ares, AND d) The conveyance system will be adequately stabilized to prevent erosion, assuming the same basin conditions as assumed in Criteria (c) above, AND e) The direct discharge proposal will not divert flows from or increase flows to an existing wetland or stream sufficient to cause a significant adverse impact FIGURE 1.2.3.A EQUIVALENT AREA DEFINITION AND ILLUSTRATION Equivalent area: The area tributary to a direct discharge conveyance system that is conlalnod within an arc formed by lhe shortes~ straight llne distance from the conveyance system discharge point to the furthermost point of the proposed project. Discharge Existing Point Conveyance \ ~ System~ ,---···-···-,-r' -··-----.. ---- / / / I 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amcndmm! 1-33 City of Renton SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS A. PEAK RATE FLOW CONTROL STANDARD AREAS The peak rate flow control standard is a peak-rate matching standard intended to prevent increases of peak flows for specific events rather than match flow-durations over a range of flows. The standard is appropriate for use in areas where the concern i• flooding rather than stream bed erosion. Within the City of Renton, this standard is allowed for those areas that arc highly Uibanizcd prior to 1985 and that drain to pipes or non-fish bearing consbucted oonvcyance systems leading to the lower Cedar River, Lake Washington or the portion of the Green River Valley floor located in Renton. Minimum Required Perfonnance Facilities in Peak Rate Flow Control Standard Area, must comply with the following: flow control perfonnance standmds and assumptions unless modified by offsite analysis per Core Roquirement #2 (see Table 1.2.3.A,p.1-31): Peak Rate Flow Control Sbtndanl: Match the developed peak discharge mies to existmg site condiiwns peak discharge rates for 2-, 10-, and 100-year return periods. Target Surfaces Facllities ln Peak Rate Flow Control Sbtndard Are .. must mitig:ate ( either directly or in effect) the runoff from the following target surfaces within the threshold disc/uuge area for which the filcility is required: I. New imperviouuu,face that is notfally dhpersedper the criteria in Section l.2.3.2 (p. 1-41). For individual lots within residential subdivision ~ects, the extent of new imperviou, si,rface shall be assumed SB specified in Chapter 3. Note, arry new impe,.,,;,,11s S11rf11ce such as a bridge that spans the ordinary high water of a stream, pond, or lake may be excluded as a target surface if the runoff from such span is conveyed to the ordinary high water area in accordance with Criteria (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the "Direct Discharge Exemption" (p 1-33) 2. Nm pe,.,,;,,us suiface that is not folly dispersed. For individoal loll! within residential subdivision projects, the &tent of new pt:l"VUHIS suiface shall be assumed to be the entire lot area, except the assmned impervious portion and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by covenant~ tract, or easement. In addition, the new pe,.,,;,,us si,rface on individual lots shall be assumed to be 100% grass. Exceptions The following exceptions apply only In Peak Rate Flow Control Sbtndard Areas: I. The facility requirement in Peale: Rate Flow Control Standard Areas is waived for any threshold discharge area in which the target surfaces subject to this reqniremenl will generate no more than a 0.1-ds lncreaae in the aistin,: site condbions I 00-year peak flow. Note: for the purposes of this calcwation, target swfaces serw,d by jluw control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credit., in Table 1.2.3. C (p. 1-42). 2. The facility requirement in Peak Rate Runoff Control Standard Areas may be waived for any threshold duel,.,~ oru of a rt:1/evelopment project in which all of the following criteria are met: City of Renton a) The target surfuces subjoct to the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard Areas facility reqniremcnt will generate no mare than a 0.1-cfs blcreue in the existing site conditwn, I 00-year peak flow at my nallmd &ch...-,:e IOCtllion from the project site (note: for the purposes of this cale11lation, target mrfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in occordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in Table 1.2.3.C,p. 1-42), AND b) The increased runoff from target surfaces will not significantly impact a critical area, se>ere floodui,: problut, or se,..,.,.., ero,/o,t problem. 2009 Smmce Water Design Manual Amcndmenl 1-34 -------------------------------------------------------- 1.2-3 COREREQUTREMENT#3: FWWCONlROL B. FLOW CONTROL DURATION STANDARD AREAS The flow control duration standard requires runoff from urban developments to be detained and released at a rate that matches the flow duration of predeveloped ratea over the range of flows extencling from ~ of the 2-year up to the 50-year flow. Also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-and I 0-year return periods. F1ow duration specifies the cumulative amount of time that various flows are equaled or exceeded during a long-term simulation using historical rainfall. The target flow duration may be the "historic" (i.e., fully forested condition) or in specific situations it maybe the existing site or "pre-project" condition as described below. The Flow Control Applications Map shows the areas where the "forested" and "existing" conditions are allowed. Forested bad cover -Runoff from the developed site will be controlled and released at a rate that matches the flow duration for a forested ("historic") land cover. The "historic" land cover is the default standard required by the technical requirements of the NPDES permit. The standard is applicable to those areas draining to streams that have erodi'ble channels where runoff from url,an areas has the potential to destabilize the channel. Existing land cover -Runoff from the developed site will be controlled and released at a rate that matches the flow duration for the site conditions existing before the development These arc areas that have been developed for year., and drain lo stream channels that have become stabilized to a new hydrologic regime. Ecology has proposed that the existing land cover can be used in basins that have had at least 40% total impervious surface area for the 20 years preceding Ecology's adoption of the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (called the 40120 rule) and the stream channels receiving the runoff are considered stable from the standpoint of excessive erosioo or sedimentation. In developing the "40120 rule" for highly urbanized basins, Ecology conducted a preliminary analysis and produced maps that identify those areas that may meet the criteria. Portions of Renton were included in the iniliBI maps prepared by Ecology. These maps hove beco adjusted to better represent the areas that were 40% impervious in 1985 as well as drainage basin dMdes within the City. Flow control Jacilities designed to the "40/20 rule" will ouly have to mitigate for the added impervious surface. As a result, these flow control facilities will be smaller than those required to be designed to match runoff from a fully forested site. Minimum Required Performance Facilities in Flow Control Duration Standard Areas must comply with the following flow control performance standard and assumptions unless modified by offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2 (see Table 1.2.3.A, p. 1-31): Flow Centro) Dundon Standard Matching Fon:ned Site Conditions: Match developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations for lhc range of predeveloped discharge rstcs from 50% of the 2- year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow_ Also match developed peak discharge rates to predeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-and I 0-year return periods. Assume foruted (historic) site C01ttlittons as the predeveloped coadition. Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Existing Site Conditions: Match developed discharge durations to predeveloped durations for the range of predeveloped discharge rates from 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full SO-year peak flow. Also match developed peak discharge rates to prcdeveloped peak discharge rates for the 2-and 10-year return periods. Assume aisling site condirions as the predeveloped condition. Effectiveness In Addressing Dowmtream Drainage Problems While the Flow Control Duration Standard flow control standard assuming hi&toric site conditums provides a reasonable level of protection for preventing most development-induced problems, it does not necessarily prevent increases in existing site condition• 100-year peak flows that can aggravate seven flooding probkm,; as described in Core Requirement #2, nor does it necessarily prevent aggravation of ali 1'el'ere ero,don proble=. Consequently, if one oc more of these problems arc identified through offiiite analysis per Core Requirement #2, additional onsite flow control and/or 2009 Surraa: Wale< Design Monoal Amendmmt 1-35 City of Renton SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS offsite improvements will likely be required (see "Drainage Problem-Specific Mmgation R.eqwrements" in-Section 1.2.2.2, p. 1-26). Target Surfaces Facilities In Flow Control Dua ti on Standard Aresi"' must mitigate ( either directly or in effect) lhe runoff from lhe following CBrget developed surfaces within lhe threshold discluu-ge area for which the facility is required: I. New impervious surf= that is not fully dispersed per the criteria on Page 1-41. For individual lots within residentia1 subdivision projects, the extent of new impel'VW11s SMrface shall be 85Sll1Ded as specified in Chapter 3. Note, any"""' bnpermn,s surface such as a bridge that spaM the ordinary high water of a stream, pond. or lake may be exduded as a target surface if the runoff from such span is conveyed to the ordinary high water area in accordance with Criteria (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the "Direct Discharge Exemption,• p 1-33). 2. N""' pervious su,f11ce that is not fully dispersed. For individual lots within residential subdivision proj eels, the extent of"""' perv/ous surface shall be assumed to be the entire lot area, except the assumed impervious portion and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by covenant, tract, or easement. ln addition, the new pervious surf11ee on individual Jots shaU be assmned to be I00%grass. 3. Rq,l/lllli impervious s11r[ace that is not fully dispersed on a trtmsport,di,,n "'dew,lupment project in which ,..... impervious sur[aa: is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of lhe existing impavious surface within the project limits. 