Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1- -r -- --T- r / 3 h I y I 1 t o }FrFrFri rFFFFF i, - -- -�.. s � o I I � IT m - [R n � OAKESNVALE AVE, S.W. - T � O O I cnr P 9 -f `� t_�..��_ w � L 1- RNN Z I 1 II fI II � — — cucsoK_ NVL W o M z D i 0 G-) SCJ T O—) O tJIJ D C-' D Q CI) D -� CD QD CD 00 CD - I 1 C/) -=gym W o M z D i 0 G-) SCJ T O—) O tJIJ D C-' D CI) D -� CD QD CD 00 CD - I 1 C/) o2 %'� z,'=s `- fid— p- _ -- �gK � 8�- -- �2 r S -- ,g-4 I In -j Ig = - - -„$ » T tp�>i -- _t- Cn O C�;m o Ar Z'�`'_- =v Su Us^vR U.; Q 1 �N wg v� voa�x3��€ian-ad= z={x�Arx=xi3=ir;z`az�in�� o - Y c.n vg`R�_A�no� 9� ms- e a_ o�y=z mo�mAo �A o mks £o:�:G_ 9 = .r -,a' - = s�f� r_mi�on'a'r..� .,�", tA�m�➢ o� m �+y�mKmYn �ooNpn� �r,`R,;sxr -� �rmomw icnr�z� =sms #�'����' "���o-:n�nazi =, �^�zTtn 7 xs =f =goua ., o =➢aR'� _oo =p�5. 8 R `o mi?r'=�� m� a➢,. AsCD o v F _ n FE e29 a� m mol x =oo_To> �r`'F x11a-o2mz .=.,T r43T��2A� a � ig =���_ _�> Quo= �o �Oo9�H 4 'u-� �Ta�, ; '�-0�m e ,� Q � --��'➢,_ __ _y,����..��nnTg o �x� � ��� :g_€moo V _3r �, ho ----- m - al - V`,'qsT o 91{ c �AAroAas =�A q !-tao w ~�!_ ;-o = o£ ,A <_' T25 Pa s� vmisn v o�3�p2- >� ung MR J m�F p=n `,tet iNaz y V G o���a^ �' -_rN .M � cl iso z4 L 7 a €s fV m za �o Ililt 'a - >AP6. m�6 2 Ta i o� n g gip_ o F;G _ �x o� I —Y 77 , a I C i R z�J f b I —Y 77 , a I C i R jl $$ - i h1 VZ gal J NWW. S \ ----- ----- ---- -- - r - G id � �4a� - --- -- ----- - L --i- Jam= JILLJ F. II I V I I I,n r r T 9§ - - -- -- --�- ! www ^ __ - d 1 __ _______- ___ 4 �I 1-- •• �s ly S TI 77— z \ , II I� •��_ D - N ni - OAKESDALE AVE, S.W.1 38 E s O o wir. -4D z 'no• � I F � � �Y` I _ I p... Sig. ' I z �— - --TA—_ / All s�1! �6 ----- ------ ---- -- 1 _ I - -rr.=ems STT, IFIFf I F i III �v a , rrrFrFi ii � i II i ly S TI 1111` — •� I - NZ GAKESWILE AVE. S.W- Hill p oP-P QNB ,r— —L r 3 7 . of -15.18 2 cmn�$ 0 C vom �3E 146e �N o� Zom_ ........ ...f .. .....,..:, SiA +6d '2.34 14.A 125T! t,� ...... . .... .... ........ l 1 _ re I IC................... ....�...'.. ........,.:..,...., '.....,.... .,. to x5e Is.ly . .. II 1 ak'e_ e s4 s.exo 5.1 W J m Q ! 1:49700 —7 mn 7 . -15.18 {IEV; STA at!36 146e __Er. 'MO ' tx, 91 ........ ...f .. .....,..:, SiA +6d '2.34 14.A 125T! t,� ...... . .... .... ........ l 1 _ re I IC................... ....�...'.. ........,.:..,...., '.....,.... .,. to x5e Is.ly . .. II 1 �m ELEv: 15.58 s4 s.exo 5.1 I � M I 1:49700 I3or ...- 14RD 'r sig I� 1 5 u.o! l 1„a \ I Ix Y K x 1 a v a zi u t S'k o-56.BT 15 996 ................ ...... .. ' � .. .,..... . I FA 9+? 44 r I EL 15,57 f I IC................... ....�...'.. ........,.:..,...., '.....,.... .,. to x5e Is.ly . .. ............ �....'..........SIX1'a?7:5.r ................. ELEv: 15.58 s4 s.exo 5.1 I � M I I3or ...- .... - .......... -... 5TA 2t5¢4q 'r sig I�.n, .,.'..... �:. 17:77 ..... ....:....... u.o! r.oa7 11.16 Y K x 1 Il.e6 av .. .. 1 ...S. .. .. ... .............. ........ .. ... j IVI -:ole �s 14,5G 15.D63 lase ....... .. ....... ..... ...... -.. 1 ': has 0 1 f' I1e9 549 Isee STA -4+U 43 S. a v a zi u Y Q L lid Q � n L, H 0 Q L r 0 � n L, � I n - -- --v aoo ILA m A z b C) o 7b e- 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 +o - 0 o 0 o,,,a a- V� ori oVI� W z� ir z R U7 K 0 ;d p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c � = ---- ----------2�9 -n ---' --__ � — Z v VQ n n ,cam n �� oR� 'z� a- V� ori oVI� oA z� ir `e ci O 9[70 5 O gLl� i i��r-ii! fglt I R " I¢ [oyF I QI am M06 �1 IS '� � � s Fg �S x � q� /f , , � i RGW GPAfANG gyp§ RS �4 �i i i��r-ii! fglt I R " I¢ [oyF I QI am M06 �1 IS '� � � s Fg �S x � q� T, i L i I a B s • n f � 0 4 0 CN ON 1UT Oy I� � // % 4 1i �� oil •p� ,r m r — � �w a F9 g!leiIDo—im ,r i.c, n pax ; T cp r r q b Zcn(7 _ C) r— Z Cu chs m ; mom' o .� i ..•,�? Cn N CD � A �� XO ��l�p�=9 a P _maog axe 5 C A A�mm� H AN �Ppf.zzpny 2222-c��.vv Asz � �o mm� 'A$ 8 F�"$x$�,6� �z m4��r $mo�2ym4,Rov�ag�=Arir �g o Avco OP AMix g6g $A"% =N v qo �Z$ao9v�j n� a vn.^� i aAi� �q g$v a zNon p h2 �_- 5 _ - - — �� o�pF"; �^ 2 gfRnr•1 msm $a�= ;iAmu. �$�mm��co cz IE NCAa'czi `n$ $rm o �`m ma Tom a qo $ �~ � g A w a r na ''C p is 4i 1 � ��t�n k vO a 3 e � � • o � � i a E 11 1111 1 c y1 yE � O Opo 1�0 i�i0 V1C i O n AKu vpa SS Lz m T A K i t Z 1 CC O � N n- vw vti vo na ''C p is 4i 1 � ��t�n k vO a 3 e � � • o � � i a E 11 1111 1 c y1 yE � O Opo 1�0 i�i0 V1C �% AKu vpa n- vw vti vo w a 0 }r, PRP �� a pamrm �o � oA yw $mEgi og`�00wr�Zm HAP Fi ^�ti ✓,1�~I�3: M �C mJocm�,Kgz y2yi� M-1 WAn�s�� ��nmyom�z N Y Y Zm ��T iJ aogo� pSl;� 11�NNa�Nmoyag-�pFa��"l�A�mx ��xs��Ai� "I Q€ Jm �z i�'�oB WISH �o mm L � Al n Mill 3:1 °n o po �m�L"NQ g }3-'�SISH 3 !A! v A1-zai UZ a 3 ymy_ moppp rB, 1% O� $ 9 n Cyt �^n yAN �ym'I bio A InyN +1 �Ip C x "Tl - - - - 1; Nis Hg m''KAo ill, I Nu Ng �� �g�� �'"�zol7'C�'�Y`� �o�i r"� �; Fix � gym v mvi Nzn� F p 9 lm,S tt�� .,`,v�5m z mvN�N oAln^m 10d oy i�5+�2 �� ��� �v m9� p� �YNY �"pmYNzQ!, �O`�n N _ 7 m 09 C'ms Ills a1mn yy 2Am>N Y CN ��oy9_A aa Onyy M � L � SS11 Yyyy Amm�m� Y1m� � ; >>ti Nn m�AAA1�I �j Ti �ALI� � D y 2an AOpS �1lim€ SZ�i17, �mS�✓���Z����O ��m Z mxCN T� g9r1 ����m1zn N$� n0 Yz m Z N A - CITY OF RENTON - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 14, 2014 To: City Clerk's Office From: Lisa Marie Mceirea Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Additional Parking for 25-20 Building LUA (file) Number: LUA-13-001722, ECF, SA -A Cross -References: AKA's: Project Manager: Jill Ding Acceptance Date: January 16, 2014 Applicant: Mark Clement, the Boeing Company Owner: The Boeing Company Contact: Mark Clement, the Boeing Company PID Number: 0886700130 ERC Determination: Date: Appeal Period Ends: Administrative Decision: Approved with Conditions Date: March 28, 2014 Appeal Period Ends: Aril 11 2014 Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Appeal Period Ends: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a new parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot is needed due to an increase in office density at the existing 25-20 building. The new parking lot would be designed with permeable pavement to handle a 100 -year storm event and would contain 155 parking stalls; 28 of which would be compact stalls. Location: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW Comments: ERC Determination Types: DNS - Determination of Non -Significance; DNS -M - Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated; DS - Determination of Significance. PLAN REVIEW COMMENT LUA13-001722} PLAN ADDRESS: APPLICATION DATE: 12/20/2013 DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a new parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot is needed due to an increase in office density at the existing 25-20 building. The new parking lot would be designed with permeable pavement to handle a 100 -year storm event and would contain 155 parking stalls; 28 of which would be compact stalls. The subject site is a vacant lot totaling 4.22 acres in size and is located on parcel 0886700130 which is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The parking lot would impact 1.21 acres of the 4.22 acre lot. The site is located in the 100 year flood plan of Spring Brook Creek, a seismic hazard area, and within the vicinity of wetlands. A Biological Assessment, Welland Determination, Stormwater Report including a compensatory storage analysis, Geotechnical Analysis and a Traffic Study was provided with the application. As a result of the project one tree would be removed with replacement trees proposed. Engineering Review Police Review Jan Illian Ph: 425-430-7216 email: jillian@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: EXISTING CONDITIONS SURFACE There are private storm drainage improvements within the project location. CODE REQUIREMENTS SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage plan and drainage report dated December 11, 2013 was submitted Lasting Engineering Group. The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. All core requirements and special requirements are included in the report. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Existed Conditions. The site is located within the Black River Basin and is inside the 100 -year flood plain. The project is subject to Full Drainage Review. 2. The parking lot expansion is located at the Boeing Longacres site at 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW. Construction of the proposed 1.21 acre site will consist of a 125 foot by 425 foot long parking lot. Improvements will include permeable paving, a bioswale and landscaping. The site is located within 100 -year flood plain. Compensatory storage will be provided to offset the impact to the floodplain with a bisoswale. The permeable pavement has been modeled to infiltrate the entire 100 -year storm event. The permeable pavement will provide flow control and water quality in compliance with the KCSWM using the low impact development techniques and will be constructed in accordance with the 2012 Low Impact Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. 3. A geotechnical report dated November 15, 2013 was submitted by GeoEngineers. The site is level. Vegetation across the site consists of brush and tall grass. Soils consist of silt and medium dense silty fine sand that extends approximately two feet below the surface. Groundwater seepage was observed in several test pits. It is the geotechs opinion that the parking lot addition can be satisfactory designed and constructed as proposed. 4. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. 5. Surface Water System Development fees of $0.491 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. EROSION CONTROL 1. Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Separate permits and fees for storm water connections will be required. 2. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. Recommendations: Nothing to add Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-7521 email: cparks@rentonwa.gov April 14, 2014 Page 1 of 1 City Of I NOT[ -CE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Additional parking for 2520 building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-IM LOCATION: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW DESCRIPTION; The applicant has requested $EPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a new parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot Is needed due to an increase In office density at the existing 25.20 building. The now parking lot would he designed with permeoWe payement to handle a 100•year storm erem end world contain 155 parking stags; 26 of which would be compact stalls. The subject site is a vownt let totaling 4.22 acres In site and Is lacaad an parcel 0586790130 which is coned Commercial Office (COj. The parking lot would impact 1.21 awes of the 4.22 acre lot. The site Is located In the 1DO year flood plan of Spring Brook Creek, a seismic hazard area, and within the vidnky of wetlands. A Biological Assessment, Wetland Determination, Stormwater Report Including a compensatory storage analysis, Geotechnical Analysis and a Traffic Study was provided with the application. As a result of the project one tree would be removed with replacement trees proposed. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 90057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-6-110 and Inlormation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton lty lerles Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 15 APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED, FOR FUATHECOMMUNITY & E0DEPARTMENT CONOM C DEVE OPMEN AT ( 25) 430- PLEA5E CONTACI-THE CITY OF 721310 OF DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. LLKI IVILAI IVN I, � �e.Jf C fi , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were p steel in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: - j Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatJ�-&-s. ✓ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their fr` a and voluntary act for the uses apd•purposes mentioned in the instrument. FjF z 1°yee ' G 8 29 (r, Of WPS ,�1 �-a i q Notary Publ'4 and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): z� My appointment expires: 23 <: bill z.',...m !�.g.....- %' - ...... .:..:.:'-'h�.u� I°sXte.t:n<^1�x ':.�sC.LKY`aa�€. ..vE: ..,: .a,= _ -,.« Ems. ". •. � EE $ iF {�i( �i. .p ..... €' 't - ...< i€ €ilk" i -ER IR _ [�fT CSF CiJMhll( I -1500 �C� IEI ITS€ �f i N 1 i isEEE t§ .# IliliFFI,�IE i ;«:,.x,".. F`..... E °FF�1f _ E BYMAILINIrs _ i, On the 28th day of March, 2014, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: t� Agencies See Attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON �01L.LY P ` SS — nstiu, r�rf'L COUNTY OF KING ) 00r4o-��`•, co I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Lisa M. McElrea �,� dO 000 signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act.t�1,"" ���'� 8$rposes mentioned in the instrument.'� WASHING Dated: y Notary (Print): My appointment expires: NotaNpublic in and for the State of Washington Ate - al I QLb4-� Additional parking for 25-20 building LUA13-001722 template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DEME) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S_ Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metra Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS', the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: seoaunit@ecv.wa.¢ov ***Department of Natural Resources is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: seoacentergdnr.wa.Fov template - affidavit of service by mailing Denis Law �lY Of, Mayor r 104 rg •t April 14, 2014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mark Clement The Boeing Company , PO Box 3707 MC 1W-09 Seattle, WA 980124 SUBJECT: Additional Parking for 25-24 Building LUA13-001722, ECF, SA -A Dear Mr. Clement: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended April 11, 2014 for the Administrative Site -Development Plan Review approval. No appeals were filed, therefore, this decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The advisory notes listed in the City of Renton Report and Decision dated March 28, 2014 must be adhered to during.construction and prior to final inspection. Furthermore, the Administrative Site Development Plan Review 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 in writing, pursuant to RMC 4-9--200. 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 shall.conform to the International Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations in force. at the time of building permit application. If you have any .questions regarding the report and decision issued for this site plan development proposal, please call me at (425) 430-7382. Sincerely, _ Zt� Jill Ding Senior Planner Renton City Hall 1055 South GradyWay • Renton, Wash in9ton 98057 • rentonwa.gov --'.^.Cly UUt O�VRyLN�r O:JY�T �Ij'f lr 'J=�_ � � • y w C W j v O G F C yN - it ti �.�•' �.. .°I'.LN i s Or. W TJO :1 N�FI v= u O zp a Dom- CL a `v._ ".c c ❑ 20-' ��as= G„L,4 �z-zv:C r �J:.= N^ O N •O D _ r. E,Z 3 '.� C ^N� N 0-4 p nn� est FC 3� 0 r e e� vzF;p <r ci K -� f yE5— r--�C ��"" o � ar o 5 � 5--r-•c�i � � may'-=,� ^�' wtu� 0 yr:: o�� o �l yL'� �- v'1" r4-7G7Fa = rU a�'nm O O N f� O 0.? 00 •� N � � y bb :~ a t'a 3 . o 10 10 o �•� Denis Law Mayor March 28, 2014 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 985047703 City of �� o Community and Economic Development Department C. E."C hi p"Vin cent, Administrator Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 24, 2014: SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) PROJECT NAME: Boeing Additional Parking for 25-20 Building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001722 Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9$057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, , , _& / +ice I Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program U5 Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of ,i !! r i r I .ate OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Additional parking for 25-20 building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-1722 LOCATION: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a new parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot is needed due to an increase in office density at the existing 25-20 building. The new parking lot would be designed with permeable pavement to handle a 100 -year storm event and would contain 155 parking stalls; 28 of which would be compact stalls. The subject site is a vacant lot totaling 4.22 acres In size and Is located on parcel 08867GO130 which is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The parking lot would impact 1.21 acres of the 4.22 acre lot. The site Is located in the 100 year flood plan of Spring Brook Creek, a seismic hazard area, and within the vicinity of wetlands. A Biological Assessment, Wetland Determination, Stormwater Report including a compensatory storage analysis, Geotechnical Analysis and a Traffic Study was provided with the application. As a result of the project one tree would be removed with replacement trees proposed. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2014, together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYD c�tyof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT thtocen DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001722 APPLICANT: Mark Clement PROJECT NAME: Boeing Additional Parking for 25-20 Building PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal to construct a new 155 space (28 compact) parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot would be designed with permeable pavement to handle a 100 -year storm event. The site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The parking lot would impact 1.21 acres of the 4.22 acre lot. The site is located in the 100 year flood plain of Spring Brook Creek, a seismic hazard area, and within the vicinity of wetlands. PROJECT LOCATION: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project Construction shall comply with the submitted Geotech Report, prepared by GeoEngineers (date November 15, 2013). ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they ore not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi -family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an approved irrigation system prior to final occupancy permits Water: 1. Not Applicable Sewer. 1. Not Applicable Surface Water: 1. The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. The site is located within the Black River Basin and is inside the 100 -year flood plain. The project is subject to Full Drainage Review. 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. 3. Surface Water System Development fees of $0.491 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4. Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. 5. The site is required to provide flow control and water quality under the current King County Surface Water Manual. Transportation: 1. Not Applicable Fire: 1. Not Applicable General: 1. Separate permits and fees for storm water connections will be required. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City of ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED (DNS -M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-001722 APPLICANT: Mark Clement PROJECT NAME: Boeing Additional Parking for 25-20 Building PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a new parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot is needed due to an increase in office density at the existing 25-20 building. The new parking lot would be designed with permeable pavement to handle a 100 -year storm event and would contain 155 parking stalls; 28 of which would be compact stalls. The subject site is a vacant lot totaling 4.22 acres in size and is located on parcel 0886700130 which is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The parking lot would impact 1.21 acres of the 4.22 acre lot. The site is located in the 100 year flood plan of Spring Brook Creek, a seismic hazard area, and within the vicinity of wetlands. A Biological Assessment, Wetland Determination, Stormwater Report including a compensatory storage analysis, Geotechnical Analysis and a Traffic Study was provided with the application. As a result of the project one tree would be removed with replacement trees proposed. PROJECT LOCATION: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW. LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m, on April 11, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: March 28, 2014 March 24, 2014 7 ' 141 Gregg Zi er an, Administrator Public Works Department Date Terry Hijashiya, Administrator Community Services Department Date Mark Peterson, Ad istrator Fire & Emergency Services Date C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Department of Community & Date Economic Development nessa Dalbee ,om: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us> .ent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:53 AM ro: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Jill Ding Subject: RE: Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion, LUA13-001722 Vanessa, Thanks for sending along the BE for this project. Based on this information, we have no further questions or comments. Have a great day! Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-875-3116 From: Vanessa Dalbee [mailto:VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:31 PM To: Karen Walter Cc: Jill Ding Subject: Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion, LUA13-001722 Karen, Please find attached the Biological Assessment submitted by Boeing for the subject project. Please review the attached document and provide the City with your comments on the project by March 21, 2034. The City provided the Muckleshoot Tribe with the original Notice of Application (attached) and associated materials for the subject project on January 16, 2014. if you would like any additional information please let me know. Thank you, Vanessa Doffee 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 1 Denis Law City of. March 31, 2014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mark Clement The Boeing Company 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Additional Parking for 25-20 Building, LUA13-001.722 Dear Mr. Clement: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee.(ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report, for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. on April 11, 2014, together with the required fee with: hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-5510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. If you have any further questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, -rvw�6�-b Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Enclosure Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057 - rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REPORT & DECISION ERC MEETING DATE. March 24, 2014 Project Name: Additional Parking for 25-20 Building Owner: Boeing Corp.; 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW; Renton, WA 98055 Applicant/Contact: Mark Clement, Boeing Co.; PO Box 3707 MC 1W-09; Renton, WA 98124 File Number. LUA13-001722, ECF, SA -A Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review and Environmental Review, for the construction of a new surface parking lot for the Boeing 25-20 Building. The new parking lot would be located to the west of the existing surface parking lot and to the southwest of the 25-20 Building, in addition an existing helipad is located to the immediate northwest of the project site. The proposed parking lot would have 155 new parking spaces, 28 of those would be compact spaces and 5 would be ADA accessible spaces. The new parking lot would be constructed using pervious pavement. The project site totals 183,930 square feet (4.22 acres) of which 52,730 square feet (1.21 acres) is proposed to be utilized for the new parking lot. The proposal is located within the Commercial Office (CO) zoning designation and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land used designation. Access to the new parking lot would be provided off of Oaksedale Ave SW through the existing parking lot. The project site is located within the 100 year floodplain of Springbrook Creek and is within a Seismic Hazard Area. Project Location: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW Site Area: 183,930 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Nan -Significance -Mitigated (DNS -M). Project Location Map LVA13-001722 ERC Site Pian Report (2) City of Renton Department of Community & omit Development Cnvironmentai Rev. _ _ Committee & Administrative Site Plan Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 BUILDING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 _ Page 2 of 15 A. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee & Administrative Site Plan Report Exhibit 2: Site Plan Exhibit 3: Landscape Plan Exhibit 4: Biological Assessment Exhibit 5: Geotechnical Report Exhibit 6: Technical Information Report Exhibit 7: 5tormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Exhibit 8: Drainage Control Plan Exhibit 9: Wetland Determination Exhibit 10: Traffic Generation Summary Exhibit 11: Environmental "SEPA" Determination Exhibit 12: Aerial Photograph B. G£N£RAL INFORMATION: Boeing Corp. 1. Owner(s) of Record: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW Renton, WA 98055 2. Zoning Designation: Commercial Office (CO) 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Employment Area Valley (EAV) 4. Existing Site Use: Vacant, the existing 311,982 square foot 25-20 Building and associated surface parking abut the project site to the northeast and east. S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Vacant (CO zone) b. East: Existing surface (CO zone) c. South: Vacant (CO zone) d. West: Vacant (CO zone) 6. Site Area: 183,930 SF C HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5099 11/01/04 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/04 Annexation N/A 1745 04/19/1959 FRC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & omic Development Environmental Re 'ommittee & Admirnstrotive Site Plan Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 3 of 15 D. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Existing Utilities a. Water: Water service would be provided by the City of Renton. b. Sewer: Sewer service would be provided by the City of Renton. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are private storm drainage improvements within the project location. 2. Streets: The project site does not abut a public right-of-way. Access to the site is provided via existing driveways off of Oakesdale Ave SW. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE. 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-120: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Classifications 2. Chapter 3 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Area Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-070: Landscaping b. Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria a. Section 4-7-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Flement H. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Environmental Threshold Determination Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. ERC/Site plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & - omit Development Environments! Re :ommittee & Administrative Site Pian Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 2. Mitigation Measures Page 4 of 15 a. Project Construction shall comply with the submitted Geotech Report, prepared by GeoEngineers (date November 15, 2013). 3. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: a. Earth Impacts: According to the Geotechnical report (Exhibit 5), prepared by GeoEngineers (date November 15, 2013) the topography of the project site is nearly level, with site grades generally ranging from about Elevation 13 to 16 feet. A shallow swale existing in the northern portion of the site. Vegetation across the site consists of brush and tall grass. A row of deciduous trees lines the east side of the site. A paved road extends along the west side of the site and leads to a helicopter pad near the northeast corner of the site. Eight test pits were excavated to explore the soil and groundwater conditions onsite. The pits were excavated to depths ranging from 2 to 8 feet with a small track -mounted excavator. Based on the soils found in the test pits, GeoEngineers concluded that the soils onsite consisted of 6 inches of sod and topsoil and alluvial deposit, consisting of sandy silt, silty sand, sand with silt, and sand are present below the sod and topsoil. Groundwater seepage was observed in several of the test pits at depths ranging from 6 Y2 to 7 Yz feet below the existing ground surface. However, due to the project site's proximity to the Green River, the report indicates that groundwater levels likely fluctuate on a seasonal basis. Due to the project site's location within the 100 year floodplain of Springbrook Creek, excavation and fill activities will be limited to ensure that current flood storage capacities will be maintained onsite. Approximately 590 cubic yards of aggregate base will be brought onsite for the proposed parking lot_ However, 630 cubic yards of compensatory storage will be created onsite through the use of permeable pavement for the parking lot construction. The submitted geotechnical report provides recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, erosion and sediment control, and stormwater infiltration evaluation. Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the submitted Geotechnical Engineering Services report (Exhibit 5), prepared by GeoEngineers (date November 15, 2013). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review b. Water Wetlands, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The project site is located to the west of Springbrook Creek and to the east of a constructed wetland mitigation bank. A small 3,800 square foot wetland (Wetland J) was identified (Exhibit 9) on the project site. The project site is located more than 200 feet from the mitigated wetlands to the west and Springbrook Creek to the east and is therefore outside of any regulated critical area buffer and does not fall within the 200 -foot shoreline jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act. The project site does fall within the 100 year floodplain of Springbrook Creek. A Wetland Delineation report (Exhibit 9) prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. dated September 3, 2013 was submitted with the application materials. According to the report, a small, 3,800 square foot Category 3 wetland (wetland J) exists on the project site. According to the report, impacts to this ERC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & auric Development Environmental He :ommittee & Administrative Site Plan Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 15-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 5 of 15 wetland have previously been mitigated by the Boeing Co. through the creation of the wetland mitigation bank installed to the west of the project site. No documentation was submitted with the application materials verifying that impacts to this wetland were indeed mitigated through the construction of the wetland mitigation bank, therefore staff was unable to verify whether impacts to Wetland J had previously been mitigated. The report also concludes that Wetland J should be exempt from the City's Critical Areas Regulations per RMC 4-3-050.M.l.e.i which states that regulated wetlands do not include those areas unintentionally created after July 1, 1990 from road construction. The report states that the wetland hydrology is partially the result of stormwater runoff from portions of the existing helipad and asphalt access road that drain towards the wetland. Therefore the wetland meets the requirement for the exemption under RMC 4-3-050.M.l.e.i. Staff concurs with the submitted wetland report stating that mitigation for wetland impacts would not be required as the existing wetland meets the criteria for exemption as specified in RMC 4-3-050.M.1.e.i. The project site is located within the 100 year floodplain of Springbrook Creek. Per RMC4-3-0501.6.a "Development proposals and other alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the site..." According to the Biological Assessment (Exhibit 4), prepared by Landau Associates, dated February 25, 2014, the existing flood volume in the project area is currently 3,842 cubic yards. The proposed project includes grading and filling activities within the base flood elevation, which results in a net increase of 40 cubic yards of flood storage in the project area. The project includes approximately 590 cubic yards of fill, however, the proposal to utilize pervious pavement would provide approximately 630 cubic yards of compensatory storage. Therefore, the proposal would comply with the compensatory storage requirements outlined in RMC 4-3-0501.6.a. Mitigation Measures: None Nexus: N/A II. Storm Water Impacts: A Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 6), prepared by CEI (dated December 11, 2013) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Exhibit 7), prepared by Coffman Engineers, Inc. (dated December 2013) were submitted with the application materials. According to the TIR the existing downstream drainage from the project site starts at an existing 12 -inch culvert located on the north end of the project site. This culvert conveys flows to the north and runoff then flows to the northwest into the existing storm drainage and mitigated wetland system. Runoff then flows to the east in a series of culverts and ditches before entering Springbrook Creek. This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Existed Conditions. The site is located within the Black River Basin and is inside the 100 - year flood plain. The project is subject to Full Drainage Review. The project proposes to utilize permeable paving to infiltrate stormwater runoff. The proposed improvements will cover approximately 1.21 acres of the site. The site is proposed to be graded with a 1.5 percent slope to the west. An interceptor swale will be constructed along the west to intercept any runoff that may occur during an emergency event (i.e. soil saturation or permeable pavement failure). The permeable pavement will provide flow control and water quality in compliance with the KCSWM using the low impact development techniques and will be constructed in accordance with the 2012 Low Impact Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: Not applicable. ERC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & omit Developrnerrt ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 )ING Report of March 24, 2014 c. Plants and Animals Environmental Rev ommittee & Administrobve Site Plan Report LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Page 6 of 15 Impacts: A biological assessment (Exhibit 4) prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Amendment 14 of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act) was submitted with the application materials. According to the submitted Biological Assessment, the following critical habitats may be impacted by the proposal: Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead trout, and Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout. The project does not propose any in water work and the following measures will be implemented during construction to avoid downstream impacts on listed species and their habitat: spill prevention and response equipment, temporary erosion and sediment control measures, and the use of pervious pavement to infiltrate stormwater. The report concludes that the proposed project does not involve any in -water work. All stormwater will be infiltrated through pervious pavement, and project construction will implement best management practices to reduce potential turbidity from entering the existing storm system, Springbrook Creek, and the mitigated wetlands and will therefore have no impact on Puget Sound Chinook, Puget Sound steelhead, and bull trout. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: Not Applicable d. Transportation Impacts: The project site would gain access from Oaksdale Ave. SW via existing driveways through the existing 25-20 Building surface parking lot, located to the east of the project site. Frontage improvements are not required for the proposed new surface parking lot. A Traffic Generation Summary (Exhibit 10) prepared by Coffman Engineers (dated December 19, 2013) was submitted with the application materials. No structures are proposed to be constructed, therefore the summary concludes that no addition trips will be generated by the expansion of the parking lot as the square footage of the 25-20 Building is not changing. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: Not applicable. e. Fire & Police Impacts: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended. Nexus: Not applicable. 4. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." I. ADMINSTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant, Boeing Company, is requesting Administrative Site Plan Review and Environmental 'SEPA' Review for the construction of a new surface parking lot with 155 spaces, of which 28 would be compact and 5 would be ADA accessible. The proposed parking lot would be constructed within the 100 year floodplain of Springbrook Creek. 2. Associated landscaping and lighting improvements are proposed within the new parking lot. ERC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & 7omic Development Environmental Re 'ummittee & Administrative Site Non Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 15-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 7 of 15 3. The proposed parking lot would be constructed using pervious pavement to infiltrate the stormwater and provide the required compensatory flood storage. 4. The subject property is located east of the existing 25-20 Building parking lot, which is on the east side of Oaksdale Ave SW. S. The 4.22 acre property is located within the Employment Area Valley (EAV) Comprehensive Plan land use designation, the Commercial Office (CO) zoning classification, and the Employment Area Valley overlay. 6. The site currently is currently vacant, with a small 3,800 square foot wetland (Wetland J). 7. Access to the site would be provided off of Oaksdale Ave SW via existing driveways through the existing 25-20 Building parking lot to the east of the project site. 8. The site is bordered to the south by vacant land, to the west by a helipad and vacant land, to the east by the existing 25-20 Building surface parking lot, and to the north by an asphalt maintenance road and trail and vacant land. 9. The ground surface in the vicinity of the subject site is relatively flat. The site slopes vary from 1-3 percent, tending to the north. 10. The site contains 1 existing tree which is proposed for removal. 11. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on December 23, 2013 and determined it complete on January 16, 2014. The project was placed on hold February 6, 2014 pending the submittal of additional information. The requested information was submitted March 4, 2014 and the project was taken off hold March 7, 2014. The project complies with the 120 -day review period. 12. No public comments were received. 13. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on March 24, 2014, the City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- significance -Mitigated (DNS -M) (Exhibit 11). A 14 -day appeal period will commence with this Administrative Site Plan Review Decision on March 28, 2014 and end on April 11, 2014. 14. 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. 15. The proposal requires Site Plan Review. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with Site Plan Review decision criteria, as outlined in RMC 4-9-200.E: a::' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE -AND CONSISTENCY; The site is designated Employment Area -Valley (EAV) ad the' Co prehensive Plan Land Use, Map. The purpose of EAV is to achieve a mix.of uses including industrial bigh technology, office,,:and commercial activities .. in,. Employment': Areas', that. lead to economic growth and a strengthening of 'Renton's employment base. The proposal is compliant with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy LU -317. Site Plan Review should be required for all new projects in the Employment Area -Valley pursuant to thresholds established in the City's development regulations. Policy CD -30. Non-residential development should have site plans that provide street access from a principal arterial, consolidate access points to existing streets, and have internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Curb cuts and internal access should not ERC/Site Plan Report City of Ren ton Department of Community & " comic Development ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 15-10 DING Report of March 24, 2014 Environmental Re Committee & Administrotive Site Plan Report LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Page 8 of 15 ERC/Site Plan Report conflict with pedestrian circulation. T h. ZONING COMPLIANCE AND CONISTENCY: The subject site is classified Commercial Office (CO) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. The following 'development standards are applicable to the proposal: Lot Dimensions: Per RMC 4-2-1206 the minimum lot size, in the CO zone, is 25,000 square feet. Not applicable. Setbacks: Per RMC 4-2-1206 the CO zoning classification requires a minimum front yard setback of 15 for buildings less than 25 feet in height, 20 feet for building between 25 and 80 feet in height and 30 feet for buildings over 80 feet in height. The minimum front yard setback may be modified through the site plan development review process. There is no maximum front yard setback. The CO zone has no rear or side yard setback except 15 feet if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone. Not applicable, the proposal does not include the construction of any structures. Building Height: Per RMC 4-2-1206 building height is restricted to 250 feet except if the lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone, then the height shall be limited to 20 feet more than the maximum height permitted in the abutting residential zone. Not applicable. Building Standards: Per RMC 4-2-1206 the allowed lot coverage is 65 percent or 75 percent of total lot area if parking is provided within the building. Not applicable. Landscaping: Per RMC 4-4-070 ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways or those projects with reduced setbacks. Not applicable as the project site does not about a public street frontage. Per RMC 4-4-070 35 square feet of landscaping per parking stall is required for parking areas with 100 or more parking spaces. A total of 5,425 square feet of landscaping is required based on the 155 proposed parking stalls. The applicant is proposing a total of 15,275 square feet of landscaping on site and meets the requirements of parking area landscaping. Underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. Refuse and Recyclables: No new structures are proposed, not applicable. Critical Areas: The site is located within the 100 year floodplain of 5pringbrook Creek_ Per RMC4-3- 0501.6.a "Development proposals and other alterations shall not reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or other activity will reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be created on the site..." According to the Biological Assessment (Exhibit 4), prepared by Landau Associates, dated February 25, 2014, the existing flood volume in the project area is currently 3,842 cubic yards. The proposed project includes grading and filling activities within the base flood elevation, which results in a net increase of 40 cubic yards of flood storage in the project area. The project includes approximately 590 cubic yards of fill, however the proposal to utilize pervious pavement would provide approximately 630 cubic yards of compensatory storage. Therefore, the proposal would comply with the compensatory storage requirements outlined in RMC 4-3-0501.6.a. Parking: The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided following: ERC/Site Plan Report City of Fen ton Department of Community & omit Development ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING Report of March 24, 2014 The following ratios would be applicable to the site.- SF ite. Environmental He Committee & Administrative Site Plan Report L UA13-001722, 5A -A, ECF Page 9 of 15 SF O ice Ratio Required Spaces 311,982 Min: 2.0 spaces 1, 000 SF Max: 4.5 spaces / 1, 000 SF Min: 623 m_... - Max: 1,404 Based on the existing office use, a minimum of 623 stalls would be required to meet code up to a maximum of 1,404 parking spaces. The existing 25-20 Building parking lot contains a total of 757 parking spaces. The proposal to add 155 spaces results in a total of 912 parking spaces on site which is within the range allowed by code. No more than 40 percent of parking spaces provided may be designated as compact spaces_ The proposal includes 28 of the new spaces as designated compact spaces (28/155 = 18 percent), which complies with the maximum number of compact spaces requirement. Based on the proposal for 155 new parking spaces, a minimum of 6 ADA accessible spaces are required. The proposal includes a provision of 5 new ADA accessible spaces. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval that a revised site plan be submitted at the time of construction permit review demonstrating compliance with the ADA parking requirements. Sidewalks, Pathways, and Pedestrian Easements: A pedestrian connection shall be provided form a public entrance to the street, unless the Reviewing Official determines that the requirement would unduly endanger the pedestrian. No new structures are proposed with this application, therefore this requirement is not applicable. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site. The proposal includes the expansion of the existing parking lot for the Boeing 25-20 Building, no new structures are proposed. The proposal would not result in any overscale structures or overconcentration of development. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Pedestrian connections and sidewalks are provided within the new parking lot and would connect to existing pedestrian linkages to the 25-20 Building. The proposed parking area complies with this requirement. 