Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 2Memorandum To: Ruth Baleiko From: Shannon R. Glover Date: April 4, 2014 Subject: Renton Library at Liberty Park Building Permit Comments and Design Team Responses This memorandum summarizes the documentation submitted by the design team for review by the building department and the Muckleshoot `bribe, as well as the Tribe's comments and questions, and then provides a response to those comments and questions. Documentation ("Lighting Cast Plans") submitted along with the building department documents were presumably made available to the Muckleshoot Tribe in advance of their review, and are summarized here for reference: 1. Exterior lighting is limited to that required for egress from the building by code, lighting at the main entry for wayfinding of visitors, and lighting at the guardrail along the bridge for the safety of pedestrians. 2. Existing building -mounted lighting, both high in wattage and aiming directly into the water, is being deleted as part of this project. I % if hgJitirig on ru rth (aSnde, to be rf moved lighting nii south fapdc, to iv reninved 3. All exterior Iighting will be shut off after 10pm or at Library closing time, whichever is earlier. 4. Existing parking lot lighting is remaining as -is except for its wiring. (New codes require a dedicated neutral, which wasn't the case when this lighting was wired, so it will be rewired to ensure compliance with current code). New parking lot lighting is not included in the scope of this project 4100 194th St SW • Suite 400, Lynnwood, Washington 9803&4613 206-667-0555 800-667-0610 Fax: 206-667-0554 W d7W. Candela. cnm Ruth Baleiko Renton library at Liberty Park Page 2 of 5 April 4, 2014 5. Interior lighting is located and specified so that the beams of light fall within the building as indicated on this sketch_ Type 1_115, l4 Downllght fi0-degrees LL i component stays beam spread within building Type F10, Building floor 35 -degree-- -- captures the light beam spread in downlight / 1 component l maxa�u� . �-;"__. 1\Ower 1 �c�a� SiF 6. Guardrail lighting is specified and detailed to eliminate back -spill into the water as indicated on this sketch: 114' PAINTED ALUMINUM RAIL CAP LIGHT FIXTURE; REFER E-301 T.O. TOP RAIL wl -- 1 SS CABLE ----- �• i nirnal stray light from back -.- fixture will be captiaed by immum rail eap return New guardrail lighting, type L04. Fixture has cutoff asymmetric distribution, keeping light on the surface of the bridge and out of the water. $ 1±4" The Muckleshoot Tribe reviewed these submitted documents and their comments regarding them have been made available to us. They are pasted herein for reference: • The proposal to shutting lights off automatically at 10 pm (Sheet E-001) still means that there will be artificial lights on for up to 4 ]yours of darkness and during the salmon fry migration season. Therefore the lighting that is used must be the most environmentally responsible possible while still meeting public safely needs, • V17zat is the type and spectrum of light bulb proposed. The project should avoid lamps with a strong blue emission, like Metal Halide and white LEDs. If LED lights are used they should be the most enrnronmentally friendly color spectrum. Ruth Baleiko Renton Library at Liberty Park Page 3 of 5 April 4, 2014 • Tlae proposed guardrail lighting slwuld not have any stray lighting. Froin the fixture image on Sheet A-309, it shows stray lighting. Changes are needed here, maybe lower the light fixture on the guard rail and reduce the light size/shield and light spectra nt? The City should confirm with the applicant that they are proposing to use the most envirorznzental/zvildlzfe friendly ramps and fixtures available. Some resources are available at http://zm)w,darkskil.org/ and http://unow.darksky.orglassets/documents/ReportslIDA-BIue- Rich-Light-White-Paper.pdf This organization may be able to connect thze applicant with suppliers or more detailed specs. Additional infornzation regarding lighting impacts is available in the attached paper. • It is also important to control indoor lighting from the librany to escape of the building and reflect off surfaces to the water or the night sky. • What is the design of the parking lot lighting? Mtat will be done to minimize lighting effects tyre? There is another opportunity here to reduce existing lighting irnpacts. This nrernoranduw will serve as our response to those connnents. We have been asked to explain the interior and exterior lighting design in terms of quantifying any stray light that might exist, defining the spectral distribution of the light sources (lamps) used, confirming that the light fixtures and lamps are the most "environmentally friendly" available, and addressing the existing parking lot Iighting_ Supplemental materials were referenced by the Tribe_ a Journal of Environmental Management (hereafter referred to as JEM) article entitled "Limiting the impact of light pollution on human health, environment, and stellar visibility", written by Fabio FaIchi, Pierantonio Cinzano, Christopher D. EIvidge, David M_ Keith, and Abraham Haim; and an International Dark -Sky Association (IDA) white paper entitled "Visibility, Environmental, and Astronomical Issues Associated with Blue -Rich White Outdoor Lighting". This memo will summarize the responses to the comments and explain, in Iay terms, the basic content of the referenced JEM and IDA documents. The JEM article describes several steps which the authors believe should be taken when selecting and locating light fixtures in an exterior environment. The authors recommend these steps based on their research findings that light pollution might be detrimental to human, plant, animal, and environmental health, rather than being simply a nuisance_ They recommend fully shielded lighting (with no Iight above 90 -degrees from vertical, and minimal light between 80- and 90 -degrees from vertical), limiting the lit area, eliminating over -lighting the lit area, shutting off lights when not in use, and limiting growth in installed lighting. The lighting on this project achieves each of these goals, as stated in the documentation provided for the building permit review process: all lights are fully shielded, only the necessary areas are lit, no area is over -lit, and all lighting will be shut off when not in use. This project is limiting the growth in installed lighting by removing large building -mounted fixtures that are directed into the river below. Although it is dear that this project follows exactly the prescribed steps for minimizing light pollution in the environment, there is one aspect of the referenced documents where it differs, and that is in the spectral distribution of the specified lamps. Guth Baleiko Renton Library at Liberty Park Page 4 of 5 April 4, 2014 The JEM article and the I DA white paper both discuss the same body of research that indicates the possibility of a negative human, animal, and environmental response to light in the blue spectrum. All white light sources except incandescent (LED, fluorescent, and metal halide) have some distribution in the blue part of the spectrum, and are hereinafter referred to as "blue -rich" white light. The research links blue -rich light to A) physiological changes in humans (breast cancer and melatonin suppression that impacts circadian rhythms), B) perception by the scotopic (dark -adapted) section of the eye, and because many animal species are nocturnal and therefore using dark -adapted vision, lighting containing distribution in this part of the spectrum affects them more greatly, and B) the increased scatter effect of this portion of the visible spectrum in the atmosphere as compared to light in the orange and red spectra, which don't scatter similarly. The JEM article maintains that minimizing or even eliminating light in the blue part of the spectrum will effectively address the potential effects noted above, and proposes that lamp manufacturers change the spectral distribution characteristics of their white light lamps, and sets forth several calculations that would prove that the ratio of light in the blue spectrum falls beneath a certain point relative to the amount of Iight that source produces overall. (It should be noted that the resultant lamps would no longer be truly white.) Then, when fixtures using these lamps are specified and located for exterior lighting, it would be done with the understanding that no (or minimal) light in the blue spectrum is being dispersed into the environment These calculations are not common and it is unlikely that any manufacturer routinely performs them. Finally, the JEM article stresses a strong preference for Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) light (which is yellow colored), and when that is not available, High Pressure Sodium (HPS) (which is orange), because these two lamp types have no, or very little, emission in the blue part of the spectrum. This project is not using these lamps. The JEM article and the IDA white paper present research that is relatively limited in scope, and expansion on the topics presented is certainly ongoing. It is well understood by researchers in the field, that more studies that must be done before categorical statements could be made that the only acceptable exterior lighting is that which does not use blue -rich light. Studies have yet to be done in order to determine thresholds for harm (time and duration) from these light sources?. Exterior built environments are designed for humans and human needs, and while we don't want them to do harm to the natural environment, we have to find the balance between what is good for nature and what is good for humans. LPS and HPS are both acknowledged to be poor quality choices for human environments. Under LPS humans cannot see any color -- everything is rendered a shade between yellow and black_ Law enforcement agencies dislike this source because of the inability to distinguish color and the security concerns that result .from that. HPS is marginally better but creates an uninspiring and uninviting night time environment. Some studies have also shown benefits of white light sources, including the fact that it renders colors more correctly, resulting in a safer, richer environmental experience2. Additionally, several studies have shown that most people can see better under a lower level of white light than they can under a higher level of orange light, meaning that less energy is used to achieve similar visual acuity3. 1 Rea, Brans, and Figueiro, 2011 2 Caminada & van Bommel,1980 Folios & Cheal, 2011 b 3 Fotios & Cheal, 2007; 2010; 2011 a; 2011b Rae, Bullough, Akashi, 2009 Rea, Radetsky, Bullough, 201.1. Ruth Baleiko Renton Library at Liberty Park Page 5 of 5 April 4, 2014 It should be noted as well that the streets and pathways adjacent to the building are potentially more of a concern than the lighting within this project boundary. Existing closely -spaced lamp posts are in direct view of the river, and adjacent street lighting has been converted to LED sources that are within proximity to the river. It is likely that these light fixtures are creating significant spill light directly into the river bed. Lamp post directly meat to river LED street Light hear vehiadar bridce Lamp post drrecdy next to river In conclusion, extreme care has been taken to ensure that the specified lighting fixtures and their planned locations and mounting details will have minimal impact on the living and atmospheric environment around this project Project documentation indicates only the minimum amount of light needed for the human tasks will be provided, areas will be Iit only as required for the sake of human safety, all lighting will be directed to the walking surfaces rather than into the right sky or the river, and all lighting in the scope of this project will be turned off after hours. Further, all extraneous and existing pollutive building -mounted lighting will be deleted. Finally, white light, rather than yellow light, will be utilized for the safety and comfort of the humans who visit the library and utilize the pedestrian bridge. sr�:filename Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 9:24 AM To: 'Karen Walter' Cc: Peter Renner Subject: FW: Response to Muckleshoot lighting questions Attachments: Candela Response to Muckleshoot Lighting Comments.pdf Karen, Please find attached the response from the Cedar River Library Architects related to the lighting questions/comments you e-mailed previously on March 20". Please let me know if you have any further questions. �Canessa ,Dolbee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.73.4 From: Ruth Baleiko [mailto:rbaleiko@millerhull.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 3:02 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Maaike Post Subject: Response to Muckleshoot lighting questions Hi Vanessa, Please find attached a memo from our lighting designers in response to Karen Walter's questions dated March 20. Overall, the project improves the lighting conditions that currently exist at the facility. We hope that this response helps to explain in more detail how the project addresses Karen's concerns for the site and complies with required functional, safety and energy code criteria. Please let me know if we can provide any further detail. Thanks, The Miller- Heil Partnership, SLP .......... From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:38 PM To: Maaike Post IV Cc: Peter Renner Subject: FW: Renton Library - lighting cast plans Maaike, Please see comments from Karen Walter, with the Muckleshoot Tribe, related to the lighting plan submitted with the building permit application for the Cedar River Library. Karen has a few questions and requested modifications. if you could please review the comments below and provide responses where necessary in addition, indicate any areas where KCLS is willing to amend their lighting design to accommodate the requests below. Thank you for providing the PDF this has been helpful in this review process. Let me know if you have questions, Vanessa ,Dof6ee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter(-Omuckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:23 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Renton Library - lighting cast plans Vanessa, Thank you for sending us the Library's lighting plans. We have reviewed them and have the following initial comments and questions.- 1. uestions: 1. We appreciate the opportunity to work with Renton to make sure that the library minimizes its outdoor lighting effects, including stray lighting given its environmentally sensitive location on the Cedar River. 2. The proposal to shutting lights off automatically at 10 pm (Sheet E-001) still means that there will be artificial lights on for up to 4 hours of darkness and during the salmon fry migration season. Therefore the lighting that is used must be the most environmentally responsible possible while still meeting public safety needs. 3. What is the type and spectrum of light bulb proposed. The project should avoid lamps with a strong blue emission, like Metal Halide and white LEDs. If LED lights are used they should be the most environmentally - friendly color spectrum. 4. The proposed guardrail lighting should not have any stray lighting. From the fixture image on Sheet A-349, it shows stray lighting. Changes are needed here, maybe lower the light fixture on the guard rail and reduce the light size/shield and light spectrum? 5. The City should confirm with the applicant that they are proposing to use the most environmentallwildlife friendly lamps and fixtures available. Some resources are available at http:Uwww.darksky.or__cLll and http://www.darksky.org/assets/documents/Reports/IDA-Blue-Rich-Light-White= Paper.pdf This organization may be able to connect the applicant with suppliers or more detailed specs. Additional information regarding lighting impacts is available in the attached paper. 6. It is also important to control indoor lighting from the library to escape of the building and reflect off surfaces to the water or the night sky. 7. What is the design of the parking lot lighting? What will be done to minimize lighting effects there? There is another opportunity here to reduce existing lighting impacts. Please keep us apprised of any responses and design changes from the applicant to address these comments. Best regards, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SF Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Vanessa Dolbee fmailto:VDolbee(&Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 5:24 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: FW: Renton Library - lighting cast plans Karen, During the land use review for the Cedar River Library, the City indicated that we would share the lighting plans with you at building permit. Please find attached the lighting plans prepared for the Cedar River Library. Let me know if you have any questions and/or comments. Thank you, '-(1anessa Oo5ee Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 From: Maaike Post [mailto:mpost@MillerHull.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:19 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Renton Library - lighting cast plans Vanessa, See attached for a pdf of the lighting cast plans I will be submitting on Monday along with the rest of our responses to the permit review comments. Thanks, 3 Maaike Past The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP AIA 'i=Jatlonai F;rrrs Award Reopvi1 71 Cow:': WzI Stas- - 6th F ocr Snattic, VVA 9811 0 I Dre,,A: 20tb 254 2.036 www.millerhull.com Cultural Resources Assessment for the Renton Library Renovation Project, King County, Washington Contains Confidential Xnformahotp—Not far Public Distribution Prepared by: Jennifer Hushour, MSc., RPA Marcia Montgomery, M.A. Prepared for• Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, Washington 98055 .Submitted by: Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. 2611 NE 125d' Strcet, Suite 202 Seattle, Washington 98125 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 May 6, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................................................1 Projectinformation............................................................................................................................................1 ProjectLocation............................................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription.......................................................................................................................................4 RegulatoryContext............................................................................................................................................8 State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)....................................................................................................8 Results of Previous Consultation under the SEPA Process...................................................................8 Local........................................•....................................................................................................................... 8 Definitions......................................................................................................................................................9 EnvironmentalContext..................................................................................................................................10 PhysiographicProvince..............................................................................................................................10 Geomorphology..........................................................................................................................................10 CulturalContext.. ................................................................................................................... ......................... 12 TraditionalTerritories.................................................................................................................................16 RecordedPlace Names...............................................................................................................................17 Settlement and Post -Settlement History..................................................................................................18 Historyof Renton.......................................................................................................................................18 DAHPWISAARD......................................................................................................................................20 HistoricMaps...............................................................................................................................................21 ResearchDesign...............................................................................................................................................21 DAHP Archaeological Predictive Model.................................................................................................21 ArchaeologicalExpectations.....................................................................................................................24 Geomorphology...................................................................................................................................... 24 SoilData..................................................................................................................................................24 LandUse..................................................................................................................................................24 ProjectDesign.........................................................................................................................................24 Evaluation of Historic Properties.............................................................................................................25 Evaluation of Cultural Resources for Inclusion on the NRHP.......................................................25 Significance..............................................................................................................................................25 Integrity....................................................................................................................................................25 Evaluation of Cultural Resources for Inclusion on the Washington Heritage Register (WHR).26 FieldInvestigations and Results....................................................................................................................26 ArchaeologicalSurvey.................................................................................................................................26 Conclusionsand Recommendations.............................................................................................................30 ArchaeologicalExpectations.....................................................................................................................31 References.............................. ........................................................................................................................... 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project location on the Renton, WA (1989), 7.5 -minute U.S. Geological Survey quadranglemap.............................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the project area............................................................................................3 Figure 3. Renton Library Improvement Project landscape site plans........................................................5 Figure 4. Renton Library Improvement Project civil site plans...... ............. .............................................. 6 Figure 5. Renton Library Improvement Project site demolition plans ........................ .............................. Figure 6. Plan and profile of glacial fill in the Green-White-Duwamish River Valley from Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014044 ii Shong and Rinck (2011:Figurc 5); Renton is highlighted.....................................................................13 Figure 7. Schematic showing the development of the Cedar River fan, from Shong and Rinck (2011:Figure 4), with Renton Dbrary location indicated..........................................................14 Figure 8. 1898 U.S. Geological Survey (LJSGS) map with soil survey overlays (Google Earth 2014) ............................... —.............. ....... ........................................................................... .......................... .15 Figure 9. Recent aerial imagery with soil survey overlays (Google Earth 2014) .....................................16 Figure 10. Previous surveys and previously recorded sites within 0.8 krn (0.5 miles) of the APE ...... 20 Figure 11. Maps showing the changes of course and nomenclature of rivers in the Duwamish Valley, 1899-1959; vicinity of project area (showing dredged Cedar River channel) in red (adapted from Mullineaux 1970)...................................................................................................22 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1. Aerial imagery is a 1940 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fly -over of the watershed. The inset is a photo of dredging in the Cedar River (UW Digital Collections)................................23 Photo 2. Library Building and Cedar River from the southeast side of the library, facing southeast.................................................................. ....................................................................................27 Photo 3. Gabion wall on the southwest bank underneath the library building; view to the south.....27 Photo 4. View of the southwest bank of the Cedar River from the southeast side of the library....... 28 Photo 5. View of the northeast bank of the Cedar River from the southeast side of the library........ 28 Photo 6. Abutment on east corner of library, facing northeast .................... Photo 7. Location of paved sewer line corridor and sewer line improvements on southwest sideof library, facing southwest...............................................................................................................29 Photo 8. Utility box and corridor, north side of library, facing northwest; marked utilities continue all the way to Bronson Avenue................................................................................................30 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of the Project Area ..... 21 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Correspondence Regarding Cultural Resources Review..................................................A.1 Appendix B. Tribal Correspondence.......................................................................................•.................. B.1 Appendix C. Historic Property Inventory Form....................................................................................... C.1 Appendix D. Draft Inadvertent Discovery Protocol.............................................................................. D.1 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. (Tierra), contracted with the King County Library System to assist with their compliance efforts for proposed renovations to the Renton Library (the project) at 100 Mill Avenue South in downtown Renton, Washington_ Proposed improvements include seismic upgrades to the existing structure, demolition of existing building envelope, and installation of new envelope and building systems. Additional site improvements will include the replacement of the existing sanitary side sewer pipe between the library building and the intersection of Mill Avenue South and South tad Street. No archaeological sites or ethnographically named places have been recorded within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project location. This report focuses on providing an assessment of the archaeological potential of the project site, because through the SEPA review process, the City of Renton has previously addressed concerns regarding the historical significance of the library building. During public hearings conducted in July and August 2013, the city approved the proposed site plan without the need for mitigation (City of Renton 2013 and 2013a). For the permanent record, this report includes a completed historic property inventory form. Tierra's assessment consisted of background review, field investigation, completion of the HPI form, and production of this report. Background review determined the project to be located in an area of low probability for buried cultural resources. Field investigation included visual reconnaissance, pedestrian survey, and the recordation of the Renton Library. Tierra's contracted work related to the library structure consisted only of the completion of the Historic Property Inventory Form. Tierra recommends archaeological monitoring for all excavations below de the of 4.6 m (15 feed.- PROJECT eed: PROJECT INFORMATION Project Locat7on Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. (Tierra), contracted with the King County Library System to assist with their compliance efforts for proposed renovations to the Renton Library (the project) at 100 Mill Avenue South in downtown Renton, Washington. The project, which crosses the Cedar River approximately 183 m (600 feet) northwest of where Interstate 405 (I-405) crosses the river, is located in the SW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian (Figure 1). The surrounding area is highly developed for commercial and industrial use (Figure 2). The Renton Library spans the Cedar River; therefore, the renovation work on the library building will effectively have a zero horizontal distance to the Cedar River. The shoreline of the Cedar River in the project area is highly constrained and modified by humans. Modifications include the diversion of the Cedar River from its original course in order to ensure that the water elevations of Lake Washington and Lake Union would always be higher than the Puget Sound at the Ballard Locks, approximately 37 km (23 miles) northwest of the project. The river banks are relatively straight and uniform in aspect and width. Gabion walls were installed on the left bank of the Cedar River under the Renton Library and north to Bronson Way; similar systems were not installed along the right bank. The site topography slopes steeply down to the Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 1 Figure 1. Project location on the Renton, WA (1989), 7.5 -minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 Figure 2. Aerial photograph of the project area. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014044 Cedar River on both the north and south sides of the building, with grades ranging from an approximate elevation of 14 m (45 feet) at the top of the slopes to an elevation of 8 in (26 feet) at the river bottom. Site grades to the north and south of the building and outside of the river banks are relatively level. Project Deserrptron The project proposes to renovate the existing library use for continued use as a library (Figures 3-5). This scope would entail the following: • Demolition of existing masonry and glass building envelope. • Retention of existing concrete structure, roof framing, and sitework. • Installation of new building envelope: aluminum window system with glazed panels and a metal panel wall assembly. • Demolition of portions of existing roof framing and replacement in specific areas at a lower height. • Removal of the existing rooftop mechanical unit near the west end of the building. • New rooftop mechanical unit (similar in scale to existing unit) with screening near the east end of the building, where it will be less visible from the parking lot and main entry. • New mechanical, electrical, and lighting systems within the building. • Addition of insulation, sheathing, and -roofing to existing roof assembly. • Relocation of building entry to the west to face the existing parking lot. • Seismic upgrade required by code, including below -grade concrete abutments on either side of tbp,:building and steel-braced.fXgm;�s in both direcjions. -. • New hardscape, utility routing, and vegetation to address new entry location, as well as repair associated with concrete abutments. • Sandblasting of existing structural concrete to remove painted finish. • Re-routing of existing under -slab mounted utility piping to address new utility penetrations. • New exterior enclosure for refuse/recycling area and mechanical equipment. Access to the library will remain the same as it is currently; the existing parking lot and curb cuts will be retained. Ground -disturbing work for the project would be related to required seismic upgrades. This work, which includes the installation of augercast piles and concrete pile caps, would take place at least 12 m (40 feet) upland of the ordinary high water mark (OHWN� on both sides of the Cedar River. Approximately 688.1 M3(24,300 feet) of soil would be excavated for the installation of the below - grade concrete abutments associated with the seismic upgrades. After the concrete is poured, approximately 275.2 m3 (9,718.6 feet) will be filled on site above the abutments. Excavation is anticipated to be about 39.0 by 6.0 by 1.5 m (128.0 by 20.0 by 5.0 feet) deep on each side of the river; however, the river itself will not be impacted. The depth of fill in the areas where excavation is proposed is approximately 4.6 m (15 feet). Additional ground -disturbing activities include the replacement of the existing sanitary side sewer between the library building and the intersection of Mill Avenue South and South 2nd Street. Tierra understands the project area to be defined as the footprint of construction as described above and illustrated in Figures 3-5. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 4 bt0-VtOZ -oN izodag pai�ioloaEtpa�r uxa;)j - 9 b1,0-t,IOZ -oN �jodmd jsarx'�oloampxV -esiaLl RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY BARK 20% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS �� t 1 . g A2 RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY BARK 20% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS �� t tto-1,10Z 'oN lroda-d 7a�$01oaloga.rV uzuojj 0RENTON LIBRARY rm Q o AT L $SERTY PARK Q = $ `� 96% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REGULATORY CONTEXT State EnvYtotlmental Policy Act (SEPA) SEPA requires that all major actions sponsored, funded, permitted, or approved by State and/or local agencies provide consideration of the impacts of the planned action on the environment, which includes properties of historical, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance (Washington Administrative Code 197-11-960). The DAHP is recognized as the agency with the technical expertise to consider the effects of a proposed action on cultural resources and to provide formal recommendations to local governments and other State agencies for appropriate treatments or actions. Results of Previous Consultation under the SEPA Process The organization Citi.Zens to .Save the Cedar River Library contacted DAHP in 2013 and requested an evaluation of the library building in terms of NRHP eligibility. DAHP responded recommending the library as eligible for the NRNP, identifying concerns about the possible presence of precontact archaeological sites in the project area, and requesting a cultural resources survey of the project area (Kaehler 2013). This report has been prepared to fulfill the request for a cultural resources survey. According to the information provided by the City of Renton, concerns regarding the historical significance of the Renton Library were previously addressed during two public hearings. In July 2013, the City of Renton conducted a heating regarding the proposed historical significance of the library and determined that the appellants raising the question of historical significance "have not scientifically established, as a matter of law that the remodel results in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that require an EIS (City of Renton July 2013). The community group Save the Cedar River Library... Again appealed the decision focusing the potential impact of moving the door location, which is currently over the river. In August 2013, the heating examiner determined that the "library is a historical and cultural resource subject to protection under SEPA, but the relocation of its primary entrance is not a probable significant environmental impact that requires an environmental impact statement or SEPA mitigation." The appeal was denied and site plan approved. Based on the outcome of the public hearings, the City of Renton has completed its review of the library building as a historic resource. For the permanent file, this report provides a completed HPI form for the library. Copies of correspondence related to this consultation are included in Appendix A of this report. The project proponents then contacted Tierra requesting the archaeological assessment, which included a field survey and a report documenting the results and Tierra's recommendations regarding the likelihood that the project would disturb archaeological deposits or materials. Local The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was adopted by Washington State in 1971, as Washington's shorelines were increasingly being developed in an uncoordinated and piecemeal way. The purpose of the SMA is to protect and restore the resources of shorelines in Washington. Rapid development threatened the valuable ecological resources and natural character along Washington's shorelines. The SMA contains three basic policy areas: shoreline preferred uses, environmental protection, and public trust. These policies provide a framework for preferred water -dependent uses, protection of the shorelines, and preservation of the public's right of access to and use of the Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 8 shorelines. Under the SMA, local governments arc required to prepare a Shoreline Master Program. The City of Renton Shoreline Master Program contains goals and policies for shoreline development and preservation based on the Shoreline Management Act. Renton has four shorelines subject to the SMP. These shorelines are: the Cedar River, Lake Washington, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek. Shoreline planning includes the water body as well as the shore lands within 61 m (200 feet) of the water line. Wetlands associated with the water body are also included. Most local governments are required by the State, via the Growth Management Act (1990), to adopt a Comprehensive Plan as a way to logically plan for and manage growth over a 20 -year horizon. Comprehensive Plans are drafted by a Planning Commission formed of appointed residents with an interest in planning, with assistance from the planning staff. Public officials, such as City Councils or County Commissions, adopt the final plan. The plan identifies community interests through a public and political process. Mandatory elements of the Comprehensive Plan include: Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities Planning, Utilities, Rural Areas, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Economic Development. Renton's Comprehensive Plan, adopted November 1, 2004, as part of the required 2004 Growth Management update, is updated annually. The project is under review by the City of Renton Planning Office. Deft ddons Adverse Effect An action that directly or indirectly alters characteristics of a historic property such that it no longer qualifies for inclusion in the NRHP. Archaeology Site The place or places where the remnants of a past culture survive in a physical context that allows for the interpretation of these remains. Broadly characterized as precontact and historic archaeology. Assessment A study of the recorded history and archaeology of a site undertaken to determine the likelihood and possible nature of any archaeology present and the risk the development may pose to its character. Cultural Resource Rcsources associated with human manipulation of the environment. Historic Archaeology The archeology of sites dating from the period of time following contact and preceding the modern era. Historic Property Cultural resources that have been listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Histonic Preservation Act (NHPA) treats prehistory as a part of history for purposes of national policy; therefore eligible pre- and past -contact sites are considered historic properties. Historic Property Inventory DAHP's listing of existing elements of the built environment that includes buildings, structures, sites, districts, and objects dating from the contact era. Listing in the HPI does not necessarily indicate that a historic building or structure is eligible for the NRHP or the Washington Heritage Register (WHR). Tierra. Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 9 Inventory The product of survey activities. Mitigation Strategies intended to reduce the overall effect of a project on an archaeological site. Precontact Archaeology The archeology of sites and structures dating from time periods before significant contact between Native Americans and Europeans. Survey The act of identifying and recording cultural resources. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Literature review for this project included a review of environmental data on the project area illustrated in geologic and soils maps and reports of recent geological and geomorphological investigations that described subsurface conditions and the post -depositional processes likely to affect any cultural deposits in the study area. Physiographic Province The project's area of potential effect (APE) is located within the western hemlock (T�uga heterophylla) vegetation zone of the Puget -Willamette Lowland physiographic province (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Vegetation would have included western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western hemlock (T -ruga heterophylla), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga men ieaii) prior to clearing. Geomorphology The project area lies within the Puget Lowland physiographic province. The Puget Lowland is a physiographic province that was shaped by several periods of extensive glaciation during the Pleistocene (Easterbrook 2003; Lasmanis 1991). The bedrock was depressed and deeply scoured by glaciers. Sediments were deposited and often reworked as the glaciers advanced and retreated, and glacial till and outwash deposits were left across much of the region at the end of the last glacial period, the Fraser Glaciation (Easterbrook 2003). The Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation began around 18,000 B.P. with an advance of the Cordilleran ice sheet into the lowlands (Porter and Swanson 1998). The Puget Lobe of the ice sheet flowed down into the Puget Lowland, depositing large amounts of glacial outwash and till and carving out the many arms of Puget Sound. It reached its terminus just south of Olympia between 14,500 and 14,000 B.P. (Clague and James 2002; Easterbrook 2003; Waitt and Thorson 1983). The Puget Lobe was thicker towards the north and thinned towards its terminus. The thickness of the ice near the project area is estimated to have been about 200-400 m (656-1,312 feet) (Easterbrook 2003). The Puget Lobe began to retreat shortly after reaching its terminus, and a large glacial lake formed behind the ice with a spillway south through the Chehalis River Valley. Eventually, the ice melted sufficiently to allow marine water from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to enter the lowlands. Shong and Rinck (2011:5-10) provide the following detailed explanation of the development of the watershed from the Late Pleistocene to the Historic period. As an understanding of the geomorphology of the watershed is intrinsic to an understanding of the archaeological potential of Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 10 the project area, Shong and Rinck's discussion is presented here in its entirety, along with their figures (Figures 6 and 7). Late Pleistocene During the .last glacial maximum global sea -level was approximately 60 meters (200 feet) lower than today as sea -water was locked up in the continental ice sheet (Dragovich et al. 1994, Dethier et al. 1995). As the Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet receded northward beginning around 16,500 years before present (B.P.), a large freshwater lake formed behind the retreating ice mass (Thorson 1989, Waitt and Thorson 1983). The surface elevation of the proglacial lake, termed Glacial Lake Russell by geologists, was several hundred feet above current sea level. As the ancestral Cedar River began downcutting through the accumulated till and glaeio- lacustrine sediments, it eventually abandoned its southerly coarse through the Covington Channel and formed a new, lower course to the Duwarnish Valley at Renton (Mullineaux 1970). Sometime before 13,500 years ago, marine water broke through the Juan de Fuca Lobe inundating the trough-like embayments formerly occupied by Glacial Lake Russell, although at a much lower level (Figure 4-A). The Green -White River valley, including what is now Lake Washington, became a long, steep -sided marine fjord that geologists have termed the Duwamish Embayment (Mullineaux 1970; Dragovich et al. 1994). The marine stage of Lake Washington was relatively short-lived as the Cedar River rapidly built a fan across the narrow marine fjord at Renton cutting off the Duwamish Embayment and creating what is now Lake Washington (Dragovich et at 19,94, Easterbrook 1992) (Figure '4 B)'. Sediirnentologic data retrieved from a cote" at the Boeing plant in Renton produced marine shells underlying peat, two samples of which were dated to approximately 13,600 and 14,000 years B.P. (Mullineaux 1970). Another core in Lake Washington revealed partially laminated silts dating to between 13,400 and 11,000 years ago. These sediments contained progressively greater amounts of organic matter, lignin, and pollen. Only freshwater plankton were present in the lower core sample, and together with the core at Renton, indicate that the basin became a freshwater lake between approximately 13,500 and 12,500 years ago (Leopold 1982). As the Cedar fan -delta complex grew, it forced the lake to drain around the toe of the fan to the Duwamish embayment by way of the ancestral Black River. Early to Middle Holocene During the early Holocene, rising sea levels in the Puget lowlands were offset by rapid, but decelerating rebound of the land from the former weight of glacial ice. The Cedar River fan also experienced isostatic uplift as the river migrated across the fan throughout the Holocene, flowing at different times directly into Lake Washington, the Black River and the Duwamish Embayment. During this time, Lake Washington fluctuated at least 10 feet between wet and dry periods (Chrzastowski 1983), as the outflow continually downcut through the fan's western edge to reach the lowered base -level. The Duwamish Embayment underwent a marine incursion beginning about 9,000 B.P. as world-wide sea -level continued to rise due to increased glacial meltwater as local isostatic rebound slowed to a halt. Holocene sea -level rose to within 20 meters of the modern shoreline by about 7,000 B.P., and the bedrock Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 11 hilllocks composed of sedimentary and volcaniclastic rocks around what is now Renton and Tukwila existed as islands in the embayment. Prior to about 5,700 B.P. the Careen and White rivers did not deposit large amounts of sediment into the Duwamish Embayment. The sedimentation processes changed abruptly when a sector collapse on the northeast flank of Mount Rainier sent an enormous lahar of rock, glacial ice and stream water sweeping down the White River canyon and into the Duwarrish and Puyallup embayments (Crandell 1971). The event, known as the Osceola Mudflow, blanketed the Enumclaw Plateau and adjacent river valleys with over a cubic mile of clay-ricb gravels, cobbles, and boulders. The event transformed the Enumclaw Plateau into a level prairie, and extended the ancient Auburn Delta northward to Kent (Dragovich et al. 1994). After 5,700 B.P., the Duwamish Embayment in -filled rapidly as the Green -White River delta prograded northward reaching the Renton -Tukwila vicinity between 3500-2500 years B.P. (Figure 4-C). Rising Holocene sea -level reached the entrenched outlet of Lake Washington between 7500 and 3500 S.P. (Stanley and Warne 1994). A cote sample in Renton produced Mazama ash dating to approximately 6,700 B.P. suggesting that the 60+ feet of alluvium overlying the ash has been deposited at a rate of approximately one - foot each one hundred years (Mullineaux 1970)...The toe of the Cedar River fan at Renton likely remained a slack -water depositional environment until the Green -White River delta arrived about 3500 B.P. (Thorson 1998). The initial subaerially[l] exposed land surfaces in the project vicinity were probably saltwater marshes with over -bank levee formations -available for human occupation. The saltwater marshes and levees at the toe of the fan could have been used by Native Americans as early as 3500 B.P., however, based on Mullineaux's (1970) rate of deposition, supratidalli surfaces in the project vicinity are likely buried by approximately 10.5 teeters (35 feet) of Alluvium. The geotechnical data supports the information presented in Shong and Rinck (2011). The project area would have been a tidal marshland that eventually gave way to a riparian woodland. Trees such as alder, cottonwood, and big leaf maple would have established themselves on natural levees formed of overbank deposits. Native inhabitants of the watershed would have found the area full of resources, though likely not very attractive for long-term habitation, given the high potential of the landscape for flooding. Using Mullineaux's (1970) calculations as a guide, Shong and Rinck (2011:7) postulate that the landscape just upland of the tidal marshland is "likely buried by approximately 10.5 meters (35 feet) of alluvium". This landscape includes the Renton Library project area. CULTURAL CONTEXT The determination of the probability for historic properties to be located within the APE was based largely upon review and analysis of past environmental and cultural contexts and previous cultural resource studies and sites. ' Features that are formed or located on the land surface and are exposed to the atmosphere. z The area above the high -tide water line that extends upland. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 12 ci 5 tvo-v toz 'old ljodag reoMoioQuliaw lujQt L I •� hb0 CA i r i R rx d E✓ � 'C r M rn rot 46. C, 1 6 V h Ki 4 I m 3 eL D A V s O u L p < 4 K j' IT rt �� in fa e n wk a UA i r. SEND iN s _a te SECTION ri I z � w a V i T1pC C 96 r b tb 7 5- M tt PL iy f� :f 0 �. < F- tvo-v toz 'old ljodag reoMoioQuliaw lujQt L I Cedar River ;OuWa"Sh Rrver € � A ski CeCsa Xeve E'...,dab ii PROJECT AREA Figure 7. Schematic showing the development of the Cedar River fan, from Shong and Rinck (2011:Figure 4), with Renton Library location indicated. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 14 Consulted sources included project files; local geologic data to better understand the depositional environment; archaeological, historic, and ethnographic records made available on the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database; and selected published local historic records. Research conducted for this assessment included review of environmental and cultural contexts from a variety of sources, including the DAHP, WISAARD, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) General Land Office (GLO) Survey Records database, HistoryLink, Historic Map Works, the University of Washington's Digital Collection, and Washington State University's Early Washington Maps Collection. Prehistoric occupation of the Puget Sound basin has been well summarized in regional literature. Precontact models, ethnographies, and historical overviews provide information that helps frame past cultural development in a more substantial format than within the limited scope of this project (Ames and Maschncr 1999; Nelson 1990; Suttles and Lane 1990). Human occupation has been nearly continuous since the retreat of the last glaciation about 10,500 years ago. Figure 8.1898 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map with soil survey overlays (Google Earth 2014). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 15 Figure 9., Recent aerial imagery with sail survey overlays (Google Earth 2014). Puget Sound lowland archaeology can be subdivided into three phases that include early (end of the last ice age to 5,000 years B.P.), middle (5,000-1,000 B.P.) and late stages of development (1,000-250 B.P.). The early period is characterized by an emphasis on the use of flaked stone tools, including fluted projectile points, leaf -shaped points, and cobble -derived tools. Camps were frequently established along river terraces or outwash channels and exist today as near surface scatters or shallow buried sites. The middle period coincides with a stabilization of the environment to something similar to today. The broad cultural patterns include a larger suite of tools, including smaller notched points and ground stone, bone, or antler implements used for working with wood. Shell midden sites first appear during this period, indicating a transition to a more maritime -based subsistence pattern. The late period is dominated by a settlement pattern focused on coastlines, streams, and rivers and a far greater specialization of technology. Trade goods also appear at this time, indicating extensive trade along the coast as well as with inland plateau peoples. Salmon became a staple at this time, as sea levels had risen and riparian environments supported large runs of salmon. Tradrtronal Territories Relevant ethnographic reports and syntheses of archaeological, anthropological, and historical sources were also reviewed (e.g., Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Ruby and Brown 1992; Spier 1936; Suttles and Lane 1990; Waterman 1922, 2001). Information regarding Historic -era cultural features and land use patterns was acquired by examining nineteenth-century maps. Additional resources for ethnohistoric accounts included electronic documents such as historical society and Tribal webpages. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 16 The study area is within the traditional lands of the Southern Coast Salish people, who are now politically associated with the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, and the Puyallup tribes (Haeberbn and Gunther 1930; Ruby and Brown 1992; Spier 1936; Waterman 1922, 2001). These are Southern Coast Salish speakers of a local dialect of the Lushootseed language (Suttles and Lane 1990; Muckleshoot 2013). Native Americans in this area recognized distinctions between people based on landscape characteristics while maintaining close social and economic ties. "Saltwater Indians" lived at the mouth of the Puyallup, using both riverine and marine resources. People living inland or upriver were referred to as "canoe Indians" and made their living from both terrestrial and riverine resources (Suttles and Lane 1990; Waterman 1922, 2001). A number of significant Duwamish villages were located along the Duwatnish River at the outlet of Lake Washington (Ruby and Brown 1992:72). In 1855, the Duwamish and other Puget Sound Tribes signed treaties that forced local Tribes onto reservations. The Duwamish were not assigned their own reservation, but were removed to the Port Madison Indian Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula or the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation between Auburn and Enumclaw. Following the implementation of the treaties, some reservation inhabitants began to augment traditional subsistence practices with Euroamerican agricultural pursuits, logging, and industrial labor (Huggins 1984; Ruby and Brown 1992). Today, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe exercises Duwamish fishing rights on Lake Washington as recognized successors to the Duwamish. The Suquamish Tribe also considers the project area vicinity as a usual and accustomed place, but was denied recognition as successors of the Duwamish by the District Court (Tulalip Tribes et al. 1990). The Duwamish Tribal organization does not currently have Federal recognition. Tierra -sent staff -to -staff letters seeking kriovvledge and/or concerns about the project locatioiz to the cultural resources offices of the Duwamish and Muckleshoot Tribes (Appendix B). Recorded Place Names T.T. Waterman (1922, 2001) recorded numerous named geographic features near the project area. These include descriptive names for geographic features, resource procurement sites, villages (or habitation sites), and names associated with mystical events. • T°xE'b-qa (confluence) for a village location that was located at the confluence of where the Cedar River flowed into the Black River. Now a gravel pit. • Sba'badid (crags) a large community house was located on the Black River below Renton. • Nxrtd WO' (Little Cedar River) was located along the Cedar River. • P3E rw? (pressed, crowded back) for a location at the foot of Lake Washington. • Spa pL ad (marshes) at the end of Lake Washington located to the east of the Black River. • "uti'tsabd` (to thrust, shove) for a small promontory on the lake shore located within the marshes. • Oge'd (head or source) where the Black River flows out of Lake Washington. • tuavaTdad3-aL3t Qack Salmon's home or King Salmon house) for a deep place in the Black River. • TugAaOL Os (red face) for a bluff located east of Renton. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 17 Settlement acid Pos t -Se tdetn en t History As Tierra eras retained to address the likelihood that the project would impact archaeological deposits or materials, the following discussion of post -Settlement development in the area is included only to inform an understanding of possible pre -modern disturbances to the project area. After Governor Isaac Stevens negotiated treaties with the area's Native population, the events that unfolded were of significance to the local history of the project area. A primary issue regarding the treaties was the dissolution of Tribal access to a land base that had supported their usual and accustomed living and subsistence activities for generations. Traditionally occupied lands were exchanged for areas that were, more often than not, poorer quality, so that settlers could start farms on land "not being used" in the most productive way by Native people. Euroamericans had a difficult time with the concept of land that was not owned by any one person or persons. The treaties were a way to establish leadership among various and often disparate Tribal communities. The 1855 treaties were negotiated with nearly all Native groups along the Salish Sea in only a few months time. Increased Euroamerican settlement and anger over the resultant affects of these treaties caused an uprising among many Native Americans. Sealth, a Duwarrish headman from whom the city of Seattle derived its name, defended the white settlers of Seattle against attacks from the Duwatnish, Taitnapam, Puyallup, Nisqually, and Suquamish tribes (Ruby and Brown 1992:73). History Of Ren ton The following discussion of the history of Renton was provided on the City of Renton's website (Renton 2014): Just. over 100: years ago, Renton was just an open space along the trail from Seattle. Framed by densely wooded hills, and the Black and Cedar Rivers running through it, the land had long been home to the Duwamish people. The Duwamish built permanent villages and fishing weirs along the rivers. Henry Tobin and his wife Diana were among the first settlers of European descent. In 1853 they built their first home on a donation claim on the banks of the Cedar and Black Rivers. After Tobin's death in 1857, Diana married Erasmus Smithers. Smithers platted the town of Renton on part of the land that he and his wife owned. In 1873, Smithers organized the Renton Coal Company, with the financial backing of Captain William Renton. Capt. Renton, a wealthy businessman, was also one of the founders of the first sawmill. Along with his partner William Talbot, Renton was responsible for the construction of the first railroad used in the territory. On September 6, 1901, the town of Renton was incorporated. Renton's first mayor was Dr. Abijah Ives Beach, a physician who provided care for the miners of Renton's coal mines. The first town offices were situated in Tonkin's General Store, located where Tonkin's Park is today. Between 1920 and 1930 Renton slowly evolved from a fledgling town to an urban center. Coal mining and other early industries, like Pacific Car and Foundry (PACCAR), remained an important hart of the City's economy through the 1930s. Other small businesses formed to serve the needs of coal miners and their families. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 18 In 1927 the U.S. Junk Company opened, and several moves and name changes later, continues to do business as McLendon Hardware today. During World War II the Boeing Airplane Company stepped up its aircraft production, a turning point for the city. In 1941 Renton's population was 4,488, but the building of the Renton Boeing plant for the production of the famous B -29s brought thousands seeking employment. After the war, the majority of these people continued to make their homes in Renton, and have since been absorbed into other industries in Renton and nearby Seattle. Unlike other war industrial areas that declined after the end of the war, Renton's population remained constant. Currently a community of over 80,000 residents and growing, Renton is still home to the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, PACCAR, The Landing, and home of the Seattle Seahawks training camp, in addition to numerous small businesses and service industries. In November of 1911, the Cedar River flooded Renton. In 1912, the Cedar River was diverted from the Black River into Lake Washington to avoid future floods. According to Celmer (1995): Historic maps and records indicate that the section of the Cedar River currently being studied Dust north and west of the current project] consists of an artificial dredged channel. This section of the Cedar River was dredged in 1912 by a commercial waterway district orgiinized by residents' of the Cedar River floodplain. Before dredging, the Cedar River flowed into the Black River, but would periodically flood and migrate northward across extensive wetlands into Lake Washington. In order to stabilize the river's course and reduce the threat of flooding to the City, the Cedar River channel was dredged and permanently diverted into Lake Washington. The newly dredged channel was 2000 feet long and 80 feet wide. The wetland area was subsequently filled with slag obtained from the Renton coal mines. Since 1912, the banks of the Cedar River have undergone extensive development. The Boeing Company and the Renton Airport are located on the east and gest banks of the Cedar River mouth. Upstream development includes commercial and residential buildings, roads, bridges, shoreline protection, and extensive landscaping. Development has encroached to within 6 feet of the Cedar River banks in many areas. Since the original excavation of the channel, this area has been periodically dredged by the City of Renton and the Corps of Engineers. While the section of the river in the APE is at the very edge of the dredged channel and appears to closely match the course of the historic channel, a review of historic maps and documents makes it clear that there has been extensive modification, including imported fill, gabion walls, and disturbance to the area. The river has, at least once, swung through the project area moving east to west. In the historic era, the river channel was southwest of the project area. The Renton Public Library, also mown as the Cedar River Library, was completed in 1966 by the City of Renton and became part of the King County Public Library System in 2010. This building spans the Cedar River in the heart of Renton, just south of the Bronson Way Bridge (built in 1940). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 19 It is flanked by Liberty Park to the east and the old City Hall plaza to the west. It is part of the 1960s -era Renton Civic Center development, which included the library, the City Hall, and a triangular-shaped plaza west of the Cedar River. Today, the Renton municipal offices no longer occupy this location. DAMP WISA.ARD A site file search of the WISAARD database showed that five previously recorded archaeological sites are located within 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of the project area (Figure 10; Table 1). `}S o :t�btd 3 683232 ts=UK AL � 7�5_ � f-. Atli i f 1 #! 1 46750 1339902 " r s 339943_„�TiA�iw. ` s-, 1. 90� 1344709 �—ti r °„ �” ' � ' Y Yr 1[100501 ; F,,, %: 1343167 1343769` �°<, rtK100GS61354596 �`' E K100538 m c e X344265 1346243 l 1354596 1348243 01 r s135290$ -w�'-3 �•f ,aC �Ut' z , ? 339905 1353105 K100542 �. 47318 ' °�►5` 9985 S't rry 13545 *6 J. �,�7 . c 1� rjiE e tia�� ty� 31 2 1339895 p, q T 133?608 1348754 € pial VWV s s w 4m Scs - ...._._-L.•�—.:....._� �� --�_ � Pads nopynght-� 2013 National Geographic Society cubed QProject location 0_.) mile buffer 1-lrthaeological site a t noo 2:000 (J 4 Previous survey Mc". IMMEMMEZZZ= 0 250 500 Figure 10. Previous surveys and previously recorded sites within 0.8 lcrn (0.5 miles) of the APE. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 20 Table 1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 0.8 lin (0.5 miles) of the Project Area Site No. Description Date Recorded Status K11010 precontact Ethic scatter, short-term 3/15/2011 not evaluated occupation site KI501 Renton High School Indian Site; 5/23/2001 not evaluated precontact shell midden K1686 precontact Hearth feature 6/6/2003 not evaluated KI542 historic debris scatter 4/19/1996 not evaluated K1538 Columbia and Puget Sound Railroad 6/10/1996 potentially eli 'ble WISAARD has no documentation of any surveys within the APE, and no previously documented archaeological sites or historic structures (other than the library building) are located within the project area itself. Hrstorlc Maps A review of mid -to late -twentieth-century maps (e.g., GLO 1865; Kroll 1912; Metsker 1936; USGS 1898, 1900, 1983) and aerial photographs (e.g., Renton NW 1936, 1940) show the project area has changed remarkably since the early Historic era. A comparison of georeferenced historic maps with modern aerial imagery shows that the Cedar River would have been located slightly southwest of the project area in 1898, prior to the lowering of Lake Washington and the filling in of the original shoreline. Symbols for marshland mark the land to the north of the project, and a single road is shown running due north from Renton to Lake Washington about 0.4 km (0.25 miles) to the west. Between 1912 and 1936, the shoreline of Lake Washington was filled in, and the Cedar River was diverted to flow into Lake Washington. The 1936 Metsker map also shows the Cedar River as a channel labeled "Commercial Waterway No. 2". Mullineaux's (1970) illustration of the changes in course and nomenclature of the watershed helps further inform the understanding of the extent of changes to the river channel (Figure 11). Land use appears to have been largely agricultural up until the mid-to-late 1900s; a 1940 aerial appears to show dredging activity in the general vicinity of the project (Photo 1). RESEARCH DESIGN DAMP Archaeological Predictive Model The predictive model map overlay indicates that the project is within an area identified as " Survey Highly Advised: High Risk". Model probabilities are calculated using information from two general sources --data derived from archaeological surveys conducted prior to model development and a consideration of the relationship between these recorded sites and various environmental factors (Kauhi 2009). The approach to modeling settlement systems used by the DAHP presumes that the distribution of archaeological sites on the landscape is non-random and that there is a statistically significant relationship between physical landscape features (e.g., elevation, distance to water, soils, and landform type) and site location. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 21 122,15' 122`15' 1899 1959 5 WILES 4 7430' 4'7.15' Figure 11. Maps showing the changes of course and nomenclature of rivers in the Duwamish Valley, 1899-1959; vicinity of project area (showing dredged Cedar River channel) in red (adapted from Mullineaux 1970). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 22 EE. Dry'dgih in. the Ce f a River, RP,nto n, FFbruary 121, 1934 Photo 1. Aerial imagery is a 1940 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fly -over of the watershed. The inset is a photo of dredging in the Cedar River (UW Digital Collections). Any predictive model can only be as accurate as the information derived from the set of previously recorded sites used to create it, which means any site identification biases represented in research will also be present in the model. Additionally, because this type of model uses an inductive approach, it is also limited in its ability to characterize the type of site that might be encountered in a particular setting, since by design the causal relationship between identified archaeological sites and particular geographic settings is not considered. More simply put, the predictive model "recognizes" that a given number of archaeological sites have been recorded within a specific distance from a given geographic features, and so "rates" projects undertaken on a specific landscape as having a high risk to encounter archaeological deposits without providing distinction between historic and precontact sites or between archeological isolates and village sites. This should not be viewed as a failure of the model, so much as a function of the model. As noted on the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MaDOT 2013) Archaeological Predictive Model webpage: The dependability of these models is a function of their performance. This can be examined and tested by comparing a predictive model to archaeological field survey results. By comparing known archaeological site locations to the model's predictions, it is possible to determine, with specifiable confidence, how accurately a model Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 23 performs. I It is, in fact, this very approach that gives us confidence in a model and allows us to use it as a predictive tool. Field-testing a model is an essential compone t of demonstrating its reliability. In this report, the author presents a project assessment that considers the implications of the predictive model, but that is also informed by an understanding of the geomorphological context, local settlement patterns, and post -depositional processes derived from a review of available environmental documentation, reports of nearby cultural resource surveys, surveys conducted on similar landforms, or surveys conducted in similar development contexts. This deductive approach is designed not only to more accurately characterize the potential for a given project to encounter archaeological de osits, but to also to identify the types of and conditions of archaeological materials which may be encpuntered. Expectations The followings ary of archaeological expectation was informed by the review of available soil data, geomorphoI gical history of the landscape, and known land-usc patterns in the precontact and historic era. Geomorphology The project area i within the meander zone of both the ancient and historic Cedar River. Historic maps indicate the river would have been to the southwest of the project site as recently as 1898. Sediment accumulation calculations indicate that the project area could be underlain by recent deposits of alluvium up to 10.7 m (35 feet) thick. Geologic research in the watershed indicates the project would have once been to the southwest of the ancient Cedar River channel_ While_overbank floods would havc deposited fine silts, creating a series of natural levees, given the location of the project area in e supratidal zone, if evidence of early -to -late Holocene human activity were present, it is likely overed with 9.1 m (30 feet) or more of sediment. Soil Data Soils are mapped �s Urban Lands, a designation typically used to capture descriptions of wholly artificial landscapes (e.g., parking lots, roads, and fill). Geotechnical investigations for this project identified 4.6 m (1 feet) of imported fill underlain by alluvial sediments. Land Use The pre -modern landscape was relatively unstable, and certainly subject to seasonal flooding, and while it was certainly well used and well known to Native peoples, it was unlikely a location selected for long-term hab tation. Given what we know of the land -use patterns in the precontact era, evidence of patterned human behavior would be related to short-term habitation, resource gathering, and travel. Expected site types would consist of single --use sites, fire hearths, discarded tools, or evidence f tool maintenance. Project Design The majority of the project is focused on activities related to the built environment. No excavation would take place within the river channel. Most, if not all, of the ground -disturbing activities for the project would take place within the fill layer. Late discoveries of archaeological deposits are not unknown in the area (e.g., 45KI501 and 45KI686); however, the project conditions and design for these two projects are sufficiently different as to make them poor analogies for the conditions and Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 24 design of the Renton Library project. For example, while it is very likely, given what we understand about population densities and land -use patterns in the prc-modern era, that serial flood deposits blanket evidence of serial short-term habitation or tool loss events, the project as designed would not extend beyond the fill documented as present. Ewduation offfisto-dc Properties Evaluation of Cultural Resources for inclusion on the NRHP Historic properties, defined by the National Park Service (NPS) as "a district, site, building, structure or object significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archeology or culture at the national, State, or local level," typically are evaluated in terms of historic significance, integrity, and the general stipulation that the property be SO years old or older (for exceptions see 36 CFR 60.4, Criteria Considerations [a—g]). Significance NRHP Bulletin Guidelines state that to be eligible for listing in the NRNP, a historic property must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture and possess integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Additionally, to be considered eligible, a historic property must meet one or more of the following four NRHP criteria: a) be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or , c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (National Park Service 2004). Most cultural resources, historic and prehistoric alike, are evaluated under Criterion (d), their potential to yield important information. This objective is accomplished by developing historic contexts. A historic context is a body of information about the past and the tangible expressions of past events organized by the elements of theme, place, and time. Integrity Integrity is the ability of a historic property to convey its significance. Integrity must be evident through historic qualities that include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Degree of integrity should be taken into consideration when evaluating resources under the NRHP criteria, for example: • If eligible for its historic associations under Criterion (a), then the resource should retain substantial aspects of its overall integrity, although design and workmanship may not weigh as heavily as those aspects related directly to its historic associations. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 25 To be eligible for its association with a prominent person under Criterion (b), the resource should retain some aspects of integrity, although design and workmanship may not be as important as the others. To be eligible for its architectural merits under Criterion (c), a resource must retain its physical features that constitute a significant construction technique or architectural style. Critical aspects of integrity for such properties are design, workmanship, and materials. Location and setting will also be important for those resources whose design reflects their immediate environment. Resources significant under Criterion (d) may not have the type of integrity described under the other criterion. Of the seven aspects of integrity, location, design, materials, and possibly workmanship are the most important. Evaluation of Cultural Resources for Inclusion on the Washington Heritage Register (WHR) The WHR is the official listing of historically significant sites and properties found throughout Washington state. The list is maintained by DAHP and includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that have been identified and documented as being significant in local or State history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. To qualify for placement on the WHR, the resource must meet the following criteria. The resource must be a building, site, structure, or object that is at least 50 years old_ If newer, the resource should have documented exceptional. significance. The resource should have a high to medium level of integrity (i.e., it should retain important character -defining features from its historic period of construction). The resource should have documented historical significance at the local, State, or Federal level. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS AND RESULTS AechaeologTcal Survey A field investigation for the project was conducted by Jennifer Hushour and Melanie Diedrich on March 21, 2014, in clear and sunny weather conditions. Field investigation included an intensive pedestrian survey. A Trimble GeoXH with the project area preloaded was used to delineate project area boundaries in the field. Using the Trimble, each segment of the APE was located and photographed, beginning with the library building and the riverbanks on either side of the building. Photographs of various aspects of the building were taken, and the riverbanks were investigated and photographed to record extant gabion walls, abutments, etc. This was followed by delineation of the remaining segments of the APE including the paved corridor on the southwest side of the library building, the utility corridor on the north side, and the landscaped areas on the east and west sides. Following delineation of the project area in the field, pedestrian survey was conducted. This consisted of walking the property to investigate any potential surface features that would indicate the presence of any buried and/or aboveground historic properties in the APE (Photos 2-8). Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 26 Photo 2. Library Building and Cedar River from the southeast side of the library, facing southeast. Photo 3. Gabion wall on the southwest bank underneath the library building; view to the south. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 27 Photo 4. View of the southwest bank of the Cedar River from the southeast side of the library. Photo S. View of the northeast bank of the Cedar River from the southeast side of the library. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 28 Photo 6. Abutment on east corner of library, facing northeast. Photo 7. Location of paved sewer line corridor and sewer line improvements on southwest side of library, facing southwest. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 29 Photo S. Utility box and corridor, north side of library, facing northwest; marked utilities continue all the way to Bronson Avenue. Subsurface testing was not possible, as the project area is located mainly beneath the existing library, and the adjacent project corridors are either paved or contain numerous utilities. Due to the character of the APE, an extant building, a paved lot, an existing utility corridor, and landscaped grounds, pedestrian survey was not conducted where there was road pavement, road gravels, or other obvious ground disturbances present. The riverbank/channel was investigated to the extent possible, though as noted above, a gabion wall was present and this, along with vegetation, obscured both banks. Tierra field staff were present with the utility -locating crew to discuss the existing utilities, depths, and locations. It was determined that the APE in the utility corridor segment was entirely disturbed and contained numerous existing utilities, so no subsurface investigations could take place in this location. However, cut banks, available areas of ground disturbance, and rodent burrow mounds were examined for any indication of archaeological materials. No evidence of archaeological materials was observed in the examined cut banks, available areas of ground disturbance, or in rodent burrow mounds. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Tierra's cultural resources assessment consisted of background review, field investigation, and production of this report. For the permanent file, an HPI form for the library building was completed. Background review determined the APE to he located in an area of low probability for archaeological sites. Field investigation included visual reconnaissance of the project area and library building, pedestrian survey, and inspection of cut bank exposures. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 30 Archaeological Expectations The results of archival and field research conducted for this project indicates that it is highly unlikely that undisturbed archaeological deposits are present within the project footprint, particularly given the presence of a uniform layer of imported fill 4.6 m (15 feet) deep across the entire project area. DAHP predictive model probability calculations are based on known environmental factors and/or information derived from archaeological research. Research conducted within the watershed for this and other projects has identified at least 4.6 m (15 feet) of imported fill over alluvial deposits. Given a land -use history that includes extensive channel modification and dredging in the Historic era, as well as a geomorphological history that includes flooding and sediment accretion to depths of 10.7 m (35 feet) within the last 1,000 years, it is highly unlikely that the project as described would encounter significant, intact archaeological deposits. Based on the results of our research, Tierra recommends that excavation associated with the project should proceed without any further archaeological oversight, except in those instances where excavation mgy extend past the fill layer and into native sediments. Tierra recommends that all excavation extending deeper that 4.6 m (15 feet) should be monitored by a professional archaeologist until it can be determined that such monitoring is unnecessary. Washington State law provides for the protection of all archaeological resources under RCW Chapter 27.53, Archaeological Sites and Resources, which prohibits the unauthorized removal, theft, and/or destruction of archaeological resources and sites. This statute also provides for prosecution and financial penalties covering consultation and the recovery of archaeological resources. Additional legal oversight is provided for Indian burials and grave offerings under RCW Chapter 27.44, Indian Graves and Records. RCW 27.44 states that the willful removal, mutilation, defacing, and/or destruction of Indian burials constitute a Class C felony. A recent addition to Washington legal code, RCW 68.50.645, Notification, provides a strict process for the notification of law enforcement and other interested parries in the event of the discovery of any human remains regardless of perceived patrimony. The assessment of the property has been conducted by a professional archaeologist and meets or exceeds the criteria set forth in RCW: 27.53 for professional archaeological reporting and assessment. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during the development of the property, an archaeologist should immediately be notified and work halted in the vicinity of the find until the materials can be inspected and assessed. At that time, the appropriate persons are to be notified of the exact nature and extent of the resource so that measures can be taken to secure it. In the event of inadvertently discovered human remains or indeterminate bones, pursuant to RCW 68.50.645, all work must stop immediately and law enforcement should be contacted. Any remains should be covered and secured against further disturbance, and communication should be established with the City of Renton Police Department, the State Physical Anthropologist at DAHP, and any concerned Tribal agencies. Tierra has included a draft Inadvertent Discovery Protocol (Appendix F) for use during construction and recommends that all field personnel and their supervisors be provided with a brief cultural sensitivity training prior to the initiation of construction. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014044 31 REFERENCES Ames, Kenneth M., and Herbert D.G. Maschner 1999 Peoples of the Northwest Court, TheirArchaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson, London. "Bridge for a Temple" n.d. n.d. Clipping file for the Renton Public Library. King County Public Library, Renton, Washington. Celmer, Gail 1995 Cedar River Reconnaissance Survey. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle. Chrzastowski, Michael 1983 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and Route of the IAke Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, D.C. City of Renton 2013 King County Library Site Plan and SEPA Appeal, August 21, 2013, on file with City of Renton. City of Renton 2013a Citizens to Save the Cedar River Library... Again v. City of Renton, July 23, 2013, on file with City of Renton. Clague, John J., and Thomas S. James 2002 History and Isostatic Effects of the Last Ice Sheet in Southern British Columbia. Puaternary Science Reviews 21:71-87. Crandell, Dwight R and Robert D. Miller 1974 Quaternary Stratigraphy and Extent of Glaciation in the Mount rainier Region, Wlashington. Professional Paper 847. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C. Dethier, D. P., Fred Jr. Pessl, R. F. Keeler, M. A. Balzarini, and D. R. Pevear 1995 Late Wisconsin Glaciomarine Deposition and Isostatic Rebound, Northern Puget Lowland, CVarhington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 107:1288-303. Disla, Heidi P. and Matthew W. Smith 2012 Geotechnical Engineering Services. Liberty Park Library, Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers, Redmond, Washington. Dragovich, Joe D., Patrick T. Pringle, and Timothy J. Walsh 1994 Extent and Geometry of the Mid -Holocene Osceola Mudflow in the Puget Lowland -Implications for Holocene Sedimentation and Paleogeography. Washington Geology 22:3-26. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 32 Duwamish et al. Tribes of Indians vs. The United States of America 1933 Testimony before the Court of Claims of the United States. Proceedings of the Indian Court of Claims, No. F-275. Easterbrook, Don J. 2003 Cordilleran Ice Sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland and Columbia Plateau and Alpine Glaciation of the North Cascade Range, Washington. In Western Cordillera and AdjaeentAreas, edited by T.W. Swanson, pp. 137--157. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Franklin, Jerry, and C. T. Dymess 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8, Portland, Oregon. General Land Office 1$65 Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, lFashington Territory. Department of the Interior General Land Office. Available at: www.bhn.gov. Accessed on February 20, 2014. Haeberlin, IT, and E. Gunther 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 4(1):1-83. Houser, Michael 2014 Historic Property Inventory Form for the Renton Library. Recorded on 6/20/13. Form dated 2/28/14. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Huggins, E. 1984 Journal of Occurrences at Mwk Station (9858 to 9859): A Farm of the Puge's Sound Agricultural Company in Pierce County, Wlushington Territory. Journal kept by Edward Huggins and others. Transcribed by Gary Fuller Reese. Kaehler, Gretchen 2013 Letter to Greg Smith and Vanessa Dolbee Regarding the Request for an Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Renton Library Project. 26 June. On file at Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd., Seattle. Kaehler, Gretchen A., Stephanie E. Trudel, Dennis E. Lewarch, and Lynn, L. Larson 2004 Data Recovery Excavations at the Henry Moses Aquatic Center Site (45KI686), Renton, King County, Washington. Larson Anthropological and Archaeological Services, Gig Harbor, Washington. Kauhi T. C. 2009 lFashington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers, Seattle Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 33 Kroll Map Company (Droll) 1912 Township 23 North, Range 5 East. Available at: historicmapworks.com. Accessed on March 15, 2014. 1926 Township 23 North, Range 5 East. Available at: historicmapworks.com. Accessed on March 15, 2014. Lane, Barbara 1975 Identity And Treaty Status of the Duwamirh Tribe of Indians 14eport. Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior and the Duwarnish Tribe. On file at Special Collections, Allen Library, University of Washington, Seattle. Lasmanis, Raymond 1991 The Geology of Washington. Docks and Minerals 66:262-277. Leopold, E. B., R. J. Nickman, J. I. Hedges, and J. R. Ertel 1982 Pollen and Lignin Records of Late Quaternary Vegetation, Lake Washington. In Science 218:1305-1307. Metsker, Thomas C. 1936 Township 23 North, Range 5 East. Available at: historicmapworks.com. Accessed on March 18, 2014. Miller Hull 2013 Project Narrative —Renton Library at I ibeq y Park. The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP, Seattle. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) 2013 About Mn/Model. Available at: www.dot.state.mn.us/mnmodel. Accessed on April 20, 2013. Muckleshoot fndian Tribe 2013 History of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and its Reservation. Available at: www.muckleshoot.nsn.us. Accessed on October 20, 2013 Mullineaux, Donal R. 1970 Maps Showing the Changes of Course and Nomenclature of Rivers in the Duwamish Valley, 1899-1959. In Geology of the Renton, Auburn, and Black Diamond quadrangles, King Cossnty, iarhington. United State Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. National Park Service 2004 National Register Federal Program Regulations. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/reguladons.htm. Accessed on January 28, 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) 2014 Web Soil Survey. Available at: March 18, 2014. www.websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov. Accessed on Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014044 34 Nelson, C.M. 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Settles, pp. 481-484. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Porter, S.C., and TW_ Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50:205-213. Robinson, Nocla, Kathleen Ossenkop and David Keyes 2013 DRAFT - Renton Civic Center National Register Nomination. On file at the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Patific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Shong, Mike, and Brandy Rinck 2011 Archaeological Assessment for Phase 1 of the Renton High School Field Inorovement Project. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Seattle. Spier, L. 1936 Tribal Distribution in lYlashington. General Series in Anthropology No. 3. George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha, Washington. Stanley, D. J. and A. G. Warne 1994 Worldwide Initiation of Holocene Marine Deltas by Declaration of Sea -Level Rise. Science 265: 228-231. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In .Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Settles, pp. 485-502. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Thorson, R.M. 1989 Glacio-isostatic Response of the Puget Sound Area, Washington. Geological Society ofAmerica Bulletin 101(9):1163---1174. Tulahp Tribes of Washington, Lummi Indian Tribe, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and Upper Skagit Tribe vs. The Suquamish Indian Tribe 1990 Testimony before the District Court of the United States; Proceedings at the District Court of Claims, No 901 F.2d 772. Available at: www.tnsaj.com/cases/90IF2d772.httn. Accessed on Match 18, 2014. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 35 United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1898 TacomaQuadrangle, Fashington. 30 -Minute topographic series. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1900 Tacoma Quadrangle, Washington. 30 -Minute topographic series. U.S. Geological Survey, Wasbington, D.C. 19$3 Kenton, lfl Quadrangle. 1:24,000. 7.5 -Minute Series. U.S- Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Waitt, Richard B. Jr., and Robert M. Thorson 19$3 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In The Late Pleistocene, edited by Stephen Porter, pp. 53-70. Late -Quaternary Environments of the United States, Vol. 1, H.E. Wright, Jr., general editor. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Waterman, T. T. 1922 The Geographical Names Used by the Indians of the Pacific Coast. The Geographical Reuiev. 12:175-194. 2001 sdai?dai?give I dibellesucdd i?acadAalbi.%w Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, jay Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, contributing editors. Lushootseed Press, Federal Way, Washington. Warren, James. R. 19$1 Kang County and itsQueen City: Seattle. Windsot Publications, Inc. Woodland Hills. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 36 APPENDIX A. CORRESPONDENCE RESOURCES REVIEW OF THE PROJECT REGARDING CULTURAL Tierra Archaeological Report No. 201444 A.1 npp RTMENIOF RCtiAEMOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION .lune 25, 2013 Greg Smith King County Library System 560 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 58027 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 08057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 062013-03-K1 Property: Renton Library - LUA 13-000255, EGF, SM, SA -H Re: Archaeology - Survey Requested Dear Mr. Smith and Ms. Dolbee3 Aflyson Braoks Ph.D., Director State Historic Preservation Officer City of Renton Planning Division JUN 2 6 2013 ![71 V U We have received the City of Renton's DNS -M materials for the proposed project referenced above. Quest€on #13 of the SEFA checklist was missing information relevant to your review of the project. There are 10 recoded archaeological and historical resources within one mile of the project area, and several within less than'/2 mile. Seven of these are archaeological sites and/or cemeteries. The Cedar River area has extremely high potential for archaeological resources. In the past,. you may remember other projects in Renton that encountered archaeological resources during construction and experienced delays, including the High School and Henry Moses Aquatic Center. In order to avoid such complications during this project, a• professional archaeological survey of the project area should be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. This will identify and archaeological resources present and allow you to make plans to appropriately avoid, protect or conduct mitigation if impacts are necessary. We also recommend consultation with the concerned Tribes' cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. In addition to the comments above regarding archaeological resources,'we note that the existing library building has drawn DAHP's interest from a historic architectural standpoint in being a good example of mid -20th Century modern architecture and landscape architecture. In the post - World War Il era, the Library's modernist style and bold plan spanning the Cedar River clearly evoked the image of Renton as a growing, progressive city. As a result of the building being a good local example of this style and time -period, DAHP also recommends the Library Board, the City, and other interested partners explore ways to capture the building's contribution to local history into planning for the new building. This could happen through interpretive displays, landscaping, art, and perhaps recycling building elements in the Library's plans. 5tcrte of Washington •Department of Archaeology & Historic f'reservaHan P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 - (360)586WQ65 _ z www.dahp_wa.gov In closing, just a reminder that if any federal funds or permits are involved, Section 105 of the National Historic Preservation Act, (as amended), and its implementing regulations, 36CFR800, must be followed. This is a separate process from SE=PA and requires formal government -to - government consultation with the affected Tribes and this agency, These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we.look forvrard to receiving the survey report. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 586-3088 or Gretchen, Kaehler dah .wa. ov. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Local Governments Archaeologist (360} 586-3088 Gretchen_kaehler(-dahp.wa_gov cc: Laura Murphy Steve Muilen-Moses Dennis Lewarch Cp6le Hansen Charlie Sundberg Phil L.etourneau tis State of Washington Department of Archaeology S Historic Preservation n `' P.O. Sox 48343 • Otympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 585-3065 Ilt q Y www.ciahp.wo.gov �a APPENDIX B. TRIBAL CORRESPONDENCE Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014044 B.1 r4F .��,..Rh��f'J4-rCGn fai�%R1iU March 21, 2014 Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Attn: Ms. Laura Murphy, Cultural Resources 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 95092 RE: Renton Library Project Dear Ms. Murphy, I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Tierra Right of Way (Tierra} is conducting the assessment at the request of the King County Library System. The proponent proposes to conduct improvements to the existing library building at 100 Mill Avenue South in downtown Renton, (NW1/4 S17 R05E T23N, Willamette Meridian) (Figure 1). Proposed improvements include seismic upgrades to the existing structure, demolition of existing building envelope and installation of new envelope and building systems, as well as site improvements as a result of seismically required below -grade concrete abutments. Additionally, the existing sanitary side sewer pipe will be replaced from the library building to the manhole at the intersection of Mill Ave Sand S 2nd St. The Renton Library spans the Cedar River. Therefore, the renovation work on the library building will effectively have a zero horizontal distance to the Cedar River. Site work for seismic upgrades involving the installation of augercast piles and concrete pilecaps will occur outside of, but within approximately 40 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark on both sides of the Cedar River. Approximately 900 cubic yards of soil will have to be excavated for the installation of the below - grade concrete abutments associated with the seismic upgrades. The shoreline of the Cedar River in the vicinity of the Renton Library is highly constrained and modified by humans; the river banks are relatively straight and uniform in aspect and width. The Cedar River was diverted from its original course, which flowed into the Black River, to Lake Washington. This was accomplished so that the water elevations of Lake Washington and Lake Union would always be higher than the Puget Sound at the Ballard Locks. Gabion walls were installed on the left bank of the Cedar River under the Renton Library and north to Bronson Way. Gabion walls were not installed along the right bank. A review of the WISAARD database indicates that, other than the library itself, there arc no recorded sites, cemeteries, or known historic properties listed or proposed for listing in a national, state or local historic register within the project area. Part of our work will involve completion of an HPI form for the library, including historic research and architectural documentation. I am aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have any additional information to support Tierra's review of this project, I would very much like to include it in our report. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Should you need filrther information, please contact me at (206) 363-1556 or at jhushour@ticrra-row.com. Sincerely, Jennifer Hushour, MSc., RPA Project Manager Ticrra Right of Way Services, Ltd. Figure 1. Detail of the Renton, WA (1994), 7.5 -minute quadrangle reap showing the APE. Renton Library, King County, Washington March 18, 2014 Duwamish Tribe Attn: Ms. Cecile Hanson, Chair 4705 West Marginal Way SW, Seattle, WA 98106 RE: Renton Library Project Dear Ms. Hanson: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project. Tierra Right of Way (Tierra) is conducting the assessment at the request of the King County Library System. The proponent proposes to conduct improvements to the existing library building at 100 Mill Avenue South in downtown Renton, (NW1/4 S17 R05E T23N, Willamette Meridian) (Figure 1). Proposed improvements include seismic upgrades to the existing structure, demolition of existing building envelope and installation of new envelope and building systems, as well as site improvements as a result of seismically required below -grade concrete abutments. Additionally, the existing sanitary side sewer pipe will be replaced from the library building to the manhole at the intersection of Mill Ave S and S 2nd St. The Renton Library spans the Cedar River. Therefore, the renovation work on the library building will effectively have a zero horizontal distance to the Cedar River. Site work for seismic upgrades involving the installation of augercast piles and concrete pilecaps will occur outside of, but within approximately 40 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark on both sides of the Cedar River. Approximately 900 cubic yards of soil will have to be excavated for the installation of the below - grade concrete abutments associated with the seismic upgrades. The shoreline of the Cedar River in the vicinity of the Renton Library is highly constrained and modified by humans; the river banks are relatively straight and uniform in aspect and width. The Cedar River was diverted from its original course, which flowed into the Black River, to Lake Washington. This was accomplished so that the water elevations of Lake Washington and Lake Union would always be higher than the Puget Sound at the Ballard Locks. Gabion walls were installed on the left bank of the Cedar River under the Renton Library and north to Bronson Way. Gabion walls were not installed along the right bank, A review of the WISAARD database indicates that, other than the library itself, there are no recorded sites, cemeteries, or known historic properties listed or proposed for listing in a national, state or local historic register within the project area. Part of our work will involve completion of an HPI form for the library, including historic research and architectural documentation. I am aware that not all information is contained within published sources. Should the Tribe have any additional information to support Tierra's review of this project, I would very much like to include it in our report. Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments. I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Should you need further information, please contact me at (206) 363-1556 or at jhushour@tierra-row.com. Sincerely, Jennifer Hushour, MSc., RPA Project Manager Tierra Right of Way Scrviccs, Ltd. Figure 1. Detail of the Renton, WA (1994), 7.5-minute quadrangle map showing the APE Renton Library, King County, Washington APPENDIX C. HISTORIC PROPERTY INVENTORY FORM Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 C.1 -DEPARFt EN] 03 ARCHAEO OGY & HISTOFIC PRESERVAION Location Historic Inventory Report Field Site No. Historic Name: Renton Public Library Common Name: Cedar River Library Property Address: 100 Mill, Renton, WA Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 172305HYDR Plat/Block/Lot Acreage >1 Supplemental Map(s) DAHP No. Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/41/4 Sec County T231105E 17 King Coordinate Reference Easting: 1219537 Northing: 788075 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARK (feet) Identification Survey Name: Renton Public Library Field Recorder: Marcia Montgomery Owner's Name: City of Renton Owner Address: 1055 S. Grady Way City: Renton State: WA Classification: Building Resource Status: Comments: Survey/Inventory Within a District? Contributing? National Register: Local District: National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments: Quadrangle RENTON Date Recorded: 03/21/2014 Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 1 of 8 Zip: 98057 DEPARTMEM OF ARCHAA 0.a:�r a N35TORiC PRESH?VAMN 44 Description Historic Inventory Report Historic Use. Education - Library Plan: Rectangle Stories: 1 Changes to Plan: Slight Changes to Original Cladding: Intact Changes to Other: Intact Other (specify): Style: Cladding: Modern Brick Foundation: Other Narrative Form/Type: Over Water Study Unit Education Community Planning/Development Date of Construction: 1966 Built Date Current Use: Education - Library Structural System: Unknown Changes to Interior: Slight Changes to Windows: Intact Roof Type: Roof Material: Flat with Eaves Asphalt/ Composition - Rolled Other Builder: Alton V. Phillips Engineer: Olson, Ratti & Assoc. Architect: Johnston -Campanella & Co. Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Yes Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): Yes Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): Yes Statement of The Renton Public Library, also known as the Cedar River Library, was completed in 1966 by the City of Significance: Renton and became part of the King County Public Library System in 2010. This building spans the Cedar River in the heart of Renton, just south of the Bronson Way Bridge (built in 1940). It is flanked by Liberty Park to the east and the old City Hall plaza to the west. It is part of the 1960s -era Renton Civic Center development, which included the library, the City Hall and a triangular shaped plaza west of the Cedar River. Today, the Renton municipal offices no longer occupy this location. Architects Johnston - Campanella & Co. received considerable acclaim for their innovative Renton Civic Center design (Docomomo— Campanella, 2014). Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 2 of 8 ©CucNrnr ARCHAFSAEGOGY Historic Inventory Report 6 HISTORtC PRESERwA?iON According to a 2011 study "libraries have always been a symbolic center of Renton life." With the community's roots lying in the coal industry, it is fitting that the first library was established in 1903 for miners and later donated by the Miner's Association to the high school. By 1914, Renton received a grant from the Carnegie foundation to build a library in Renton (King County Public Library 2011:2). The presence of the Boeing Airplane Company in Renton contributed to the community's rapid WWII -era growth with the population surging from 4,458 residents in 1940 to 16,039 in 1950 (Dole 1962). In 1944, the King County Library system built the Renton Highlands branch to serve wartime housing residents and by 1947 the city took over this branch library. In the 1960s, the supporters of the library seeking a larger more modern facility were captured by the progressive Civic Center design of Johnston -Campanella & Co. On November 3, 1964, the public showed support for a new library when it voted for a $150,000 bond issue to help fund the library. The new facility opened on April 17, 1966 and the Carnegie Library was torn down in 1968 (icing County Public Library 2011:34). The innovative design of the library reflects Renton's efforts to become a progressive modern city in the post WWII era. Renton hired architects Johnston -Campanella & Co. to provide the master plan for the Renton Civic Center. In 1964, the City Council accepted a plan to build the Civic Center, which required the acquisition of land bound by Mill Street, Houser Way and the Cedar River. Construction began with the library costing $327,560. The Seattle Times described, "the plan for the river -spanning library building was devised to make the best use of available space and to give the Civic Center a striking and novel appearance" (Staples 1964). Designing architect Felice Campanella further explained, "we wanted a form which would accent the horizontal planes of the building site; we also wanted to continue in the structure the theme which the river underscores — movement." To achieve this, the architects placed the low -slung building on twelve large concrete piers allowing the river to flow freely beneath it ("Bridge for a Temple" n, d.). Campanella (1930-1999) immigrated to Seattle from Roccella lonica, Italy during World War II. He received a BA in architecture from the University of Washington in 1953 and served as a draftsman for NBBJ architects. He served as a designer for Consolidated Services Inc. and by 1954 started a partnership with fellow employee David Johnston. The firm Johnston -Campanella & Co. had "great success in the Puget Sound area, particularly on the east side of Lake Washington." The firm did a considerable amount of work in Renton designing their own office location on Cedar St. (Slauson 1966). Among their first major projects was a 150 -acre regional shopping center for the Maingate Development Co. in 1956. Two years later they won the first National AIA award for a supermarket design for their work on the Renton Market Basket_ They received the most acclaim for their work on the Civic Center, which was a high profile community project (Docomomo 2014). The Dow Chemical Company cited them for a national award for design excellence based on the innovative flooring system consisting of a two-inch Styrofoam overlaid with three-inch concrete (Hillgen 1956). As an important public building, considerable effort went into the landscaping, interior finishes and acquisition of art for the library. Pacific Northwest landscape architect Glen Hunt contributed to the landscape design, which consists of numerous mature cherry trees (Robinson et al. 2013). When the library opened, Allied Arts of Renton and the Municipal Art Commission sought to make the library its "main objective in a plan to put art into public buildings." Paintings were purchased to hang in the library and Marvin Herard, University of Washington Professor of Sculpture designed bronze art screens. The latter are still present in the library today. Above the check out desk gold foil wallpaper and a simple clock of the period define a broad horizontal swath of the wall. Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 3 of 8 �4DARTMEWT °F u ARCt+AcODGY & Historic Inventory Report ... � . , " ",:, , , " HISTOPIC °RESERVATK)N The building was designed with a clerestory to provide interior light and a space for later expansion if needed. By 1987, when the city sought to expand the 20,160 square foot library it decided against putting on a second story. Instead the city made additions to the north and east elevations that totaled 2,176 square feet. Additional modifications including the retrofitting of windows and systems improvements occurred (Renton Public Library 1987). The architectural firm for the addition was Elaine Day La Tourella and Associates. The general contractor was Parks Construction and the structural engineer was Ratti, Fossatti Associates (Renton Public Library 1987). The 1987 modifications to the building were in keeping with the original design and do not compromise the historical integrity of the library. This building is eligible for the National Register as an innovatively designed mid -twentieth building reflecting Renton's post WWII surge in modern development. Though not yet 50 years old, it is part of the Civic Center complex that holds exceptional importance at the local level as an expression of Renton's progressive approach to urban planning during this period of growth. The library is also a good example of the work of Johnston -Campanella & Co., who played a key role in shaping the built environment of Renton during the mid -twentieth century. Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 4 of 8 AK .& nRcHAFn0��Historic Inventory Report GY � s HUORIC PRESERV ION Description of This building spans the 80 -foot -wide Cedar River with Liberty Park to the east and the historical Renton Physical Civic Center plaza to the west. The east and west sides of the building rest on the river banks. Beneath Appearance: the library are twelve large concrete piers that allow the river to pass below it. Aside from the center section of the roof where the clerestory is located, the building has a flat overhanging roof with wide soffits. The library is rectangular with the central portions of the north and east elevations protruding slightly where the building was expanded in 1987. The fagade and two -door main entrance face the river. The entrance is accessed by an 18 -foot -wide concrete bridge that connects the areas east and west of the building. Another entrance to the building is located on the center of the east elevation. The building's exterior consists of large aluminum frame windows and doors, red brick prefabricated panels. The architectural design emphasizes function with a focus on blending the one-story building with the horizontal planes of the site and incorporating the natural environment. The south and east elevations both include aluminum -frame glass door centered on the wall. As noted, the center portion of the east elevation protrudes due to an expansion in 1987. A row of windows make up the upper portion of the walls and red brick or cream -colored prefabricated panels fill the space below. The wide cream -colored soffits over hang all sides of the building punctuating the horizontal lines of this low profile building. Historically, the building had regularly spaced panels placed perpendicular to the soffits creating a patterned edge to the building. These panels are no longer present. The east elevation faces Liberty Park and includes a flag pole, picnic tables, grassy areas and numerous mature plantings. The north elevation faces the river and has no pedestrian access. Because of the library's visibility from the street bridge to the north and riverbanks, the words "Renton Public Library," are displayed in the center of the elevation on the wide cream -colored soffit wall. When the building was expanded in 1987, the center portion of the north elevation (like the east eievation) was expanded slightly. This section of the building is covered in prefabricated panels above and below a ribbon of windows that stretch the length of the addition. Red brick walls with ribbons of windows are located on either side of the addition. The west elevation faces the parking lot and includes another "Renton Public Library" sign, along with a round metal City of Renton sign. This side of the building has no public entrance, but includes an employee door off -set to the north. The west wall includes 5 evenly spaced concrete columns creating separate bays. The southernmost bay is solid red brick and features the noted signs. Next is a prefabricated panel section with windows above and the northern two bays have a combination of brick, glass and paneling. A concrete sidewalk separates this wall from the parking lot directly adjacent the building. Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 5 of 8 �A ARCHAEOLOGY & Historic Inventory Report �IS7C33?IC PR=SERs°R10N Major Documention and Conservation of the Modern Movement Western Washington Bibliographic 2014 Felice Campanella, http://www.docomomo-wewa.org/architects_detaii.php?id=159, accessed March References: 18, 2014. Dole, Dorothy 1962 "Report on a Survey of Renton's Public Library Services," Washington State Library, Olympia, WA. Hillgen, Marcella 1966 "Renton Bridges a River," Library Journal, December 1, 1966, pp. 5854-5856. King County Public Library 2011 Engage— Renton Libraries 2011 Community Study, King County Public Library, Renton, WA. Renton Public Library 1966 Renton Public Library— Dedication (program), April 17, 1966, Renton Public Library clippings file, Renton Historical Museum, Renton, WA. Renton Public Library 1987 Renton Public Library— Dedication (program), May 3, 1987, Renton Public Library clippings file, Renton Historical Museum, Renton, WA. Robinson, Nocla, Kathleen Ossenkop and David Keyes 2013 DRAFT- Renton Civic Center National Register Nomination, on file at DAHP, Olympia, WA_ Seattle Times 1965 "Renton Library to Straddle River," May 3-0:,3965...= a. , Slauson, Morda 1966 Draft manuscript to Seattle Magazine, April 5, 1966, Renton Public Library Clipping Files, Renton Historical Museum, Renton, WA. Staples, Alice 1964 Seattle Times, January 19. "Bridge for a Temple" n.d. Clipping file for the Renton Public Library, King County Public Library, Renton, WA. Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 6 of 8 +:ARCHAEOLOGY& Historic Inventory Report PRESEPyATION Photos There is no pedestrian access to this side of the building. North elevation of library 2014 This side of the building is adjacent to Liberty Park. Last elevation 2014 The wide concrete walkway in front the of building connects Liberty Park on the east with the Civic Center plaza on the west. South -facing facade 2014 The Renton Public Library and City of Renton signs hang on this wall, which faces the Library parking lot. West elevation 2014 Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 7 of 9 gyf E AR04Ae0.OGY HaTORIC PRESERVAMN Historic Inventory Report North elevation showing 1987 addition 2014 These are three of five existing panels on display in the library. Designed in 1966 by Marvin Herard. Bronze sculpture screen 2014 Interior check out desk with gold foil wall paper above. 2014 The tall building in the distance is the old City Hall. Overview from Liberty Park parking lot facing west 2014 Monday, March 24, 2014 Page 8 of 8 APPENDIX D. INADVERTENT DISCOVERY PROTOCOLS Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 D.1 Protocols for the Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during project activities, the following actions will be taken. Upon discovery, all ground -disturbing activity within the work zone will stop, and the construction/project supervisor will be notified immediately. The work site will be secured from any additional impacts. If the project archaeologist is on site, the archaeologist will be notified. The project proponent will immediately contact the agencies with jurisdiction over the lands where the discovery is located, if appropriate. The appropriate agency archaeologist or the proponent's contracting archaeologist will determine the size of the work stoppage zone or discovery location in order to sufficiently protect the resource until further decisions can be made regarding the work site. The project proponent will consult with the DAHP regarding the evaluation of the discovery and the appropriate protection measures, if applicable. Once the consultation has been completed, and if the site is determined to be eligible for the NRNP, the project proponent will request written concurrence from the agency or Tribe(s) that the protection and mitigation measures have been fulfilled. Upon notification of concurrence from the appropriate parties, the project proponent will proceed with the project. Within six months after completion of the above steps, the project proponent will prepare a final written report of the discovery. The report will include a description of the contents of the discovery, a summary of consultation, and a description of the treatment or mitigation measures. Protocols for Discovegy of Human Remains The following guidelines are consistent with Washington State RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055. If human remains are found within the project area, the following actions will be taken by the project proponent, its contractors, representatives, or permit -holders: 1. If ground --disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. 2. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance. 3. The project proponent will prepare a plan for securing and protecting exposed human remains and retain consultants to perform these services. 4. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the County medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. 5. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed. Following notification the county medical examiner/ coroner will: 1. Assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non -forensic. Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 D.2 2. If the County medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non -forensic, then they will report that finding to DAHP, which will then take jurisdiction over the remains. If the remains are found to be non -forensic, DAHP will: 1. Notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected Tribes of the find. 2. Enlist the State Physical Anthropologist to make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non -Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. 3. Assume consultation responsibilities with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Lead Representative and Primary Contact City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor Renton, WA 98055 Lead Representative: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, (425) 430-7314 Duwarnish Tribe (not Federally recognized) 4705 West Marginal Way SW, Seattle, WA 98106 Lead Representative- Cecile A. Hanson, Chair, (206) 431-1582 Muckleshoot Tribe - 39015 172nd Avenue SE, Auburn, WA 98092 Lead Representative: Virginia Cross, Chair, (253) 939-3311 ext 3194 Primary Contact: Laura Murphy, Tribal Archaeologist, (253) 939-3311 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343, Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, (360) 586-3066 Primary Contact: Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist, (360) 586-3080 Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, (360) 586-3534 King County Sheriff's Office King County Courthouse, 516 Third Ave, Room W-150, Seattle, WA 98104 Lead Representative: John Urquhart, Sheriff, (206) 296-4155 King County Medical Examiner's Office Harborview Medical Center, 325 9th Avenue, Box 359792, Seattle, WA 98104-2499 Lead Representative: Richard Harruff, Medical Officer, (206) 731-3232 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2014-044 D.3 Authors: Jennifer Hushour and Marcia. Montgomery Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Renton „Library Renovation Project, King County, Washington. Date of Report: May 6. 