4. Replace,/ imperviou• .urf11ee that is not fully dispersed on a pareel redevelopment projtct in which lhe total of new plus rq,laced ifflpervious wrface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuatioo of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50"/o of the assessed value of the existing siU improvements. Exceptions The following exceptions apply only in Flow Control Duration Standard Areas: 1. The facility requirement in Flow Control Duration Standard Matclling Exisllllg Site Conditions Areas is waived for aay threshold d~charg,, tuU in which there is no more than a 0.1-cfs difference in the sum of developed I 00-year peak flows for lhose tmget surfaces subject to this requirement and the sum of ~g <ite canditiou lOO-yearpealc flows for the ,ame surface areas. Note: for the purposes of this caleulation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flaw control BMP facility sizing credits in Table 1.2.3.C (p. 1-42). 2. The facility requirement in Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Forested Site Conditions Areas is waived for any threshold tlbcharg,, ana in which there is no more than a 0.1-ds difference in the swn of developed I 00-year peak flows for thoae tmget surfaces subject to this requirement and the sum of forested (historic) sit• conditions l 00-year peak flows for the same surface areas. Note: for the purposes of this caleulation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance wtth the flow control BMP facility sizing credtts in Table 1.2.3.C (p. l-42). 3. The facility requirement In Flow Control Duration Standard Areas may be reduced or waived for any threshold di,cluu-ge area where a basin plan or basin stndy approved by the City and Ecology shows that a lower standard ( e.g., Peak Rate Control Standmd or targeting existing site conditions 20 Note: Any lhlwhold dlscha,go arN lhal appear$ to bo -within e {)uralJon Conlrol SlandardArea according to tho Row Conuol Applica/iOnS Map but clraln, entlraly by-""""'""*' oon,eyanoo to• m¥" 1"Cfllvtng.....,. (lis*'d on page 1-33) lo oo-to be /ocafsdwlthlns Poak Rat8 St8ndamCanlm/Amo. C"rty of'Renton 1-36 2009 Surface Water De,;gn M an..t Amendment 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT 113, FLOW CONTROL instead of forested conditions) is sufficient or no facility is necessmy to protect or allow for restoration of water body beneficial uses and habitat functions essential to salmooids. 4. The fucility requirement in Flow Control Dnration Standard Areas as applied to replaced impervio11• surface may be reduced by the RDSD Manager/designec using the adjustment process detailed in Section 1.4, if the cost of flow control facllltles to mitigate all target surfaces exceeds lhat necess,"'?'. to mitigate only for new impervious surface plus new pervious mrface and also el[ceeds /3 of the valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements) or twice the cost of a facility to mitigate equivalent surfaces on a new development siu, whichever is less. The amount of reduction shall be limited such that the cost of flow control facilities is at least equal to that necessary to mitigate only for new impervious surface plus new pervio11s S11rjace, and beyond this amolDlt, is no greater than 11, of the valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements) or twice the cost of a facility to mitigate equivalent swfaces on a new development siu, whichever is less. C. FLOOD PROBLEM FLOW CONTROL STANDARD AREAS Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Areas are designated by the City of Renton where the City bas determined that a higher average level of flow control is needed to prevent aggravation of existing documented flooding problems. At this time, the City has not mapped specific areas, but may apply this standard when a prQject discharges to a severe flooding or erosion problem. I Within Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Areas, or where required by the City to protect aggravation · of a dowomeam problem, required flow control :fucilities must comply with the following minimum requirements for fucility performance and mitigation of targeted surfaces, except where such requirements , or the facility requirement itself is waived or reduced by the area-specific exceptions at the end of this · subsection. Minimum Required Performance Facilities in Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Areas IDUJt comply with the following flow control performance standard and assumptions unless modified by offsite analysis per Core Requirement #2 (see Table 1.2.3.A, p. 1-31): Flood Problem Flow Control! Apply the Flow Control Duration Standard flow control standard, AND match the developed I 00-year peak discharge rate to the predeveloped 100-year peak discharge rate. If the Flood Problem Flow Control Area is located within a Duration Control Standard Area and does not drain entirely by non-erodible manmade conveyance to a major recewlng ,.al«r (listed on page 1-33), then historu: site co11tlitions shall be assumed BS the predeveloped condition except for the purposes of matching l 00-year peak discharge rates. For all other situations and for the purposes of matching 100-year peak discharge rates, aisling sik conditions may be assumed. Intent The Flood Problem Flow Coatrol flow control standard is intended to prevent significant increases in wsting water surface levels for 2-year through JOO-year return frequencies. Such increases are expected to occur as the volume of runoff discharging to the water body is increased by upstream development. Because inflow rates to these water bodies are typically much higher than the outflow rates, increased runoff volumes from upstream development are, in e!Toct, stacked on top of existing volumes in the water body, resulting in higher water surface levels. The duration-matching and I 00- year peak-matching criteria of the Flood Problem Flow Control flow control standard counteract this stacking e!Toct by slowing the arrival of additional runoff volumes. Because it can prevent significant aggravation of existing flooding, the Flood Problem Flow Control standard is also applicable to other flow control areas where :=,ere flooding problems have been identified pc,-Core Requirement #2. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment City of Renton 1-37 SECTION l.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS City ofRalton Effectiveness in Addres&ing Dowmtrcam Drainage Problem• If the Flood Problem Flow Control flow control standard is implemented onsite, no additional measures are n:quired to prevent aggravation of the three types of downstream drainage problems described in Core Requirement #2. The one exception is for a wetland or lake that is a closed depression with a sever• floodillg probhm, and the proposed project is adding impervious sarlace area amounting to more than l O"A, of the I 00-year water surface area of the closed depression. In this case, additional onsite flow control or offsite improvements may be necessary as determined by a "point of oompliaoce analysis" (see "Special Provision for Closed Depressions' in Table 12.3.A, p. J. 31 ), and see Section 3.3.6, "Point of Compliance Analysis,'). Target Surfaces Facilities in Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Areas must mitigate (either directly or in effect) the runofffium the following target developed surfaces within the threshold dischllrge area for which the facility is required: I. If the Flood Problem Flow Control Area is located within a Flow Control Dunition Standard Area, then the target surfaces are the same as those required for facilities in Flow Control Duration Standard Area.unless otherwise allowed by the area-specific exceptions. Note: Any Flood Problem Flow Control Area that appears to be located within a Flow Control Duration Standard Area identified on tire Flow Control Applications Map, but drams entirely by non-erodible manmade conveyance to a major receiving water (listed on page 1-33), is considered la be localed within a Basic Flow Conirol Area. 2. Ifthc Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Area is located within a Peak Rote Flow Control Area or drains entirely by non-erodible manmade conveyance to a ...,,jor ncdving water, then the target surfaces are the same as those required for facilities in Peak Rate Flow Control Areas (seep. 1-34). Exceptions The following exceptions apply only in Flood Problem Flow Control Standard Areas: I. If the Flood Problem Flow Control Area iJ localed within a Flow Control Dunition Standard Matcldng EIIBting Site Condldon1 Area or Peak Rote Flow Control Area, then the facility requirement is waived for any thrahold discharge area in which there is no more than a 0.1--cfs difference in the sum of developed I ()()..year peak flows for the target surfaces subject to this requirement and the swn of o:imng site wndltu,,,,. I ()()..year peak flows for the same surface areas. Note: for the purposes of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits m Table 1.2.3. C (p. 1-41). Also, any Flood Problem Fww Canlrol Area that appears to be located within a Duration Control Standard Area identified on the Flow Control Applications Map, but drains entirely by non· erodible manmade conveyance to a major receiving wain' (listed on page 1-33), Is considered to be located within a Peak Rate Flow Control Area. 2. If the Flood Problem Flow Control Area is located within a Flow Control Duration Standard Matcliing Forested Site Conditions Area, then the facility requirement is waived for any threshold discharge a= in which there is no more than a 0.1-efs difference in the sum of developed 100-year pen flows for the target surfaces subject to this requirement and the sum offort!Stul (historic) site conditwns I ()()..year peak flows for the same surface =· Note: for the Jlllrposes of this c.a/culation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in Table 1.1.3.C (p. 1-42)_ Also, any Flood Prob/emFluw Control Area that appears to be located within a Duration Control Standard Area identified on the Flow Control Applications Map, but drains entirely by non-erodible manmade conveyance to a major rec,,mng wder (listed on page 1-33), is considered to be located within a Peale Rate R1111off Control Area. 2009 Surface Walcl" Design Manual Amendment 1-38 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT #3, FLOW CONTROL 3. AJJ.y required application of the Flood Problem Flow Control Areas facility requirement to replaced imperviolls SJ1,face may be waived if the City has adopted a basin plan and implementation schedule approved by the state Department of Ecology for fulfilling this requirement with regional facilities. 