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. The proposed parking lot does not contain any new structures or storage areas that required screening. This section is not applicable. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features. The proposed parking lot would not obstruct any views. 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 ERC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & omic Development Environmental Re ' Committee & Administrative Site Plan Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 10 of 15 project. See Landscaping discussion under Findings Section 15.b. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glaring in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets A lighting plan was not provided with the project materials. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of construction permit review. f:'OM�ITE'IMpACTS,. - Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation. Not applicable, no new structures are proposed. 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. Not applicable, no new structures are proposed. 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. The site contains 34 trees of which 1 is proposed for removal. Renton Municipal Code requires that 5 percent of the trees on site be retained. Of the 34 trees, 2 trees are required to be retained. The proposal to retain 33 existing trees complies with this requirement. Topographically, the site is relatively flat. A geotechnical report (Exhibit 5) for the site was submitted. Information on the water table and soil permeability with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP options were included. Grading would be necessary in order to prepare the site for the proposed improvements. The applicant proposes to import 590 cubic yards of fill for the construction of the parking lot. The parking lot would be comprised of pervious pavement, which limits the impervious surface on the project site. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements_ Landscaping has been incorporated into to the surface parking area, which softens the appearance of the parking area. A total of 33 Scarlet Sentinel Maple trees are proposed within the parking lot to provide shade and break up the expanse of pavement (Exhibit 3). The landscaping would enhance the appearance of the project if all conditions of approval are complied with. g: ACCUS: 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 the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties. Access to the site would be provided via the existing driveways through the existing parking lot to the east onto Oaksdale Ave SW (Arterial). No new driveways or curb cuts are proposed. FRC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & omit Development Fnvironmental Re ' Committee & Administrative Site Plan Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 11 of 15 Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways. The internal circulation of the site has been designed to complement the internal circulation within the existing parking lot to the east. Vehicular connections are proposed to existing driveway access points. New pedestrian walkways are proposed through the new parking area and would also connect to existing pedestrian walkways, providing safe and efficient access for pedestrians to the main Building 25-20 entrance. The site development would include 155 parking stalls (28 compact stalls and 6 ADA stalls per staff's recommended condition of approval) within the surface lot, which comply with the parking requirements for the proposed use. The applicant has proposed 90 degree head -in parking using a two way circulation pattern and has an aisle width of 24 feet which complies with the aisle width standards of the code. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas. There are no dedicated loading or delivery areas proposed on site. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit carpools and bicycle facilities and access. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11 0.5 bicycle the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces. Based on the proposal for 155 new parking spaces, 16 bicycle parking stalls are required to be provided. No information was provided with the application regarding bicycle parking. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant submit a revised site plan that complies with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080F.11. The revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. Pedestrian connections are proposed within the parking lot and would connect to a new 8 -foot wide concrete walkway along the eastern boundary of the parking lot. The new walkway would be bounded by existing landscaping on the east side and would connect to existing pedestrian walkways at the north end of the project site. The existing walkways provide access to the main building entrance as well as the existing asphalt trail system. h. OPEN SPACE: Incorporatin'g'g Qpgn" spaees, to 'sive os .distinctive project focal points and fa prourde : adequate areas for passive and active recreatioh. by the .occupants/users of the srle The proposal includes an 8 -foot wide concrete pedestrian walkway along the east property line. The east side of the proposed walkway is bordered by existing landscaping (including trees) associated with the existing parking lot located to the east of the project site (Exhibit 3). In addition to providing pedestrian access to the main building entrance of the 25-20 Building, the proposed walkway also connects to an existing asphalt trail system along the north end of the project site, which enables pedestrian access to the mitigated wetlands to the west of the project site. The proposed walkway provides open space on the project site as well as providing access to the existing larger open space, trail system to the north and west of the project site. 1 ` EINSAND'PUBUC ACCESS: When possible, providing- view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and rncorporatin public access to shorelines. The proposed parking lot would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. The public access requirement is not applicable as the site is not adjacent to a shoreline. j. NATURAL SYSTEMS. Arrangingpr9jea aI meets io protect existing natural sygoe ns wh&Ie appl cdb(e. The project site is located within the 100 year floodplain of Springbrook Creek. The proposed parking lot ERC/Sire Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & omit Devefopment Environmental Rev ommittee & Administrative Site Pfau Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 15-20 DING LUA13-001711, SA -A, FC>= Report of March 24, 2014 Page 12 of 15 would be constructed using pervious pavement to infiltrate stormwater as well as provide compensatory storage for the 100 year flood event, protecting the existing natural drainage system. See Critical Areas discussion under Findings Section 15_b and Drainage discussion under Findings Section 15.k. k SERi'iCES,AND INFRASTRUCTURE. Making available:.publlc s0rvtces,":arid facilities to accommodate the proposed use.` - Police and Fire: Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Parks and Recreation: Not Applicable Drainage: A Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 6), prepared by CEI (dated December 11, 2013) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Exhibit 7), prepared by Coffman Engineers, Inc. (dated December 2013) were submitted with the application materials. According to the TIR the existing downstream drainage from the project site starts at an existing 12 -inch culvert located on the north end of the project site. This culvert conveys flows to the north and runoff then flows to the northwest into the existing storm drainage and mitigated wetland system. Runoff then flows to the east in a series of culverts and ditches, before entering Springbrook Creek. This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. This site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Existed Conditions. The site is located within the Black River Basin and is inside the 100 - year flood plain. The project is subject to Full Drainage Review. The project proposes to utilize permeable paving to infiltrate stormwater runoff. The proposed improvements will cover approximately 1.21 acres of the site. The site is proposed to be graded with a 1.5 percent slope to the west. An interceptor swale will be constructed along the west to intercept any runoff that may occur during an emergency event (i.e. soil saturation or permeable pavement failure). The permeable pavement will provide flow control and water quality in compliance with the 2009 KCSWM using the low impact development techniques and will be constructed in accordance with the 2012 Low Impact Development Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Transportation: The project site would gain access from Oaksdale Ave. SW via existing driveways through the existing 25-20 Building surface parking lot, located to the east of the project site. Frontage improvements are not required for the proposed new surface parking lot. A Traffic Generation Summary (Exhibit 10) prepared by Coffman Engineers (dated December 19, 2013) was submitted with the application materials. No structures are proposed to be constructed, therefore the summary concludes that no addition trips will be generated by the expansion of the parking lot as the square footage of the 25-20 Building is not changing. Schools: Not Applicable. Water and Sewer: Not applicable. I 'PHASING Tfae applicant'is not requesting an'y' additionaV pha in I. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the responsible officials issue a Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (Exhibit 11). 2. The proposal complies with the Site Plan Review Criteria if all conditions of approval are met. 3. The proposal is compliant and consistent with the plans, policies, regulations and approvals. FRC/Site Pion Report City of Renton Department of Community & iomrc Development ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING Report of March 24, 2014 Environmental Re Committee & AdministrutiveSite Plow Report LUA13-001721, SA -A, ECF Page 13 of 15 4. Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties and uses as long as the conditions of approval are complied with. 5. The proposed use is anticipated to be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses as permitted in the CO zoning classification. 6. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed parking lot is appropriate for the site. 7. Safe and efficient access and circulation has been provided for all users. S. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 9. The proposed location would not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location is suited for the proposed use. 10. The proposed use would not result in a substantial or undue adverse effect on adjacent properties. The construction of a new parking lot would provide adequate parking for employees of the 25-20 Building, reducing the need for employees to find parking off-site. 11. Adequate parking would be provided. 12. The proposed site plan ensures safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and has mitigated potential effects on the surrounding area if all conditions of approval are complied with. 13. The proposed development would not generate any long term harmful or unhealthy conditions_ Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use have been evaluated and mitigated if all conditions of approval are complied with. 14. Landscaping has been provided in all areas not occupied by paving. 1. DECISION: The proposed Site Plan for the 25-20 Building Parking Lot Expansion, File No. LUA13-001722, ECF, SA -A, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to construction permit approval demonstrating compliance with the ADA parking requirements. 2. A lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. A revised site plan that shows compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080F.11 shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. C' C. f "Chip" Vincent, CFD Administrator ERC/Site Plan Report ryeuoq Date City of Renton Department of Community omit Development Environmental Re Committee & Administrative Site Plort Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING LLIA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 14 of 15 TRANSMITTED this 24`h day of March, 2014 to the ContactfApplicant/Owner: Contact/Applicant: Owner: Boeing Co- Boeing Company Mark Clement 1901 Oakesdole Ave SW PO Box 3707 MC IW -09 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98124 TRANSMITTED this 24`h day of March, 2014 to the Parties of Record: None TRANSMITTED this 24th day of March, 2014 to the following: Neil Watts, Development Services Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Director Craig Burnell, Building Official Steve Lee, Development Services Manager Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Fire Marshal Land Use Action Appeals, Request for Reconsideration, & Expiration The Environmental Determination and the Administrative Site Development Plan Review decisions will become final if the decisions are not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. Environmental Determinatign Appeal: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing to the hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 p.m., April 11, 2014. Administrative Site Development Plan Approval Appeal: Appeals of the administrative site development plan review decision must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:04 p.m. on April 11, 2014. APPEALS: An appeal of the decision(s) must be filed within the 14 -day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the $250.00 application fee to Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that a decision be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -maker) 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 Administrator (Decision -maker) 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 timeframe. EXPIRATION: The Administrative Site Development Plan Review decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision- A single two (2) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-200. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one -on -ane) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court. ERC/Site Plan Report City of Renton Department of Community & omir Development Environmental Re Committee & Administrative Site pion Report ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR 25-20 DING LUA13-001722, SA -A, ECF Report of March 24, 2014 Page 15 of 15 ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes ore provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions_ Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of.Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Commercial, multi -family, new single-family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m_, Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a -m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. All landscaping shall be irrigated by an approved irrigation system prior to final occupancy permits Water: 1. Not Applicable Sewer. 1. Not Applicable Surface Water: 1. The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. The site is located within the Black River Basin and is inside the 100 - year flood plain. The project is subject to Full Drainage Review_ 2. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. 3. Surface Water System Development fees of $0.491 per square foot of new impervious surface will apply. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. 4_ Erosion Control shall be installed and monitored in accordance with Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the KCSWM. 5. The site is required to provide flow control and water quality under the current King County Surface Water Manual. Transportation: 1. Not Applicable Fire: 1. Not Applicable General: 1. Separate permits and fees for storm water connections will be required. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. ERC/Site Pion Report t----__---------- �7M I i 1 I3 1 3RD--—-------�'--- S ---{ —-- 1 p VIII IlIIIII:1 VIII lIIIIIII Ilhlllllll llllll� VIII --r---�-- IT--- - � — f--- -f=�------4----,---')i ----4{ — — la r Z m .o IM � U7 h .� OAKES6ALE AYE I B.W. I afl I e r _ ,II q0 Z� ;I :�:; y.3�rf■Y G �>r ��,� ��1 ���1■ni■■!■■■1 ■' J r'au �i:v■vr iL\■1rr.rO1� ■nl'1 .on ■:oJJJ' s-IrN■p �e�l .: 1'. Lo .7 .II �\::.I-1■fNi■■■■■111' ,yrII■■■■ I � N■III I ■����N7■III INNSnX■II 1 ■f. F�il 6.ll iuoux■u: I ■■!■■N■111 n!■■!■111 ■■R �. is `e i It1■�■■YmemouGI: rl I I ■■iuN■x lum■x■■' �- l ■=r-1 lu��r■x■m 1■NN■u i owl�c gL ' - —, MI9� I h A •ads '� � � � � II �7M I i 1 I3 1 3RD--—-------�'--- S ---{ —-- 1 p VIII IlIIIII:1 VIII lIIIIIII Ilhlllllll llllll� VIII --r---�-- IT--- - � — f--- -f=�------4----,---')i ----4{ — — la r Z m IM � U7 h .� OAKES6ALE AYE I B.W. I e r _ ,II q0 Z� ;I :�:; y.3�rf■Y G �>r ��,� ��1 ���1■ni■■!■■■1 ■' J r'au �i:v■vr iL\■1rr.rO1� ■nl'1 .on ■:oJJJ' s-IrN■p �e�l .: 1'. Lo .7 .II �\::.I-1■fNi■■■■■111' ,yrII■■■■ unr. l.!■L� 1.111.. 11141,�9.■fLaa. • M,,: N■III I ■����N7■III INNSnX■II �Ir■nux■■u I°� _'uoii ■f. F�il 6.ll iuoux■u: I ■■!■■N■111 n!■■!■111 ■■R �. is `e i It1■�■■YmemouGI: rl I I ■■iuN■x lum■x■■' �- l ■=r-1 lu��r■x■m 1■NN■u i owl�c L I r _ ,II IN e. :�:; y.3�rf■Y ��,� ��1 ���1■ni■■!■■■1 ■' J r'au �i:v■vr iL\■1rr.rO1� ■nl'1 .on ■:oJJJ' s-IrN■p �e�l .: 1'. Lo .7 .II �\::.I-1■fNi■■■■■111' ,yrII■■■■ unr. l.!■L� 1.111.. 11141,�9.■fLaa. • M,,: N■III I ■����N7■III INNSnX■II �Ir■nux■■u I°� _'uoii ■f. F�il 6.ll iuoux■u: I ■■!■■N■111 n!■■!■111 ■■R �. is `e i It1■�■■YmemouGI: rl I I ■■iuN■x lum■x■■' �- l ■=r-1 lu��r■x■m 1■NN■u i owl�c L rF �.0 I M QF)M F O m A � q 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 0 Q 00 a 0° n° 0 w { 0 0 o ...0 0 _0 t�I—1 3 I � 17 I 1 Y � �FT'CP, sbJW01 0 0 Qj, 0 0 0 0 4 dT TO'•Ic :i: c•I .• •.I • 6^ v 3cu � — IT'I IT F Op € – - s e v p p +a• �e 6� AiI A _I � � �,tY•w arf � r —. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 ro #IfI C3 cpm i or n ro c ! a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�� 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ...0 0 _0 =.: o_ 0_._ 0 0 Qj, 0 0 0 0 4 6^ v 3cu � Ln� F i it 6� y PARAS EXHIBIT 4 -ANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICALMEMORANDUI.. EWPaNM MICAoTECWwrftJNAMMLA LIKES TO: Marl, Clement, The Boeing Company CC: Donald Scarberry. PP_E., Coffman Engineers FROM: Steven Quarternia ` so'ciate Ecologist DATE. February 25, 2014 RE: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - NO EFFECT DETERMINATION BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION LONGACRES PARK, RENTON, WASHINGTON The Boeing Company (Boeing) is proposing to expand parking in the vicinity of Building 25-20 at the Lon -acres facility in Renton. Washington (see attached site plan), The Boeing 25-20 Building office density was increased in the existina office areas, requiring additional parking adjacent to the building. The project will convert 1.21 acres of existing vacant laird to asphalt -based pervious pavement. This No Effect Determination and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Evaluation contains the necessary information and analysis for an effects deterinination, consistent with the regulations, conditions. and guidance tinder Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Amendment 14 of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act) for the Boeing Building 25- 20 Parking Lot Expansion project. Currently, no federal fiends or permits are provided for the proposed projea in the event that federal permits are provided for this project. this document has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. This No Effect Determination and EFH Evaluation also incorporates discussion of the project effects in regard to the September 22. 2008 biological opinion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries regarding ESA and Magnuson -Stevens Act consultation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the Puget Sound area (NMFS Tracking No. 2006/00472). Review of the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) species lists (USFWS 2013, NOAA Fisheries 2012) indicate the potential RECML D following species and critical habitat(s): MAR 0 4 2QT4 Species SSA Status Critical Habitat St'OffI OF RENTON Puget Sound Chinook ESU Threatened Designated (not present in JU G DIVISION Puget Sound steelhead trout DPS Threatened Proposed (not present in the action area) Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout DPS Threatened Designated (not present in acdon•area) Note: USFWS list of species in King County also include Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmolus), northern spotted owl (Sfrix occidentalis caurina), and golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). The project area is a developed industriailcommerciar corridor and does not contain suitable habitat for these species, and they are not considered further in this assessment. 1302nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax(426)778-6409 . www.landauinc.com Geotechnical Engineering Services Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Addition Boeing Longacres Park Renton, Washington File No. 0120-280-00 November 15, 2013 Prepared for: The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 Attention: Martin Probst, David Kennedy Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. Plaza 600 Building 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.728.2674 Timothy 0. Bailey, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer 4:�;�,, t }Gi�ifa� EXHIBIT 5 1Bo McFadden, PE, LEG Principal HRPTD81JM:leh cc: Donald Scarberry, PE, Coffman Engineers, Inc. (one copy sent by email) Discialmer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document Is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of ecord. Copyright(D 2013 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. t GWENGINEER� LVM-3-0o r? -ZZ- EXHIBIT 6 i _Technical Information Report Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion Longacres Park, Renton, Washington Boeing Contract #113066-0 1-00 December 11, 2013 Prepared by: Dean A. Furr, P.E. Reviewed by: Donald 5carberry, P.E. CEI Project #13459 SEATTLEANCHORAGE GUAM HONOLULU LQSANGELB SPOKANE 16101 FNdkAw..Sui�940 9117.276.6664 67f.311o,7S31 HQ�687,B98b $19,�f15..k�54 58`1�z8.2944 $fttt r.lAA "101.1W 306.623.0717 LASTING crcrrrtr; reek 1-alatiorslsps Ston EXHIBIT 7 rmwater Pollution Prevention Plan For 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion Prepared For Boeing Commercial Airplanes Seattle District P.O. Box 3707, MIC 1W-08 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Owner Developer Operator/Contractor Boeing Commercial Airplanes Same as Owner. TBD P.O. Box 3707, MIC 1W-08 TBD Seattle, WA 98124 TBD David Keneddy 206.544.8356 Project Site Location 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead TBD TBD SWPPP Prepared By Coffinan Engineers, Inc. 601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 623-0717 Dean Furr, P.E., Project Engineer SWPPP Preparation Date 12/2013 Approximate Project Construction Dates May 2014 July 2014 loop loll Ilii© im - ., sesta z a-sa � e■aE-Mnf■..a nira�btx=a.