2014 County: Kjng Section:17 Township -23 North Range: 05 East Quad: Renton, WA 0989) 7.5 minute USGS PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) M Yes Historic Propeqy Export Files submitted? Yes f7l No Archaeological_ _Site (s)/lsolate(s) Found or Amended? I—I Yes M No TCP(s) found? EYes M No Replace a draft? Yes M No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement?Fj Yes # M No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. ! J 0 ;..A, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY G' AE� cuy of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M a R A N D U M DATE: March 28, 2014 TO: LUA13-000255, Renton Library at Liberty Park, FROM: Vanessa Doibee, Current Planning Manager " SUBJECT: Building permit modifications Fallowing the land use permit approval, the City Arborist, Terry Flatley, inspected a cherry tree location on the Liberty Park side of the building. Peasant to the attached e- mail, dated March 26, 2014 the tree had root problems; various stress factors such as insects and disease, and fungal conk. Terry concludes that the tree in not healthy and if left remaining cd6ld contribute to the decline of the other cherry tress within the park. As such, this trees was added to the building permit plan set for removal as a part of construction of the Library project. In addition, the applicants received an e-mail, attached, from Brian Lloyd, Waste Management rout manger, who recommended the gate openings are 8 feet and that the drivers would pull the dumpsters out of the proposed enclosure during pick up. Based on waste managements recommended configuration, City staff has approved the building permit consistent with their recommendation. hAcedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects12013 projects113-000255.vanessAmemo to file 3-28-14.docx • Maaike Post From: Lloyd, Brian [BLloyd@wm.com] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:22 AM To: Maaike Post Subject: RE: Renton Library - NEW DESIGN - trash/recycling Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Maaike, i In regards to the new Renton Library. WM will provide service and take care of the following: • Our drivers will roll the containers out • All durn pster will have wheels on them • Barring any kind of mechanical issue (with the truck) service should last no -longer than 10 minutes • WM will only be blocking 3 parking stalls, however I do believe this stop will be serviced early in the morning We look forward to servicing this customer and do not see any service issues at this time. If anyone has any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. My information is below. Regards Brian Lloyd Waste Management Seattle Roate Manager Desk: 206-505-9032 Mobile: 208- 786-4534 E-mail: blloydQwm.com From: Maaike Post [mailto:mpost@MillerHull.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 6:58 PM To: Lloyd, Brian Subject: RE: Renton Library - NEW DESIGN - trash/recycling Brian, please send a memo (or even a quick email) Monday morning. I will be headed to the city of Denton during the day Monday. Thanks! Maaike Post The Miller Hull Partnership) LLP V_ From: Maaike Post Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:13 PM To: 'Lloyd, Brian' Subject: RE: Renton Library - NEW DESIGN - trash recycling 1 0 Maaike Post From: Lloyd, Brian [BL]oyd@wm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:54 PM To: Maaike Post Subject: RE: Renton Library - NEW DESIGN - trashlrecycling Categories: MH - KCLS Renton LIBERTY PARK, Filed by Newforma really think that 2 -- 4' side by side gates would be best. Brian Lloyd Waste Management Seattle Route Manager Desk: 206-505-9032 Mobile: 206-785-4534 E-mail. b/1oydC wm.com From: Maaike Post [mailto:mpost@MillerHull.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:45 PM To: Lloyd, Brian Subject: RE: Renton Library - NEW DESIGN - trash/recycling The enclosure is along the drive aisle, so cars should not be blocking the doors. So it sounds like the 6'-0 wide opening is fine for the one yard dumpsters. (please let me know if I misinterpreted) Thanks for all your help, Maaike Post The Miller Hull Partnershin. LLP From: Lloyd, Brian [maiito:BLloyd@wm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:39 PM To: Maaike Post Subject: RE: Renton Library - NEW DESIGN - trash/recycling We do provide those sizes. I was looking at that this morning I do not believe there will be an issue with it as long as there are no cars blocking the access to the enclosure. Brian Lloyd Waste Management Seattle Route Manager Desk: 206-505-9032 Mobile. 206-786-4534 0 0 Vanessa Dolbee From: Leslie A Betlach Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:39 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Cherry Tree at Liberty Park Attachments: Liberty Park Cherry.pdf; overall view.jpg; Fungal disease.jpg; branch inclusion pockets.jpg; included bark crack.jpg; Bark beetle Insects.jpg; twig dieback.jpg Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Vanessa, Please keep the attached documents and e-mail below as part of the Cedar River Library Project file. This information relates to the cherry tree (park side) that is being proposed for removal as part of the associated landscape and walk improvements. Thanks Leslie Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 IbetlachPrentonwa.eov Phone: 425-430-6619 From: Terrence 1. Flatley Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:21 PM To: Terry Higashiyama Cc: Leslie A Betlach; Peter Renner; Kelly Beymer Subject: Cherry Tree at Liberty Park Hi, I inspected the cherry tree that is the subject of the new library construction and its relationship with the improvements proposed. I also inspected this and the other cherry last year. Both trees continue to decline to various degrees from the basket weave grafting. As the normal tree stem, now hidden inside the outer weave, has continued to grow larger in diameter and the basket weave stems continued to grow around the hidden main stem, the two trees are slowly "choking" off water and nutrients up the tree resulting in a gradual decline. The cherry tree that is in the octagon concrete planter is markedly healthier than the other tree. The other cherry tree, the subject of my inspection, is 9 -inches in diameter measured 54 inches above grade. It is in a shrub planter with a herbaceous groundcover. It is in a much larger growing space area compared with the other cherry so it should be doing better but is doing worse. Because of suspected root problems, competition from the other plants, and growth deformities, the tree is declining from various stress factors such as insects and disease. There is one large fungal conk on the south face of the t tree branches grow out of the basket water and debris, which I suspect cor running down the north side of the tr contains numerous frass piles (orang( basket weave is contributing to the d more attractive to disease and insect-. 0 ,ee (see photo with pruning knife) and a few minor c Neave, there are two depressed pits at the base of t :ains more decay and disease. The west (left) pit is t �e, continuing the decay column. Nearly the entire I -brown in color), indicating bark beetle feeding actin aback of branches in the tree crown and weakening as elsewhere. Where the branches that accumulate larger also has a crack ;ket weave diameter f. The stem girdling by the the tree which makes it This is not a healthy ti ee and left rem ining could contribute to the decline of the other Che rry tree (or other cherry trees in the park) as a breeding ground for bark beetles. While I would otherwise recomme d taking action to save this tree, there isn't anything that can be Jone as the cause for its declining condition is primari V the basket weave branches that were wrapped around the main runk years ago. My recommendation would be to rer iove this tree in the interest of saving other park tees from the p I tential spread of bark beetle insects as the tree conti ues to decline. It will be paramount for survival following concrete). at the other Ierry tree be well protected during the construction pcess to increase its chances )mpletion of c nstruction. It is good that the area it grows in will be increased in size (less Please see the attachments for more Petails and let me know if you have further questions. Terry Flatley, Certifie Urban Forestry and IN 6th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6600 ej Arborist - Mun�cipal Specialist tural Resource Manager ae doesn't the tree preservation plan, then there is no 2 preservation plan." LL 2 E r O LCL N 4.0co N L � U ^c g W w LL LL II'" - C � V 7 r Q i I S0 r 0 0 a Z LL r Oy 7 p> O C7 CL H C O 0 Ci c. 0 C 41 O 0 0 u u E r O LCL N 4.0co N L � U ^c g W w LL LL II'" - � V 7 L i I S0 0 a Z LL N C Z L0 N Y m L V 0 12 z o_ a 0: i I I N Y � I N — i y � I z i9 � I y I e m U � i t Z SiS } i 5. CL j i c m N N y N LO a L �0 F3 E N �.., y o m TMO 2 cn W C O ro y y M a N r 1 N 0 ,CD 03y v O m 2 } E N T C C C D C C C E m Y m w t a a a w w 0 F N m a LO �D n 00 O T N c m a m Q Lo C 0 ! E w m o� NN � E � E aEi n c c c n GE a c v L a y m 2 t V W N M V7 c0 n m a s N M DO 07 0 `m m Ic a y dv C y `^ sc q m C {{JJ C Ozi 01 Vf n m� A o 4 '1 m Y Q N d N O U a Q T On X y m w m y E g n m C J J 0 `l V) (n N LO iO � W m O N [D n CO N N N N N N N N C � U � N G m .• yy y E .� m m G N o c } } � Cc r SA 07 C1 �S U N y r E m° �° m m 'v d E mC� Q m E E E E n m m- y �_ N a o m U U o 0 0 0 o a f N rn v u s co n oo v N c+> v Denis Law Mayor��`)� Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator October 1, 2013 Maaike Post The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP 71 Columbia street, 6th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Renton Library at Liberty Park LUA13-000255, ECF, _SM, SA -H Dear Mr. Post: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended September 4, 2013 for the Administrative Site Development Plan Review approval and September 13, 2013 for -the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. No appeals were filed on either decisions, therefore, they are both final and application -for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant shall adhere to the conditions: of approval as outlined in the Hearing Examiner's decision dated August 21, 2013. Also, the Administrative Site Development Plan Review and the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. If you are unable to finalize the development within the two-year time -frame, a single two (2) year extension may be requested for the Administrative Site Plan Development Review and a single one (1) year extension may be requested for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in writing prior to the expiration date. In- regards to the vesting of the above referenced project, please be aware that as long as the development of the project conforms to -the approved plans and building permits 'are submitted within the relevant time limits, the zoning regulations in effect at the time of the original approval shall continue to apply. However, all construction small conform to the International Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force at the time of building permit application. Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 - rentonwa.gov Maaike Post October 1, 2013 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions regarding the report and decision issued for this site plan development proposal, .please call me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner cc City of Renton / Owner(s) Greg Smith - KCLS / Applicant Beth Asher, Richard Bray, Larry Crook, Phyllis Greene-Crook, Teri Hallauer, David Keyes, Phillipe LeTourneau, Judy Milligan, Dennis & Kathy Ossenkop, Paul & Jeanne Ouellette, Nicola Robinson, Judith Tabak / Party(ies) of Record FI' YIJ. :S8, STATE Of WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 0 NNS � �1 it o �oN Northwest Regional Office ■ 3790 160th rive SP • Helleme, WA 98008-5452 • 425-649-7000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can cal! 877-83.3-63.11 September 4, 2013 Greg Smith King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Re: City of Renton Permit LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM -Approved City Of Renton - Applicant Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SDP) 1664 Dear Greg Smith: On August 23, 2013, the Department of Ecology received notice that Renton approved your application for an SDP. Your permit is for the remodel and reinforcement of the Renton Library at Liberty Paris over the Cedar River within shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) • The Renton Local Shoreline Master Program Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved SDP has been received by Ecology. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you wait at least 21 days from August 23, 2013, the "date of filing". This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit, to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (3 60) 6 64-9 160 or http://www.elio,wa. gov/ iA Greg Smith September 4, 2013 Page 2 of 2 If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. Other federal, state and local permits may be rewired in addition to this shoreline permit. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Barbara Nightingale at (425) 649-4309. Sincerely, Barbara Nightingale, Regional Shoreline Planner Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program BN:cja cc: Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Miller Hull Partnership, Maaike Post nis Dena oaW City Of,- 1r `} i . 11 VIN V , August 22, 2013 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E.' Chip" Vincent, Administrator .State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 150th Ave. Si Bellevue, INA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Renton Library at Liberty Park File No. LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.:LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on August 22; 2013. A Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated was issued by the City's; Environmental Review Committee on June 17,.2013. The appeal period ended July 5, 2013. The SEPA determination was appealed to the. Hearing Ezarniner. The Examiner upheld the SEPA determination of a DNS -M in a decision issued on August 21, 2013, no appeals of the Hearing Examiners decision have been filed as of the date of this letter. We are fi.ling this.action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit' and attachments and contact. me at (425) 430-731.4.if you have any questions or need additional information: Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Senior Planner Enclosures: Administrative Decision cc: Office of Attorney General Copy of Master Application Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Project Narrative Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Notice of Application Jennifer Henning; Current Planning Manager SEPA Checklist City of Renton/Owner SEPA Determination King County Library System/Applicant SEPA Determination Mitigation Measures Miller Hull Partnership, Maaike Post/ Contact SEPA Determination Advisory Notes Parties of Record — see attached Hearing Examiner's Decision . standard Stream Study Narrative and Habitat Data Report Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98057. rentonwa.gov Applicant Greg Smith 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 369-3237 gcsmith@kcls.org Owner City of Renton 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 (425) 430-6500 Party of Record Dennis Ossenkop 3316 NE 12th 5t Renton, WA 98056-3429 (425) 226-4976 denoss@aol.com Party of Record Judith Tabak 1024 SW 4th PI Renton, WA 98057-2278 (425) 235-4912 jjtrenton@gmail.com Party of Record Kathie Ossenkop 3316 NE 12th St Renton, WA 98056-3429 (425) 226-4976 Party of Record David Keyes 1013 Kirkland Ave NE, Apt 4 Renton, WA 98056 (425) 757-1121 keyes28@msn.com Itan Library at Liberty Perk LUA13-000255 PARTIES OF RECORD Architect Ari Ralph King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Party of Record PHYLLIS JEAN GREENE-CROOK JEANNIE BY DESIGN INC 82 MONTEREY PI NE RENTON, WA 98056-4033 Party of Record Paul Ouellette 1918 Rolling Hills Ave SE Renton, WA 98055-3715 (425) 255-1904 pauoue@comcast.net Contact Maaike Post 71 Columbia St, 6th Floor Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 2542036 Party of Record Beth Asher 436 Mill Ave S Renton, WA 98057-6022 (425) 557-7770 betha@mittenthal,com Party of Record Teri Hallauer Seattle Public Utilities PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Party of Record Party of Record Phillipe LeTourneau, PhD Richard Bray Department of Natural Resources and Parks 3713 NE 9th St 201 S Jackson St, #700 Renton, WA 98056-3818 Seattle, WA 98104 (425) 430-1154 rgbray@yahoo.com Party of Record Nicola Robinson 3110 SE 5th St Renton, WA 98058 (425) 255-5160 nicola_rn@msn.com Party of Record Jeanne Ouellette 1918 Rolling Hills Ave SE Renton, WA 98055-3715 (425)255-1904 Party of Record Judy Milligan 427 Ferndale Ave NE Renton, WA 98056-4001 (425) 235-4805 judyrenae@yahoo.com Party of Record LARRY CROOK 82 MONTEREY PI NE RENTON, WA 98056-4033 (425) 255-3869 landjcrook@comcast.net Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF CO&UNITY Cityof', AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION CONC'-', , DATE 2VZ Z NAME I INITIAUDATE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: DATE RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: August 22, 2013 9 - LUA13-0002551 ECF, SA -H, SM V]r1L� March 1, 2013 May 29, 2013 Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER: APPLICANT: CONTACT PROJECT LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: 1100-S2 n1 St 98055, Tax Parcel #768500-0010. SEES A ALDEN IST ADD TO RENTON 1119 Bronson Way N, Tax Parcel #172305-9011: Renton Library at Liberty Park Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 King County Library System; Greg Smith; 960 Newport Way NW; Issaquah, WA 98027 Miller Hull Partnership; Maaike Post; 71 Columbia St - 6th Floor; Seattle, WA 98104 100 Mill Ave. S. TRACT IN SE COR OF GL LY E OF SNOQUALMIE CO RD&BET SD RD&CW W#2 200 Mill Aye._S,_Tax Parcel #172305-9043.- BEG 172305-9043: BEG AT INTS OF W LN OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 & S LN OF CO RD AT A PT 721.39 FT S OF NW COR OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 TH E AT R/ATO SD W LN 653.03 FT TO W LN OF A TRACT OF LAND OWNED BY SEATTLE CAR & FOUNDRY COTHSWLYALG SID WLNPARLTO&100FTWLYOFWILY LNOFR/WC&PSRYCO,NEW CASTLE BRANCH, A DIST OF 597.33 FT TO NLY LN OF C W W # 2 TH NWLY ALG SD N LN 440.8 FT TO W LN OF SD SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 TH N 293.10 FT TO BEG SEC-TWN-R: SEC 7 TWN 23N R 5E DEPARTMENT OF CO UNITY Citv of r AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT f 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: August 22, 2013 LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM March 1, 2013 May 29, 2013 Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT MANAGER: OWNER: APPLICANT: CONTACT PROJECT LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: 1100 S 2"d St 98055, Tax Parcel #768500-0010.- SEES 768500-0010:SEES A ALDEN IST ADD TO RENTON 1119 Bronson Way N, Tax Parcel #172305-9011: Renton Library at Liberty Park Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Icing County Library System; Greg Smith; 960 Newport Way NW; Issaquah, WA 98027 Miller Hull Partnership; Maaike Post; 71 Columbia St - 61h Floor; Seattle, WA 98104 100 Mill Ave. S. TRACT IN SE COR OF GL 2 LY E OF SNOQUALMIE CO RD & BET SD RD & C W W # 2 200 Mill Ave. S. Tax Parcel #172305-9043: BEG AT INTS OF W LN OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 & S LN OF CO RD AT A PT 721.39 FT S OF NW COR OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 TH E AT R/A TO SD W LN 653.03 FT TO W LN OF A TRACT OF LAND OWNED BY SEATTLE CAR & FOUNDRY CO TH SWLY ALG SD W LN PARL TO & 100 FT WLY OF WLY LN OF R/W C & P S RY CO ,NEW CASTLE BRANCH, A DIST OF 597.33 FT TO NLY LN OF C W W # 2 TH NWLY ALG SD N LN 440.8 FT TO W LN OF SD SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 TH N 293.10 FT TO BEG SEC-TWN-R: SEC 7 TWN 23N R 5E City of Renton Department of Corrty & Economic Development 10 Shoreline Monogement Permit RENTON LIBERTYPARIP LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA-H DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 2 of 9 WITHIN THE SHORELINES OF: Cedar River, Reach B APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the remodel of the existing Renton Main Library located at 100 Mill Ave. S. The 22,400 SF library is currently constructed over the Cedar River and is located across three different parcels including Liberty Park and the parking lot on the south side of the Cedar River. Overall, the area of work would impact 37,630 SF and the remodeled library would be 19,680 SF following renovations_ The applicant has indicated that all work would occur within the area of existing development on the site and public access would be maintained off of Mill Ave. S. The majority of the renovations includes upgrades to the existing building and structure to bring the building into compliance with today's building codes and regulations. The applicant has proposed minimal modifications to the existing site, with the exception of required utility upgrades and rehabilitation following necessary structural upgrades. For example, the proposed concrete abutments would require below -grade work along both the north and south edges of the building. As such, these disturbed areas would be re -landscaped and hard scaped following construction. Offsite improvements include the replacement of the sanitary side sewer pipe from the library to the manhole at the intersection of Mill Ave. S and S 2nd St. The public sidewalk along Mill Ave. S would be updated as a part of a 2014 City of Renton sidewalk improvement project and would not be included in the remodel to the library. The site is located in the Shoreline High Intensity overlay along Cedar River Reach B. Overall, the existing building is considered to be a non -conforming structure. However, the proposal would be reducing the size of the building bringing it more into conformance than the existing situation. In addition to being located over the Cedar River, the site is located in a seismic hazard area and the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. There is also a 100 year flood plain and a floodway associated with the Cedar River and the banks of the river have been identified sensitive and protected slopes. Based on the project application material, no work is proposed below the ordinary high water mark of the Cedar River and therefore, no work would occur in the flood plain or floodway. Due to the Library's primary access and the majority of the development along the south shoreline, City staff has determined that the CD zone would be applicable to the subject development. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant, KCLS, is requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for approval following the Hearing Examiner's Decision, for work within the Shoreline of the Cedar River. 2. A 22,400 SF library is currently constructed over the Cedar River and is located across three different parcels including Liberty Park and the parking lot on the south side of the Cedar River. 3. King County Library System (KCLS) has proposed to remodel or rehabilitate the existing library which was constructed across the Cedar River between 1956 and 1966. 4. The area of impact related to the subject project would be 37,630 SF. City of Renton Department of Co ty & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARIr` LUAI3-000255, ECF, 5M, 5A -N DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 3 of 9 5. The rehabilitation of the library would result in a reduction in size to 19,680 SF from 22,400 SF and a reduction of overwater coverage by approximately 7 percent. 6. The proposed site improvements are limited to small areas on both the north and south sides of the building. The site improvements are primarily related to restoration of areas that would be disturbed to install the augercast piles and concrete abutments required; bringing the building into compliance with seismic standards. Site restoration would include installation of new sidewalks and plaza areas, benches, ADA parking stalls and refuse, recycling, and mechanical equipment enclosures. The existing building is considered to be a non -conforming structure pursuant to both Renton Development Standards and the Shoreline Master Program. Pursuant to RMC 4-10-050A.3, the cost of alteration of a legal non -conforming structure shall not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent of the value of the structure, unless the alterations make the structure more conforming, or is used to restore to a safe condition any portion of a structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. The proposed rehabilitation of the existing structure is to bring the building into conformance with existing building codes and seismic safety standards. Under the current condition the building would not meet seismic safety standards. The building is located in a seismic hazard area and therefore, is subject to potential liquefaction; see the SEPA Environmental Review report for a more detailed analysis of the Geotechnical issues. The cost of the project exceeds the aggregated cost of fifty percent of the value of the structure; however rehabilitation is permitted due to the safety provisions. 8. The site is located in a seismic hazard area, Aquifer Protection Zone 1. The 100 year flood plain and a floodway associated with the Cedar River and the banks of the river have been identified sensitive and protected slopes. 9. No work is proposed below the ordinary high water mark of the Cedar River and therefore, no work would occur in the flood plain or floodway. 10. The applicant submitted a Stream Study and Habitat Data Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated February 28, 2013. The study was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code for both the Shoreline Master Program and the Critical Areas Regulations. The report identifies and describes the river, critical species and habitat on or adjacent to the project site; provides a regulatory review of local, State and Federal regulations; and proposes mitigation for impacts to critical areas and habitat. 11. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development_ These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments have been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 12. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the SMP bulk and dimensional standards and policies, as outlined in RMC 4-3-090; where applicable based on the I non -conforming site status: City of Renton Department of Cor>ty & Economic Deveiopment Shoreline Management Permit RENTON UBRARYAT LIBERTY PAR LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -f! DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 4 of 9 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE AND CONSISTENCY, SHORELINE ELEMENT: The site is located in the Shoreline High-intensity Overlay District. The objective of the High Intensity Overlay is to provide opportunities for targe -scale office and commercial employment centers as well as multi -family residential use and public services... This district provides opportunities for water -dependent and water -oriented uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. Development may also provide for public use and/or community use, especially access to and. .along the water's edge. The proposal is.compliant with the following Shoreline policies: Policy SH -14. Shoreline use and development should be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts so that the resulting ecological condition does not become worse than the current condition. This means ensuring no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses should be designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020. Shoreline ecological functions that should be protected V, include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; littoral drift; erosion and accretion; infiltration; ground water recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. Objective SH -E. Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines should be ✓ recognized and economic uses or activities that are water -oriented should be encouraged and supported. Policy SH -18. All economic activities on the shoreline shall provide for no net loss of ecological functions during construction and operation. Policy SH -25. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing commercial, industrial, multi -family planned unit developments, or subdivisions, and public facilities, public/community access to and along the water's edge should be provided if physically feasible. B DEVELOPMENT'STANDARDS. The subject11 site iIs�.c, , classified as,5horetirie Hgi lntepsity 6n the ,,O of Renton Sk orelhie;Overlay Map. The,, following'developme.rit standards are applicable to the proposal 1. No Net Loss Required Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all Vol development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance. Shoreline City of Renton Department of Coty & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARR LUAI3-000255, ECF, 5M, SA -H DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 5 of 9 processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. 