4. AJJ.y required application of the Flood Problem Flow Control Areas facility requirement to reploced impervious m,face may be rednced by the RDSD Manager/designa: using the adjustment process detailed in Section 1.4, if the cost of flow control facDitles to mitigate all target surface., exceeds that necessary to mitigate only for new impen,ious w,face plus new pervious wrface and also exceeds 1 /3 of the valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements) or twice the cost of a facility to mitigate equivalent surfaces on a new dweb,pmmt sm, whichever is less. The amowit of reduction shall be limited such that the cost of Dow control facilities is at least equal to that necessary to mitigate only for na,, imperviou• m,faee plus new pervious s,nfact!, and beyond this amount, is no greater than 1 /, of the valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements) or twice the cost of a facility to mitigate equivalent surfaces on a new development site, whichever is less. 5. Any required application of the Flood Problem Flow Control Areas facility requirement to replaced impervious surface may assume existmg ,ite condJtio,u as the predeveloped condition for the purposes of matching the developed 100-year peak discharge n1te to the predeveloped JOO-year peak discharge Illte. 2009 Surrace Wata-Design Manual Amendment 1-39 City of Renton 12.7 CORE REQ\TIREMENT#?: FINANCJAL GUARANTEES AND LIABILITY shall use the maintenance guarantee to perform the maintenance work. Should any failures occur in regard to required improvanents asoociatcd with • development project within the wm:ranty period, the City sh.U rcquin: the developer/owner to correct all failures. Should the developer/owner fail to pafonn within a period of 15 days, the City shall use the maintenance and warranty bond to correct any failures. Release of Maintenance Bond: Maintenance bond will be released upon completion of the two-year maintenance bond period following final inspection and correction of any maintenance defects identified in the final inspection by the City. Hold Harmless The permittee shall protect, defend, indannify, and save harmless the City, its officers, employees, and agents ftom any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages, arising ont of or in any way resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the permittee. The pe,mittee agrees that its obligations under this Section extend to any claim, demand, and/or canse of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents. Insurance Required Before a permit shall be issued for any construction, insurance will be required as follows: I. The applicant shall secure aod maintain in force tbroughaut the duration of the permit: Commercial General Liability insurance written on an occorrence basis with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occum:nce/two million dollai,; ($2,000,000) aggregate. 2. Copies of such insorance policy or policies shall be fuarishcd unto the City with a special endorsement in fuvor of the City with the City named as a primary and noncontnl>utory additional insured on the insurance policy and an endom,ment stating such shall be provided to the City. 3. The policy shall provide that it w,ll oot be canceled or reduced without 30 days' advanced written notice to the City. 4. Upon showing of a hardship and at the discretion of the Administrator or his/her designee, the insurance requirements may he reduced or waived for single-family or two-family residential applications. Other Important Information about Core Requirement #7 Other requirements include the following: • Cash Bond Returned: The cash bond will be returned to applicant when work is accepted by the City, less any sums due to the City under the terms ofthis Core Requirement #7. • Reimbursement of City'• Coslll Incurred lo Obtaia Funds Provided by Guarantees; If the City finds it necessary to utilize ftmds provided for any guarantee, and incur.I expenses in obtaining and administering such funds, a portion of these monies shall also be used to reimburse the City for such recovery costs. If the guarantee is not adequate to cover all necessary costs, the developer/owner is required to make up the deficit in cash within 30 days ofn:ceipt of written notice from the City. 2009 Sutfacc Wat..-Design Manual Amendmmt 1-59 City of Renton SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS · 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY All proposed projects, including redeve/opmen1 projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to treat the runoff from those new and replaced pollution-generutbtg impel'l'WUS surfaces and new poUutum-generating pervlous ,urfaces targeted foc treatment as specified in the following sections. These facilities shall be selected from a menu of treatment facility options specified by the 18lld-us<>- specific facility requirements in Section 1.2.8.1 (p. 1-63) 8lld implemented according to the applicable WQ implementation requirements in Section 1.2.8.2 (p. 1-66). Intent: To require an efficient, cost-effective level of water qnality treatment tailored to the sensitivities and resource protection needs of the downstream receiving water to which the proje.ct site drains, or, in the case of infiltration, protection of the receiving gronndwater system. other Important Information about Core Requirement #8 Core Requirement #8 is the primary component of an overall water quality protection strategy required by this manual. Other requirements include the following: • Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Spill Control Provisions, Section 1.2.4 (p. l-50}-This provision generally applies whenever a project constructs or replaces onsite conveyance system elements that receive runoff from poUution~g iMpervlous surfaces. The provision requires that runoff from such impervious surfaces be routed through a spill control device prior to discharge from the project me or into a natural oosite drainage feature. • Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Groundwater Protection, Section 1.2.4 (p. 1-50}-This provision requires that ditcheslcbanoels be lined as needed to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination when they convey runoff from poUuthm-gmerating impervu,us surfaces that comes into direct contact with an outwash soil. • Special Requirement #4: Source Control, Section 1.3.4 (p. 1-73 }-This requirement applies water quality source controls from the King Co,mty Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Manual to commercial, industrial. and multifinnily projects. • Special Reqo:irement#S: Oil Control, Section 1.3.5 (p. 1-74}-This requirement applies special oil controls lo those projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high-,,,~ site. City ofRennm 2009 Sumce Wa1e<Design Manual Amcodmmt 1-oO 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALlTY [J EXEMP~ROM CORE REQUIREMENT #8 There are "' 0 ble exemptions ftum the requirement to provide a water quality treatment facUlty per Core equin::ment #8: 1. Surface Area Exemption A proposed project or any threslwltl discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 5,000 square feet of'"'"' PGJSthat is notfally disperud will be added, AND b) Less than 5,000 square fi:et of n<W plus rq,laced PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be created as part of a redevell>p"""'t project, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed tnmsportation redevelopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets aU of the following criteria: a) The total new bnpuvious surface within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fally dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPSthat is notfally dispersed will be added. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redew,lopment project on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) The total valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding requiml mitigation improvements) is J,,.. than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvcmcnts, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is notfully dispened will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS 1hat is notfitlly dispersed will be added. 4. Soll Treatment Exemption A proposed project or any drainage area within a project is exempt if the runoff ftum pollution- generalmg impervious s11rfacu is infiltrated in soils that meet the "groundwater protection criteria" outlined below. Groundwater Protection Criteria: The first 2 fuet oc more of the soil beneath an infiltration facility must have a cation exchange capacily33 greater than 5 aud an organic cont£nt" greater than 0.5%, AND must meet one of the following specifications foe general protection of groundwater: a) The soil must have a measured infiltration rate35 of less 1han or equal to 9 inches per hour, except in grou.ndWJJter prottt:tlon areas where the measmed rate must be less than or equal to 2.4 inches pcrbour, OR 33 Catioo ""<hange """'1Cil)' &hall be tasted using EPA 1..aborakxy U.lhod 0081. 34 Organic contJ:Jnt shall be measured on a dfy weight basis using ASTM 0297 4. 35 M9asured ln/illralion rale shall be as measured by the EPA method or Ile Ooubl8 Ring tnfiltrotneter Method (.ASTM D3385). For some soHs. an lnfllration rale of less than 9 Inches per-hour may be assumed based on a soif teicb.lre determination mther than a rate measurement. For more details, see 'lhe •Groundwater Protection. requirements in Section 5.4.,. 2009 Surface Ware, Design Manual Amcndmm1 1-61 City of Renton SECTION 12 CORE REQUIREMENTS City of Rcntoll. b) The soil must be composed of less than 25% gxavel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve, and the portion passing the #4 sieve must meet one of the following gradations: • Al least 50% must pass 1ho #40 sieve and al least 2% must pass the #JOO sieve, OR • At least 25% must pass 1he #40 sieve and al least 5% must pass the #200 sieve. 