�,znreeu��IgR�9.6�H1Eitl#�h+�_m _ . n �I on ' �irr��iu1■ i 6 �G Gil- - G . � - � : '" �6'I �y1■�E��` �r■tri.-= , . F a1F1E■I�Rl� ./ - � J1�L q _ ,�r� 111iF�'' oil - IraouEEarn 1s441ii■_x•\iiia -r4'� i1rFlFFYIIF■q�kllFl �l��rFlllll#R� ��wlw��s�w#*IIErF.is��i I` I I11EE1 �+aEr1 IEE#EEnEII' �� S■ �'1 11 f!f 1 . H IEE#EEYEII' IEEON 11 [� F 1EEMEN n'all Illi - F �• � 1 F{'i�IrF�iN4lii mommill 1 '.� p1i L.E_r eels. .} , r I IEEr EErEll _- _- 'I�I IEEMEEYEn l F _mann rI >�lllll al�illll!i � L��� 1■IEEEEIgW F Iwo IEEEENEO• FM 1 I :::::::+zl �0 I CD Ca En O N Ask .,,.. �7' :� EXHIBIT \ 4013 32nd Avenu: Wo*t September 3, 2013 The Boeing Company c/o Don Scarberry Coban Engineers, Inc 1601 Fifth Avenge, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Wetland Determijastion for Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Expansion Dear Don, On July 15, 2013, 1 met at your office in Seattle and was provided some conceptual plans for the proposed expansion of the parking area of Building 25-20 at the Boeing Longacres Office Park in Renton, Washington. The conceptual parking expansion is adjacent to and west of the existing parking area. This area was reportedly regraded as part of past development activity completed by Boeing in the late 1990's. You provided documents, including a record drawing titled Landscape Layout & Materials Plan -.. Grid 28 for the BCAG Surface Water Management Project drawing LC 28 and a second drawing titled Grading Grid 33 Longacres Park (drawing 0933) that show this. Other figures provided included an as -built, record drawing titled Site Grading Plan Grid 33 for the BCAG Headquarters Bldg. 25-20 Site Development, which shows a small (3,800 sq. ft.) wetland between the helipad, existing access road to the helipad, and Building 25-20 parking area. Labeled Wetland J (Attachment A), the wetland is approximately 100 ft. (east to west) by 35 ft. (north to south). Boeing has indicated that this wetland was compensated for as part of an approved compensatory wetland mitigation plan. A reconnaissance -level wetland investigation was conducted by Ecological Solutions on August 9, 2013 to assess whether this area was a wetland. This letter report identifies the methods used and my wetland determination findings. These findings are preliminary and subject to verification by the City of Renton and other regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology as appropriate. Introduction The area has a long history of disturbance dating back to at least 1936 based upon aerial photographs available online through Google Earth and the King County iMAP website. A horse racetrack is shown in the 1936 aerial photo as are ditches and an old meander scroll of Green River. By 1990, many additional land use changes are evident, including construction of many buildings to the east of the Longacres racetrack in the vicinity of the existing Building 25- 20, parking, and helipad and the meander scroll is entirely filled, Two buildings are present within the area of the proposed parking expansion adjacent to the existing asphalt pavement ACOFFMAN N G I N E E R S December 19, 2013 Mr. Mark Clement Permit Specialist The Boeing Company 737 Logan Avenue North Renton, Washington 98055 Project: Parking Lot Expansion - Traffic Generation Summary Boeing Building 25-20 Renton, Washington CEI Project 913459 Dear Marl:: The Boeing Company is expanding the parking area that services Building 25-20 located at the Boeing Longacres Office Park in Renton, Washington. The City of Renton requested an updated Traffic Impact Analysis based on the improvements that are taking place. We have reviewed the Transportation Study for the Boeing Longacres Office Park Master Plan Update that was completed in September 2000. The peak hour trips were generated based on the square footage of the buildings being constructed. No additional trips are being generated by the expansion of the Boeing 25-20 building parking lot since the area of the building is not changing with this project. We believe that this is a conservative approach and the addition of employees will not have a significant impact on the total traffic volumes. Please call if we may be of further assistance. Si D(TnalcrR. Scarberry, Senior Discipline Nla dks:rzd Enclosures Civil Engineering K-l13job,013459 Boeing 23-20 Parkin; Lo! Expansionll.4 CORRESPOIVDEAICE11.1 Genera! Correspondencet134-39Traffic Summary Letter dks. docx SEATTLE ANCHORAGE HONOLULU LOSANGELES SPOKANE 1601FikhAve, Soke900 967.276,6664 809.687.6884 816.295.2650 509.328.2994 Seatde, WA 96101-1620 206.623.0717 LASTING creativity I results I relationships LUA1 3-001722 EXHIBIT 12 Notes None 19 12 0 256 512 Feet +GS-1984_Web_M ercator_Auxi I iary_Sph ere City of effon Finance & IT Division Legend City and County Boundary Olher ty cf Reston Parcels Information Technology - GIS Th s rap is a user pe^e,ated stafir outpil `om nn Ini map- ,p s ;z and is for -ere-ecce on v Data 12ye s :hof aopeer o•i this map Tay or m2•; 10: be Renton Map Su pport'@Rentonwa.gov =Yale cL«en:, o-athenvise ret able 3/20/2014 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Denis Law City + 11 Mayor � y o�,- r Al March 7, 2.014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mark Clement The Boeing Company 737 Logan Ave N Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice Additional'Parking for 25-20 Building, LUA13-001722 Dear Mr. Clement: Thank you for submitting the additional materials requested in the February 6, 2014 fetter from the City. Your project has. been taken off hold and the City will continue review of the additional parking lot project.. The Environmental Review and Site Plan has been rescheduled for ERC on March 24, 2014. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 430-7314. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc: Boeing Company / Owner(s) Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way . Renton, Washington 98057. rentonwa.gov. Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:31 PM To: 'Karen Walter' Cc: Jill Ding Subject: Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion, LUA13-001722 Attachments: NOA DNSM 001722.pdf; Lot25-20_NE_TM (Biological Assessmet)_pdf Karen, Please find attached the Biological Assessment submitted by Boeing for the subject project. Please review the attached document and provide the City with your comments on the project by March 21, 2014. The City provided the Muckleshoot Tribe with the original Notice of Application (attached) and associated materials for the subject project on January 16, 2014. If you would like any additional information please let me know. Thank you, Vanessa Doffee 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 LANDAU 14ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM EMIROFMMEi{ULL I C,EOfECJTMJLL J NAT41RP1 gF50WCi5 TO: Mark Clement. The Boeing Company, CC: Donald Scarberry. P.E., Coffman Engineers Olaf OF RENTON ' FROM: Steven Quartermarss date Ecologist RECEIVED DATE: February 25, 2014 MAS a 4 z014 RE: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT -No EFFECT DETERMINATION gUILD}NG DIVIS'Q[V BoF,ING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION LONGACRES PARK, RENTON, WASHINGTON The Boeing Company (Boeing) is proposing to expand parking in the vicinity of Building 25-20 at the Longacres facility in Renton. Washington (see attached site plan), The Boeing 25-20 Building office density was increased in the existing office areas, requiring additional parking adjacent to the building. The project will convert 1.21 acres of existing vacant land to asphalt -based pervious pavement. This No Effect Determination and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Evaluation contains the necessary information and analysis for an effects detennination, consistent with the regulations, conditions. and guidance under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Amendment 14 of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson -Stevens Act) for the Boeing Building 25- 20 Parking Lot Expansion project. Currently, no federal funds or permits are provided for the proposed project. In the event that federal pet7nits are provided for this project. this document has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. This No Effect Determination and EFH Evaluation also incorporates discussion of the project effects in regard to the September 22. 2008 biological opinion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries regarding ESA and Magnuson -Stevens Act consultation of the National Flood Insurance Program in file Puget Sound area (NMFS Tracking No. 2006/00472). Review of the U -S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) species lists (USFWS 2013, NOAA Fisheries 2012) indicate the potent P EEE ' tt [[D following species and critical habitat(s): CC CC VV MAR D 4 2014 Species ESA Status Critical HabitatVW OF RENTON Puget Sound Chinook ESU Threatened Designated (not present in a i IVISION Puget Sound steelhead trout DPS Threatened Proposed (not present in the action area) Coastal -Puget Sound bull trout DPS Threatened Designated (not present in action area) Note: USFWS list of species in King County also include Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmotus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and golden paintbrush (Casldloja levisecta). The project area is a developed industriallcommereial corridor and does not contain suitable habitat for these species, and they are not considered further in this assessment. 130 2nd Avenue South . Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 . fax (425) 778-6409 . www.landauinc.com The project is located in the City of Renton (City), within the Duwamish-Green watershed [Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9], Hydrologic Unit Code 17110013, in Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. Proposed work includes: • 155 new parking stalls, adjacent to the existing parking lot, designed as an extension to the existing parking lot on the south side of Building 25-20. • Paving, curbing, lighting, striping, and landscaping required by the City. The parking lot expansion will incorporate permeable paving to provide stormwater treatment, storage, and infiltration. Construction is planned to occur between March and August 2014. No in -water work will occur, and the following conservation measures will be implemented to avoid impacts on listed species and their habitat: • Spill prevention and response equipment will be located on site during construction to prevent the release of petroleum products and other hazardous materials from reaching ground or surface waters. • A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESL) plan will be implemented to reduce sediment due to construction activities. • Stormwater from the completed project will infiltrate through pervious pavement. The action area is defined as the zone of impact, which includes the farthest geographical extent where there is potential to directly or indirectly affect the environment due to noise and other project - related activities. Project activities, as well as the baseline physical and environmental characteristics of the surrounding terrestrial and aquatic habitats, were considered in establishing the action area. Project activities are confined to the Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion project area. Short-term construction -related noise is the only project -related impacts that extend beyond the project area. There is no in -water work and stormwater from the proposed project will infiltrate through pervious pavement. As a result, there is no aquatic portion of the action area. For terrestrial impacts, the action area is defined by project -related construction noise. Construction noise, which would be short term and limited to daytime, weekday hours, is estimated to be as loud as 94 A -weighted decibels (dBA') measured at 50 feet (ft) from construction equipment that will be used to implement the proposed project, such as trucks, graders, excavators, backhoes, pavers, and other similar machinery (WSDQT 2013). The areas adjacent to the project area are estimated to have an approximate environmental noise baseline of 98 dbA based on the industrial character surrounding the project area and presence of an existing helipad2 located at the northwest corner of the proposed parking lot (see attached site plan).. The upland component of the action area was determined by estimating the ' In -air sound, which commonly is frequency -weighted to approximate human hearing, is measured on an A -weighted scale. Noise level approximated for landing of MD -900 helicopter from loo 11 o1 -source is 95 dBA (Falzarano and Levy 2007), and accounting for hard -site conditions is assumed to be 98 dBA at 50 11 based on standard noise attenuation rates. 02125114 14edmdatsOlVrojectsl1436%001T4eRm%RXLat25-20_NE_TM_docx LANDAu ASSOCIATES 2 point at which project -related construction noise attenuates to this baseline environmental background noise. The terrestrial component of the action area does not extend beyond the project site based on existing noise levels associated with the adjacent helipad, which exceeds noise created by construction. The project area is currently an undeveloped lawn (i.e., maintained grass) just west of an existing parking lot. The surrounding properties are the Boeing Building 25-01 to the north, Oakesdale Avenue SW to the east, vacant land owned by Boeing to the south, and existing stormwater ponds and mitigation wetlands that were constructed by Boeing to the west. The project area occurs within U.S. Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) -mapped 100 -year floodplain associated with Springbrook Creek (see attached floodplain mapping). Review of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web on February 19, 2014 identifies Chinook salmon and steelhead documented in Springbrook Creek in the project vicinity; however, no waterways occur in the action area. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program does not identify any rare plants in the project vicinity (WDNR website 2014). The proposed project does not involve any in -water work, all stormwater will be infiltrated through pervious pavement, and project construction work provides best management practices to reduce potential turbidity entering the existing storm system, Springbrook Creek, and the mitigation wetlands; the project will have no aquatic impacts, and therefore no effect on Puget -Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget -Sound steelhead (O. mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Additionally, since listed critical habitat for Puget -Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and proposed critical habitat for Puget -Sound steelhead do not occur in the action area, the project will have "no effect" on designated/proposed critical habitats for these species. The Magnuson -Stevens Act mandates that NMFS must identify EFH for federally managed marine fish. Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for the Pacific salmon fishery, federally managed ground fishes, and coastal pelagic fisheries (PFMC 1999). The Pacific salmon fishery management unit includes Chinook salmon, Coho salmon (O. kisutch), and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). Pacific salmon fishery -designated EFH includes all streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon in Washington State, except upstream of impassable barriers. Chinook salmon have been discussed previously in this determination. Coho salmon spawn in smaller tributaries, with juvenile salmon staying in their freshwater habitat up to 18 months before 02/25114 1ledmdaia0l5projecis11436OOlTifeRmlR%Lo125-20_NE_TM.docx t-AN)Au AssocIATES 3 migrating to the ocean. Pink salmon differ in that the species enters estuarine environments soon after emerging from gravel and thus are in a much younger state than Coho or Chinook salmon when they reach the marine environment. Coho salmon and Chinook salmon are present in Springbrook Creek (WDFW 2014). Because the proposed project does not involve any in -water work, all stormwater will be infiltrated through pervious pavement, and provides best management practices during construction to address potential turbidity entering the existing storm system, Springbrook Creek, and onsite mitigation wetlands, the project will have no adverse effect on Pacific salmon freshwater EFH. The September 22, 2008 biological opinion from NOAA Fisheries regarding ESA and Magnuson -Stevens Act consultation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the Puget Sound area (NMFS Tracking No. 2006100472) states that "...jurisdictions with permitting authority must demonstrate to FEMA that any proposed development in the FEMA designated floodway, the Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) plus 50 feet ... and the riparian buffer zone (RBZ) ... does not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids." The Q3 flood data (FEMA 1996) shows land surrounding Springbrook Creek, and extending into the project area, as 100 -year floodplain (see attached floodplain map). The base flood elevation identified by FEMA in the project vicinity is approximately 16 ft (datum in NAVD 29). Review of current project survey information indicates that existing elevations in the project area range from 13 ft to 18 ft, and is located in a depression. Construction of the parking lot improvements will occur within the base flood elevation of 16 fl, but outside of the RBZ. The existing flood volume in the project area is currently 3,842 cubic yards (yd). The proposed project includes grading and filling activities within the base flood elevation, which results in a net increase of 40 yd of flood storage in the project area. The project includes approximately 590 yd of fill; however, grading and areas of pervious pavement provide approximately 630 yd3 of compensatory storage. Because in -water work will be avoided; there is no loss of floodplain storage; stormwater will be infiltrated through pervious pavement; and the existing project area consists of maintained lawn in a depression within floodplain; the proposed project does not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmonids. This assessment satisfies Boeing's responsibilities under Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson -Stevens Act at this time. Boeing will continue to remain aware of any change in status of these species and will be prepared to reevaluate potential project impacts if necessary. 02725/14 4ledrndal2t015projects1143610011FileRm%R%Lol25-20_NE_TM.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 REFERENCES Falzarano S. and L. Levy. 2007. Sounds levels of helicopters used for administrative purposes at Grand Canyon National Park. Overflights and Natural Soundscape Program. NPS Report No. GRCA-07-05. October 29. FEMA. 1996. Q3 Flood Data, King, Washington. ARC/INFO Coverage. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C. NOAA Fisheries. 2012. http://www.nwr.noaa.yov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/ Updated October 31. PFMC. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, Appendix A, Identification and Description for Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon. Pacific Fisheries Management Council. NOAA NAO7FC0026. USFWS. 2013. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern http://www.fws.v-ov/wafwo/sl2eciesmapiKinRCountYO312.pd 312.pdf. Revised September 3. WDFW, 2014. PHS on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.p,ov/mappin hs/ WSDOT. 2013. Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects — Advanced Training Manual. Version 03-2013. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biolop-,v/ba/bauidance.htm W DNR website. 2014. Sections That Contain Natural Heritage Features. intp:'/'ti NN ,'Publications?amp_crh_1rs.pdt: Washington Department of Natural Resources. Data current as of February 4. ATTACHMENTS Site Plan Floodplain Map 02125714 1ledmdata014projeetsl1430001fi1eRmkMLot25-20_NE_TM.docx LANDAu AssociATE$ U W O N V �E p �_li OC of ° O sowl R - Lij U u) a a �b ILQ ZV 0 J 16101 r • �J�Oil 011 � i • � II ME I F S I11111111 11111111 Hill II I � I I La 1 u a � � Cip �O Oi q m FE �cgi•8 a cc C C lc :U r atm x `q i E a SIL U S o a 2 m zi m E I C LL cl Z 40 € G N a Y 4, W '! z m Q m v 03,96 0 us" W9ts ���I=604CF1 --- Irl LLI w l VY �f SYf tO�Yi��cV ilt nqQ OO_Raf e� CL"',p�n X �I �py .M.aljf OaPr PPOpF �r auj ).9 LIJ Z xIs n1�7 �6�700001itA� Q q•Ep �o x ��$$p��pp+aw.ppl��ryypu4�d ��O gpOFFPaO�GOf4 C! j �ME LL CL ID U- �ioc0. an�godanro �� Up w�oa `gas rw- « NE N d .0 D � �% W aE QD Q LU C? IJJ CL ❑0 E U) flC Oc SO .52 "� ~ :�c C @ arm � Q a+ d w G m U ` C� ib e� W ti ; 7 q C G N > rn LL C5 �3 mU''� L M X O Q E a� L7 `> �y ti CL CL v� C w W CA h C �r lL LJ V � '' M C '"' e6 C LO as 6? LZ K DC7 ocs m0 vszinw-cn CL o Em a LU 0 0E v 4 a c m C Q C c� o y 0 w m �i A ago p •� m O w LU iLu uJ Lu LL Z w MS z Z Z m m OS z Z Z Z d a CL CL Z Z Z W W W • � r r Denis Law W City O Mayor; f r woo riti, r,,f ri February 6, 2014 Department of Community and Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mark Clement - The Boeing Company 737 Cogan Ave N .Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice Additional Parking for 25-20 Building, LUA13-001722 Dear Mr. Clement: The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on January 16, 2014. .During our review, staff has determined thatadditional information is necessary in order to proceed further. The following information will need to be submitted before May 7, 2014 so that we -may continue the review of the above subject application: • The report submitted with the application dated December 13, 2013 prepared by Coffman Engineers was identified in the subject line as an "Biological Assessment Summary However, the attached report was' actually a Critical Areas Report ` prepared by Landau Associates, dated April .16, 2013. The submitted Critical Areas Report does not meet the requirements of a Biological Assessment that is required when projects a.re.proposed within the Flood Plain. The -applicant shall prepare a Biological Assessment to the standards set by ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook.- Once competed, please submit 12 copies. At this time, your project has been placed "on hold" pending receipt of the requested information. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, , Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager cc Boeing Company / owner(5) Renton City Hall . 1055 South Grady Way . _Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of P,., on Department of Community & Economic Dev,.,.ioment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 30, 2014 APPLICATION NO: LUA13-001722 Y DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 16, 2014 O APPLICANT: Mark Clement PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee C: t� PROJECT TITLE: Additional parking lot for 25-20 Bldg PROJECT REVIEWER: Jan Illian =+Y SITE AREA: 183,930 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 0 cn rn e_ LOCATION: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 0 C 2 cm :F� 1 i tt SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a n4parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot is needed due to an increase in office density at the existing 25-20 building. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Heolth Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li h Glore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet �. 6 ,�t4 B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We hove reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informotioni_r)leeded to properly assess this proposal. re of Director or Authdfized Representative Date NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) AM.,e.r APpna.mn hu b.mtke arra aPP•pke who th. D.panm.mef �mmanlx s Ecnrwmk arrrlavmrm fcEp}-FlanMnE DI•i,ian nT Ihr Lkr of A.nron- Tllr frpawbE bt.fh• a.,atb.s th. apPuaaban and IM n«.er.x public App— 1, OAR OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: lamer, IE, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER LUA13-1722 PROIECr NAME: AddlliONl parking for Z5-20 hu Wing PRCI a DESCRIPTIOR: The assistant has regaelyd SEPA Emhro—sal Rer{rrr and She Plan Aevlew To add a new pa,kinglet Is se eke the ening o1Roe bulMing 1f2D. The new parkirsg oils eedea due t0 an Increase in vifice drmltr+t Ihr exillhy 25-20 buhdbg, The rtew parkbE bl woWd brdmlErsed Mlh perme.bk pavement t. handle a 1q0 -year tor,nn er.nt aM wow. epnafn Lss wrxing slant, lg or which would be —Pla stale. The su�hrl Ilse Ir a ns lot bdaTng 4.22 acre, in sloe and is leuled an parol 0836T00130 which I, .... d Commeml+I ONke Ico1. The parNnE lot -,old Impact 1.71 ices of Ilse d 22 acre lot, The sit! It baled In the LOU year flood plan of 5pd" Black creak, • Warm blatant arta, and within the vkll of welbrdl. A bbbgk.l Asussmenh Wetland DlterMnatbn, st—her Alport Inclo,11i s c.mp,m.mry storage —";s. Geptechnkal Maiyslt and , T, M, study wa, Prwded with the applluthn. Ata r..lot The profertane Vee would be remoaed with replecemenllraes proposed. PROJI LOCATION: 191 Oekesdak Ave 5W OPTIONAL OETFRMINATIOfd OF NON-SIGNIRCANCE, MOIGARD (ONS -Mf: AS Ne LeM Agency. the Cry or Aenlon has determined that signlAunl mvlrohnI Impacts are vnllkaly To mok Nom the proposed project. Thema.•, as permitted urlthe RCN 41.21C110, the Gly of Rent- la u.ln8 the Cption•1 DNS -M P-1.to g" retic! INt a DNS - M b llhaly le be lswed. Comment petods bribe prole0 and the proposed Cl arc Integrated Into a III comment period- There w81 he m rdnmem petod bilewlnR the issuance eF the Threshold Determinatbn of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -Mf. A 19 dayappeal period .41blow the issuance of the DNS -M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20, 2013 NOTICE OF COMPLEFE APPLICATION: Je—q 16, 3014 APPLICANT/PROJECT rAMACT PER50N: Mark Clement f The Ill comperly f PO boa 3707 Mf[ 301 5aaltle, WA 9l F•rrhIa/Rrview Requested: EnelronmrmeifSEPA}Review, Mmlrrlstta11ve 5 too Plan R.A— Other Permils which may be mgWmd: [amtrualrn Requested "1e: 61.IaEicsl AtsnwnerK Oralnale RepgrL Flood 1[eard Osla, Geat.chMul Report, Habitat Report, T.M. Srudy, Willard. A ,ehrm Location qhs' a00minn may ba ravleSved: Deparon—of Cemmunhy k ESannmic D..elapment JCEal- Planning OM.bn, Shen, Floor Renton Ory N.11, 10I South Grady Way, Ran—, WA 56057 IY you would Ilk, To be made s party of nerd to muYn further Information on :his proposed pralrct, complete this F—and return to: Ckyof III CEO - Pla—l. 1055 So. Grady Way, Re D.on, WA 980.57. M -00e No.: Enarl Aehterace I.- Inurd./Ll I. MAILING AOORESS: Gty)5nrc Ip- TELEPNONE Nq- [gN515TENCy OVERVIEW: 2-I'll/Lard! Us.: 'hel.bica we is dc,6,ted EmpbymentArca Vaiky[COMP-✓:AVT or thl'kv of Rem on Com preMnsi+e land V. Map aM ca m medal puke (cal on the [lips 2aning Map- Enrlranmenesl Documents that E..IV the Prepnsed Prof..: Enriranmenlal lSEPAI Che&R,t prnkpmenl Reguladans Used For Profact MlJE. tlon: The project w111 he whlNl m the City, SEPA oral....., "470 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW and tithes +pok,bl, Sade, and regulatbn, as apprapdale- Proposed Mitiptor Measure: The Tollowing Mitlgatbn Measure. wtll 111 be Imposed an the pral anslecl. The,. mcchh—hill Mill Measures addrest project imparts ml .wired by ealvinR Codes and regolalbm as cited .hone- • The applicant shall comply Mir the recommendations included In the Biological Assessment prepared by Coffman Englnelrs, dated Dec rl 1a,1013. • The appII shell comply with the recmnmendatians induded LL the GeolecMical E.glne/dng Senlcet report prepared by GmFnlrineen, dated November 15, 2013. • The applicant shaft Comply with the recommendation related to flood plain compensatory stooge addrpsed In the Tachnlcal Inrprmation Report, prepared h7 Lasting, dated Decemher 11, 2013. Ccmmenb on the ab—apt lkasion —11 he PPlal In —ti ro Va.—. Dolbee, Csrvrnt Pla ssin, M ... jar, CEO - Plante[ Orel 1055 ll GndY Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5,00 PM on sanua.y 9% 1014. O ypa I— .. tsars about this proposal, Or wish to he made • party of rrord and recehm Ilddtbn.l mtl8otwn by mail, consid the Pmfeec Manage. Amyone wh. wbmlls written Dom 13 -11 aolOmatkalN be— I party at re..rd and w81 be ti nofied of any dil an this pm[nl. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager; Tel: (425) 430,7314; Etnit Nduliaeetxlrentonwe.eov PLEASE INCLUOE THE PROTECT NUMBER WHEN CALLLNG FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION PENTON. ASJEAO Df THE CL'Rs�E ehton e CERTIFICATION 1, _lk: V S 50 I� • , hereby certify that -3 copies of the above document were posted in :5 conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: Z16 y Signed: i STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF ICING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned i nstrument. % �l�llilI Dated: �� y,� �'rr A. _� tN?tary P .e Vot in and for the State of Washington ` r expires: u �'� _."_r m.......... ... . . €. �� E a �........ § se eFr F I ......,..._............"..., a ......� ..... : AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * 0uwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Paaooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms, Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers *** Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecv.wa.eov ***Department of Natural Resources is emalled a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, & Notice the following email address: sepacenter@dnr.waa- ,ov template - affidavit of service by mailing City of NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS -M) A Master Application has been filed and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: January 16, 2014 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA13-1722 PROJECT NAME: Additional parking for 25-20 building PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested SEPA Environmental Review and Site Plan Review to add a new parking lot to service the Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot is needed due to an increase in office density at the existing 25-20 building. The new parking lot would be designed with permeable pavement to handle a 100 -year storm event and would contain 155 parking stalls; 28 of which would be compact stalls. The subject site is a vacant lot totaling 4.22 acres in size and is located on parcel 0886700130 which is zoned Commercial Office (CO), The parking lot would impact 1.21 acres of the 4.22 acre lot. The site is located in the 100 year flood plan of Spring Brook Creek, a seismic hazard area, and within the vicinity of wetlands. A Biological Assessment, Wetland Determination, Stormwater Report including a compensatory storage analysis, Geotechnical Analysis and a Traffic Study was provided with the application. As a result of the project one tree would be removed with replacement trees proposed. PROJECT LOCATION: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW OPTIONAL DETERMINATION Of NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS -M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS -M process to give notice that a DNS - M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS -M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period fallowing the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS -M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 20, 2013 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January16, 2014 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Mark Clement /The Boeing Company / PO Box 3707 M/C 20-00 Seattle, WA 98124 Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Administrative Site Plan Review Other Permits which may be required: Construction Requested Studies: Biological Assessment, Drainage Report, Flood Hazard Data, Geotechnical Report, Habitat Report, Traffic Study, Wetlands Assessment Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (GED)— Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED — Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/File No.: Error! Reference source not found./LUA13-1722 NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: City/State/Zip: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Employment Area Valley (COMP-EAV) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial Office (CO) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation. The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, 49-070 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. ■ The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Biological Assessment, prepared by Coffman Engineers, dated December 13, 2013, • The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Services report prepared by Geo Engineers, dated November 15, 2013. ■ The applicant shall comply with the recommendation related to flood plain compensatory storage addressed in the Technical Information Report, prepared by Lasting, dated December 11, 2013. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on January 30, 2014. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Eml: vdolbee rentonwa. ov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Denis Law City O Mayor? r 0006,00 `a Department of Community and Economic Development January 16, 2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator Mark Clement The Boeing Company 737 Logan Ave N Renton,.WA. 98057 Subject: Notice of Camplete Application Additional Parking for 25-20 Building, LUA13-001722 Dear Mr. Clement! The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the'Environmental Review Committee on February 10, 2014. Prior to that review., you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me.at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions. Sincerely, -D [J� Vanessa Dolbee Current Planning Manager Renton City Hall 1055 South Gradyway . Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: Boeing Corp. ADDRESS: 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206 617-2944) APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Mark Clement COMPANY (if applicable): Boeing ADDRESS: PO. box 3707 MC 1W-09 CITY: Seattle WA ZIP: 98124 TELEPHONE NUMBER 206 617-2944 CONTACT PERSON NAME: Mark Clement COMPANY (if applicable): Boeing Co. ADDRESS: PO. box 3707 MC 1W-09 CITY: Renton ZIP: 98124 Q: weblpw/devsery/farms/planning/masterapp.doc TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: 206 617- 2944 Mark.d.clement@boeing.com PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Additional parking for 25-20 bldg PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)ILOCATION AND ZIP 1901 Oakesdale Ave Sw KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 0886700130 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Commercial office PROPOSED LAND USE(S) Commercial office EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: EAV PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NA EXISTING ZONING CO PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): same as existing SITE AREA (in square feet): 183, 930 4.22 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO bE DEDICATED:none SQUARE FOOTAGE C EASEMENTS:None���i, <" '12120/13 PRO �T INFORMA PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 311,982,25-20 BLDG NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 150 TION continu PROJECT VALUE: $825,00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO 1j 31 ! -�O ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA -W sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq_ ft_ ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 1Attach leaal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE _ _se QUARTER OF SECTION 24_, TOWNSHIP _23—, RANGE -4_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. x SEPA LU Permit 2. S 'fie' Plot) 3. 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ Billed I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I I, (Print Names) i' ' l\y Y\ C 5 -e n f r"� , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or a authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein conXPd and the information herewit re in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. :4n�2 r-'9% No ublic in and for the State of Was at—on (Signature sentative) JULIE E• BRAY Notary (Print) WTARY PUBLIC 1 SSTATE QF WAl�NPOSTav My appointment expires: STATE 92015 'x 13� Q:wch/pw/dcvscry orms p c 2 12/20/13 PLANNING DIVISION WAIV_. -'OF SUBMITTAL REQUI_ _;MENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: cif b Add, P&I Z16- 2. Public Works Pian Review 3. Building DATE: 1 Lha 4. Planning r PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER = SUBMITTAL REQUIRE--- --NTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: 01i -ZC-) 2. Public Works Plan Review Li II I 3. Building DATE: I ! 4. Planning Project narrative BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP RENTON WASHINGTON Parking Lot Addition 25-20 1901 OAKESDALE AVE SW The Project size is 1.21 AC sq ft Master use permit, Environmental Checklist. Zoning designation and Current use is: Commercial office Two Large Ponds and FEMA flood plain are special features of the site Sandy silt loam is the soil type. Access to the project is off Oaksedale avenue SW No proposed off-site improvements, or land dedications are part of the scope of this project. 820,000 is the estimated cost 590 cu. yards of native fill for base of the parking One Cottonwood tree is to be removed. Project is outside the 200 shoreline area of Springbrook creek and the North and South pond Contractor Job trailer will be located on or near project site to be determined at a later date Scope of work The Boeing 25-20 Building office density was increased in the existing office areas, requiring more parking adjacent to the building. The project will convert vacant pervious land to {52,730 sq ft -1.21 AQ asphalt based pervious pavement. The project will have 155 new parking stalls, which 28 of the stalls are compact, 5 new ADA stalls will be provided. New compensatory storage will be added and re-graded including a new interceptor Swale. New landscaping, including a variety of new trees, and new LED lighting on poles will be installed. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Parking lot addition 25-20 bldg. 2. Name of applicant. The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MIS 1W-09 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mark Clement Facilities Permits/Land use The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MIS 1W-09 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Ph 206 617-2944 4. Date checklist prepared: December 2013 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Ecology, 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): March 2014 to August 2014 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None known at this time 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, Explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12!20!2013 Federal: NA State of Washington: WDOE Construction Stormwater Permit King County: None known at this time City of Renton/Local: State Environmental Policy Act Review Renton Land use, Building & utilities Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description Project Description The Boeing 25-20 Building office density was increased in the existing office areas, requiring more parking adjacent to the building. The project will convert vacant pervious land to (52,730 sq ft -1.21 AQ asphalt based pervious pavement. The project will have 155 new parking stalls, which 28 of the stalls are compact, 5 new ADA stalls will be provided. New compensory storage will be added and re- graded including a new interceptor swale. New landscaping, including a variety of new trees, and new lighting on poles will be installed. 92. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 1 N20l2013 Refer to Vicinity Map, and Site Map for project location. Legal Description BOEING LONGACRES PROPERTY -BSP Plat Lot: 13 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other...... Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland Deposits of sand and silt d Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known, See attached Geotech report e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of filll There is no fill material to be imported except the Aggregate Base for the lot 590 CU YDS. L Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. Best management practices & temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan will be in place to prevent erosion ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3 12120/2013 g. About what percent of the site wilt be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? <5%, pervious pavement is proposed h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control measures will be used by contractor 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust smoke, from construction equip. during normal construction activities. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? if so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines and equipment used during construction are well maintained. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? if yes, describe type and provide names. if appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Springbrook Creek, is to the east of the project, 2 ponds are to the west project, both water bodies are outside the shoreline zone 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4 1Y M013 M 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 700 -year floodplain? if so, note location on the site plan. Yes 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. M. b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water runoff (including storm -water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 12!2072013 The source of runoff is rainfall. We have designed the site to fully infiltrate the stormwater and treat it within the system provided to filter and to store the runoff in accordance with the Codes 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, willow, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs, grass (u land var/ lupine.), pasture, crop or grain, wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil other Was of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some grasses in the area will be removed that were planted and wild grasses that grew since the last grading operation. A single cottonwood tree exists in the middle that will be removed with this application c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Migratory Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead in Springbrook creek d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Boeing will provide landscaping (including new trees) for the new parking, and follow City of Renton Landscaping codes S. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Emberezids: American tree sparrow, Spotted towhee, song sparrow, white -crowned/ gold -crowned sparrow, Oregon junco, Troglodytidae: marsh wren, Bewick's wren, Pacific wren, Fringillidae: American goldfinch, house finch, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6 12/2012013 Turdidae: American robin, Swainson's thrush, Anna's hummingbird, Rufous hummingbird, yellow warbler, red -winged blackbird, Brewer's blackbird, pine- siskin, bushtit, ruby -crowned/ gold -crowned kinglet, northern shrike, lazuli bunting, black -headed grosbeak, common yellowthroat, virgina rail, sora, great blue heron, American kestrel, merlin, bald eagle, osprey, red-tailed hawk, sharp - shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, peregrine falcon, green heron, warbling vireo, Wilson's warbler, killdeer, Hirundidae: barn swallow, purple martin, cliff swallow, bank swallow, northern rough -winged swallow, violet -green swallow, tree swallow, brown creeper, red -breasted nuthatch, American crow, barn owl, barred owl, mallard, American wigeon, Wilson's snipe, Canada goose (minima, maxima), Ross's goose, greater white -fronted goose, great egret. Mammals: Coyote, long-tailed weasel, red fox, gray squirrel, field vole, cottontail rabbit b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead and their status are under ESA, the species is listed as "threatened," c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. New Landscaping, 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric power, b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. Energy efficient utility systems 7. Environmental Health ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 7 1212012013 No a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. t) Describe special emergency services that might be required b. Noise None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Temporary noise Construction from equipment. 7:00 Am to X4:00 pm Monday though Saturday 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Maintain equipment. Beat management practices 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Commercial office b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, c. Describe any structures on the site. The Longacres complex is a large lab and office park, consisting of two main buildings and small utility buildings, the remaining site has natural forest, streams and ponds. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST S 1 212 072 0 1 3 111 r e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? JLdiiwr CC) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? upburr- (F �) V g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Ili C)1-1 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Nearby Wetlands, including 2 large ponds, [these are a greater distance than the buffer from our project], and a small wetland exists that was formed due to prior regrading of this site. This wetland is not jurisdictional for purposes of this project as it meets the exemption requirements of the City, [Wetland report and determination provided.] i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Varies, j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal are compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. The City and County mapping shows no floodplain in this area, however the Firm Map still shows flooding below Elevation 16.00. We have thus treated this site as a floodplain and have modeled the site and optimized it to ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9 12120!2613 eliminate any impacts to potential flood volume as FEMA has not yet accepted the City or County Maps 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None 10. Aesthetics none a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building materials) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. None 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lights on overhead poles, early morning and early evening b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10 12!2012013 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. We have specified LED lighting to better control the light patterns in order to minimize light pollution upwards and to the sides 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking nature path between the main ponds on Boeing property. Springbook creek has nature path also adjacent to the property b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? if so, describe. None. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. NA 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? if so, generally describe. None known b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified on the project site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 11 1212072013 If artifacts are uncovered, the area will be cordoned off, work in that area will be halted pending notification and response from appropriate agencies. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Oaksedale Ave SW. will be the access to the new parking light b. is site currently served by public transit? If not what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes Metro bus stop. 40 yards c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? See project narrative d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity oO water, rail, or air transportation? if so, generally describe. None f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached abbreviated traffic report g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Boeing has a program to reduce commuter trips, these including Vanpools, and bus rider financial incentives, ride share and preferred parking for bicycles and motorcycles 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: Fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. None is anticipated. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12 12120/2019 None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. Electrical power for construction equipment. , PSE. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I Understand that the lead agency is relying on them/to make its decision. Signature: 0" /�a Mark D. Clemen Date Submitted: I �_ J -z- D - ) -3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 13 12x=013 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIP'T'ION Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Renton, WA Additional parking Lot 25-20 Proposed Construction Dates & Times: In conformance with federal and state regulations, the proposed construction schedule will begin in March 2013 and complete on or prior to 5/31/2013. The work will be accomplished during daylight hours, typically starting at 7:OOAM and completing at 4:OOPM, Monday through Saturday. No late night hours are proposed for construction and hauling activities Construction Description & Work Plan: The Boeing 25-20 Building office density was increased in the existing office areas, requiring more parking adjacent to the building. The project will convert vacant pervious land to (52,730 sq ft -1.21 AC) asphalt based pervious pavement. The project will have 155 new parking stalls, which 28 of the stalls are compact, 5 new ADA stalls will be provided. New compensatory storage will be added and re -graded including a new interceptor Swale. New landscaping, including a variety of new trees, and new lighting on poles will be installed Construction Mitigation Measures & Best Practices: All activities will begin with the implementation and installation of Best Management Practices (BMP)). These practices include: Proposed Hauling/ Transportation routes Contractors will apply for their own hauling permits related to this project. And will follow a city approved route. Traffic Mitigation Contractor will for applicable City of Renton traffic street permits with city approved traffic control plan. Contractor will provide signs, barricades and traffic control personnel. Construction. The actual Construction will be accomplished by a Construction contractor. The contractor will call for all required inspections, as well as site pre -construction meeting. The contractor will keep records of special inspections at the construction site Storm Water Construction will start with the implementation and installation of Best Management Practices (BMF) for Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control JESC) under supervision of Boeing Environmental personnel. Snow, Ice, dirt and mud removal Contractor shall remove snow and ice to the extent necessary to perform the work. The use of calcium chloride or other chemicals will not be permitted to remove snow or ice. Contractor shall assure that vehicles are constructed, loaded, maintained and covered as necessary to prevent the deposition of dirt, mud or other debris on public roadways. Dirt mud or debris shall be removed on continual basis. Any dirt, mud or debris dropped by vehicles shall be removed immediately. Dust Control Through the entire construction period the Contractor shall take all necessary steps to dust control all working area and unpaved roads. The use of calcium chloride or other chemicals will not be permitted for dust control. The Contractor will accomplish dust control by watering and sprinkling to satisfactorily settle the dust. Contractor shall comply with any requirements imposed by law to prevent fugitive dust emissions. All demolished materials and debris will be stockpiled on site to prevent dust and sedimentation from migrating onto roadways. Contractor vehicles that are transporting materials to and from the site will be required to have tires washed prior to leaving the site. This will prevent dust and sedimentation from entering nearby roadways. Tree Protection Contractor will take care to protect existing trees in or near the project area using BMPS'S , and Boeing will replaced any existing damaged during construction ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Parking lot addition 25-20 bldg. 2. Name of applicant The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MIS 1W-09 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mark Clement Facilities Permits/Land use The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, MIS IW -09 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Ph 206 617-2944 4. Date checklist prepared: December 2013 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Ecology, 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): March 2014 to August 2014 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. None known at this time 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? ff yes, Explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1 1 2/2 01201 3 Federal: NA State of Washington: WDOE Construction Stormwater Permit King County: None known at this time City of Renton/Local: State Environmental Policy Act Review Renton Land use, Building & utilities Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description Project Description The Boeing 25-20 Building office density was increased in the existing office areas; requiring more parking adjacent to the building. The project will convert vacant pervious land to (52.,730 sq ft -1.21 AC) asphalt based pervious pavement. The project will have 155 new parking stalls, which 28 of the stalls are compact, 5 new ADA stalls will be provided. New compensory storage will be added and re- graded including a new interceptor swale. New landscaping, including a variety of new trees, and new lighting on poles will be installed. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2 ,Woao,a Refer to Vicinity Map; and Site Map for project location. Legal Description BOEING LONGACRES PROPERTY -BSP Plat Lot: 13 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other...... Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland Deposits of sand and silt d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. None known, See attached Geotech report e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed indicate source of filll There is no fill material to be imported except the Aggregate Base for the lot 590 CU YDS. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? if so, generally describe. No. Best management practices & temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan will be in place to prevent erosion ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3 1 212 01201 3 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? <5%, pervious pavement is proposed h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control measures will be used by contractor 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust smoke, from construction equip. during normal construction activities. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? if so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines and equipment used during construction are well maintained. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? if yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Springbrook Creek, is to the east of the project, 2 ponds are to the west project, both water bodies are outside the shoreline zone 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? if yes, please describe and attach available plans. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4 12!2012013 No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes B) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Wili ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general sire of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None c. Water runoff (including storm -water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, If known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? if so, describe. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5 1212012013 The source of runoff is rainfall. We have designed the site to fully infiltrate the stormwater and treat it within the system provided to filter and to store the runoff in accordance with the Codes 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. NA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, If any. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous free: alder, willow, maple, aspenother evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs, grass (upland varl lupine.), pasture, crop or grain, wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some grasses in the area will be removed that were planted and wild grasses that grew since the last grading operation. A single cottonwood tree exists in the middle that will be removed with this application c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Migratory Coho Salmon, Winter Steelhead in Springbrook creek d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. Boeing will provide landscaping (including new trees) for the new parking, and follow City of Renton Landscaping codes S. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Emberezids: American tree sparrow, Spotted towhee, song sparrow, white -crowned/ gold -crowned sparrow, Oregon junco, Troglodytidae: marsh wren, Bewick's wren, Pacific wren, Fringillidae: American goldfinch, house finch, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 6 1 212 01201 3 Turdidae; American robin, Swainson's thrush, Anna's hummingbird, Rufous hummingbird, yellow warbler, red -winged blackbird, Brewer's blackbird, pine- siskin, bushtit, ruby -crowned/ gold -crowned kinglet, northern shrike, lazuli bunting, black -headed grosbeak, common yellowthroat, virgina rail, sora, great blue heron, American kestrel, merlin, bald eagle, osprey, red-tailed hawk, sharp - shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, peregrine falcon, green heron, warbling vireo, Wilson's warbler, killdeer, Hirundidae: barn swallow, purple martin, cliff swallow, bank swallow, northern rough -winged swallow, violet -green swallow, tree swallow, brown creeper, red -breasted nuthatch, American crow, barn owl, barred owl, mallard, American wigeon, Wilson's snipe, Canada goose (minima, maxima), Ross's goose, greater white -fronted goose, great egret. Mammals: Coyote, long-tailed weasel, red fox, gray squirrel, field vole, cottontail rabbit b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead and their status are under ESA, the species is listed as "threatened," c. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. Yes Pacific Flyway d Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: New Landscaping, 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric power, b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Energy efficient utility systems 7. Environmental Health ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 7 1212012013 No a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of Fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. t) Describe special emergency services that might be required. b. Noise None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Temporary noise Construction from equipment. 7.00 Am to 4:00 pm Monday though Saturday 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. Maintain equipment. Beat management practices S. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Commercial office b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, c. Describe any structures on the site. The Longacres complex is a large lab and office park, consisting of two main buildings and small utility buildings, the remaining site has natural forest, streams and ponds. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 8 12/20/2013 No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? bftmr cGo f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? U rbarr C N 1 f g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? ?*991 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Nearby Wetlands, including 2 large ponds, [these are a greater distance than the buffer from our project], and a small wetland exists that was formed due to prior regrading of this site. This wetland is not jurisdictional for purposes of this project as it meets the exemption requirements of the City, [Wetland report and determination provided.] i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Varies, j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal are compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The City and County mapping shows no floodplain in this area, however the Firm Map still shows flooding below Elevation 16.00. We have thus treated this site as a floodplain and have modeled the site and optimized it to ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9 1=012013 eliminate any impacts to potential flood volume as FEMA has not yet accepted the City or County Maps 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None 10. Aesthetics none a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lights on overhead poles, early morning and early evening b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 10 1 212 012 0 1 3 c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NA d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. We have specified LED lighting to better control the light patterns in order to minimize light pollution upwards and to the sides 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking nature path between the main ponds on Boeing property. Springbook creek has nature path also adjacent to the property b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? if so, describe. None. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. NA 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? if so, generally describe. None known b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified on the project site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 11 12!2012013 If artifacts are uncovered, the area will be cordoned off, work in that area will be halted pending notification and response from appropriate agencies. 14. Transportation a. identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Oaksedale Ave SW. will be the access to the new parking light b. Is site currently served by public transit? if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes Metro bus stop. 40 yards c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? See project narrative d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? if so, generally describe. None f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached abbreviated traffic report g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. Boeing has a program to reduce commuter trips, these including Vanpools, and bus rider financial incentives, ride share and preferred parking for bicycles and motorcycles 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. None is anticipated. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12 12!2012013 None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. Electrical power for construction equipment. , PSE. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Understand that the lead agency is relying on the t ake its decision. Signature: Mrk D. Clement Date Submitted: Z' C) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 13 12120r2013 I I � 8-------------- MU ------- e z a —, gig � � E Oe0.KE n -LE AVE. 8:W � I I ((A d - O 0 fA s g o 0 Oe0.KE n -LE AVE. 8:W � I I cn ';• ICt)CD - G CD pX. I w• D pi CCA 1,2 • E CD • i ' a � a � O = • p S • 3 M i H (Q ' H o3 0 N N 7 m k fnD C "•' K f0 + CL m i m j 7 m � a■ � r�i 6�i • . - - O m 0 2 m m C o g$ !D 0 3 - m M � m C R ? I m rt7 �3m a m 4V mom 2 ?S C7cs 1 Z fD m n _ � �c� • El 0 �5 X17 w m CD(o CD 3 V O• j I G ❑ ❑ ❑ [:1 Ll7 ■ ■ O CL p CL � � v N � A W 0 O. Sy N CA o O ii SQ (D� p m ^� O ( � ➢ N N m j a m' N 0 0 � ❑ -J W ja w ru 1� d =� Wn O� A � D 1 ro N W o D rs a, m 2 rn 0 .o NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT MAP 0, , i V ciry of Renton W TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1 . Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. 34 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 0 trees Trees in proposed public streets 0 trees Trees in proposed private access ease mentsltracts 0 trees Trees in critical areas3 and buffers 0 trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 0 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 34 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 1.7 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain 4: 5. 33 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. 0 trees (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. inches 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. inches per tree 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) 9. trees Measured at chest height. 2. Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. a. Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes, are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4 Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. 5 The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-1301-17a 6Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. 1-1:10ED1Data\Forms-TemplatesLSelf-Help HandoutslPtanninglTreeRetentionWorksheet.doc 12/08 �• i wpm ��� �■ !i M Z O LOU r O� 000 LLi EU a Lij U. co ca a O Q Lu +1 U it ❑12 Z 0 nU�ti �r,nir v d Lll ❑ (7 OQF C13 MzLLI X00 jsa V C 4 r OZ ❑ Q . « i LIJ W ❑ (� 00 :z ~ FU) W W LUF- Technical Information Report Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion Longacres Park, Renton, Washington Boeing Contract #113066-0-00 December 1 1, 2013 Prepared by: Dean A. Furr, P.E. Reviewed by: Donald Scarberry, P.E. CEI Project #93459 SEATTLE ANCHORAGE GUAM HONOLULU LOSAWALES SPOKANE 1901fihhAa,Suiw900 907.276.6664 671.30D.7531 808687,aw" 818.285.26% 509.328.2994 Smmk-,WA 98101-1620 206'62.3.0717 LASTING cmat—ty i rasuks I •.1atioral ps 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW................................................................................................... 1 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY......................................................... 2 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements...............................................................................2 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements............................................................................4 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Upstream Drainage....................................................................................................................6 3.2 Downstream Drainage Course.................................................................................................6 4.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology.............................................................................................................7 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology........................................................................................................7 4.3 Flow Control................................................................................................................................ S 4.4 Water Quality ........................ ...................