2. View Obstruction and Visual Quality View Corridors Required: Where commercial, industrial, multiple use, multi -family and/or multi -lot developments are proposed, primary structures shall provide for view corridors between buildings where views of the shoreline are available from public right-of-way or ✓ trails. Staff Comment: The proposed project is considered to be a civic use, as such the above standard would not apply. However, the project maintains existing views to the Cedar River, therefore, the project is compliant. Minimum Setbacks for Commercial Development Adjacent to Residential or Park Uses: All new or expanded commercial development adjacent to residential use and public parks N/A shall provide fifteen feet (15') setbacks from adjacent properties to attenuate proximity impacts such as noise, light and glare, and may address scale and aesthetic impacts. Fencing or landscape areas may be required to provide a visual screen. Lighting Requirements: Display and other exterior lighting shall be designed and operated so as to prevent glare, to avoid illuminating nearby properties used for noncommercial purposes, and to prevent hazards for public traffic. Methods of controlling spillover light include, but are not limited to, limits on the height of light structures, limits on light levels ✓ of fixtures, light shields, and screening. Staff Comment: The project would be compliant with the above standard provided all mitigation measures identified in the SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan conditions of approval are complied with. Reflected Lights to Be Limited: Building surfaces on or adjacent to the water shall employ materials that limit reflected light. ✓ Staff Comment: The project would be compliant with the above standard provided all mitigation measures identified in the SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan conditions of approval are complied with. Integration and Screening of Mechanical Equipment: Building mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into building architectural features, such as pitched roofs, to the maximum extent feasible. Where mechanical equipment cannot be incorporated into architectural features, a visual screen shall be provided consistent with building exterior materials that obstructs views of such equipment. Visual Prominence of Freestanding Structures to Be Minimized: Facilities not incorporated N/A into buildings including fences, piers, poles, wires, lights, and other freestanding structures shall be designed to minimize visual prominence. City of Renton Department of Con'ty & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit RENTON LIBRARYAT LIBERTYPAR LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 6 of 9 Maximum Stair and Walkway Width: Stairs and walkways located within shoreline vegetated buffers shall not exceed four feet (4') in width; provided, that where ADA N/A requirements apply, such facilities may be increased to six feet (6') in width. Stairways shall conform to the existing topography to the extent feasible_ 3. Community Disturbances: Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic, and other structures and activities shall be considered in the design plans and their impacts avoided or mitigated. 4. Public Access Physical or visual access to shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would either generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing legal access opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. Cedar River B: Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public lands adjacent to the river; however, adjacent private parcels not separated by public streets should provide active open space and other facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment, together with water -oriented uses. 5. Non -Conforming Site, Partial and Full Compliance, Alteration of an. Existing Structure or Site: The following provisions shall apply to lawfully established uses, buildings and/or structures and related site development that do not meet the specific standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Alteration or expansion of existing structures may take place with partial compliance with the standards of this Code, as provided below, provided that the proposed alteration or expansion will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. In no case shall a structure with a nonconforming setback from the shoreline be allowed to extend further waterward than the existing structure. For non -single-family development. Major Alteration: Remodeling or renovation that equals more than 50% of the replacement value of the existing structures or improvements, excluding plumbing, electrical and mechanical systems and normal repair and maintenance. Install site improvements that protect the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either: Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC 4-3-0901=1, Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native community of the full required buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required setback and buffer City of Renton Department of Co ty & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit RENTONLIBRARYATLIBERTY PARI LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 7 of 9 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Stream Study and Habitat Data Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated February 28, 2013 and revised May 10, 2013. Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed to provide an alternative mitigation proposal, which is included in the Stream Study, submitted by the applicant and prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Talasaea has identified that the applicant would contribute $22,700 to a vegetation conservation fund, which is administered by the City of Renton to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program RMC 4-3-095F. This amount has been calculated based on the actual area of shoreline buffer contained within the project limits, which includes any area landward of the DHWM. The total shoreline buffer area contained within the project limits is approximately 18,130 SF. This area was multiplied by a dollar amount of $1.25/SF to calculate an amount for what it would hypothetically cost to restore an area of shoreline buffer equal to the area within the project limits. Based on the recommendations included in the Stream Study, staff recommends the applicant comply with these recommendations as a condition of approval for the subject project. Provided the applicant complies with the proposal, staff recommends approval of the alternative mitigation; as relocating the building off the Cedar River is not feasible, therefore, providing a vegetative buffer at the project site is also not feasible and/or practical Remove over water structures that do not provide public access, or do not serve a water - dependent use Staff Comment: The existing public library provides public access to the Cedar River, however approximately 7 percent of the overwater structure is proposed to be removed. Piers and docks shall be required to replace any solid decking with light penetrating N/A surfacing materials_ Developments with existing shoreline stabilization shall mitigate for the impacts of shoreline stabilization in one of the following ways: 1. Shoreline stabilization structures not conforming to, or otherwise permitted by, the provisions of this Code shall be reviewed and upgraded according to the standards of RMC 4-3-090F4aiii, Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy, or 2. An alternative mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved V" by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would identify near shore mitigation to improve shoreline function or values on-site, or 3. If the two alternatives above are infeasible, then the project proponent shall contribute to an off-site vegetation conservation fund, in accordance with RMC 4-3-090F1k. Staff Comment: The applicant has requested to comply with option 3 above. See further discussion above. Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Stream Study and Habitat Data Report, prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated February 28, 2013 and revised May 10, 2013. City of Renton Department of Caty & Economic Development 10 Shoreline Management Permit RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTYPARI� LUA13-000235, ECF, SM, SA -H DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 8 of 9 The applicant shall provide the funds identified for the off-site vegetation conservation fund. Funds shall be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance. This Permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act 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. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE: . �_: , �6_ C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development az 2,613 Date APPEALS: 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 General's 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 Clerk's office. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14 -day appeal time frame. 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 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 ACTIVITIES: 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. City of Renton Department of Coty & Fconomic Development Shoreline Management Permit RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PAVLUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H DATE OF PERMIT: August 22, 2013 Page 9 of 9 E xh i b its/Atta c h me nts: Renton Library Plan Set, 9 sheets Stream Study and Habitat Data Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc_, dated February 28, 2013 cc: Attorney General's Office Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. City of Renton/Owner Greg Smith/Applicant Maaike Post/Contact Parties of Record City of Renton Official File s U WN ZZ5 Of w z Y� OF W O Q /! / a bC, r J^�� ,x � � o N 3AV A'6Vd 5� 5� r Ys � n �e s ane N1VIN a s BAV sT13M \ N r CL - S 3AV SW Y1711M Clul w n � � S 3/NV 113NI1118 0 0 a O O cV d Q 0 0 O O N �J ELQZ CLS M31A3a Mold 311S j r: - M 086 VM'NO1N3aIHInoS3nN3nVIiIW00LLU LLI a O Ail N811 NOINaN r� Z Iry CL f , �r21 wm Z --f c /S HlllOS3nN3AV1lIW ;c ■ Ul Nw ` 4 Ab Z --f c /S HlllOS3nN3AV1lIW ;c ■ Ul Nw 3€:a sx� �W 3; s_ Sgt tiq E40ZO LS F5C 1-2= =;'a �y€ �V;. M31A3H NV-ld 311S O d 3 i� 6y1 p 7... E �0. zi J 6bM'NO1N321 I N1f1QS 3f1N=Atl �IIW 00L �. O MHVd A121391�LU4 to s 7 Z m s $ Y y $ Z5q C ' 51 E 4 { .Z. a~ ;y r Nil 91 ir . / �. �, arc . ,,�' % -`r. =r � 4•� � .'1 i � t4 r � . .:, `'M�. � r o` �-f � e . c • 'yynas anuanVllrW z�w '- lay E�aao�s al�m� F : = °�z ' �o � M31A32! NV'ld 3115 �ylg H " ? u J f� • S_ `w�`' 0� 88 tr'M'NDIM 3H i Hwflc)S 3n NziAv -iii o kHVN81'l NOINM m 4Y �Ci f I j .,fie I I �Ooa{' I --'— - -• 8� 1 P_. / o �% � 5 �� � >,, d IN a – ' '��` `' MEN Hit ' Ela W MdIA3hl N7-ld 3115 Q Q 8fi b'M'NOiN3a I H1f105 3flN3h'd IIIW OE1l 6 (L LU w MAIN Ndld BAS O es vnn'Nolvaa {Minas anN�na iim oot U o oll �� >iatld A121381�1 ltl I; z z a J AMVba11 NOIN3a a s °a s t s 4 Agfa#a�aFn�m��a�se,¢y—a ®�®E® ®90icizina: M IUL ss= `5: it np His a s r 00 G ® El Ro' o a ° g. e } `k I f th ti ,g`�. �'', � �� ply %��•��yJj, a j II `�\ ¢v.r - ' M31AEN NVld 3119woz 6 VWNOiV-�N I HinaS SnNg-w OCl LU 4" 4 i a ; 41 �, �Eadd ua3sll 1V ml C o os,W a L) s!a ��� � � j�w �� ➢ a F o� iy i$ i 9E � m sk E3 $ €� Q`ss E li FF� i C o os,W a L) CC w 3.6 a3� /k £.QZ Q45 Mg[A3IH NVld 311S • ? , 2 ��' � 85 VWNo1N3a I HirIOS APNAAV 17191 QOL F1 MINd AIN3811 IV All"81-1 NO1Nam a a N _J 'L In Q mi3 I I a�f W a LUL�J7 CD l V, o#o I. t i I Ir I - `moi b I I I I -- ' :1 J I ' I I I yI+ i I 4 I I = I i I - ua - LU Mh o`�b \ AAB[Aau NVId 31ES ; O z z CN 6VWNQiN�2H HirlOSEWN9AV17400L}iHb d A1ti381-1 1V - w mJ A'dVNSI I NOIN3?J ga =�= w a -I6 f s • STREAM STUDY AND HABITAT DATA REPORT RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Prepared For - KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM Issaquah, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington (;jty of Renton Planning avision LIAR - 1 a f��fl)S 28 February 2013 Revised 10 May 2013 cJ c V ED From: Beth Asher <betha@mittenthal.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:09 PM To: Bonnie Walton Cc: DAVID KEYES (keyes28@msn.com) Subject: RE: OFFICIAL NOTICE - Hearing Examiner's Decision 8/21/2013 LUA-13-000255; Hi Bonnie, This is my notification that the electronic copy of the SEPA decision will suffice. Thanks very much, Mello Wednesday — we meet again ... Beth Asher 425-557-7770 ext. 7 FAX: 425-557-7772 betha@mittenthal.com From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton Rentonwa. ov] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:06 PM To: DAVID KEYES (keyes28@msn.com); Beth Asher; Nicola rn(dmsn.com; 'Teri. Ha Ila uer@seattle.gov'; Impost@ Mil lerHulLcom'; Phili .LeTourneau kin coun ov; 'denoss@aol.com'; Gregory Smith (ggsmith@kcls.org); Vanessa Dolbee; Garmon Newsom 11 Cc: Larry Warren; Jay B Covington; 'pauoue@comcast.net'; 'judyrenae@yahoo.com'; 'rgbray7@yahoo.com'; Terry Higashiyama; Peter Renner; 'jeanniebydesign@comcast.net'; 'landjcrook@comcast.net'; 'jjtrenton@gmail.com'; Adrianne Ralph (akralph(Acis.ory); Chip Vincent Subject: OFFICIAL NOTICE - Hearing Examiner's Decision 8/21/2013 LUA-13-000255; Importance: High To: PARTIES OF RECORD Attached is copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 8/21/2013 on the Icing County Library System Site Plan and SEPA Appeal; File No. LUA-13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM. A paper copy of the decision will be sent to you by postal mail, unless I receive notification by email from you within 24 hours indicating that the attached electronic copy will suffice, and mailing of the hard copy to you is not necessary. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide further assistance. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 1 +425-430-6502 0 0 ®. 0 0 From: Bonnie Walton Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:06 PM To: DAVID KEYES (keyes28@msn.com); Beth Asher (betha@mittenthal.com); Nicola_rn@msn.com; 'Teri.Hallauer@seattle.gov'; 'mpost@MillerHull.com'; Philippe,LeTourneau@kingcounty.gov; 'denoss@aol.com'; Gregory Smith (ggsmith@kcls.org); Vanessa Dolbee; Garmon Newsom II Cc: Larry Warren; Jay B Covington; 'pauoue@comcast.net'; 'judyrenae@yahoo.com'; 'rgbray7 @yahoo_com'; Terry Higashiyama; Peter Renner; 'jeanniebydesign@comcast.nef; 'landjcrook@comcast.net', 'jjtrenton@gmail. com'; Adrianne Ralph (akralph@kcls.org); Chip Vincent Subject: OFFICIAL NOTICE - Hearing Examiner's Decision 8/21/2013 LUA-13-000255; Attachments: Site Plan and SEPA Appeal -- Renton Library. pdf Importance: High To: PARTIES OF RECORD Attached is copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 8/21/2013 on the King County Library System Site Plan and SEPA Appeal; File No. LUA-13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM. A paper copy of the decision will be sent to you by postal mail, unless I receive notification by email from you within 24 hours indicating that the attached electronic copy will suffice, and mailing of the hard copy to you is not necessary. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide further assistance. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S_ Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6502 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON } RE: King County Library System ) Site Plan and SEPA Appeal ) LUA 13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM ) } Summary FINAL DECISION The site plan application is approved and the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") appeal is denied. The library is a historical and cultural resource subject to protection under SEPA, but the relocation of its primary entrance is not a probable significant environmental impact that requires an environmental impact statement ("EIS'') or SEPA mitigation. The King County Library System, ("KCLS'' or "applicant") has applied for site plan approval for the remodel of the existing library located at 100 Mill Ave. S. The library serves as a unique city landmark in that it has spanned the Cedar River since 1965. The applicant is undertaking the remodel in order to provide for seismic upgrades and other improvements that will bring the building into better compliance with current code requirements. The remodel will be built within the existing footprint and would reduce the size of the library by 2,720 square feet. The remodel would also result in an approximately 50 foot relocation of the primary entrance to the library from the midway point of its southern face as it spans across the river to the southeastern corner of the library. The City of Renton issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance ("MDNS") for the project. Citizens to the Save the Cedar River Library... Again? ("SEPA appellants") filed a timely appeal of the determination. The SEPA appeal was consolidated with the site plan application. The primary focus of the SEPA appeal is the relocation of the primary entrance. The SEPA SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 1 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 appellants contend that the library is a historical and cultural resource and that the relocation of the entrance would create a probable significant adverse environmental impact. The appellants contend that this impact needs to be assessed within an EIS or a SEPA mitigation measure should be imposed to mitigate the impact, most likely a condition requiring the entrance to remain at its current location. The SEPA appellants successfully established that the library overall is a historical and/orI cultural resource subject to review and protection under SEPA. However, the SEPA appellants did not establish that the proposed relocation of the primary entrance will create a probable significant environmental impact. The City's SEPA responsible official has concluded that the relocation does not create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Legally, substantial weight must be given to this conclusion. That weight is determinative in this case. The arguments for and against a finding of significant impacts are highly compelling and the factors are highly subjective. Under these circumstances, the "substantial weight" legal standard leaves no choice but to sustain the conclusions of the SEPA responsible official. Since the proposed entrance relocation does not constitute a probable significant adverse environmental impact, the relocation does not trigger a requirement for an EIS or any mitigation to keep the entrance at its current location. Testimony Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy to those who would benefit from a general overview of the public testimony of the hearing referenced above. The summary is not required or necessary for this final decision. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner or an indication of what information is significant to this decision. Site Plan Staff Testimony Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, stated the project is a rehabilitation of the Renton library which includes associated landscaping and structure improvements. The structure is located at 100 Mill Avenue S and spans Cedar River. The site is zoned Urban Center -Downtown; however. Cedar River does not have zoning. The City is using the zoning from the main access area which is adjacent to the structure. The building crosses 3 separate parcels which totals 7.2 acres. The area of impact from the project on the structure is 37,630sgft. The project would reduce the structure from 22,000sgft to 19,680sgft. The overwater reduction would be approximately 7 percent. The upgrades will bring the building up to current code with particular emphasis on seismic hazards. The site is located in a seismic hazard area. The upgrades include a concrete abutment that will be down -grade. To install ' The courts use "cultural" and "historical" resource interchangeably in SEPA decisions and there is no need to distinguish between the two in this decision, especially given that no Washington court or regulation defines the terms. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 2 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 • • the abutment, 900 cubic yards of material would be excavated and 260 cubic yards of fill added. The existing building is considered to be a legal non -conforming structure. Alterations are permitted to non -conforming structures as long as they will restore the building to city standards. In its current condition, the building does not meet seismic safety standards. The site is also located in the aquifer protection zone, the flood plain, and the flood way of the Cedar River. The section of the Cedar River along the site is deemed Shoreline High Protection. No work on the project is proposed below the ordinary high water mark or below the base flood elevation. Upland of the river there is below grade work, but not within the river channel. According to Ms. Dolbee, access to the site will remain the same, with 2 Iocations at Mill Avenue S and through Liberty Park. Public sidewalks along Mill Avenue will be updated as part of Renton's 2013 Park Improvement Project. Landscaping will primarily remain the same except for in areas where it is disturbed during construction. On June 17, the Environmental Review Committee issued a decision of non -significance mitigated which included three mitigation measures. An appeal was filed. The City received several public comments, comments from the Muckleshoot Indian tribe, and statements from city agencies. The proposal is consistent with relevant comprehensive plan policies. Staff recommendations include an archaeological survey, a detailed refuse and recycling plan, and a final detailed landscape plan_ The existing building does not comply with setback standards because it crosses several parcels; however, the proposed rehabilitation of the structure does not increase the non -conformity. All development in the Urban Center Downtown zone is exempt from landscaping street -tree requirements. A landscape plan was submitted with the application which includes eight new trees . One street tree would be replaced during construction. At its highest point, the building would be 18 feet which is compliant with height restrictions. The proposed structure would require an 818sgti refuse and recycling area with screening. The existing parking lot would be retained. All trees on site would be retained except for one cherry tree which would be replaced by a river birch tree. Proposed elevations meet design standards. Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties and uses as result of the project. Access and circulation to the site has not been changed. Existing pedestrian facilities are considered to be sufficient and safe. Views of the Cedar River will be maintained. Lighting will be balanced with environmental concerns. Police and fire have identified sufficient resources to provide for the restoration. A drainage plan was submitted with the application that complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual. Staff recommends approval of the site plan with five conditions listed in the staff report. In regard to the glass windows, Ms. Dolbee clarified that design standards can either be met or the intent of the standard met. Vere is enough glass on several of the walls to meet the intent of the glass window standard. The shoreline permit will be issued after the hearing examiner decision. This will have its own appeal process. Shoreline permits are noted as staff decisions. It is subject to consolidation, but the applicants have to ask for this consolidation. Under questioning by Beth Asher, Ms_ Dolbee noted that "visually accessible" means the river is visible. In regard to access to the site, the vehicular access will not change. A traffic study was not submitted that addressed the change in entryway to the physical building. Applicant Testimony SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Greg Smith, King County Library System, stated that the applicants agree with the City's findings outlined in the staff report. King County Library System agrees to follow all mitigation measures set in the SEPA decision. The main structure of the building and part of the roof framing will not be demolished during restoration. Public Testimony Beth Asher stated she has lived in Renton for 37 years. No traffic or pedestrian studies were conducted for the site. The historic patterns of use will be changed with this restoration because the library will be losing one of its entries. People will not utilize parking on the side by the park of the building after the restoration. She is also concerned with the removal of the stop sign at the entrance to the library. The main entrance should be on the bridge. Paul Ouellette testified that he has raised three children in Renton since 1970. His family used the library weekly, especially when the salmon were running. His five grandchildren also utilize the library often. The river view is a huge draw for children along with the proximity to Liberty Park. As a civil engineer, he has spent many years representing the Postal Service around Washington and Oregon. One of the main issues he handled in this position was dealing with land use agencies and SEPA regulations_ Judy Milligan stated that she is concerned with the current pedestrian and traffic pattern. The pattern is a hazard because the intersection at the entrance to the library no longer has a stop sign, only a blinking yellow light. An unidentified speaker noted that the Renton library system was signed over to the King County Library System. Since this time, furniture and artwork have been declared surplus by the applicant and have gone missing. Susie Ure testified that she is a member of the Renton Library Advisory Board but is speaking as a private citizen. She is concerned that people with mobility issues will be kept from visiting the library because of the new entry system. David Beedon stated that exhibit 6 depicts an entryway and the bridge portion of the structure. He wonders if the area between these two sections will be filled in during the project. The documents supplied by the applicant do not make the final plans clear. Staff Rebuttal Kayren Kittriek, Community and Economic Development, stated that the new building will have a smaller footprint than the previous structure, thus it does not require a traffic study. The intersection at the entrance is constantly being re-evaluated by Renton. Recently, it was determined that the intersection was not being used enough to warrant a red-light because there was not enough traffic. The intersection will continue to be evaluated. The new pedestrian access doorway is fifty feet to the south of the previous entrance. Handicap parking standards have been met. Nothing on the site has been degraded. The building is still accessible from both sides. City traffic engineers reviewed the site plan. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 4 I Vanessa Dolbee added that the public artwork is regulated by the Municipal Arts Commission_ In 2 regard to the shoreline permit, RMC4.9.190b discusses administrative decisions. 3 Applicant Rebuttal 4 Ruth Baleiko, Project Architect, testified that the renovation must bring the structure up to all current codes. Seismic abutments are necessary to meet the code. The pilings in the river will not be 5 touched. The concrete base structure and much of the roof will be retained. The existing structure 6 does not meet Renton's energy code. In regard to the entry, the design team has reviewed various configurations. Having multiple points of entry creates security issues. In regard to the blank walls, 7 the energy code stipulates 50 percent glazing as the maximum. Adding more glass will cause the structure not to meet energy standards. Views to the river were imperative for the public, thus more 8 solid portions of the wall were put towards the parking lot and Liberty Park. There are some areas of 9 glazing near the corners facing the park. Many of the blank walls are hiding the structural support. In regard to modulation, concrete columns on the outside of the building and curtain walls will provide 10 relief. Metal siding will be encased to provide relief within the fenestration. The concrete columns are 24' apart on the parking lot side and 44' apart along the river. In regard to the area between the 11 entryway and bridge, the applicant is proposing to hardscape this section to better engage the entry to 12 the bridge. The site plan depicts this hardscape plan. 13 SEPA Appeal David Keyes stated that the appeal is broken into three parts. First, the master land use application 14 has multiple deficiencies. Second, the environmental review was improperly executed by the City of 15 Renton. The City failed to handle the deficiencies presented by the applicant. Finally, Renton's notification process failed multiple times throughout the application process. 16 Dennis Ossenkop testified that he has lived in Renton for over forty years_ The public comment 17 process was not properly carried out. He worked as the regional environmental specialist for the Federal Aviation Division for 26 years. He handled the preparation and defense of many 18 environmental documents during this period. He has great knowledge of the review process for these 19 documents. According to him, in regard to the library project, some special agencies were given advanced information before receiving the SEPA decision for review. These agencies met with the 20 City and King County Library System representatives before the decision was mailed. "Non -special" agencies did not receive advanced information and only had the 15 -day appeal period. One of the 21 "non -special" agencies was the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic 22 Preservation. Other "non -special" agencies could also have provided comments on the historic nature of the site. Some agencies never received the decision package. Many local citizens did not receive 23 the package materials that the City claimed to have sent. Preferential treatment allowed some agencies to provide more specific comments. The unequal time provided to comment on the library 24 restoration is a breach of the SEPA process. The comment period should be reopen to all agencies for 25 a period of 21 days for the specific purpose of identifying any historic or cultural issues associated with the application. 