2009 Sunace Waler Design Manual Amendment 1-62 12.8 CORE REQUJREMENT #ll; WATER QUALITY 1.2.8.1 LAND-USE-SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY FACILITY REQUIREMENT .,. Projects subject to Core Requlremrot #8 must provide a water quality treatment facility selected from a menu of treattnent facility options identified in the !and-use-specific facility requirements and exceptions ff for the WQ treatment an:a in which the proposed project or threshold disdrarge """' of the proposed ~ project is located. These WQ treatment areas are listed below and their requirements and exceptions are detailed in the following subsections: ;; A. Basic WQ Treatment Areas Intent: To apply an appropriate level of water quality treatment based on the sensitivities of receiving waters for the drainage area in which the project lies. In addition to a minimum basic standard, which applies broadly ta most geographic areas, special menus are provided for land uses that generate the highest CODce.ntrations of metals in stormwatcr. A. BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS Basic WQ Treatment Areas are d<signated by the City ofRen1on where a general, cost-effective level of treatment is sufficient for most land uses. Some land uses, however, will need an increased level of treatment because they generate high concentrations of metals in storm water runoff and acute concentrations of metals in streams are toxic to fish. The treatment facility requirements for Basic WQ Treatment Areas provide for lhis increase in treatment Required Treatment Menu t Within Basic WQ Treatment Areas, a treatment facility option from the Basic WQ menu shall be used to treat nmoff from the surfaces listed undc:,: "Target Surliices" below, except where such treatment is waived or reduced by lhe land-us1>-specific e>cceptions at the end of this subsection and except where the ~ Eobam>:d Basic WQ menu is applicable as follows. If 50% or more of the runoff that dmins to any :i. proposed treatment facility is from one or more of the ·roDowing land uses, then the Enhanced Basic WQ menn shall be used in place of the Basic WQ menu for the design of this facility, except if such treatment is waived or reduced by the land-use-specific exceptions at the cod of this subsection: • t l . Cmnmcrcial, industrial, or multifamily land =· ,;; 2. A road with an expected average daily traffic (ADT} count of 7,500. :;; •;: Treatment Goal and Options The treatment goal for facility optiona in the Basic WQ menu is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in mban runoff."" TSS is the general performance indicator for basic water quality protection because it is the most obvious pollutant of concc:,:n. The Basic WQ menu includes facilities such as wetponds, combined dctention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, filter strips, and sand filters. See Chapter 6 for specific facility choices and design details. The treatm"11 goal for facility options in tbe Enhanced Basic WQ menu is 50"/o reduction of total zinc. Zinc is an indicator of a wider range of metals typically found in urban rw1off that are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Tbe Eobaoced Basic WQ menu includes options for use of a basic-sized stormwamr wetland, a large sand filter, or a combination of two facilities in series, one of which is cithc:o: a sand filter or a Stonnfilter™ (leaf compost filter). See Chapter 6 for specific fac,lity options and designs. 36 F°" evaluation purposes, typical oonoenlra6ons of TSS In SeaHte area runoff are between 30 and 100 mgll. (Table 1, 'Water Quality Thresholds Dodslon P-.' King County Stwfaco Water Management DMslon. April 1994). 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment 1-63 c;iy of Renton ----------"--------------------- SECTION 1.2 Intent 1be Bask WQ enn is intended to be applied to both stonnwater discharges draining to surface waters and those fi trating into soils that do not provide adequate groundwater protection (see Exemptions 4 om Core Requirement #8). Overall, the 80% TSS removal objective, in conjuaction with special requirements for source control and high-use site controls, should result in good stormwater quality for all but ihe most sensitive waler bowes. Increased water quality treatment is necessary for developments that generate the highest concentrations of metals. Facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu are intended lo remove more metals than expected from those in the Basic WQ menu. Lower metal concentrations reduce 1he risk to fish of exposnre to both chronic and acutely toxic concentrations of meta1s. such as ·copper and zinc. As the toxicity of metals depends on their concentration, this standard is most effective for project siks with a larger proportion ofpoll11tion-generating impen>wus :n,rface like roadways and medrum to high density subdivisions. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is intended to apply to all such project sites that drain by surface flows to a fish-bearing stream. However, projects that drain entirely by pipe to the major receiving -• listed on page 1-33 are excnsed from the increased treatment and may revert to the Basic WQ menn because concentration effects are of less concern as the overa.11 flow volwne increases. Target Surfaces Facilities in Basic WQ Treatment Areas must treat (either directly or in effect) the runofffiom the following target surfaces within the threshold tlischa~ area for which the facility is required: 1. N= PGIS that is not fully dispersed per the criteria on Page 1-41. For individual lots within residential sobdivision projects, lhe extent of new PGIS shall be assumed based on expected driveway size as approved by RDSD. 2. New PGPS that is not fully <Uspersed and from which there will be a concentrated surface discharge in a nanm,l chanocl or man-made conveyance system from the site. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new pervious Sllrface shall be assumed to be the entire lot area, except the assumed impervious portion as specified in Chapter 3 and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by covenant, tract. or easement 3. Replaced PGIS that is notfi,Uy disperse,/ on a tr011sportlldon redevelopment project in which new impemous surface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50'/o or more of lhe existing impervious surface within the project limits_ 4. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus repiuced impervio11, surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value oftbe existing site improvements. Exceptions The following exceptions apply only In Basic WQ Treatment Areas: I. The facility requirement in Basic WQ Treatment Areas as applied to target PGPS may be waived altogether if there is a good faith agreement with the City of Renton to landscape management p/an37 that controls solids, pesticides, and fertilizers leaving the site. 2. The E.llhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treabnent of any runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.4. 37 Landscape management plan means a King County approved plan b defining he layout and long-term maintenance of laJidscaplnQ teaores 1D minimize the use of pesllddes and fernb:ers. ard IO reduce the discharge of susoende<l solids and o!hor pollutants. Guklelines for prepamg landscape management plans ean be found in Roference Soction 4-C. Submttlal requirements are detailed in Secllon 2.3.1.4. City of Renton 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment 1-64 J.2.8 COREREQlJJREMENT#8: WATER QUALITY 3. The Enhanced Basic WQ menn as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is discharged directly, via a non-fish-bearing conveyance system, aU the way to the ordinary high water lllllrk of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more (at the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acn:s or larger. 4. Toe Enhanced Basic WQ menn as specified above for treating runoff from a commercial land use may be reduced to the Basic WQ mean if aU of the following criteria are met: a) No leachable metals (e.g., galvanized metals) are currently used orpropcsed to be used in areas of the site exposed to the weather, AND b) A covenant is recorded that prohibits future such nse ofleachable metals on the site (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q), AND c) Less than 50% of the runoff draining to the proposed treatment facility is from any area of the site comprised of one or both of the following land uses: • Commercial land use with an expected ADT of 100 or more vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. • Commercial land use involved with vehicle repair, maintenance, or sales. 5. The facility requirement as applied to replaced PGIS may be waived if the City has adopted a plan and huplementation schedule for fulfilling this requirement using regional facilities. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendmeot City of Rcoton HiS ----------·-·~---· SECTION 1.2 COREREQUJREMENTS 1.2.8.2 WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS Water quality treatment facilities shall be designed and implemented in accordance with the following requirements, allowances, and flexible compliance provisions: A. METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Water quality treatment facilities shall be analyzed and designed as detailed in Chapter 6. B. SITINGOFTREATMENTFACILITIES Required treatment facilities shall be located so as to treat the runoff from all target surfaces, except as allowed below under "Treatment Trades' and "Untreated Discharges." Any other onsite or offirite runoff draining to a proposed treatment facility must be treated whether it is from a target pollutlon-eeneratlng surface or not and regardless of whether the runoff has already been treated by another facility. The facility must be sized for all flows/volumes entering the facility. This is because treatment effectiveness is determined in part by the totBI volume of runoff entering the facility. C. TREATMENTTRADES The runoff from IBrget pollution-generating surfaces may be released tmtreated if an existing non- targeted pollution-generating surfaee of equivalent size and pollutant characteristics lying within the same watershed or stream reach tnbutary area is treated on the project site. Such substitution is subject to the following restrictions: 1. The existing non-targeted pollution-generating surface is not currently being treated, is not required to be treated by any phase of the proposed project, is not subject to NPDES or other permit requirements, and is not under a compliance order or other regulatory action, AND 2. The proposal is reviewed and approved by RDSD. D. UNTREATED DISCHARGES If sue topographic constraints are such that runoff from a target pollution-generating ourface must be pumped to be treated by the required water quality facility, theo RDSD may allow the area's runoff to be released untreated provided that all of the following conditions are met: 1. Treatment of the constrained area by filter strip, biofiltration, or a linear sand filter is not feasible, and a treatment trade as descnbed above is not possible. 2. The untreated target surface is less than 5,000 square feet of n,:w PGIS and is less than 5,000 square feet of new plus np/oced PGIS on a redevelopment project. 3. Any target PGPSwithin the area to be released untreated shall be addressed with a landscape management plan. E. USE OF EXPERIMENT AL WATER QUALITY FACILITIES City of Rc:Qtoo Only treatment facilities that have been given a general use level designation through the state Department of Ecology's Technology Assessment Protocol -Ecology (TAPE) program will be will be considered for approval by the City of Renton through an adjustment process for water quality treatment. A list of approved watec treatment technologies can be found on the Department of Ecology website at httpJ/www.ecy.wa.gov/progrnros/wq/stonnwater/newtechfmdex,html. 2009 Surface Water Design ManuaJ Amendment 1-66 J.