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Flood Plain...................................................................................................................................9 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN......................................................10 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES.............................................................................11 7.0 OTHER PERMITS..........................................................................................................12 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN......................................................................................13 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT.14 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL.............................................................15 M BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Boeing Building 25-20 parking lot expansion project is located at the Boeing Longacres facility in the City of Renton, Washington. Building 25-20 is located at 1901 Oakesdale Avenue Southwest and lies within Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. Please refer to the Vicinity Map within this section for a depiction of the project site. The project site is currently an undeveloped grassed area just west of an existing parking lot. The surrounding properties are the Boeing Building 25-01 to the north, Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to the east, vacant land owned by Boeing to the south, and existing stormwater ponds and mitigated wetlands to the west. According to the City of Renton soils maps, the on-site soils consist of Puget Silty Clay Loam, also known as till soils. The site is located within the 100 -year floodplain per current adopted FIRM mapping. No regulated wetlands currently exist on site. The site is also located within a Seismic Hazard Area according to the City of Renton mapping. The project area drains to the north through an existing 12 -inch culvert to existing stormwater ponds that were constructed as a part of the Boeing Company Surface Water Management Project in 1999. The site is within the Black River Basin, also a part of the Duwamish-Green watershed. The parking lot expansion area will incorporate permeable paving to provide stormwater treatment, storage, and infiltration. WWHM was used to model the permeable pavement section. The 8 -inch base will provide stormwater storage, while the stormwater infiltrates into the underlying soils. Surface runoff from the permeable pavement is not anticipated and will only occur in the event that the porous asphalt pores get clogged or a storm event that exceeds the 100 year model. The permeable pavement section has been modeled to infiltrate the entire 100 -year developed storm event. The parking area expansion will minimize impacts to the existing floodplain and will not reduce the effective storage volume within the floodplain. The onsite stormwater facilities will be designed in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), 2012 Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. CEI Project 13454 Page 1 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The project is subject to Full Drainage Review as dictated by the KCSWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM. Core Requirements No. 1 through 8 and Special Requirements No. 1 through 5 are described below: 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: _Discharge at the Natural Location The intent of this requirement is to "prevent adverse impacts to downstream properties caused by diversion of flow from one flowpath to another, and to discharge in a manner that does not significantly impact downhill properties or drainage systems,"KCWSWDM pages 1-19. The existing site drains to northerly to the existing onsite stormwater facilities and is then conveyed easterly into Springbrook Creek. The ultimate discharge location for the site will remain unchanged. Stormwater runoff will be infiltrated with the use of permeable paving. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -Site Analysis The intent of this requirement is to identify and evaluate off-site flooding and erosion problems that may be created or aggravated by the proposed project and to ensure appropriate measures are provided for preventing creation or aggravation of those problems. This project is proposing to infiltrate stormwater runoff with the use of permeable paving. This will result in lower peak flows from the site; therefore, no off-site flooding or erosion problems will be created or aggravated by this project. Based on these conditions, an offsite analysis is not required. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control The intent is to ensure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. This site is located within a Peak Rate Flow Control zone according to the City of Renton flow control map. A reduction in peak flows is expected as a result of the development. This is because the proposed permeable paving system will infiltrate of all stormwater runoff within the development area. CEI Project 13459 Page 2 M BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY Core Reauirement No. 4: Convevance Svstem The intent of this requirement is to ensure proper design and construction of engineered conveyance system elements. New conveyance systems are designed to convey the developed 100 - year peak storm event. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control The intent of this requirement is to prevent the transport of sediment and other impacts, such as increased runoff, related to land disturbing activities. A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan has been prepared as part of the Civil Plan Set. The TESC Plan will control the transport of sediment to downstream surface waters and adjacent properties in accordance with all the applicable standards of the KCWSWDM and the City of Renton. Core.Require_ment No. 6: Maintenance and Operations The intent is to ensure that the maintenance responsibility for drainage facilities is clearly assigned and that these facilities will be properly maintained and operated in perpetuity. Operations and Maintenance instructions are included in Section 10.0. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability This requirement is intended to ensure financial guarantees are posted to sufficiently cover the cost of correcting, if necessary, incomplete or substandard drainage facility construction work, and to warrant for two years the satisfactory performance and maintenance of those newly - constructed drainage facilities to be assumed by the City of Renton for maintenance and operation. All applicable guarantees will be provided for the project. The bond quantities are included in Section 9.0 of this report. Care Requirement No. 8: Watersuality The intent of the water quality requirement is "to require an efficient, cost- effective level of water quality treatment tailored to the sensitivities and resource protection needs of the downstream receiving water to which the project site drains.' and "Core Requirement No. 8 requires that water CEI Project 13459 0 Page 3 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY quality treatment facilities be provided to remove pollutants from runoff discharging from the project site." Stormwater treatment will be provided via a soil treatment layer beneath the permeable paving section. Refer to section 4.0 for more infom7ation. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements. The following is a list of other possible adopted area -specific requirements according to the KCWSWDM: Critical Drainage Areas — This development is not located within a critical drainage area. Master Drainage Plan — The area is not part of a master drainage plan. Basin Plans — This project does not fall into any specified basin plan. Salmon Conservation Plan — A Salmon Conservation Plan does not apply to this development. Lake Management Plan — It does not appear that there is a Lake Management Plan that impacts the proposed development. Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Updates — It does not appear that the flood hazard reduction plan adversely affects the proposed development. Shared Facility Drainage Plan — The project does not propose to connect to a shared detention facility system or create a shared facility. This plan does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. The proposed site is located within the 100 -year floodplain of Springbrook Creek. The base flood elevation identified by FEMA is approximately 16.0 (datum in NGVD 29)_ Based on a review of current survey information, the 100 -year floodplain corresponds to elevation 19.5 (datum in NAVD 88). Please refer to the included FIRM map. Special Reauirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Special Requirement No. 3 is not applicable to the proposed site because the site does not meet either of the conditions set forward in the 2009 KCW SW DM: CEI Project 13159 Page 4 M BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY • Contains or is adjacent to a Class 1 or 2 stream that has an existing flood protection facility (such as a levee, revetment, or berm). • Proposed to construct a new or to modify an existing flood protection facility. The design of the site will not affect any existing flood protection facilities. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Special Requirement No. 4 will be met through a variety of on-site source control BMPs. This includes the good housekeeping practices and maintenance. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. The proposed parking area is not classified as a high use site as defined in the KCSWDM. CEI Project 13459 0 Page 5 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Upstream Drainage There is an upstream basin of approximately 1.3 -acres that drains to the project site. The upstream area will be collected and routed around the proposed parking lot expansion and is therefore considered negligible and has no impact on the proposed development. 3.2 Downstream Drainage Course The existing downstream drainage course for the project area starts at the existing 12 -inch culvert at the northern portion of the project site. This culvert conveys flows to the north and runoff then flows to the northwest into the existing storm drainage and mitigated wetland system. Runoff then flows to the east in a series of culverts and ditches, until entering Springbrook Creek approximately one half mile downstream from the project site. This project is proposing to infiltrate stormwater runoff from the proposed parking expansion area with the use of permeable pavement. Infiltration of stormwater runoff will result in a reduction of peak flows to the downstream area; therefore, no off-site flooding or erosion problems will be created or aggravated by this project. Based on these conditions, an offsite analysis is not required. CEI Project 13459 Page 6 0 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 4.0 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.1 Existing Site Hydrology According to the City of Renton soils maps, the on-site soils consist of Puget Silty Clay Loam, also known as till soils. The site is has slopes ranging from 1 percent to 3 percent, tending to the north. The site is currently a vacant grassed area. Per the City of Renton Amendment to the KCSWDM, the existing site conditions are those that existed prior to 1979. During that time, the site existed as a portion of the Longacres Racetrack per aerial photography and has been modeled as till grass. Please see Pre -Developed Basin Map for the existing site conditions. Runoff from the predeveloped site sheet flows northerly until entering a 12 -inch culvert, is then conveyed to the northwest into the existing stormwater system, and eventually discharges into Springbrook Creek one half mile downstream from the site. The predeveloped peak flows are as follows (from WWHM output): 02= 0.095 Cfs Q,o= 0.236 cfs Qtou= 0.494 cfs 4.2 Developed Site Hydrology The proposed construction of the parking lot, sidewalk and internal landscaping will utilize permeable paving to infiltrate stormwater runoff. The proposed improvements cover approximately 1.21 -acres of the site. The site will be graded with a 1.5 percent slope to the west. An interceptor Swale will be constructed along the west to intercept any runoff that may occur during an emergency event (i.e. soil saturation or permeable pavement failure). The existing land use cover was modeled as till grass. The geotechnical report by Geo Engineers found that the factored underlying soils support a 0.25 inches/hour infiltration rate. Please see the Developed Conditions Exhbit. Site Area = 1.21 acres CET Project 13459 W Assume all is permeable pavement = 1.21 acres Pervious Area (landscaping) will infiltrate into the permeable subsurface therefore will be modeled as permeable pavement Page 7 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY TECHNICAL REPORT Assuming that infiltration is not possible the peak flows would be: Q2= 0.54 cfs Q10= 0.78 cfs Q100= 1.11 cfs 4.3 Flow Control Permeable paving, a Low Impact Development (LID) technique, is proposed to mitigate for the increased stormwater from new impervious surfaces constructed on site. The permeable pavement section has been modeled with WWHM 2012, which has the ability to model permeable pavement. The in accordance with the KCSWDM guidance and will infiltrate the full developed 100 -year peak storm event. The permeable paving section was modeled over the entire area. The permeable paving layer thickness is 0.25 feet with a pavement porosity of 0.20 or 20 percent. The choker course thickness is 0.17 feet and has an assumed 0.20 porosity. The base course (storage) is 0.67 feet and has a conservative 0.30 porosity or 30 percent voids within the aggregate base storage bed. The soil layer was modeled with a 0.25 inch/hour infiltration as recommended by the Geo Engineers. See the geotechnical report in the Appendix of the report. The modeled permeable pavement basin will infiltrate 100 percent of storm event. Please refer to the calculations within this section for more information. 4.4 Water Quality This site is subject to Enhanced Basic Water Quality treatment since it is a commercial property. The site is exempt from providing a traditional water quality treatment facility since the project's stormwater runoff will be infiltrated into subsurface soils. The subsurface soils will act as a soil treatment layer, which meet the groundwater protection criteria per the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual Amendment. The criteria are outlined as follows: 1) The first 2 feet or more of soil beneath the infiltration facility has a cation exchange capacity greater than 5 and an organic content of greater than 0.5%, AND 2) The soil must have a measured infiltration rate of less than or equal to 12 inches per hour. CEI Project 13459 Page 8 r BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY The project will infiltrate 100 percent of the stormwater runoff into the subsurface soils, which meets the treatment criteria. Please refer to the calculations within this section and included soil reports in Section 6.0 for values regarding cation exchange, organic content, and infiltration rates. 4.5 Flood Plain Review of the King County Flood Insurance Rate Map (Firm) #53033C978 F, found that the site is within the 100 -year flood Zone AE. Most of the site is below the 100 -year flood elevation contour of 16.0. The site will be graded to minimize impact within the flood plain. The existing flood volume currently is 3,842 cubic yards, however, there will be approximately 590 cubic yards of fill within the existing flood plain which is all permeable pavement area and takes into account the additional volume provided in the swale. The volume provided between the permeable subgrade (bottom of base rock) and the flood plain elevation is 4,632 cubic yards. The volume between the finished permeable pavement and the flood plain elevation is 2,530 cubic yards. The volume of the permeable pavement is the difference between the two volumes or 2,102 cubic yards. This volume has a porosity of approximately 30 percent, therefore the adjusted volume is 0.30x2,102 or 630 cubic yards. The amount of volume in the permeable section is greater than the fill volume or the additional volume is (630-590) = 40 cubic yards. Therefore the flood impact has been adequately compensated. CEI Project 13459 M Page 9 2 r Ice 1TrE, t 1 d r'�.wr w,Pj omw a \ \ 1 1 1 /•k"�]e// ! I I xcuf sy+oam� ! 1g1»Till / / / / '%E/' - �\ • re,r rw ORVN I I� � I! i � 11 � } • / / M°4,00 NE'71 4']1711y 1 l l -\ }E 1T } E mum 1 1rI 9110 ins is 1n' we\oIil+x i i iRiwa-' 1.71111� I ,ton tJ tY _ / F so a.m N79 t a 1J 17M `may .lF-0.e�PVC ` tot tj-1Y PFP: / M v-IY P,C o -e. N 710 m E�]a. 1M11 J Ilj 1 r r' IE }�-y/12.7 mvrnv //f imam] '"/ [fit±i.Qo 7o' 1 �,�t� \\ • r 1i�J'"� I 1 I 5 11 •i ! 7 I I I l ♦ � , f I t A>x n { �eSyF,A I UD !/ N 71,1211A So/ $U493 as G AY i rf r Ceti ml Q / � I t'e�ErrtPno� I u] ! �/ (1 I I ttn 0eo'aoll If IP Ilgltb F_1 srwn/ A1S , 17.001 I I } \ ce ttt'E 2- w 1 r171111 !! I wg I \I E7~u I f 1 1 I J 1 E aww s wl / sue I; a xv meJ• vwe. f w l � I' I F f ` A1 ttsE -arm �r atim I { LID ie l f t J I N 7 IM7 C7t 11 j�� EE I� S 1, A,r I +1 I -E Ism I jam, [743 N71160.D .tA.1 w N71165 i E F w IE 7.� IWA �N M' e11n I w 1F-34• IIQ + 0.1 4 w w w w UF,,2*• f" I.6..T 1 -W rN J m•a= DMrr C ax IG11110N Ps6e6 ■ 0 25 50 100 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXHIBIT By: Scale: �IFRI�IA1�1 CMV 1"-50' 1601 PNd,.�rM,M.S k. 900 FOR Date; Project No: s.re.ww9eieF.Ir�s BOE° e�L 5/11/13 13459 phz".623,41717 iw HSAir,]ttS BUILDING 25-20 PARKWG EXPANSION LONGACRES WE, RENTON, INA 'GRADIN�f__ 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION = 19M ER FEMA MAP CURRENT FLOOD VOLUME 3,842 CU. YD. . . j' _ FILL WITHIN FLOODPLAIN- X590 GU. YDS COMPENSATORY STORAGE PROVIDED WITHIN FLOODPLAIN = ±630 CU. YD..CONSI *- !{6 1 MTFAN .PERMEABLE PAVEMENT BASE AND THE b? C�'f �:- � � � � 4, A� F L tx FAVED '~ NET INCREASE OF.'ABPROXIMATELY ±40 CU. PEDESTRIAN PAT- �- - - NEW _ Asap PEDESTRIAN �-x A `RAMP AND r _ SPI CROSSWALK _. '.- ABANDON EX CULVERT HELI PA I' SAFEZON Ex 2 11111 111 Fmn T Ex. iAx P44CEL LIVE � _- - J] \- U VEHI 2s., H Ew Y LSiOP C EX. C9 wrx cmE i i �TW4 70 EX 54" / �r l� r FINISH GRADE CQNTOUR SOMH %. ASP Pf < FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR SWALE TO PERMAPFEMA PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ! COMPENSATORY VOLUME AND EMERGENCY 2 ' i PARK NG Loi /1 24.0' 20 :F 2 24.0' 1a�' �. 'AR,-El :iiia ,cct�c/ r'- F• 4 � -4. ' NEW �^El r '— .. xj%(RAMP TYP) i 55.0' �2.CI 13 €NEW & WIDE I CON WALKWAY l} f i sx JJ f 4 Ex SUPH AI1NIIA 1 - 8.4' Ex PAVED NEW 1 Ex. DV r WIN ENAVGE RCAC ? ��.:y Tvp �\ 1 CULVERT � r \ S — NEW PERMEABLE�xau ASPHALT PAVEMENT r.v.. 'rr.r 715CNA3GE TO PGN� 0 25 50 100 ' ' ' ' ' ' x" DEVELOPED 1/OND rlON8 EXHB By: / Scale, M fi I M EALS PoR CMV MPB 1--w- IwIMhANerkwajo"0 lief": Project No: Sank. WA 96101-1 GIS 6/19/13, 13459 0 WWMV012 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: 13459 Site Name: Site Address: City Report Date: 11/19/2013 Gage . 5eatac Data Start : 1948/10/01 Data End : 2009/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.00 Version : 2013/09/27 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Floor Threshold for POC 1: 50 year PREDLVELOPED LAND USE Name . Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundNater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Flat 1.21 Pervious Total 1.21 Impervious Land Use Acres Impervious Total Q Basin Total 1.21 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Permeable Pavement 1 Pavement Area: 1.2121 ft. Pavement Length: 330.00 ft. Pavement width: 160.00 ft. Pavement slope 1: 0.01 To 1 Pavement thickness: 0.25 Groundwater r Pour Space of Pavement: 0.2 Material thickness of second layer: 0.17 Pour Space of material for second layer: 0.2 Material thickness of third layer: 0.67 Pour Space of material for third layer: 0.3 Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 0.25 Infiltration safety factor: 1 Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 0 Permeable Pavement Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(ac) Volume(ac-ft) Discharge(cfa) infilt(cfs) 0.0000 1.212 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0111 1.212 0.004 0.000 0.305 0.0222 1.212 0.008 0.000 0.305 0.0333 1.212 0.012 0.000 0.305 0.0444 1.212 0.016 0.000 0.305 0.0556 1.212 0.020 0.000 0.305 0.0667 1.212 0.024 0.000 0.305 0.0778 1.212 0.028 0.000 0.305 0.0869 1.212 0.032 0.000 0.305 0.1000 1.212 0.036 0.000 0.305 0.1111 1.212 0.040 0.000 0.305 0.1222 1.212 0.044 0.000 0.305 0.1333 1.212 0.048 0.000 0.305 0.1444 1.212 0.052 0.000 0.305 0.1556 1.212 0.056 0.000 0.305 0.1667 1.212 0.060 0.000 0.305 0.1778 1.212 0.064 0.000 0.305 0.1889 1.212 0.068 0.000 0.305 0.2000 1.212 0.072 0.000 0.305 0.2111 1.212 0.076 0.000 0.305 0.2222 1.212 0.080 0.000 0.305 0.2333 1.212 0.084 0.000 0.305 0.2444 1.212 0.088 0.000 0.305 0.2556 1.212 0.092 0.000 0.305 0.2667 1.212 0.097 0.000 0.305 0.2778 1.212 0.101 0.000 0.305 0.2889 1.212 0.105 0.000 0.305 0.3000 1.212 0.109 0.000 0.305 0.3111 1.212 0.113 0.000 0.305 0.3222 1.212 0.117 0.000 0.305 0.3333 1.212 0.121 0.000 0.305 0.3444 1.212 0.125 0.000 0.305 0.3556 1.212 0.129 0.000 0.305 0.3667 1.212 0.133 0.000 0.305 0.3778 1.212 0.137 0.000 0.305 0.3889 1.212 0.141 0.000 0.305 0.4000 1.212 0.145 0.000 0.305 0.4111 1.212 0.149 0.000 0.305 0.4222 1.212 0.153 0.000 0.305 0 0.4333 1.212 0.157 0.000 0.305 0.4444 1.212 0.161 0.000 0.305 0.4556 1.212 0.165 0.000 0.305 0.4667 1.212 0.169 0.000 0.305 0.4778 1.212 0.173 0.000 0.305 0.4889 1.212 0.177 0.000 0.305 0.5000 1.212 0.181 0.000 0.305 0.5111 1.212 0.185 0.000 0.305 0.5222 1.212 0.189 0.000 0.305 0.5333 1.212 0.193 0.000 0.305 0.5444 1.212 0.198 0.000 0.305 0.5556 1.212 0.202 0.000 0.305 0.5667 1.212 0.206 0.000 0.305 0.5778 1.212 0.210 0.000 0.305 0.5889 1.212 0.214 0.000 0.305 0.6000 1.212 0.218 0.000 0.305 0.6111 1.212 0.222 0.000 0.305 0.6222 1.212 0.226 0.000 0.305 0.6333 1.212 0.230 0.000 0.305 0.6444 1.212 0.234 0.000 0.305 0.6556 1.212 0.238 0.000 0.305 0.6667 1.212 0.242 0.000 0.305 0.6778 1.212 0.245 0.000 0.305 0.6889 1.212 0.247 0.000 0.305 0.7000 1.212 0.250 0.000 0.305 0.7111 1.212 0.253 0.000 0.305 0.7222 1.212 0.255 0.000 0.305 0.7333 1.212 0.258 0.000 0.305 0.7444 1.212 0.261 0.000 0.305 0.7556 1.212 0.264 0.000 0.305 0.7667 1.212 0.266 0.000 0.305 0.7778 1.212 0.269 0.000 0.305 0.7889 1.212 0.272 0.000 0.305 0.8000 1.212 0.274 0.000 0.305 0.8111 1.212 0.277 0.000 0.305 0.8222 1.212 0.280 0.000 0.305 0.8333 1.212 0.282 0.000 0.305 0.8444 1.212 0.285 0.000 0.305 0.8556 1.212 0.288 0.000 0.305 0.8667 1.212 0.290 0,000 0.305 0.8778 1.212 0.293 0.000 0.305 0.6889 1.212 0.296 0.000 0.305 0.9000 1.212 0.299 0.000 0.305 0.9111 1.212 0.301 0.000 0.305 0.9222 1.212 0.304 0.000 0.305 0.9333 1.212 0.307 0.000 0.305 0.9444 1.212 0.309 0.000 0.305 0.9556 1.212 0.312 0.000 0.305 0.9667 1.212 0.315 0.000 0.305 0.9778 1.212 0.317 0.000 0.305 0.9889 1.212 0.320 0.000 0.305 1.0000 1.212 0.323 0.000 0.305 ANALYSIS RESULTS 0 Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:1.21 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:1.212121 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.095305 5 year 0.172863 10 year 0.235977 25 year 0.32886 50 year 0.407498 100 year 0.494176 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow cfs 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predevel2ped Mitigated 1949 0.200 0.000 1950 0.223 0.000 1951 0.107 0.000 1952 0.043 0.000 1953 0.031 0.000 1954 0.065 0.000 1955 0.074 0.000 1956 0.096 0.000 1957 0.116 0.000 1958 0.064 0.000 1959 0.049 0.000 1960 0.117 0.000 1961 0.085 0.000 1962 0.027 0.000 1963 0.083 0.000 1964 0.087 0.000 1965 0.132 0.000 1966 0.048 0.000 1967 0.226 0.000 1968 0.105 0.000 1969 0.117 0.000 1970 0.075 0.000 1971 0.123 0.000 1972 0.194 0.000 1973 0.039 0.000 1974 0.108 0.000 1975 0.126 0.000 1976 0.082 0.000 1977 0.070 0.000 1978 0.078 0.000 1979 0.026 0.000 1980 0.242 0.000 1981 0.070 0.000 19B2 0.214 0.000 1983 0.103 0.000 1984 0.057 0.000 1985 0.075 0.000 1986 0.101 0.000 1987 0.097 0.000 1988 0.035 0.000 1989 0.028 0.000 1990 0.455 0.000 1991 0.284 0.000 1992 0.071 0.000 1993 0.041 0.000 1994 0.027 0.000 1995 0.064 0.000 1996 0.193 0.000 1997 0.117 0.000 1998 0.086 0.000 1999 0.331 0.000 2000 0.088 0.000 2001 0.023 0.000 2002 0.1B2 0.000 2003 0.142 0.000 2004 0.225 0.000 2005 0.099 0.000 2006 0.104 0.000 2007 0.423 0.000 2008 