26 SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 5 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 Under questioning by David Keyes, Vanessa Dolbee stated that the Environmental Review Committee is made up of four members= Greg Zimmerman (Public Works), Terry Higashiyama (Community Services), Mark Peterson (Fire Chief/Emergency Services), and Chip Vincent (Community and Economic Development). At this project's ERC meeting, all four members were present. She is unaware of these four people's backgrounds in historic preservation, but Terry Higashiyama runs the written museum. David Keyes noted that he is unaware of any of the four members of the ERC have backgrounds in historic preservation. The City should have utilized agencies with more knowledge of historic preservation to combat this missing knowledge. Under the City's environmental review procedures (4-9-070), review of site historical importance is required. Section 13 of 4-9-070 provides three questions regarding cultural and historical impacts. The city answered "no" to the restoration having these types of impacts. Assistant city attorney Gary Newsom stated that staff believe the checklists were answered correctly based on the knowledge gathered during the application process. David Keyes commented that the City is responsible for providing officials, such as the hearing examiner, with the necessary information to make proper decisions. The city failed to gather sufficient information for this project. The City's Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) provides great detail on what information must be provided for a land use application. SMP subsection D notes development standards along the shoreline, requiring that they meet city standards. The SEPA checklist was insufficient in the answers it provided. The SEPA checklist provides the background information for zoning and shoreline management, thus if the SEPA checklist is inadequate, subsequent decisions will be inaccurate. The SMP also notes that changes cannot affect "ecological functions." "Ecological functions" can be interpreted to include historical preservation of a site. SMP section 6, "Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources," provides that detailed cultural assessments may be required on sites based on the probability of cultural resources. In addition, it states that coordination between agencies, public, and groups (such as tribes) is encouraged well in advance of the application for development. The applicant and the City failed to do any early coordination with the Departments of Archaeology and Ecology. Section 6 also notes that the detailed cultural assessment should be conducted by an archaeologist in advance of approval. Mr. Keyes met with the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, specifically Michael Houser, State Architectural Historian, on March 28. According to Mr. Keyes, the Department did not believe the structure being less than fifty years old was an obstacle to its protection. Mr. Houser is responsible for making recommendations to the federal government in regard to historical preservation status. According to Mr. Keyes, exhibit 17d is a letter from Mr. Houser noting the historical details of the site and the characteristic elements that allow its nomination for historical significance. This letter gives expert opinion and cannot be ignored when reviewing the structure. The Department of Archaeology is referenced in the SMP, but the Department was not contacted until late in the application process. The SMP protects a site even if has not been listed as a historical preservation site. The SMP requires an assessment if it is possible the site could meet this historical status. The subject site will be reviewed for historical status in August, 2013. The site is an identified historical resource and must be protected. The public testified in front of the King County SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL R 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 Library System ("KCLS") Trustees in an attempt to protect the site, but their concerns were not addressed. The City never recognized the cultural importance of the site even when there was a large turnover at elections. KCLS and the City must realize the significance of the existing structure. KCLS's site plan does not properly illustrate what is being kept and what demolished. The drawings are not properly annotated. Moving the entry is a very significant design change. Nicola Robinson stated that she spoke with the principle architect for the original project, David Arthur Johnston. Mr. Johnston is 93 years old and unable to attend the hearing but provided phone comments during a conversation with Ms. Robinson. Mr. Johnston told Ms. Robinson that the library was one of the most important buildings he ever designed. It was a controversial building from the beginning, and many people fought building it. It was the first design of its type because it spanned the river. When designing the building, they spent a long time planning the entrance so.that it was active with the environment. The library was built to compliment the river, and the river provided a unique experience for library guests. Mr. Johnston's comments were submitted as exhibit 29. David Keyes also spoke with Mr. Johnston. According to Mr. Keyes, Mr. Johnston considered the library a celebration of the river. The entry coming in over the water was the most important element of the design. Previous adversaries to building the library changed their opinions when they saw the unique design. Richard Bray testified that he has lived in Renton for 22 years. He has raised five children in the city, and the library has been an important part of their lives. The entryway is a unique feature because it provides a scenic view for guests. Salmon migrations can be viewed from the bridge. The entryway encourages appreciation for the environment while providing access to a learning facility. During Renton River Day Festivals, the entryway is a main hub of activity. In 2001, Renton celebrated its 100'x' anniversary. In a play celebrating this anniversary, the decision to build the library was one of the main scenes. No other library in the region has the same cultural and historical aspects as the Cedar River Library. This decision should not be made solely by KCLS. Renton citizens have the right to demand accountability for the cultural aspects of the library. Judy Milligan commented that she has lived in Renton for 29 years. Despite living closer to a different library, she always went to Cedar River because her children preferred it for the unique experience. The river entrance is very inviting for children. People of all ages enjoy the entrance and the chance it gives to commune with nature. Time with nature can provide lower blood pressure and better cognitive function. The library entrance is a site of community action. It is a gathering point because of the high pedestrian traffic. The observation deck has space for educational opportunities. KCLS could add a second door to the site. Ms. Milligan read a statement from her daughter, Heather. Heather Milligan spent many days at the library growing up and worked there as a page during high school. She noted that the bridge was never meant to just walk across; instead, the bridge provides an experience for all who visit. Jeannie Greene -Crook stated that she is a longtime resident of Renton. Her family has used the library for three generations. Her family uses the library year-round so they can experience the view of the river in all its states. A door is necessary on the bridge -deck to provide easy accessibility. KCLS should embrace the uniqueness of the library and preserve its current setup. The bridge SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 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 26 provides easy access to the nearby park for picnics and play. Ideally, the entrance will remain at the center of the observation deck, but she accepts that it may be moved to one side or the other. People who cannot access the bridge -deck can utilize the new I lighlands Library. Beth Asher submitted a poll from The Renton Reporter which showed that 85 percent of respondents felt the Cedar River Library has cultural significance. The library is unique, and the entrance is the most important part of this uniqueness. The library is both a park and a civic campus. KCLS does not own the building, but Renton does. The City must protect the historic and cultural value of the site. The library is part of the heart of Renton and needs to be saved for future generations. David Keyes noted that the entry off the bridge makes the Cedar River Library special. There is one other library over a river in the nation, but it does not have the entry on the bridge. The entry is being changed significantly by KCLS_ The planned new entry would change the historic use patterns and alter the community value. Paul Ouellette restated that he was a civil engineer and planned postal service buildings throughout the northwest. For the subject site, the SEPA checklist was inaccurate and incorrect specifically in regard to the historical and cultural impacts. On page 18 of the checklist, in regard to structure, the applicant states that the existing building would remain compatible with Liberty Park; however, no direct access will be provided with the new design. Circulation will be changed because there will not be direct access, but the applicant did not make this clear in the SEPA checklist. There is inconsistency between the many drawings submitted by the applicant. Exhibit 5 and exhibit 6 show two different plans for the area between the entryway and the bridge. Additionally, KCLS has misinterpreted requests by the public in regard to the wedge in the plaza. The public wants the wedge to provide access to the bridge into the vestibule to provide an entrance from the bridge_ The interior door should be moved to column B to accomplish this task. KCLS claim the bracings do not allow this, but, based on Mr. Ouellete's review of the plans, it is possible. KCLS has denied all requests for a bridge entrance and has failed to provide reasons for their decisions. KCLS has failed to properly address citizen concerns. The citizens did not want to file an appeal, but KCLS's refusal to consider possible alternatives drove the decision. David Keyes testified that, if the design is revised to have the main public entry be from the deck, the vestibule could have two sets of doors. There is space for a pair of 8'6" doors as long as they are adjacent to column B. This is reasonable, sufficient mitigation. The citizens will accept the changes to the library space, if KCLS will protect the historically and culturally important entryway. The current circulation pattern must be maintained. Mr. Keyes submitted a recording of public comments from a March 19 KCLS Trustees Board Meeting where citizens commented on the new library plans. Citizens express their concern over the removal of the bridge entryway. Applicant Testimony Ruth Baleiko, Project Architect, stated that the building was originally built in 1965 and remolded in 1986. The building has already been significantly changed from its original state. The planned improvements would remove an addition that was added in the 1986 remodel on the park side. The glazing and solid panels would be returned, in large part, to their positions held in 1965. In regard to SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 8 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the entryway, the proposal is the most functional for library use and safety. Having to create new or larger vestibules for a different entryway takes from library space. Entryways require lighting, and lighting over rivers is a difficult process with strict standards. KCLS will be able to provide better lighting with the current plan. The bridge will be one of the first places to gather ice in the winter, thus it is a safety hazard for people traveling to the door. The bridge is staying as is, except for the removal of the entryway. The added wedge will help join the bridge and proposed front entryway. In regard to the citizens' door proposal, doors in a sequence must have specific paths of travel in egress situations. The proposal would not meet all of the clearance standards. It would not meet code minimums, nor have sufficient standards of care necessary in renovation projects. City Testimony Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, noted that the comment letters from the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation were received following the decision on the SEPA review. After reviewing the comments, the City added a condition of approval as part of the site plan process. The public notice procedures have been addressed in the summary of judgment. Appellant Rebuttal David Keyes testified that the structure was superficially renovated in 1986. These changes do not prevent the building from having historical significance. Many other projects that had undergone significant renovation have been marked as historically protected. KCLS has failed to address safety concerns from the site line of the park. In regard to ADA standards, the library does not have to meet the same requirements as a hospital or other facility. The distance from the parking space to entrance does not have to be as close as other types of facilities. In regard to the bridge freezing, the new vestibule will also be over open air (a bank) so there is the same potential for freezing. The travel distance from the park to the entry in the new design is approximately 120ft. The lack of entryway from the bridge creates confusion and insufficiency. The vestibule could be arranged differently to provide for the bridge entry. In regard to the efficiency of library space, KCLS always uses this reason for decisions. The library will have plenty of space (20 percent more area in the support spaces) with the new plan and would not suffer from creating bridge entry. Exhibits Exhibit 1-21 listed on page 2 of the staff report Exhibit 17a 6125113 letter to Greg Smith from Gretchen Kaehler Exhibit 17b 6121113 email from Chris Moore to Vanessa Dolbee Exhibit 17c letter from Michael Houser to Nicola Robinson dated June 20, 2013 Exhibit 17d letter from Michael Houser dated July 30, 2013 Exhibit 22 July 5' 2013 filed Appeal SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 6 SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 10 0 1 Exhibit 23 letter to Greg Smith from Ruth Baleiko 2 Exhibit 24 Motion from city w/ 4 attachments 3 Exhibit 25 Declaration from Dr. Elizabeth Stuart 4 Exhibit 26 Correspondence between applicant, appellants, City, and Hearing Examiner 5 6 Exhibit 27 City Powerpoint 7 Exhibit 28 Paul Ouellette Package of Materials g Exhibit 29 David Arthur Johnston Phone Comments 9 Exhibit 30 Judy Milligan Written Comments 10 Exhibit 31 Richard Bray Written Comments 11 Exhibit 32 Renton Reporter Survey July 26, 2013 12 Exhibit 33 City of Renton SMF excerpts 13 Exhibit 34 Excerpts from SEPA checklist and Ossenkop comments 14 Exhibit 35 Environmental checklist 15 Exhibit 36 Renee Fabre Written Comments submitted July 29, 2013 16 Exhibit 37 Recording of March 19, 2013 KCLS Trustees Meeting 17 18 Exhibit 38 Statement and Appeal Letter from July 28, Ouellette 19 Exhibit 39 Jeannie Greene -Crook Written Comments 20 Exhibit 40 Kathy Ossenkop Written Comments 21 Exhibit 41 SEPA Appellant Summary Judgment Response Brief 22 Exhibit 42 City Summary Judgment Reply Brief 23 Exhibit 43 SEPA Appellant Sur -response 24 Exhibit 44 City Sur -reply 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Procedural: Applicant. King County Library System (KCLS). 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on July 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. The record was left open for a response and reply to a motion for summary judgment filed by the City of Renton a week prior to the hearing, with a final reply due August 8, 2013. The record was extended to August 14, 2013 to give the parties an additional opportunity to respond to new information provided in the City's summary judgment reply. Substantive: 3. Proiect Description. KCLS has applied for site plan approval for the remodel of the existing library located at 100 Mill Ave. S. The library serves as a unique city landmark in that it spans the Cedar River. KCLS is undertaking the remodel in order to provide for seismic upgrades and other improvements that will bring the building into better compliance with current code requirements. The remodel will be built within the existing footprint and would reduce the size of the library by 2,720 square feet, reducing it to a footprint that is closer in area to the library when it was originally built in 1965. The remodel would also result in an approximately 50-' foot relocation of the primary entrance to the library from the midway point of its southern face as it spans across the river to the Cedar River to the southwestern corner of the library. The City of Renton issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the project. Citizens to the Save the Cedar River Library. ..Again! ("SEPA appellants") filed a timely appeal of the determination. The SEPA appeal was consolidated with the site plan application. Overall the area of work would impact 37,630 SF and the remodeled library would be 19,680 SF following renovations. The proposed improvements to the building would include seismic upgrades, demolition of existing building envelope and installation of new envelope and associated site improvements. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed. z The summary judgment was submitted by the City a week in advance of the hearing. The City's motion was timely filed under City regulations, but the examiner provided the SEPA appellants with an opportunity to respond to the motion after the hearing. The reason was that there was insufficient time for the examiner to provide a reasonable response time to the moderately lengthy motion while also ruling upon it within a week's time. The summary judgment motion essentially put the SEPA appellants in the unfair position of having to defend their entire appeal Within a few days' time before the scheduled hearing date. Of course, by allowing for responses to the motion after the hearing, the summary judgment motion was no longer a summary judgment motion but rather just constituted legal briefing for the City and SEPA appellants_ For this reason no ruling is being issued on the summary judgment motion. The arguments of that motion have simply been considered in the issuing of the final decision. s This figure is highly approximate and could range anywhere from 40 to 60 feet, depending upon how the distance is measured. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL I1 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 0 • " The subject site is bordered on the north by Liberty Park; the east by the Cedar River and old City Hall; to the south by the existing parking; and to the west by Mill Ave S and the existing parking lot. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service_ Water and sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. Since the proposal will actually reduce the size of the current library and there has historically been adequate sewer and water service to the building, no issues as to adequacy of water and sewer are anticipated. B. Fire and Police. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development provided the existing use has not changed and the site of the building is primarily the same. C. Drainaste. A drainage plan and drainage report was submitted with the site plan application. City staff determined that the report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters I and 2. A final Technical Information Report is required with the building permit. D. Transportation. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed. The current vehicular access to the site is via Mill Ave. S at two locations. Additionally, the building can also be accessed via Liberty Park. Because the building is currently a public library, there are no anticipated changes in impacts to the existing street system as a result of the facilities upgrades. Traffic is anticipated to remain the same as under existing conditions. Comments were made at hearing that the relocation of the entrance to the library could result in changes to parking lot circulation as well as off-site impacts, most notably creating a potential need for a signal light at an adjacent intersection. City engineering staff testified that these issues had been considered and it was concluded that parking was still adequate. The staff also noted that traffic at the adjacent intersection will be routinely monitored to determine if changes in traffic merit a traffic light. E. Open Space. The applicant has incorporated an entry plaza to the building, located on the south side near the main entrance. This entry plaza serves as a distinctive project focal point. The plaza is proposed to incorporate benches and landscaping to allow for passive activities. In addition, the existing library spans the Cedar River which allows for visual SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 12 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 C • access to the river via the building's windows and the pedestrian bridge which provides access to Liberty Park. Liberty Park provides both active and passive relational opportunities for the users of the library, including a playground, skate park, baseball fields, and access to the Cedar River trail among other amenities. The combination of the upgraded plaza space, pedestrian benches, landscaping, and the associated Liberty Park would provide for the recreational needs of the users. 5. Adverse Impacts_ There are no probable significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few adverse impacts are anticipated since the proposed remodel will be within the existing footprint and result in a reduction in size. Impacts are more specifically addressed below: A. Cultural and Historical Resources. The primary focus of the SEPA appeal was the cultural and historical impact of moving the primary access of the library from its central position over the river to the southeastern corner of the building. The location of the library entrance is of environmental significance, but its relocation does not qualify as a probable significant environmental impact under SEPA. Many persons could reasonably conclude that moving the entrance 50 feet has little or no historical or cultural significance. With the limited (but compelling) exception of testimony from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ("DAHP") and the architect of the building, the historical and cultural significance of the door location is almost entirely a matter of highly subjective personal taste. In the absence of any objective standard or formal historical or cultural designation of the door location, there is limited factual or legal basis to conclude that the relocation has a probable significant adverse impact. When the substantial weight given to the SEPA responsible official is factored into the analysis, there is no choice but to conclude that relocation will not create probable significant adverse environmental impacts. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the door location does not have to be formally designated as a historic or cultural resource in order for the relocation to qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. However, in the absence of that designation there should be some very compelling evidence that would convince most reasonably minded persons that the feature in question is historically or culturally significant. Evidence of this nature could be expert testimony on the fact that the door has historically served as a focal point for views up the river; that the door is a focal point in the City's logo; or that it otherwise features prominently in recurring representations of the City. Instead of providing evidence that the door location is central to the identity of the City or is otherwise culturally or historically significant, the SEPA appellants largely focused upon the fact that many city residents like the location of the door. They enjoy the views along the bridge as they access the library and find the central location optimal for people accessing the library from the western side of the building. This type of testimony is largely overshadowed by the fact that the new location is optimal for the parking lot (from which the majority SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 patrons presumably arrive) and more readily accessible for persons with disabilities. The overwater experience is reduced somewhat by the relocation, but that view is easily recaptured by anyone who simply takes a stroll across the bridge or takes in the views from inside the building. The most compelling testimony supporting the SEPA appeal is Ex. 17(D), the July 30, 2013 letter from DAHP. In that letter DAHP notes that the library is eligible for listing on the National Historic Register or Historic Places, that the building "has significance in terms of its direct connection to the growth and development of the City of Renton in the post WWII era" and that one of its "character defining features" is "the public access to the building on the Cedar River side via a bridge". In short, an expert on historical buildings who has likely reviewed hundreds or thousands of such buildings has found the entrance location to be a unique and character defining architectural feature. The written statement from the architect of the current building, David Johnston, Ex. 29, somewhat supports the findings of DAHP. In his written statement Mr. Johnston notes that the building as a whole was "important" and from a historic design perspective the building is a "first". However, Mr. Johnston did not expressly single out the location of the entrance as historically or culturally significant, but only that it would be poor design to locate it on the land side of the building. The DAHP and Johnson testimony establish that the location of the entrance has some significance, but the question remains whether the location is significant enough to qualify as a probable significant adverse environmental impact. It is a close question. Ultimately, the answer has to be no because of the deference that must be provided to the determination of the SEPA responsible official. The determinative factor in assessing the DAHP and Johnston testimony is the focus of DAHP and Johnston on the overall integration of the library building into the river as opposed to simply the building itself. DAHP does not advocate the retention of the building, but rather notes in Ex. 17(A), its June 25, 2013 comment letter, that the applicant should "capture the building's contribution to local history into planning of the new building_" Similarly, when discussing the importance of the building Mr. Johnston focuses on the functional aspects of the building design and does not state that the building itself should be preserved. Under Johnson and DAHP, the relevant inquiry in assessing significance is how much the relocation of the door detracts from the functionality of its design, specifically whether the relocation will significantly detract from the building's integration into its river setting. This puts us back into the subjective assessment of degree — the relocation detracts somewhat from the visual experience of the river as one enters the building, but as noted previously this is easily recaptured by simply walking across the bridge or enjoying the views through the windows of the library. Reasonable minds could easily differ on whether the relocation creates a significant reduction in river integration. When faced with such a debatable point, the deference required of the SEPA responsible official prevails. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 14 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 B. Geologically Hazards. The building is located in a seismic hazard area. A geotechnical report, Ex. 21, was prepared to evaluate the seismic risks and contains numerous recommendations to ensure building integrity and stability during a "design level earthquake"'. The recommendations of the geotechnical report are imposed through the MDNS. C. Views. The proposal will reduce view impacts by reducing the size of the existing building. D. Lighting. The conditions of approval require a lighting plan subject to approval of City staff as consistent with all applicable lighting standards and also in consideration of impacts to the environmental resources of the river_ E_ Natural Features_ and Landscaping. The existing site is currently vegetated with ornamental landscaping and lawn areas in the vicinity of the existing structure. Scattered around the site are deciduous and coniferous trees/shrubs (see Wildlife and Stream sections for riparian vegetation information). The existing site contains 16 trees of which all will be retained with the exception of one 12 -inch diameter Cherry tree located in the southeast corner of the site. The removed Cherry tree is proposed to be replaced with a 2 - inch caliper River Birch tree. in addition, to the 12 -inch Cherry tree, one street tree along Mill Ave. S is proposed to be removed. This is a result of the sanitary sewer line improvements required for the project. This tree would be replaced in the same location with a 2 -inch caliper Northern Red Oak. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application. The landscape plan includes a planting plan including 8 new trees. The proposed tree species consist of Vine Maple, Northern Red Oak, River Birch trees. The shrubs proposed largely consist of: Maidenhair Fern, Deer Fern, Sward Fern, False Solomon's Seal, Subalpine spiraea, and white spirea_ The new landscaping is related to restoration of areas that would be disturbed to install the augereast piles and concrete abutments_ The new landscaping defines the entrance, would provide shade and generally enhances the appearance of the project. Existing landscaping is proposed to be retained in the parking lot and along the perimeter of the parking lot. In addition, the street trees along Mill Ave. S would remain, with the exception of one tree which would be replaced following utility installation. The land scape land plan submitted by the applicant was conceptual; as such staff recommends as a condition of approval that a final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The applicant provided a Stream Study and Habitat Data Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated February 28, 2013. The Stream Study concludes that there would be no direct impacts to the Cedar River, adjacent riparian habitat or State Shoreline area anticipated during or after construction, resulting in no net loss of ecological functions. This conclusion is based on the following reasons: 1) all work would occur within the footprint of the existing development for the library and would stay above the 100 -year SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 15 0 0 1 flood plain and above the QHWM; 2) the footprint of the existing disturbed/developed 2 area within the shoreline zone would not be expanded as a result of the project; 3) all existing shoreline vegetation would remain intact; 4) portions of the existing library 3 structure would be demolished which would result in a net reduction of approximately 4 1,700 square feet or 7 percent of the library structure's building itself and adjacent pedestrian bridge; 5) Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during 5 construction to minimize temporary construction impacts to the aquatic environment; and 6) the project would comply with all applicable City ordinances including, but not limited 6 to, stormwater management requirements, and those related to traffic, noise and aesthetics during and after construction. The applicants will also be required to apply for an 7 administrative shoreline substantial development for the permit, which will ensure 8 compliance with the City's shoreline regulations. 