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WA1ER QUALITY F. OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR WATER QUALITY Regardless of the means by which a property owner chooses to meet the water qualily requirements of this manual -whether a treatment facilily, a train of facilities, a treatment trade or an experimental treatment facilily is allowed by the City -it is the responsibility of the property owner to ensnre that runoff from their sit£ does not create water qualily problems or degrade beneficial uses downstream. It is also the responsibilily of the properly owner to ensure that the discharge from their properly is not in violation of state and federal laws. 2009 SUTface Water Design Manua] Amendment City of Renton 1-67 CITY OF RENTON . Lake Washington Boulevard. Hawks Landing stor1n and Water System lmprove111ent Project . Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis APRIL2010 Gray & Osborne #09583 CONSUL TING ENGINEERS Lake Washington Blvd Hawks Landing Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Table of Contents Introduction ...•.......•...•.•...•................................................................................. 1 Hydrologic Modeling ., ... ·····-················ ........•......•.••............••.•......•..•..•.•...•.•..... 1 Hydrologic Modeling Components .............................................................. 1 Basin Deineation ...•..................•..•........•............................................... 1 Hydrolo::jic Modenng Assumptions ....................................................... 2 Hydrologic Modeling Results ....................................................................... 4 Detention Requirements .............................................................................. 5 Hydraulic Modettng ........................................................................................... 6 Hydraulic Model,ng Components ................................................................ 6 Hydraulic Modeling Scenarios ...............................•..................................... 7 Hydraulic Modeling Results ......................................................................... 8 Waler Quality .................................................................................................. 1 O Water Quality Moder mg Components ....................................................... 1 O Water Quality Treatment Facility Altematives ........................................... 11 Biofiltration SWale ......................•..............••..••..••...................•.....•....... 11 Wetvault ............................................................................................... 12 StonnFilter ................................•.................•...............•........................ 12 Filterra .................................................................................................. 13 Rain Garden ........................................................................................ 13 Additional Water Quality Treatment Fac:ilities .........•.......................... 14 Treatment Facility Costs ......•..........•..... , ...................•...•.......•..•....•.•.......... 14 GRA.Y & OSBORNE, JNC APRIL 13, 201 D Recomme:ida!ions ......................................................................................... 15 GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. II APRIL 13, 2010 Lake Washington Blvd Hawks Landing storm and Water Improvement Project Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Introduction The project is located along Lake Washington Blvd. North, west of 1405 near the vicinity of Exit 7 (see Rgure 1 ). The major storm drainage system in this area consists of a depression located just north of the proposed Hawk's Landing development site which collects runoff from 1-405. From this depression, a 24" pipe conveys stomiwater to a ditch along the east side of Lake Washington Blvd North. The ditch continues for approximately 500 LF to an existing 24-inch pipe that discharges directly into May Creek, approximately 1,100 feet upstream of the creek's discharge into Lake Washington. The City of Renton has been provided funding to complete the curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. North in this vicinity. The following analysis of the drainage system within this area indudes the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of both the existing and future land use scenarios. It also includes the preliminary design of the pipe alignment which will accommodate both revisions to 1he road and future development within the area. An analysis of water quality treatment alternatives is presented as well. Hydrologic Modeling Hydrologic Modeling Components Basin Delineation The first step in hydrologic modeling involves delineation of the drainage basins for the project area. The Hawk's Landing area was parllally delineated in the January 2001 Draft Environmental Assessment Discipline Reports for the 1- 405/NE 44"' Street Interchange Project. (Associated Earth Sciences, January 2001, See Appencftx A). This figure was used to assist with delineating the "Eastern 1405 Basin'. This basin collecis runDff from the northbound lanes of 1- 405 and NE 44"' St The "Western 1405 Basin" encompasses runoff from the proposed Hawk's Landing development and runoff from Lake Wa. Blvd. N. Land use for the basins was obtained from an existing Bush Roed Hitchings survey and the proposed development plans for Hawl<s Landing as provided by Sound Development Group. 1 APRIL 13, 201 D N ! ! 0 150 300 600 Feet Lake Wa Blvd. Hawk's Landing Storm and Water le1provements P,ojec\ Figure 1 Vicinity Map ~ Gray & 0.,hora,,, Inc. COll!SLILTING ENGWE5FG The Eastern 1-405 drainage basin encompasses approximately 7.6 acres whereas the Western 1-405 drainage basin encompasses approximately 7.6" acres as well. Figures 2 and 3 depict the location of these basins. Hydrologic Modeling Assumptions The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) model was used to detennine peak flows in the basin for existing and future land use conditions. The input parameters used in the KCRTS model include soil lnfonnation. a rainfall scale factor based upon project location, and the amount of pervious and impervious area located within the basin. The KCRTS software program then talces these parameters and combines them with over 40 years of rainfall data lo produce hydrographs · displaying flow rates represented for a ,mmber of slonn events ranging from the 6-month slonn to the 1 DO-year stonn event for each particular basin. The input parameters used in the KCRTS modeling analysis are as follows: Outwash (as determined from the USDA's National Resource Conservafion Service website; see Appendix B) Rainfall Sea-Tac Region with scale factor= 1.0 (2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual) Pervious/lmpervious Areas The pervious and impervious areas for the Eastern 1-405 and Western 1-405 basins were derived from survey information and proposed development plans as indicated earlier. Table 1 presents the land use coverage used for each basin. Figures 2 and 3 represent these areas graphically. The Eastern 1-405 basin is expected to be unchanged between existing and future conditions. GRAY & OSBORNE. JNC. 2 APRL '13, 2010 C l Legend • CB Structures Stormwate r Conveyance May Creak CJ Eastern 1-405 Basin c Western 1-405 Basin imlli Pervlous Forest Areas : ·.. Pervlous Grass areas [=:=J Parcel' 0 75 i50 300 ~ Lake Wuhln glon Blvd. Hawl<'a La nding Sto rm and Watu lmprovarnan1a Projeol Flgure 2 Baalna end Eldallng Lend Us a Cb O.....;r & o.l-~, L,o. c011i\1'11i1& iiliiAI••• Legend ·1 , Pervlous Grass Areas CJ Eastern 1-4 05 Ba sin 0 · We stern 1-40 5 Basin Futu re Bulldl ng/Curb Line N i 75 150 300 -Feet Lake We . Blvd . H•wk's Landin~ Storm s nd Wster lmprovomo nt e Projo d Figure 3 Fu ture Land Ueo Cb G ,.,.y &O .t--a, J~ cou1Ubam u 16 1h'H "1 Table 1 -Basin Land Use Coverages I Effecti\'e Outwash Outwash ' Basin lmpervious Forest Grass i Total I ! Area (ac) (ac) (ac} {ac) ' i Current Land Us e East 1-405 3 .3 4.3 7.6 W est 1-405 6.5 0.6 0.5 7.6 Land Us e T otal: 9.8 0 .6 4.8 I 15.2 Future Lan d Use East 1-405 3.3 4 .3 7 .6 West 1-405 6 .83 0.77 7 .6 Land U s e Total: 10.13 0.0 5.07 I 15.2 The nodes selected for hydrologic and hydraulic modeling are shown in F,gure 4. Tabl e 2 shows the drainage basins flowing to each n ode , and s ummarizes the land use and areas for each node. Node N1 represents the Eastern 1-405 basin and Node N2 re presents the Western 1-405 basin. Table 2 -Model Area Inputs Based Upon Land Use Coverage I Effecfr1e Outwash Out\..vash Basin I Impervious Forest Grass ' Total I I j Area (ac) (ac) (ac) i (ac) Current Land U se Node N 1 3.3 4 .3 7.6 (East 1-405) Node N 2 6 .5 0.6 0.5 7.6 (West 1-405) l Land U se Total : 9.8 0.6 4.8 152 Future La nd Use Node N 1 3.3 4 .3 7.6 (East l-405) Node N 2 6.83 0.77. 7.6 (West 1-405) Land Use Total: 10 .13 0.0 5 .07 152 Downstream Backwater Condition : All hydraulic scenarios w ere modeled using the backwater conditions in May Creek which discharges to Lake Wash ington approximately 1 ,100 feet from the project's discharge site. This a-eel< collects runoff from a large basin within the n orth portion of the city limits. · Backwater elevations for the h ydraulic mode ling w ere obtained from the August 2002 Otak Technical I nformation R e port entitled ·Barbee Mill Preliminary Pfat', as provided by the City. Cross section "D" was the backwater location selected from the May 1995 FEMA King County Flooo Insurance study located at the GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 3 APRD... 13, 201 0 Legend Mode led 24" Stormwater Line Mode led 12 " Stormwater Line • Modeled Node/Manhole CJ Eastern 1-405 Basin .•. Western 1-405 Basin 0 50 100 200 ,__ ___ __J Feet N I Lake Wa. Blvd. Hawk's Landl ng Storm a nd Water Improvements Project Figure 4 Model Input ~ Gray & Os'born.e, loc. CONSU1-TIN G ENG INEERS ------------------------------------~ ~--- intersection of May Crrek and Lake Washington Blvd. North (see appendix C). The 100-year flood elevation obtained from lhis Study resulted in an elevation of 25. 7 (NGVD 29 datum). Converting lhis into the NA VD 88 datum, the backwater elevation used for lhe 25-year and 1 00-year hydraulic models was 29 26 feet Conservatively, since the 25-year flood elevation was not available, the 100-year flood elevation was used for the 25-year storin event According to the Study, the 10-year flood elevation is approximately 25 (NGVD 29 datum) which converts to 28.56 with the NAVD 88 datum. Therefore, a backwater condition of 28.56 elevation was used for the 2-year and 1 D-year modeling scenarios since the 2- year flood elevation was not available. It should be noted that the elevation of Lake Washington fluctuates between winter and summer. The Army Corps of Engineers have documented summer elevation of the lake to be 18B feet NAVD88 and the winter elevation to be 16.8 feet NAVD88. It is presumed that the Flood Insurance Study took these varying elevations into consideration when obtaining the flood elevations of May Creek. Therefore, for the purpose of lhis hydraulic model, lhe 10-year flood elevation of 28.56 was used to set the backwater concfrtion for the 2-year and 1 D-year storms and the 100-year flood elevation of 2926 feet was used to set the backwater condition fur the 25-year and 1 DO-year modeling scenarios. Hydrologic Modermg Results The KCRTS model was run with 15--minute timesteps for each of the 2 input nodes under both existing and future land use conditions based upon input parameters stated earlier. From these modeling runs, hydrographs were extracted for a minimum 24-hour time period surrounding the peak flow for each basin corresponding to the 2-year, 1 D-year, 25-year and 1 DO-year storm events. Table 3 shows the peak flows for each of these storrr events under both the existing and future land use conditions. The data from lhese hydrographs were inserted as "gauged inflow" tables wilhin designated nodes in the XP-SWMM hydraulic modeling program. GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 4 APRIL.13.~0 Table 3 -Peak Flows for the 2 through 100-Year Storms 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year Peak Peak Peak Peak Flow Flow Flow Flow Noda (cis) (cis) (cfs) (cis) ••• 1.57 2.13 3.03 4.21 • I ••• 3.10 4.20 5.86 7.71 .... • I ... 4.67 6.33 8.89 11.92 ... 1.57 2.13 3.03 4.21 • I ... 3.25 4.42 6.16 8.12 "" ' I . . 4.82 6.55 9.19 12.33 Detention Requirements A threshold discharge area represents the area of runoff collected and treated within a projec:l A threshold discharge area was delineated to assist with detention calculations. Table 4 depicts the land use within the site's threshold discharge area which encompasses the east haW of Lake Washington Blvd. to the east side of the proposed sidewalk. Table 4 -Threshold Discharge Area Inputs Based Upon Land Use Coverage Effective Outwash Outwash I Basin I Impervious Forest Grass Total Area (ac) (ac) (ac) , (ac) Future Land Use 0.629 0.112 0.74 Table 5 displays the results of the KCRTS derived flows for the threshold discharge area during the existing and developed conditions. Per the City's current standards, the site is located within a "Basic Flow Control Area" and requires a fiow control duration standard. This standard allows the existing fiows to match a.irrent land use conditions instead of forested conditions. GRAY &OSBORNE, INC. 5 APRIL 13, 2010 Table 5 -Peak Flows for the 2 through 100-Year Storms for the Threshold Discharge Area 2-Year ,O-Y= 125-Y~, 100-Year I Peak Peak Peak Peak I Flow Flow Flow Flov~ ! (els) (els) (els) (els) Current Land Use 0.108 0.130 0.154 0.212 Future Land Use 0.157 0.187 0228 0.305 As seen in Table 5, the difference between the existing land use condi1ion during a 100-year storm event (0.212 cfs) and the future land use condition during the same storm (0.305 cfs) is less than 0.1 cfs. Per the exceptions listed in Section 1.2.3.1 A of the manual, this project site is exempt from flow control restrictions due an increase of less than 0.1 cfs between the existing and developed 1 OD-- year storm events. Hydraulic Modeling Hydraulic Modeling Components Once the hydrologic flows were determined, the flows were routed through a hydraulic model. The hydraulic mcxlel provides flow and water elevation at representative nodes, and is used to determine when the storm flows are contained in the pipe system and when overflow occurs. The existing Bush Roed Hitchings survey was utllized to determine the storm system in the Hawk's landing area to obtain elevation and location information to use in the hydraulic model. The survey information was then input into the hydraulic routing software program known as XP-SWMM, which uses the EPA SWMM engine for modeling. The surveyed information includes pipe lengths, pipe diameter, rim elevations and invert elevations and is shown in Tables 6 and 7. Wrth pipe information placed into the modeling program, XP-SWMM was then used to route the current and future storm flows obtained from the KCRTS model shown in Table 6. Figure 4 depicts a schematic of the hydraulic model for the existing system. Each "node" represents a manhole. Only 2 of the manholes were chosen as "input nodes." These nodes are depicted in Figure 4 as "N1" and "N2." Hydrographs were extracted from the KCRTS program, converted to a recognizable file format, and were then attached to each input node in XP- SWMM. GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 6 APR'--13. 2010 Hydraulic Modeling Scenarios With extracted KCRTS hydrographs attached to the designated input nodes, the XP-SWMM program routed the flows from the hydrographs through the surveyed · pipe information to help determine v,here pipes surcharge under various storm events. The model was prepared under both existing and future conditions as described below. 1. The existing upstream and downstream pipe system and a new 24" pipe replacing the ex:isfing ditch was modeled using existing land use conditions in the two basins. This scenario was modeled with the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 1 OD-year storm events using flows generated in KCRTS. 2. The existing upstream and downstream pipe system and a new 24" pipe replacing the ex:isfing ditch were modeled using future land use conditions. This run was done for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 1 OD-year storm events using flows generated in KCRTS. The 1 OD-year storm event was modeled for the future land use scenario to ensure that flooding would not o=r on the surface. GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 7 APRIL 13, 2010 Hydraulic Modeling Results Modeling results for Scenarios 1 and 2 (existing upstream and downstream pipes with a new 24" pipe under existing and future land use) can be found in the summaries provided in Tables 6 and 7. GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 8 APRIL 13, 201 D Table 6 -Modeling Results for Existing Conditions Plpo Upetream Downetream Pipe Pipe Dealgn 2-Year · 10-Yaar 25-Year 1 CO-Year Upstream Rim Elev Downstream Rim Elev. Conduit Diameter Length Upstream Downstream Capac:lty ExlstlnQ Existing Exlatlng Existing Node 1ft) Node lftl Name lfn.l 1ft) IE lE Slone lcfsl Flow lcfol Flow lcfsl Flow CcfBl Flow lcfs) U1 32.0 U2 35.64 U1-U2 12 37 29.64 29.24 1.060% 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.11 U2 35.64 NI 34.27 U2-N1 12 151 29.24 26.77 1.840% 4.56 0.00 0.00 0,23 0.22 N1 34.27 N2 44.60 N1-N2 24 132 26.77 26.75 0.016% 2.66 4.62 2.13 3.12 4.26 N2 44.50 N3 36.00 N2-N3 24 150 26.75 26.72 0.020% 3.19 4.66 5.74 6.76 11.76 N3 30.00 N4 31.6 N3-N4 24 188 20.72 26.68 0.020% 3.19 4.84 6.75 8.00 11.79 N4 31.6 N6 31.5 N4-N5 24 145 26.68 26.65 0.020% 3.19 4.71 5.71 6.78 11.78 N5 31.5 N6 32.56 N5-N6 24 255 26.65 26.63 0.009% 2.13 4.71 6,77 8.81 11.80 N6 32.56 N7 32.56 N6-N7 24 50 26.63 26.60 0.260% 10.7 4.71 5.76 6.62 11.80 (1) Source: Tables E1, E9, E10 and E.18 of XP-SWMM outnut flies ('Hawke Landin a Exlstlna 2.ouL H9wke Land Ina Exlstlna 10.out eto.) located ln dlal1al flies In the annendlooo. Table i -Modeling Results under Future Conditions Pipe Upstream Pipe Pipe Design 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year Upstraam Rim Elev Dawnslream Downstream Conduit Dlametar Length Upstream Downstream Capac:lly Ext.sting Existing · E:idstlng Existing Node 1ft) Nod11 Rim Elev. (ftl Name !lo.I lftl IE IE Slope ;.,., Flow (cf,) Flow lcfsl Flow lcfsl Flow .[cf•L U1 32.0 U2 35.64 U1-U2 12 37 29.64 29.24 1.080% 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.10 U2 36.64 N1 34.27 U2-N1 12 151 28.24 26.77 1.640% 4.56 0.00 0.00 0.22 0,21 N1 34.27 NZ 44.50 N1-N2 24 132 26.77 28.75 0.016% 2.88 1.56 2.13 3.12 4.27 N2 44.50 N3 36.00 N2-N3 24 150 28.76 28.72 0.020% 3.19 4.77 6.96 9.06 12.16 N3· 38.00 N4 31.6 N3-N4 24 166 26.72 26.68 0.020% 3.19 4.81 5.96 9.10 12.19 N4 31.6 NS 31.5 N4-N5 24 145 26.68 28.65 0.020% 3.19 OB 6.96 9.09 12.17 N5 31.5 N6 32.56 N5-N6 24 255 26.65 26.63 0.009% 2.13 4.86 5.99 9.12 12.22 N6 32.56 N7 32.56 N6-N7 24 50 26.83 26.50 0.280% 10.7 4.66 5.99 9.12 12.22 1) Source: Tables E1 E8 E10 and E16 of XP-SWMM outout flies "Hawks Landlna Fu\ure 2.out Hawks Landin a Future 1 O.out etc. l localed In dlQf!al l'l\es In the annendlces. GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 9 APRIL 13, 2010 Peak modeled flows seen in.the pipes under the existing land use condition for the 100-year storm varied l:>etween 0.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) on the upstream 12-inch pipes (Nodes U1 and U2) to 11.8 cfs in the 24-inch pipe at the downstream end near May Creek (Node N7). Likewise, peak future flows varied l:>etween D.1 cfs near the upstream nodes (Nodes U1 and U2) to 122 cfs in the 24-inch pipe downstream. Minimal flows were shown in the upstream nodes due to the fact that the flow for the Eastern !405 Basin was input downstream into Node N1. TI,e upstream pipes were placed in the model to monitor the effect on the hydraulic grade line upstream of the project. As shown in Tables 6 and 7; a slight increase in flow occurred between the existing and future land use scenarios. This is due to a slight increase in effective impervious area from 64.4% (9.8 ad15.2 ac) under current conditions to 66.6% (10.13 ad15.2 ac) under future conditions. As depicted in Tables 6 and 7, most of the pipes experience flow beyond their capacity. However. due to the depth of the pipe and storage available within the manholes, no surcharging was experienced between the existing and future model scenarios. Table 8 displays the amount of freeboard available under each scenario. Table 8 -Freeboard Results Node U1 U2 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 NB N7 ·-~~~~~~~~~- Freeboard_Availab!e until Flooding Occurs _(11] ___ ·--_________ _ Exis1ing Conditions Future Conditions 2-10-25-100-2· 10· 25- Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 2.4 2.4 1.5 0.5 2.4 2.4 1.4 6.4 6.4 5.1 4.1 6.4 6.4 5.0 5.4 5.2 3.7 2.8 5.3 5.2 3.7 15.6 15.4 14.0 13.1 15-6 15.4 13.9 9.2 9.0 7.7 7.0 9.1 9.0 7.7 2.8 2.8 1.6 1.0 2.8 2.7 1.6 2.8 2.7 1.7 1.4 2.8 2.7 1.7 3.9 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.1 100· Year 0.4 4.0 2.7 12.9 6.8 1.0 1.3 3.2 3.0 The elevations of nodes N2 through NS should be verified with actual design plans to ensure flooding is not experienced during the 25-year and 1 DO-year storm events. Water Quality Water Quality Modeling Compoueints To assist in determining water quality alternatives available for this project, the water quaUty flow was calculated using the KCRTS modeling software based on the impervious surfaces shown in Table 9. GRAY & OSBORNE,. INC. 10 APRB.. 13, 2010 Pollution Generating Impervious Surfaces (i.e. road: Non-Pollution Generating Impervious Surfaces (i.e. sidewalk Total New Impervious Surface 0 1. Area use:l to determine the warer quality treatment flow -· 7,450 7,450 8,930 Based on 1fle Surface Water Design Manual, the project qualifies for the Basic Water Quality Menu however, the Manual states that the 1flreshold to treat new and replaoed impervious pollution generating impervious surfaces is 5,000 sf. Based upon page 1-4 and Chapter 1.2.8 of the City's Amendments to the