9 The existing site topography consists of steep slopes along the north and south edges of the river channel_ The grades of the river banks range from elevation 45 at the top of the slope 10 to elevation 26 at the river bottom. Beyond the river banks, the site grades to the north and 11 south of the buildings is relatively flat. The proposed grading is primarily a result of the requirement to install the below -grade concrete abutments, which would require 900 cubic 12 yards of excavation and 360 cubic yards of fill. The concrete abutments avoid impacts to the existing natural features and do not impact existing site topography. All areas 13 disturbed during construction are proposed to be restored with new pathways, landscaping, 14 and/or plaza space. 15 In addition to its location over the Cedar River, the site is located in a seismic hazards area and the Aquifer Protection Zone 1. There is also a 100 year flood plain and a floodway 16 associated with the Cedar River and the banks of the river have been identified sensitive 17 and protected slopes. Based on the project application material, no work is proposed below the ordinary high water mark of the Cedar River and therefore no work would occur in the lg flood plain or floodway, or on the steep slopes i.e. the river bank. 19 Conclusions of Law 20 21 1. Authori . RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(a) authorizes the hearing examiner to hold public hearings on 22 site plan applications when the environmental review committee determines that the public has raised significant unresolved issues. 23 2. Zonin Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Center Downtown as 24 detailed in FOF No. 6 of the staff report. The comprehensive plan map designation is Urban Center 25 Downtown in Design District A. 26 13. Site Plan Review Criteria. Site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3), which are quoted below and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. SEPA Review Criteria. There are only two reasons to overturn an MDNS: (1) there are unmitigated probable significant adverse environmental impacts; or (2) the SEPA responsible official has not undertaken an adequate review of environmental factors as required by SEPA regulations. Each grounds for reversal will be separately addressed below. A. Probable Significant Adverse Environmental Impacts. The primary relevant inquiry for purposes of assessing whether County staff correctly issued an MDNS is whether the project as proposed has a probable significant environmental impact. See WAC 197-11-330(1)(b). If such impacts are created, conditions will have to be added to the MDNS to reduce impacts so there are no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. In the alternative, an EIS would be required for the project. In assessing the validity of a threshold determination, the determination made by the City's SEPA responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight. WAC 197-11-6 (3)(a)(viii). B. Adequate Enviroiunental Review The second reason an MDNS can be overturned is if the SEPA responsible official did not adequately review environmental impacts in reaching his threshold determination. The SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that he has based his determination upon information reasonable sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. The courts have never actually overturned a decision for inadequate review. These results provide some insight as to how deferential the courts have been in applying the adequacy standard, but do not serve to eliminate the oft -repeated judicial requirement that environmental factors must be adequately considered to support a threshold determination. As recently as 2010, the courts have ruled that an agency's threshold detennination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner su icient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App. 274, 286- 287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Assn v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined how thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711 {2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 17 0 0 1 extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and 2 imposed additional mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. Notably., although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately J analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating 4 that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting 5 an EIS 6 109 Wn. App. at 23-24. 7 WAC 197-11-335 provides that a threshold determination shall be "be based uponinformation reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impact of a proposal'. The standard of review on 8 adequacy, therefore, is that the SEPA responsible official must make a prima facie showing that the 9 determination is based upon information reasonably sufficient to evaluate the impacts of a proposal. 10 A somewhat confusing facet of the standard requiring adequate review is WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(ii). 11 This WAC provision prohibits the appeal of intermediate steps of SEPA and only allows administrative appeals of threshold determinations and the adequacy of an EIS. SEPA appellant 12 arguments such as the SEPA checklist is incomplete or inaccurate arguably seeks a ruling on 13 intermediate steps of SEPA review, i.e. the adequacy of the checklist. The judicial standard requiring adequate environmental review was formulated before the adoption of WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(ii) in 14 1984, but as demonstrated in the Moss case quoted above it was still applied to SEPA threshold 15 appeals well after 1984. The courts have yet to address the arguable conflict between WAC 197-11- 680(3)(a)(ii) and the judicial adequacy of SEPA review standard. The ultimate resolution may be that 16 WAC 197-11-680(3)(a)(ii) prohibits administrative agencies from assessing adequacy of review but 17 the courts are still free to do so_ Unless and until the issue of whether adequacy of review is germane to an administrative appeal is judicially resolved, the prudent approach is to consider the issue as is 18 done currently with cases such as Moss. Doing so will avoid the need for an evidentiary remand 19 should a reviewing court determine that adequacy is something the Examiner should have considered. 20 Practically speaking, a consideration of the adequacy of review rarely results in a reversal of a 21 threshold determination. In order to meet its burden of proof on adequacy, the SEPA appellant must often present the information the SEPA responsible official should have considered at the SEPA 22 appeal hearing. After the information is presented, the SEPA responsible official is often asked 23 whether he or she still believes the project has no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. If the responsible official responds that he or she does not see any reason to change the threshold 24 determination, the issue of adequate review becomes moot. This result is allowed because the courts 25 will consider information or mitigation supporting a determination that wasn't reviewed or imposed until after issuance of the threshold determination. 26 SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 18 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 Again, the Moss decision is instructive on the allowance for this type of post hoc rationalization. In Moss, the City of Bellingham added SEPA mitigation measures after the SEPA responsible official issued the MDNS. The court sustained the MDNS on the basis of subsequently imposed mitigation measures as follows: Although the DNS was issued prematurely, it is difficult to see how the appellants were prejudiced. The city council imposed many additional mitigation measures on the project before approving it, thereby making it more environmentally friendly than the version in the DNS Appellants suggest that the DNS misled the city council into believing that all of the impacts were capable of mitigation, but the record indicates that the project received a considerable degree of scrutiny. Furthermore, WAC 197-11-350 requires an EIS where a proposal continues to have a significant adverse environmental impact, even with mitigation measures. While all of the required mitigation measures should have been imposed before the DNS was issued, the appellants still have not shown that the approved project, as it was mitigated, remains above the significance threshold. 109 Wn. App. at 25. 5. Library Qualifies as a Historical and Cultural Resource. The library as a whole has cultural and historical significance that qualifies as an element of the environment protected by SEPA. SEPA rules and Washington court opinions provide surprisingly little guidance on what qualifies as a cultural or historical resources. However, formal designation by a legislative or administrative body is not required as argued by the City to qualify a building for cultural or historical significance under SEPA. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the integration of the library into the Cedar River is a historically unique and distinctive architectural feature that qualifies the design of the building as a whole as a historical and cultural resource. As discussed in the preceding conclusion of law ("COL"), an EIS is required for a proposal that creates "probable significant environmental impacts". Of central importance to this SEPA appeal is whether the impacts cited by the appellants qualify as "environmental". WAC 197-11-740 defines "environment" as limited to the elements identified in WAC 197-1.1-444. WAC 197-11-444(2)(vi) identifies "historic and cultural preservation" as an element of the environment. There is no WAC definition or Washington court opinion that defines historic or cultural resources or preservation, nor is there any readily accessible National Environmental Policy Act decision addressing the issue. However, as determined in FOF No. 5(A), the architecturally unique features of the building and its relationship to Renton's development as a community qualifies it as a historic and cultural resource. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL ILI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 In its motion for summary judgment, the City argues that since the building has never been formally designated as a historic or cultural building, it is not historically or culturally significant for purposes of SEPA. The City provides no legal authority for this position. In point of fact, the one Washington court opinion that indirectly addresses the issue supports a contrary position. See Concerned Taxpayers v. WSDOT, 90 Wn. App. 225 (1998). The Concerned Citizens case involved the adequacy of a final environmental impact statement in its assessment of the potential removal of a farm for a highway project. According to the decision, the farm "appeared" eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic places but no formal designation by any government agency was identified. Despite this, the farm was found to be historically and culturally significant because it was built in 1925 and was "one of the few, if not the only, complete assemblages of historic -era farm buildings in the project area". The parties to the Concerned Citizens case did not contest the SEPA responsible official determination that the farm had cultural significance, so the issue was not directly addressed by the appellate court_ However, it is noteworthy that the issue of cultural significance was completely uncontested simply because the farm was several decades old and unique to the area. As determined in the Finding of Fact ("FOF") No. 5(A), the library is also unique and of historical importance4. 6. Relocation of Entrance not "Significant" Under SEPA. Although the building as a whole qualities as a historical and cultural resource, as determined in FOF No. 5(A) the proposed relocation of the front entrance does not qualify by itself as a "significant" environmental impact. WAC 197-11- 794(1) defines "significanf' as "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact [onl environmental quality." As demonstrated by the City's opinion and the testimony of others at the hearing, there is a difference of opinion on whether the relocation significantly impacts the building as a historical and cultural resource. This difference of opinion is reasonably based, since the most prominent feature of the building by far is its location across the river and not the centrally located entrance. Visual access of the river to library patrons is arguably not significantly affected by the relocation since the river can still be viewed by walking across the pedestrian bridge or through the library windows. Once it is established that the significance of an impact as subjective as the one at hand is reasonably debatable, the issue is out of the examiner's hands and no further environmental review can be required. There are two reasons the historic and cultural impacts cannot be interpreted as significant 4 The fact that a building can qualify as having cultural or historic significance without any formal designation to that effect does not mean that everyone with an old building has to worry about restrictions being imposed through SEPA. As required by RCW 4321C.060, any mitigation imposed by SEPA has to be based upon adopted SEPA policies and the mitigation must be reasonable and capable of being accomplished. The fact that "unlisted" building may sometimes qualify as a historical or cultural license does not give a municipality unfettered discretion to impose as many restrictions as it desires. It simply means that the historical/cultural significance of the building must be evaluated as part of the SEPA review process. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 20 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 in this case. First, an ordinance which requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men [and women] of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law. Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993). Requiring further environmental review or mitigation on the characterization of the historical/cultural impacts as significant arguably violates the due process rights of the applicant. Second, and far more conclusive, the determination of the SEPA responsible official must be given substantial weight. The arguments for and against significance in this case are equally compelling and reasonable_ The required deference is completely determinative in the resolution of this issue. The City also argues in its summary judgment brief that the impacts are not significant when balanced against other competing environmental interests, citing Chverlake Fund v. Shoreline Hearings Board, 90 Wn. App. 746 (1988). The Overlake case was based upon the application of shoreline regulations for a shoreline permit application. It did not deal with an assessment of environmental impacts under SEPA. More importantly, WAC 197-11-330(5) requires that -[a] threshold determination shall not balance m hether the beneficial aspects of a proposal outweigh its adverse impacts, but rather, shall consider whether a proposal has any probable significant adverse environmental impacts_._" Tobe clear, the conclusions of this decision were not based upon any balancing of environmental impacts. The significance of the door relocation was assessed entirely on its own impacts. T Reduction in Building Area Not Significant. The SEPA appeal notes on its grounds for appeal (Ex. 22) that the proposed 7% reduction in building area results in a loss of public shoreline access and recreational use. To the extent the SEPA appellants were arguing this loss is a probable significant adverse environmental impact, there is nothing in the record to support such a determination. The pedestrian bridge does not appear to be reduced to any meaningful degree and visual access for library patrons is fully maintained through the extensive amount of windows included in the proposal. 8. Environmental Review Adequate. The level of environmental review conducted by the SEPA responsible official was adequate as required by SEPA. The SEPA appeal (Ex. 22) is primarily focused upon assertions that information contained in the environmental checklist is either incomplete or erroneous. Most of these assertions were based upon the premise that the library is a cultural and historical resource. Ideally, the environmental checklist or other documents used for SEPA review should have recognized the historical and cultural significance of the library. However, the information reviewed by the SEPA responsible official before issuance of the MDNS did include the fundamental reasons why the library qualifies as a historic and/or cultural resources, i.e. its architectural features, its integration into the Cedar River and its date of construction. Further, as discussed in the review of the Moss court decision in COL No. 4, information considered after the issuance of an MDNS can also be considered in assessing adequacy SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of review. In this regard, comments from DAHP and the SEPA appellants were submitted for review prior to the site plan hearing along with the staff report. The SEPA Appellants also provided a significant amount of information on the historical and cultural significance of the proposal during the hearing on their SEPA appeal. In short, a significant amount of information on the cultural and historical significance of the proposal was considered prior to the issuance of any development permits. In this regard, the purpose of SEPA, to provide for informed environmental decision making, has been served. The only remaining legal issue is whether the information provided by DAHP and the SEPA Appellants is legally adequate for purposes of environmental review. That issue is easily resolved by the Concerned Citizens discussed in COL No. 5. As noted previously, Concerned Citizens involved the adequacy of an EIS analysis of the potential removal of a historic farmhouse for a highway project. On this issue the court found the level of environmental review adequate in the EIS on impacts to the farm even though it was just a paragraph long. That paragraph simply noted the age of the farm, its distinctive architectural features and that its features were unique to the area. The SEPA appellants have succeeded in presenting more environmental information than that found adequate in the Concerned Citizens case. 9. Notice Adequate. The SEPA Appellants' allegations of improper notice are dismissed as abandoned or in the alternative the appellants have failed to establish improper notice by failing to provide any evidence to support their claim. The SEPA appellants assert in their SEPA appeal that improper notice was provided for the "Land Use Master Application" as well as the SEPA threshold determination. The appellants did not identify any code section that the City allegedly failed to follow. The appellants also did not specifically identify who should have received notice, other than to generally note that unspecified persons who have already been identified as parties in interest in a document not in evidence had not been notified and that unspecified persons had provided public comment to the City Council and had not been notified. Beyonds these generic comments in the SEPA appeal statement, no farther evidence was provided by the SEPA appellants. Given a complete absence of any evidence beyond unsupported allegations, the SEPA appellants notice claims are dismissed as abandoned or in the alternative it is determined that they have failed to provide any evidence to establish that notice was inadequate. Site Pian The SEPA appellants also asserted that it did not appear that DAHP had been timely notified, but abandoned that contention once DAHP clarified that it had received timely notice of the threshold determination. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8i 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee musi find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation,- the Community Design Element,- and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan,- ii. lan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines oj'the design regulations located in RMC 4- 3-100. 12. The proposal meets the City's comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and design guidelines as detailed in pages 6-18 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The proposal is not subject to a planned action ordinance or development agreement as noted in the staff report. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off -Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to .surrounding properties and uses, including: L Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties, - iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing andlor placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 23 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. The remodeled building will be located in the same location as the existing structure resulting in no change to the existing concentration of development at any particular location of the site. As determined in Finding of Pact No. 4, no significant changes to vehicular or pedestrian circulation are anticipated, so existing road and trail linkages are adequate. As proposed, the roof top equipment would be screened with a metal grating system. Loading areas will remain unchanged by the proposal. The refuse and recycling is proposed to be approximately in the same location as under current conditions, however the new proposal would add screening elements to the design which are not currently provided. The proposed screen would be made of metal grating and 12 -foot wide self- closing doors. The screening is proposed to be 6 feet in height. For views, the proposal will maintain visual access to the Cedar River as detailed in Finding of Fact No_ 5_ The relocation of the door will reduce visual access to patrons accessing the library, but this is offset by improvements in accessibility and visual access is still readily available through the library windows and for those who traverse the pedestrian bridge. The project site is already fully landscaped and a landscaping plan will be required to assure compliance with all applicable standards as outlined in FOF No. 5(E). New building and entry lighting would be included with the buildings rehabilitation. Lighting at the location needs to be balanced with the environmental considerations associated with the critical habitat provided in the Cedar River and the safety needs of a public library. As a part of the SEPA Environmental Review, a mitigation measure was required that balanced the safety needs of lighting with the potential for impacts on the salmon. Conditions of approval require shielded and cutoff lighting. A final lighting plan shall be submitted by the applicant as a condition of approval prior to building permit issuance. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: L Structure Placement. Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation, - u. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping. Use of landscaping to soften the appearance ojparking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to dune and enhance open ,Spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection ofplanting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 14. The proposal is largely surrounded by public and uses and its placement, structure and orientation would have no discernible impact on privacy or noise and its scale is compatible with SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 24 1 these adjoining public buildings. Further, the proposal involves a remodel substituting a building of 2 smaller scale within an existing footprint, so that the remodel will have no adverse impact on natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian 3 and vehicle needs. The proposal does not involve any appreciable increase in impervious surface, 4 includes restoration of all affected vegetation and involves a minimum cutting and filling as necessary to stabilize the structure from earthquake activity. The proposal will not adversely affect 5 natural features as determined in FOF No. 5. 6 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all 7 users, including. g i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on .side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on 9 the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; 10 ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, 11 including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, 12 drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways'- 13 ays;13 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas_from parking and pedestrian areas,- 14 reas;14 15 iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and 16 v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sideivalks and adjacent properties. 17 15. As determined in FOF No. 4, the proposal will not appreciably change any vehicular or 1 pedestrian circulation and access to the project. The proposal will also not result in any physical 19 changes to existing access and circulation, which as noted in the staff report is adequate. For these reasons no changes to vehicular or pedestrian access is necessary. 20 21 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open ,spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users 22 of the site_ 23 24 16. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of pact No. 4(E), the proposal includes open space focal points and includes and adjoins areas used for passive and active recreation. 25 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to 26 shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 25 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 • • 1.7. The proposal provides physical and visual access to the Cedar River shoreline. The proposal, as a replacement of a building with larger scale, will not adversely affect any view corridor to Mr. Rainier. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18_ The proposal will not adversely affect the natural systems of the site, as determined in FOF No. 5 _ RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing. Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated lime frames, for phased projects, 20. The project is not phased. DECISION The SEPA appeal is denied and the SEPA threshold determination made by the City of Renton on Renton Permitting File No. LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM is sustained. The site plan application for the same file number is approved as proposed in Exhibits 3-13 and described in this decision, subject to the following conditions: 1_ The applicant shall comply with the three mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated June 17, 2013 (Exhibit 14). 2. The applicant shall conduct a professional archaeological survey of the project area prior to any ground disturbing activities. Such survey shall be provided to the Planning Department and any recommendations which are included in the survey results shall be followed by the applicant. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior, to building permit issuance. 4. A detailed refuse and recycling plan shall be submitted with the building permit application identifying compliance with the minimum standards. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall submit a site lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that includes shielded and cutoff lighting, prior to building permit issuance. SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • DATED this 21 st day of August, 2013. 11,13Y'1- Olbmhts City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-5-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision- A request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation - SITE PLAN & SEPA APPEAL 27 From Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: To: PARTIES OF RECORD 0 0 Bonnie Walton Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:06 PM DAVID KEYES (keyes28@msn.com); Beth Asher (betha@mittenthal.com); Nicola_rn@msn.com; 'Teri.Hallauer@seattle.gov'; 'mpost@MillerHulLcom'; Philippe.LeTourneau@kingcounty.gov; 'denoss@aol.com'; Gregory Smith (ggsmith@kcls.org); Vanessa Dolbee; Garman Newsom II Larry Warren; Jay B Covington; 'pauoue@comcast. net'; 'judyrenae@yahoo.com'; 'rgbray7 @yahoo.com'; Terry Higashiyama; Peter Renner; 'jeanniebydesign@comcast.net'; 'landjcrook@comcast.net'; 'jjtrenton@gmail.com', Adrianne Ralph (akralph@kcls.org); Chip Vincent OFFICIAL NOTICE - Hearing Examiner's Decision 8121/2013 LUA-13-000255; Site Plan and SEPA Appeal -- Renton Library. pdf High Attached is copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated 8/21/2013 on the King County Library System Site Plan and SEPA Appeal; File No_ LUA-13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM. A paper copy of the decision will be sent to you by postal mail, unless I receive notification by email from you within 24 hours indicating that the attached electronic copy will suffice, and mailing of the hard copy to you is not necessary. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide further assistance. Bonnie Walton City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425-430-6502 W W z z 2 c� z OC Q W W u� z Q J OW -N% Ln Ln v v r M Q ❑ J m CL i J 4-+ L .J r. 0 4-0a cic `► J W J W Q W .J CL i W W V') z z 29 tri z W c O i .=P. } J m W J H z oc CL W V3 Q LLd J CL f� From: Stacy Tucker Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 3:01 PM To: Bonnie Walton Subject: Parties of Record for Library/LUA13-000255 Beth Asher Teri Hallauer David Keyes Phillipe LeTourneau Dennis Ossenkop Maaike Post (Contact) Nicola Robinson Greg Smith, KCLS (Applicant) ci hze-V 7h. :3 ILIA� r f LA![nLm4F- City of Renton I CED I Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way I 6th Floor I Renton, WA 48057 Phone: 425.430.7282 1 Fax: 425.430.7300 1 stucker@rentonw4.gov r " Please consider the environment before printing this email 0