Manual, utility trenches and overiay projects are not included in the "replaced impervious surfaces" definition. Therefore, the overlay and trench areas for this project do not need to be treated. Wrt:h this exemption and since this project is creating 1,480 sf of new impervious surface which is below the water quality requirement threshold, the project does not need to incorporate water quality treatment However, the City is interested in utilizing the 1 O' x 160' planter strip area north of the bridge to incorporate a water quality facility. Based upon the availability of this area, a number of alternatives were evaluated. Water Quality Treatment Facmty Alternatives · Biofiltration Swale A biofiltration swale is one alternative to treating water quality for the project area. The project sije is bound by the minimal slope available between the existing conveyance systems (0.008% slope). Since the slope is less than one percent and 1fle groundwater is high (S&EE, January 2010), the Design Manual states that only a "wet biofittration swale" should be considered. A wet biofiltration swale includes a d~ wi1h vegetation appropriate for saturated conditions. The biofiltrafion swale would be located just south of the southern entrance to Hawk's Landing (Node 5 in Figure 4) and would extend to the north end of the existing 24" culvert that discharges to May Creek (Node 6 in Figure 4 ). This is a distance of approximately 160 lineal feet which meets the minimum required length of 100 feet needed for a bioswale. The biofittration swale would need to have a minimum bottom width of 2 feet and side slopes of 3:1 for the water quality depth of 4". Above 4", the bioswale can have slopes of 2:1. Since the swale would be a "wet bioiiltraiion" swale with an allowable maximum depth of 4", a bypass would be necessary for high flows so a flow splitter manhole would be installed at Node 5 so that only the water quality flow to be treated would flow through the swale while the remaining flow would be conveyed through a 24" pipe GRA. y & OSBORNE, INC. 11 elsewhere. The two conveyance systems would connect at a new manhole installed at Node 6 (north end of the existing 24" culvert). The advantage to a t>iofi11ration swale is lhat it is relatively low maintenance and provides an economic cost alternative in comparison to manufactured or cast--in- place systems. Wetvault A wetvault is a concrete vault lhat treats runoff t,y removing harmful particulates through settling. The wetvault can be comt>ined with an oil water separator to increase water quality treatment. Beginning with the available water quality facility area to work with Q.e. 1 O' x 160' planter strip), per the Design Manual, the area of runoff to t,e treated in a vault that is 1 O' wide t,y 160' long x 8' deep would equate to approximately 10,000 square feet or 0.23 acres. This was calculated using three times the runoff estimated for the mean annual storm of 0.4r as detennined from Figure 6.4.1 A in the Design Manual. Similar to the wet biofiltration swale, only the water quality storm would t,e diverted to the vault while the remaining runoff would be conveyed in a 24" pipe elsewhere. A flow splitter manhole would t,e used to divert the flow. The advantage to a wetvault is that access for maintenance is easily provided. However, the wetvault consumes a large territory underground, is costly to install as a pre-cast or cast-in-place vault, it tends to not t,e as elfectlve with pollutant removal rates and may need to be maintained more than other water quality alternatives. · stonnfilter The StormFllter cartridge is a media . based filter that removes polluted particulates from runoff and is typically housed in a vault or catch basin. The media within the cartridge may consist of leaf compost, perti!e, zeoli!e, aciivated carbon or a combination thereof. stormRlter manufactures individual catchbasin filters that could discharge into the trunk line. Each catchbasin would provide for both collection and treatment of road runoff. The exact location of these catchbasins will be determined by the final road design layout. If live StorrnFllter units were used, treating approximately 0.02 cfs per unit, an area of approximately 0.6 acres of runoff could be treated. Maintenance associated with the StormFllter typically consists of inspecting the cartridges once a year and replacing the media cartridge if necessary. This can be costly however, the StormRlter is advantageous due to its efficient removal rates which may exceed those presented by other water quality alternatives. It also requires less space than a bioswale a.nd wetvault. GRAY & OSBORNE. INC:. 1Z APRIL 13, 201D Filtena The Fllterra is a stormwater biofiltrafion system that filters polluted particulates through a specially designed filter media mixture. The Fllterra unit is installed along the curbside and houses landscaping items such as a small tree. The tree is installed within a 4' x 4' concrete box that oontains the filter media which is used to filter pollutants such as petroleum, heavy metals, TSS, bacteria, and phosphorus. The dean, filtered water then flows through a drain at the bottom of the concrete box and discharges to a stormwater conveyance system. The Rlterra unit has been given a General Use Level Designation by the Washington state Department of Ecology with the provision that the Filterra unit processes a minimum of 91 % of the influent runoff being collected. Using DOE's WWHM3 modeling software, modeling results reveal that this project would require five 4' x 4' Rlterra units to treat the 19,950 square feet (0.46 acres) of impervious surface flowing to the units. The Filterra unit would also need an overflow catch basin just downstream from the Rlterra unit so as to provide an overilow bypass for large storm events. Maintenance associated with the Fllterra unit typically consists of inspecting the units once to twice a year which may then lead to removal of trash and debris as well as the upper layer of mulch. Approximately 3-4 bags of mulch would be needed to maintain the unit. Like the stormRlter, the Fllterra unit may be advantageous due to its efficient removal rates which may exceed those presented by other water quality alternatives. Likewise, it requires less space than a bioswale and wetvaull However, It should be noted that the City has not approved Rlterra units within their 2009 Amendments to the King County Surface Water Design Manual and would require a variance if used. Rain Garden Tiie City has adopted rain garden standards in Section 6.7.1 of the Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual. In reviewing these standards, the area available for a water quality treatment facility Q.e. 10' x 160' just north of the bridge) can be utilized to treat approximately 2,700 sf which equates to the road runoff area betweens Node 4 and 5 in Ftg.ure 4. The rain garden would consist of 18" of amended soil which would consist of an imported sand with compost mtxed in. Above the amended son, a stx inch ponding depth would be available for runoff diverted from the road. An overflow riser would be located at the top of this ponding depth and connected into the 24' conveyance system. A rain garden measuring 140' in length with a bottom width was modeled in W\NHM per City standards. Due to the available area's narrow width, the pond was modeled using 1.5:1 side slopes to give it a top width of 9.5'. Using the NRCS sons shown in Appendix B, a short term infiltration rate of 1 in/hr was input into WWHM. Since the side slopes were greater than 2:1, the wetted surface of the slopes could not be modeled for infiltration. Wrth this input the WWHM model revealed that 100% of the runoff from the 2,700 square foot area could be infiltrated through the bottom of the ra.in garden. The City's standards state that a rain garden should have a minimum 3' separation between the GRAY & OSBORNE. INC. 13 APRL 13, 2010 groundwater table and the bottom of the pond unless there is less than 5, ODO square feet of impervious surface flowing to the pond. If less than 5,000 square feet is flowing to the area, a minimum separation of 1' is allowed. Based on the groundwater elevations determined from the Geotechnical Report for this project, · it is recommended that the City diverts less than 5,000 square feet of impervious area to the rain garden. It is necessary that the rain garden be planted with plants that can sustain being saturated while also tolerating drought conditions. Table 10 depicls which plants may be utilized within the rain garden to meet these conditions. Table 10 -Rain Garden Plants Common Name Spacing t On Center) Western mannaarass Seed Velvetqrass . Seed Shortawn foxtail Seed Water foxtail . Seed Soike rush 4inches Slough sedae 6 inches or seed Sawbeak sedoe 6 inches Sedge 6inches Slender rush 6inches Water oarslev . 6inches Hardstem bulrush 6inches Watercress 12 inches Small-fruited bulrush 12inches Maintenance for rain gardens indude checking them annually to ensure the overflow is free of debris and in good working condition. Erosion channels or bare spots within the garden shall be stabilized with soil, plants, or mulch. Any dead vege1ation should be replaced and noxious vege1ation shall be removed immediately. Add"rtional Water Quality Treatment Facilities Numerous other water quality treatment facilities exist bLJt are not applicable to this project. A sand filter is high in maintenance and is not rerommended for this area. Inadequate space is available fur a filter strip, wetpond, or a wetiand. So based on particular site constraints, these water quality treatment alternatives were not considered. T1eabnent Faality Costs Toe costs associated with the iden1!fied water quality alternatives are listed in Table 11. The costs listed are approximate installation costs. GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 14 APRIL 13, 2010 Table 11 -Water Quality Treatment Facility Costs Approximate Installation Re!at,ve Maintenance Cost Cost Wetvault $60,000 Medium Fllterra $65,000 Medium Storm Filter $10,000 (1 cartridge) High $50,000 (5 cartridqes) Wet Biofiltration Swale $20,000 Low Rain Garden $10,000 Low Recommendations For hydraulics, a 24-indl pipe in front of the new Hawk's Landing Development would meet the City's crtteria of preven1ing flooding during either a 25---year storm event or a 100-year storm event under future conditions. For water quality treatment, using the preferred water quality facility area, tt is recommended that the City install a wet bioswale. The bioswale would treat the road runoff collection area just north of the bioswale and would provide the City an economical option both in terms of installation and future maintenanoe. Likewise, if spaoe becomes limited, it is recommended that the City use a single S1ormFilter catch basin toward 1he south end of the project site (see Figure 5). The stormFilter provides a relatively economic option while minimizing the amount of property needed. It is also like.'y to provide a high efficiency removal rate for pollutants coming from Lake Washington Blvd. GRAY & OSBORNE.,. INC. 15 APRIL 13, 21110 \ --- ' \ -------- ~------------------- l ;;! ,~.____ '--, ' ---, ' / I // i I I I ' I / l APPENDIXA BASIN FIGURE FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 1-405/NE 44TH ST. INiERCHANGE PROJECT GRAY & CSBORNE, IIIC. 1 J ' . 1 .,..-- 1 a:··r_-~-.. ·· --·-·---·-·--········:••·•••y.,,... -·J.: / . I/ :·t . 13YPl!Y_~U8-8Aa!H '1 . I ~~--~- '~.I wf' 0:::' ......... :JI .· -:-.. /. (9 . . ' -1 / -~ ,/ :J,L / DllANAaJ/ . El!l'TIH<l OOMI . h. \ \ \ \ / .\ .,,. ..... \ / "/ ~ __, ·/ I .. ~~ ,~? ""'"""''"'" ~-0 /' ,·-;,. .. . t: ! ·-,1 , .. _. . >t : . .ICNQ AW It!!, . •• , "---.!.!."'."·",.,= l'~A\/f!N. •••• 1. ... .). I)~: ... _ IL SJ~-Jro (: 11' (0 APPROXSW.TI! !XTI!HT Of' fORW.L IM!TlANO D!.LINEAllON ( . ... L[G[ND 00'Jll1Nd IUII~~~ ~l/1~ -.----,_ ... 0 . = ;i, ......... ~-{ypff IUJMSIN \11~ HTH tTDIIM'J~TU l'MII ~ · IYl"'IY IUIIAtlH ·. -~ , 11.\V tlaK; IUIIAIIII IIICCll[H or n.w ·; REFEREN/;:E;;. ~UGH~: _ool.08MJ1'H & AseoCIATES. \1 Auod'atod Earth 8olonoe1, rno. EXISTING DRAINAGE PATIERNS AND SENSITIVE AREAS 1--405/NE «TH STRel!!T INTl!RCHANOE EA rlOURE!.3-3 PROJ~OTNO. l(B002JOA miliml;l RENTON, WASHINGTON ,·:·,J•: \:::~}l: ,iufii.· :'{{:J·\ .,).:/' ./v. l/ APPENDIXB SOIL MAP FROM USDA GRAY & CSBORNE, INC. 2 FEBRUARY 26, 2010 APPENDIXC 1995 FEMA KING COUN1Y FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY INFORMATION · GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. 3 FEllR1IAAY 26, 2010 ,m ,_ w .. w ~ 0 z } ~ SC w z s ~ STREET I ~~ ' ~~ ,. 3 !5 I .. z I I • -~-~ 4'7P30"()0"• 122°,ris"' To denrmr.6 If fiot,d inst.nin:::e ti ~ ~ 811 ~ age,rT\: er clll 1he ~Fioad ~ f"rogr.lrn al (8JOJ ~ APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEEf 500 0 500 FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 664 Of 1725 {SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PR.lNTcD) ~~~ """" .... ' ...... -F MAP NUMBER 53033CIJ664·F MAP REVISED: MAY 16, 1995 i I I I I I I I I I i I X z 0 I-z w a: u.. 0 \ ~ u r.n t: ::;; ::; I~ I a: ~ a: 0 u ~ :::, 0 u C!:> z Q G Ill -.. LEGEND 5/'KlAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100--YIAR FLOOD Z:ONf A ZONE AE BDt flood d~ dcti:nnined. ZONE AH Fkx:d deptt& ol l kl l feel. 1~ ~ ol """""'"' -llood --ZONE AO Flood ~ cl 1 to J ~ ltBUally 9Jeet (k,w-DII s,pins; 1=7linl; ~ deptts ~ m' -oE dtNial'. b,i loading. veb:::itie aim ~ ZONE A.99 To k prruded lrora 1oo--,,ew llood by Fede-al ~ pro5edlon ~ under ~ no m2 ~ dele:mined. ZON! V c;oa:,tal floe>cl v,iln \lelc,dty ~ twave a::Ooq; no boc lood ~ ~ ZON£ V£ co;asul fiood widt vdodtr taD;rd ~ aaion!; base lb;d. ~ ~ FLOODWAY AREA5 IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X ~ d ~ flood; ~ of 1~ flaod wilh ~ ~ r:I ~ bl 1 1DD!: er widl ~ .-~ lnA/1 1~mie;:--~by ~ froni. 100--yea:r lood. OTHER AREAS Z°"" X zONE D hos in .....hidi flood ~ .are a.detea.inw::d.. UNDEVROPED COASTAL l!AAltlERS ~ ldi51l:iicd ~ 1953 1990 1"r"otcCerd NCZS Ccastnl ~ ....s .-nonndy loc:3tecl win1irl or adpcenl. 10 Sp9=ial Fl,od -....... -, -- (EL !IB7I RM7x • M2 ----!oneD-----Ha:zald Zones. aid ~ C'JMmlg ~ cl ·omer.nt ~ 8ase' Rood Bevdons Wiztlin Speci:iil fk,od l-m3rd ,....._ Basa Rood EbaDon Line:: ~ iri Fed.. See Wbp tn6ex: fm" ae-tiDn oaa.n. OMS~ LR 8Ge' Rood Bevaon in nm( ~ UmJom1 w.;.. ZDnEL SM, Map-bidel( tor ~ Ozllwn. 8eva!iorl ~ Mat .._ .... l-bl2(lrllt8( Cooniiutes e-e,d Ol'I NOJ1h Am8lican OmJm d 19Z1 ~ Z71 -NOTES Toa ~ is for -= in ak.i..ista:iug 1hs ~ fbod ~ ~ it docs" nat nec-c=--il'IMdv ,.. -sut..c:I: m lbx:icia.. ~ trom ----I I JOOiS PANEL 0675 I NORTH 38TH SJlEEf w ::, z w " ~ ~ .. ~ :· ... : . .J ~,t-----N~O~RTH=-cc3Jffi=__:PLACE=::c...----J 33RD STREEf NORlH NORTH ~ ~t Not:: Datum= 1929 NGVD Scale: 1ft = 500' _m,-,-~ ~ 0 0 < w " NOITTH 36TH smEET z w =, ili > "' ~ 0 ~ w " NORlli 32ND STR8eT z w "' z w > < ~ 0 !;l w " I I I• __ .........,, - , 32 ! i w z "l z ~ 3 8 z :::; KJN, UNINCORI ·~-----------~---.... ,-----~--·~------ .. FLOOD INSURANCE- jSTUDY . KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 OF3 I COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER AIJBURH.CTY OF • • .. • • • • • • • • 630073 B8..LEYIJE.arv Of • • .. • • • • • • • 530074 Bl.Aa. DIAMOND.TOWN OF •• , • 530272 BURl:N..aTY OF • • • • • • • • • • • • 530321 CARNATION.. TOWJ.I OF •• ~ • • • • 530071i DeS f..tOINES.CTY C>F • • • • • • • • S30CI17 DtNAl..,;l"CNVN OF • • • • • • • • , , • S302S2. a«.MCI..AWDTY OF •••••••• S30319 FBlEAAl...WJ..Y~OTYOF ••••••• 530322 rssAOtlAH..clTY·OF • • • • • • • • • 530079 !CENT .aTY OF • • • • • • • • ; •• , , 530080 KING COUNTY. l.NNCORPORATED AREAS • • • • 530071 KIRll.AND~ OF ••••••• •• • • 530081 ~ FOREST PARK..CnY OF • • • 530082 NCAMANDY PARK.c:nY OF • • • • 530084 NORTH 88¢1.c:nY OF • • • • • • • • 530085 PACIRC..Cll"Y OF • • • • • • • • • • • 53CXJ86 ~D.CTY CJf ••••• , • • • • 530087 RENJ0N..cTY OF -: • • • • • • • • • 530088 SEA.11...E.aTY OF ••••• .; • • • • • • 530089 ~TAC,.CJr( OI-• • • • • • • • • • • 530320 SKfKOMISH.TOWN Of ••••• --: • 530Z36 SNOCll.W.M£.aTY OF • • • ; • • • 5300oo llJKWIAaTY Cf • • • • • • • • • • 530001 WOQOINWJ.E.:CTY OF 530324 REVISED:MAY 16, 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency AppendixB otllk FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY · BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION HCTION MIAN I\IGULATOI\Y Wlll<OVT I WrTH INClllAU CJ\OH UCTION DISTA.Nc:•1 WIOTH AAU, VlLOc;rTY fLOOOWAY fLOOOWAY (fun {IQUAAE (mr,u.. ml) S!COND) {HETHfiVO) May Cree\r.· A 0,14 34 158 5,5 2l.O 21.0 21.5 o.s B 0,16 60 239 3,6 2l. B 2l.B 22.2 . 0,4 C 0,24 42 99 a.a 23,3 23.3 23,3 o.o D 0,25 42 110 7,9 25,7 25,7 25,7 o.o E 0.31 31 121 7,2 29,0 29,0 29,2 0,2 F 0.39 40 150 5,8 32,5 32.5 33,0 0,5 G 0,46 28 87 10.0 35,8 35,8 35,8 o.o H 0,52 23 123 7 .• 1 40.0 40.0 40.6 0.6 I 0,57 45 165 5,3 41.8 41,8 42,5 0,7 J o.63 31 89 9,7 45 ,3 45,3 45.3 o.o K 0,78 33 133 6,5 55,2 55.2 55,2 0.0 L 0,94 79 143 6,1 64,7 64. 7 64.7 o.o M 1,09 33 113 7,7 76,4 76,4 76,6 0,2 N l..25 39 128 6',6 85,4 85,4 85,4 o.o. 0 l,36 32 · 89 9,6 93,l 93,1 93,2 0,1 p. 1.39 40 172 4,9 95,6 95,6 96.0 0.4 Q 1,41 33 90 9,5 95.8 95.8 95.8 a.a R l,42 33 111 7. 7 96,4 96.4 96,4 o.o B 1.46 30 95 . 8, 9 99,8 99,8 99,9 O,l T 1.54 22 91 9,3 106,8 106,8 106,9 0,1 u 1.56 8 68 . 12 ,5 112, 2 112,2 112,2 o.o V 1,61 · 43 283 2,9 114,2 114.2 115 .1 0,9 .w 1,74 27 81 9.9 120,9 120,9 120.9 0,0 X 1.83 38 170 4,8 125,0 125,0 125,7 0,7 'l 1.96 52 101 8,0 135,8 135.8 135.8 o.o z 2,02 42 130 6.3 140 ,4 140,4 140,5 0.1 i! lMilea .Above Mouth T FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FLOODWAY DATA A KING COUNTY, WA B L ANO INCORPORATED AREAS E MAY CREEK • - ~~~~~--~,~~~~~~--------~ ....... ~..... -..... -· ··--· .. ···----,....-,--------·-.-~---· ·-···-.. ·-·-·--, -...... ,_, __ ... 8 rh'.. :tf~- ~1k- 0 0 S3ll.l0Hd OOOH .... :. ' •• 1 :., ~ ',1 .. : 'i.' ~ '' ti i1 ":.r =1 . r •• +. ~ z en "' "' ~ ' ' •' 0 • 0 • SV3!!V 031 V!IOd!IO:lNI ONV VM 'llinO:l SNI~ 0 " 0 > • 0 0 O O 00 9 9 .IL. IL. i ! ~ ; ~ :i:-:-- g g ' • ~ s g 0 J L ~ :; ~ i, z 0 ~z • >-o • fil~ ~ =~ • •o ~ o. ~ • 0 ~ ~ ~ ' 'I '.'-i-+!-f--+~-:--,:.: ........ i..+t-!--~f 1< ~ -/ I ij-0 ~ I I I I 11 ' 47"' ' ' ·P·. 0 ft '' ';. , r D... a, C -~ 1· t APPENDIXD KCRTS INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES GIU.Y & OSBORNE, INC. 4 FEBRUARY 26, 2111 D ----------------·~--~ LWBdetl. out KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time series Production of Runoff Time series Project Location: Sea-Tac computing series: ex-detl.tsf Regional scale Factor: 1.00 Data Type: Reduced creating Hourly Time series File Loading Time series File:c:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STDF60R.rnf outwash Forest 0.16 acres Loading Time Series File:c:\K(:_SWDM\Kc_DATA\STDG60R.rnf outwash Grass 0.16 acres Loading Time series File:c:\KC_SWDM\KC_DATA\STEI60R.rnf Impervious O. 42 acres Total Area: 0.74 acres Peak Discharge: 0.212 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:ex-detl.tsf Time series computed KCRTS command CREATE a new Time series Production of Runoff Time series Project Location : sea-Tac computing series : pr-detl.tsf Regional scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time series File Loading Time Series File:c:\KC_SWDM\K(:_DATA\STOG60R.rnf Outwash Grass 0.11 acres Loading Time Series File:c:\K(:_SWDM\Kc_oATA\STEI60R.rnf Impervious 0. 63 acres Total Area·: 0.74 acres Peak Discharge: 0.305 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:pr-detl.tsf Time series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools command compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading stage/Discharge curve:pr-detl.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:pr-detl.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:pr-detl.out Analysis Tools command compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies page l LWBdetl. out Loading Time series File:ex-detl.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis -------------------------------------------------------- Time series File:ex-detl.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:ex-detl.out Analysis Tools command ----------------------RET1JRN to Previous Menu ----------------------- KCRTS Command exit KCRTS Program Page 2 Flow Frequency Analysis Time series File:ex-detl.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.108 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.091 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.130 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.106 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.125 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.110 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.154 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.212 1 1/09/08 6:00 computed Peaks ex-detl. out -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.212 1 100.00 0.990 0.154 2 25.00 0.960 0.130 3 10.00 0.900 0.125 4 5.00 0.800 0.110 5 3.00 0.667 0.108 6 2.00 0.500 0.106 7 1. 30 0.231 0.091 B 1.10 0.091 0.192 50.00 0.980 Page 1 · Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:pr-detl.tsf Project Location:sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- Fl ow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.156 7 2/09/01 2:00 0.134 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.187 3 2/27/03 7:00 0.157 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.186 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.164 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.228 2 10/26/06 0:00 o. 305 1 Computed Peaks 1/09/08 6:00 pr-detl.out -----Flow Frequency Analysis------- --Peaks Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0. 305 1 100.00 0.990 0.228 2 25 .00 0.960 0.187 3 10.00 0.900 0.186 4 5.00 0.800 0.164 5 3;00 0.667 0.157 6 2.00 0. 500 0.156 7 1.30 0.231 0.134 8 1.10 0.091 0.279 50.00 0.980 Page 1