0.278 0.000 2009 0.142 0.000 Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.4549 0.0000 2 0.4234 0.0000 3 0.3313 0.0000 4 0.2842 0,0000 5 0.2777 0.0000 6 0.2423 0.0000 7 0.2263 0.0000 8 0.2255 0.0000 9 0.2228 0.0000 10 0.2138 0.0000 11 0.2001 0.0000 12 0.1936 0.0000 13 0.1933 0.0000 14 0.1820 0.0000 15 0.1419 0.0000 16 0.1417 0.0000 17 0.1316 0.0000 18 0.1258 0.0000 19 0.1234 0.0000 20 0.1174 0.0000 21 0.1174 0.0000 22 0.1172 0.0000 23 0.1156 0.0000 24 0.1079 0.0000 25 0.1066 0.0000 26 0.1050 0.0000 27 0.1042 0.0000 28 0.1031 0.0000 29 0.1009 0.0000 30 0.0994 0.0000 31 0.0975 0.0000 32 0.0961 0.0000 33 0.0884 0.0000 34 0.0867 0.0000 35 0.0863 0.0000 36 0.0845 0.0000 37 0.0826 0.0000 38 0.0819 0.0000 39 0.0779 0.0000 40 0.0754 0.0000 41 0.0754 0.0000 42 0.0790 0.0000 43 0.0707 0.0000 44 0.0702 0.0000 45 0.0697 0.0000 46 0.0652 0.0000 47 0.0639 0.0000 48 0.0636 0.0000 49 0.0568 0.0000 50 0.0493 0.0000 51 0.0480 0.0000 52 0.0433 0.0000 53 0.0413 0.0000 54 0.0387 0.0000 55 0.0346 0.0000 56 0.0311 0.0000 57 0.0281 0.0000 58 0.0271 0.0000 59 0.0269 0.0000 60 0.0259 0.0000 61 0.0233 0.0000 Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. M Flaw(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0477 3636 0 0 Pass 0.0513 2761 0 0 Pass 0.0549 2312 0 0 Pass 0.0586 1885 0 0 Pass 0.0622 1462 0 0 Pass 0.0658 1256 0 0 Pass 0.0695 1005 0 0 Pass 0.0731 770 0 0 Pass 0.0767 637 0 0 Pass 0.0804 478 0 0 Pass 0.0840 384 0 0 Pass 0.0876 326 0 0 Pass 0.0913 253 0 0 Pass 0.0949 226 0 0 Pass 0.0985 185 0 0 Pass 0.1022 153 0 0 Pass 0.1058 141 0 0 Pass 0.1094 126 0 0 Pass 0.1131 116 0 0 Pass 0.1167 109 0 0 Pass 0.1203 101 0 0 Pass 0.1240 93 0 0 Pass 0.1276 87 0 0 Pass 0.1313 82 0 0 Pass 0.1349 78 0 0 Pass 0.1385 76 0 0 Pass 0.1422 71 0 0 Pass 0.1458 68 0 0 Pass 0.1494 66 0 0 Pass 0.1531 62 0 0 Pass 0.1567 61 0 0 Pass 0.1603 57 0 0 Pass 0.1640 53 0 0 Pass 0.1676 51 0 0 Pass 0.1712 48 0 0 Pass 0.1749 46 0 0 Pass 0.1785 44 0 0 Pass 0.1821 40 0 0 Pass 0.1858 37 0 0 Pass 0.1894 36 0 0 Pass 0.1930 35 0 0 Pass 0.1967 33 0 0 Pass 0.2003 32 0 0 Pass 0.2039 30 0 0 Pass 0.2076 29 0 0 Pass 0.2112 26 0 0 Pass 0.2149 24 0 0 Pass 0.2185 22 0 0 Pass 0.2221 22 0 0 Pass 0.2258 20 0 0 Pass 0.2294 18 0 0 Pass 0.2330 15 0 0 Pass 0.2367 15 0 0 Pass 0.2403 13 0 0 Pass 0.2439 11 0 0 Pass m 0.2476 11 0 0 Pass 0.2512 10 0 0 Pass 0.2548 9 0 0 Pass 0.2585 9 0 0 Pass 0.2621 8 0 0 Pass 0.2657 8 0 0 Pass 0.2694 8 0 0 Pass 0.2730 7 0 0 Pass 0.2766 7 0 0 Pass 0.2803 6 0 0 Pass 0.2839 6 0 0 Pass 0.2875 5 0 0 Pass 0.2912 5 0 0 Pass 0.2948 5 0 0 Pass 0.2985 5 0 0 Pass 0.3021 5 0 0 Pass 0.3057 5 0 0 Pass 0.3094 5 0 0 Pass 0.3130 4 0 0 Pass 0.3166 4 0 0 Pass 0.3203 4 0 0 Pass 0.3239 3 0 0 Pass 0.3275 3 0 0 Pass 0.3312 3 0 0 Pass 0.3348 2 0 0 Pass 0.3384 2 0 0 Pass 0.3421 2 0 0 Pass 0.3457 2 0 0 Pass 0.3493 2 0 0 Pass 0.3530 2 0 0 Pass 0.3566 2 0 0 Pass 0.3602 2 0 0 Pass 0.3639 2 0 0 Pass 0.3675 2 0 0 Pass 0.3711 2 0 0 Pass 0.3748 2 0 0 Pass 0.3784 2 0 0 Pass 0.3821 2 0 0 Pass 0.3857 2 0 0 Pass 0.3893 2 0 0 Pass 0.3930 2 0 0 Pass 0.3966 2 0 0 Pass 0.4002 2 0 0 Pass 0.4039 2 0 0 Pass 0.4075 2 0 0 Pass Water Quality EM Flow and Volume for POC #1 Or -line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 efs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 efs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. LID Report 0 LID Technique used for Total Volumn Volumn Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volumn Volumn Volumn Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac -ft) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac -ft) (ac -ft) Credit Permeable Pavement 1 POC N 199.$9 N 99.99 Total Volume Infiltrated 199.89 0.00 0.00 99.99 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright ® by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2013; All Rights Reserved. M BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5tormwater runoff generated from the parking lot expansion area will be 100 percent infiltrated through permeable pavement section. An emergency overflow will be provided at the north end of the Swale. The 12-nch pipe will be connected to an existing storm manhole. The capacity of the 12 -inch pipe assuming N12 and 0.5 percent slope has a capacity to flow full at 2.74 cfs. CEI Project 13459 M Page 10 BOEING BUILDING 25.20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Geotechnical Engineering Services, Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Addition Boeing Longacres Park, Renton, Washington, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated November 15, 2013. ➢ Wetland Determination for Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Expansion, prepared by Ecological Solutions, Inc. , dated September 3, 2013 CEI Project 13459 Page 11 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 7.0 OTHER PERMITS The following permits and/or approvals are thought to be required as part of this project: • Construction Stormwater General Permit (Department of Ecology) • SEPA Environmental Review f Land Surface Modification (grading) Permit • Drainage Plan Review • Clearing and Grading Permit CEI Project 13459 0 Page 12 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN TESC measures are put into place to prevent sediment from leaving the site. The site is generally flat. The proposed TESC plan will include, but not be limited to, the following guidelines set in the 2009 KCWSWDM in order to comply with Core Requirement No. 5. Clearing Limits — Clearing limits specify the boundary of the work to be done. Clearing are defined on the TESC plans and will be flagged in the field. 2. Cover Measures — Cover measures are involved (typically) with the means to control erosion of exposed soil and are specified on the TESC plans. 3. Perimeter Protection — Perimeter protection keeps site sediment from leaving the construction site. This type of protection typically involves a silt fence. The silt fence and clearing limits are shown on the TESC plans. 4. Traffic Area Stabilization — Traffic area stabilization is addressed by a stabilized construction entrance. 5. Sediment Retention — Retention will be established by silt fences around the perimeter and catch basin inserts that will control of the on-site sediment -laden water. 6. Surface Water Collection — An interceptor ditch with check dams is shown in the plans and will be implemented in the field if necessary. 7. Dewatering Control — Any water from dewatering shall be filtered or contained so sediment can filter out prior to discharge downstream. 8. Dust Control — Dust control will be provided by sprinkling. 9. Wet Season Construction — Construction will be conducted according to the City of Renton standards during the wet season. 10. Construction Within Sensitive Areas and Buffers - Any construction within the wetland buffer will be subject to sensitive areas restrictions and is contained in the TESC notes. 11. Maintenance — Maintenance requirements are detailed in the TESC notes within the engineering plans. 12. Final Stabilization — Upon completion of the project, all disturbed areas will be stabilized and Best Management Practices removed. CEI Project 13459 Page 13 BOEING BUILDING 25.20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT The Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries and Declaration of Covenant will be included further into the review process. CEI Project 13459 ■ Page 14 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The drainage facilities on this project will be private facilities owned and maintained by the Owner. Maintenance of the onsite drainage facilities are limited to maintaining the permeable pavement parking lot and the adjacent ditch, conveyance pipe and pipe inlet trash rack. Pipe and Trash Rack Please see the following Maintenance requirements No. 6 — Conveyance Pipes and Ditches and No. 7 — Debris Barriers (i.e. Trash Racks). Permeable Pavement The primary goal of porous pavement maintenance is to prevent the pavement surface and/or the underlying infiltration bed from being clogged with fine sediments. To keep the system clean throughout the year and prolong its lifespan, the pavement surface should be vacuumed biannually with a commercial cleaning unit. All inlet structures within or draining to the infiltration beds should also be cleaned out on a biannual basis. Planted areas adjacent to porous pavement should be well maintained to prevent soil washout onto the pavement. If any washout does occur it should be cleaned off the pavement immediately to prevent further clogging of the pores. Furthermore, if any bare spots or eroded areas are observed within the planted areas, they should be replanted and/or stabilized at once. Planted areas should be inspected on a semi-annual basis. All trash and other litter that is observed during these inspections should be removed. Superficial dirt does not necessarily clog the pavement voids. However, dirt that is ground in repeatedly by tires can lead to clogging. Therefore, trucks or other heavy vehicles should be prevented from tracking or spilling dirt onto the pavement. Furthermore, all construction or hazardous materials carders should be prohibited from entering a porous pavement lot. Winter Maintenance Winter maintenance for a porous parking lot may be necessary, but is usually less intensive than that required for a standard asphalt lot. By its very nature, a porous pavement system with subsurface aggregate bed has superior snow melting characteristics than does standard pavement. Therefore, ice and light snow accumulation are generally not as problematic. However, snow will accumulate during heavier storms. Abrasives such as sand or cinders should not be applied on or adjacent to the porous pavement. Snow plowing is necessary for significant snow accumulation, but should be done carefully (i.e. by setting the CEI Project 13454 Page 15 BOEING BUILDING 25-20 PARKING LOT EXPANSION TECHNICAL REPORT BOEING LONGACRES FACILITY blade slightly higher than usual, about an inch). Standard road salt is acceptable for use as a deicer on porous pavement, although a non-toxic, organic deicer, applied either as a blended, magnesium chloride -based liquid product or as pretreated rock salt, is recommended. Please consult local governmental agency for an acceptable deicer. CEI Project 13459 0 Page 16 APPF,NDIX A MAINTENANCE.. RFQUIREMENTS FOR FLOW CONTROL, CONVEYANCE, AND WQ FACILITIES NO.6 - CONVEYANCE PIPES AND DITCHES Maintenance Defect or Problem Conditions When Maintenance Is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance Is Performed Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sediment or debris that exceeds Water flows freely through pipes. accumulation 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetationlroots Vegetationtroots that reduce free movement of Water flows freely through pipes. water through pipes. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. according to applicable regulations Source control BMPs implemented if appropriate. No contaminants present other than a surface oll film. Damage to protective Protective coating is damaged; nisi or corrosion Pipe repaired or replaced. coating or corrasion is weakening the structural integrity of any part of pipe. Damaged Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20% or is determined to have weakened structural Integrity of the pipe. Ditches Trash and debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris Geared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Ditch deanedlAushed of all sediment accumulation design depth. and debris so that fl matchas design. Noxious weeds Any noxious or nuisance vegetation which may Noxious and nuisance vegetation constitute a hazard to County personnel or the removed acoording to applicable public. regulations. No danger of noxious vegetation where County personnel or the public might normally be. Contaminants and Any evidence of contaminants or pollution such Materials removed and disposed of pollution as oil, gasoline, concrete slurries or paint. aor orditg to applicable regulations. Source control BMPS Implemented if appropriate_ No contaminants present other than a surface oil film. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Wader flows freely through dHdnes. through ditches. Erosion damage to Any erosion observed on a ditch slope_ Slopes are not eroding. Slopes Rods lining out of One layer or less of rook exists above native soil Replace racks to design standards. place or missing (if area 5 square feet or more, any exposed native Applicable) 8011. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual - Appendix A 1/4/2009 A-11 APPENDIX A MAIN"FEhANC'E; I JIRF.MFN'T'S FLOW CONTROL.,. CONVFYAN NO.7 - DEBRIS BARRIERS (E.G., TRASH RACKS) Maintenance defect or Problem Condition When Maintenance Is Needed Component Site Trash and debris Trash or debris plugging more than 20% of the i area of the barrier Sediment Sediment accumulation of greater than 20% of accumulation the area of the barrier € Structure Cracked broken or Structure which bars attached to is damaged - loose pipe is loose or cracked or concrete structure is cracked, broken of loose. Bars Bar spacing Bar spacing exceeds 6 inches. Damaged or missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. bars Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50% deterioration to any part of barrier. 1/9/2009 0 A-12 N'D WQ FACILFT'IF.S Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed. Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. Barrier clear to receive capacity flow. Structure barrier attached to is sound. Bars have at most 6 inche spacing. Bars in place with no bends more than % inch. Bars in place according to design. Repair or replace barrier to design standards. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual _. Appendix A in � 3 ------------------ E a ! 3 j $ d c Z $ 70 � m ar n v lF a $ S 6 1 J m r '€ "S m LAm m $ v, s g P = ���QQQ3777 ° -4 m};a ` S o� s o 0 0 { g __ El - 3 m $ v a IL aIL S 71 Er Er m y n� °• °O $ oo� � S J$ e� � 2 � I[�{ o a, ''' w �m . o. e, 3 a 3 7 Q. m Q* c m J � 8 S a � `S I m Table 9 includes recommendations for equipment and materials commonly used to maintain permeable pavement. Some of the equipment and materials will be used for routine maintenance activities, while other equipment and materials will be necessary for specialized maintenance. " Items not required for routine maintenance July 2013 Guidance Document --W. Washington Low Impact Development (LID) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) M HERRERA 53 Table 9. Permeable Pavement Equipment and Materials List. Weed/vegetation removal equipment, such Equipmentto address clogging of weancourse, such as: as: ❑ Hand held pressure washer or power washer with ❑ Weeding tools�� rotating brushes (not recommended for open -celled ❑ Weed burner aggregate -filled systems) ❑ E] Walk-behindvacuum (sidewalks) Edging and trimming equipment to control groundcover and other ❑ Pure vacuum sweeper vegetation from extending onto ❑ ShopVac (small areas) pavement surface ❑ Combined higher pressure wash and vacuum system Equipment to remove sediment, debrls, and leaf litter, such Additional equipment for grass -Ailed open - as: coiled grid systems ❑ High efficiency regenerative air or vacuum sweeper ❑ Mower or mulch mower (roadways, parking lots) ❑ Topdress grass seed ❑ Push broom (can also be used to spread and clean ❑ compost aggregate in gravel -filled open -celled grid and ❑ permeable paver systems) Replacement grid segments ❑ Brush broom (course bristled broom) to remove moss ❑ Leaf blower Erosion control equipment (to stabilize adjacent landscaped Additional equipment for gravel -filled open. areas and protect pavement from sediment Inputs)* celled rids terns ❑ Erosion control matting ❑ Rakes and shovels ❑ Rocks ❑ Aggregate to replace material after ❑ Mulch vacuuming or to replenish material in E] high use areas Plants ❑Replacement grid segments El Landscaping tools ❑ Wheelbarrow (for transporting ❑ tarps (to protect pavement in area of landscaping from replacement aggregate) clogging, e.g., mulch stockpiles) Additional equipment for permeable paver Pipe/structure inspection and maintenance equipment systems ❑ Hand tools ❑ Rakes and shovels ❑ Wrench or manhole opener (for opening manhole lids, ❑ Extra pavers and bedding material grates, etc.) ❑ Aggregate to replace materials between ❑ Flashlight pavers after vacuuming ❑ Mirror (for viewing pipes without entering structure) ❑ Wheelbarrow (for transporting ❑ Garden hose replacement aggregate) Snow removal equipmen4 such as: ❑ Plumbing snake ❑ Measuring tape or ruler ❑ Plow with skids to prevent damage to permeable pavement ❑ snow blower " Items not required for routine maintenance July 2013 Guidance Document --W. Washington Low Impact Development (LID) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) M HERRERA 53 KING COUNTY, V HINGTON, SURFACE WATER DE, I MANUAL. TECHNICAL. INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Boeing Company Phone 206-544-8356 Address PO Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 Project Engineer Don Scarberry, PE Company Coffman Engineers, Inc. Phone 206-623-0717 Part S. TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATIDN�� ❑ Landuse Services Subdivison I Short Subd. 1 UPD ❑ Building Services M/F / Commerical / SFR ❑ Clearing and Grading ❑ Right -of -Way Use ❑ Other Part 2. PROJECT LOCATiiON AND DESCRIPTION Project Name Boeing 25-20 Parking DDES Permit # ° Expansion Location Township 23N Range 4E Section 24 Site Address 1901 Oakesdale Ave Renton, WA Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline ❑ COE 404 Management ❑ DOE Darn Safety El Structural ❑ RockeryNauW , dates): FEMA Floodplain ❑ ESA Secdon 7 ❑ COE Wetlands Date of Final: ❑ Other Part '�5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATI Technical Information Report Sita Improvennent Plan (Engr. Pians) Type of Drainage Review (a> Targeted / Type (circle one): (M)/ Modified / (circle): Large Site Small Site Date (include revision Date (include revision dates): dates): Date of Final: Date of Final: Part 6 ADM" TMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY "'ASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER ""SIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes /(E�) Start Date: Completion Date: Describe: . I Part 9 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN I Community Pian : Green River Valley Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin: Black River Stormwater Requirements: Enhanced Basic WQ / Peak Rate Flow Control I Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITNE AREAS I ® River/Stream Springbrook Creek ❑ Lake ® Wetlands ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Floodplain Zone AE ❑ Other Part 10 SOILS Sail Type Ur ❑ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached 2009 Surface Water Design Manual ■ ❑ Steep Slope ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ❑ Seismic Hazard ❑ Habitat Protection Slopes Erosion Potential 2-10o Slight 2 ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Seeps/Springs 1/9/2009 KING COUNTY, M HINGTON, SURFACE WATER DES I MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATION REFERENCE ❑ Core 2 — Offsite Analysis ❑ SensKNWCrkical Areas ❑ SEPA 13 Other 13 ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT Part 12 TIR SuwAARY SHEET oft 'nR Summa Sheet Throahold Ane Threshold Discharge Area: name or description) Core Requirements (all 6 apply) Dische a at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 /2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number (Ind. facil summary sheet Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor Contact Phone: After Flours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private 1 Public If Private Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes 1 No Liability Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake 1 Enhanced Basicm ! Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Management Plan: Yes I No SpecialRequirement* as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP 1 LMP 1 Shared Fac, / None Requirements Name: Floodplain/Roodway Delineation Type: Major / Minor I Exemption / None 1011 -year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control Describe landuse: (commfindustrlal landuse) Describe any structural controls: 2009 Surface water Design Manual 3 1/9/2f109 IN KING COUNTY '"ASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER --SIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TCR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High -use Site: Yes Treatment BMP: Structures Describe. Maintenance Agreement: Yes No with whom? Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS Note: Include Facility SummaH and Sketch MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ❑ Clearing Limits ❑ Detention ® Infiltration ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Flow Control amps ❑ Other ❑ Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ❑ Cover Measures ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Oil Control ❑ Spill Control ❑ Flow Control BMPs ❑ Other ❑ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Protection Paving ❑ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure ® Traffic Area Stabilization Paving Operation of Permanent Facilities ® Sediment Retention ® Flag Limits of SAO and open space ❑ Surface Water Collection Preservation areas ❑ Other ❑ Dewatering Control ® Dust Control ❑ Flow Control Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note: Include Facility SummaH and Sketch Flow Control TypeJOescription Water Quality T Descri tion ❑ Detention ® Infiltration ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Flow Control amps ❑ Other ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Oil Control ❑ Spill Control ❑ Flow Control BMPs ❑ Other Treatment layer in paving sec io Permeable Paving Permeable Paving 2409 Surface Water Design Manual 4 1/9/2009 ss KING COUNTY, Vh HINGTON, SURFACE WATER DE: J MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Covenant ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other ❑ Other I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6 1!9/2009 sw ipdr N. go 1 st 00.1 mommomw thafL s3i _ SAM Isla S! a 3 w swr ?In st SW S41h $1 SW 14h St sVV ry a at ler 0 600 1200 2400 VICINITY MAP 1"=1200' ACaFMAN Reference Sheet. M GIN E E A S®�Q"� M�� — Id41 FihhAvenue.Suire900 (JfOWin9 NO: 5—th,, WA 98 101-1 625 ph 204.623.0717 9 L 6/19/13 fax 206.624.1775 BUILDING 25-20 PARKING EXPANSION -- -- coffman-cam LksTING �� _ . 1� LONGACRES SITE, RENTON, WA 13459 Reference 11-C Rh EvC h ..� E+V S.r. �0G O EvC RA ReC x wo i AIR .. mo M M Eta( _ M An +�l�ij D ■�.—.0 hC .FEV VEvn M M Ar. [` . ase t� ai P^5 Est;,C Fv[; Pap YS� PATS ' T, 6 c f t'Fn NF E,C. 4FIFA_T.G Fh "i�9 nYF P, ` Pr / F WIw8 9eL kh Apo Po� Pc µr P� Y4 ADD "FPy BeC N Be^ N PgV Py 4mC 7 T. ABL m So Sk APO Y Nn PQC No 51[ J Sk Pu ND A,na Aea Aga Am9 Amb Er ak Ho Ano �6 A°a rgo Mo w�a Y City of Renton Soil Survey MapProta,ion Area RAa y Public Works Aquifer Prot -ti.. Area Zone 1 Surface Water Utility cMy nt - 0 0.5 1 Aquifer Protection area zone 1 ModiFled G. Del Rosario • r 1 (SRT} a°^ti^ ^ 1zrn12OO9 r 'fi'if sS Miles N City o*enton Seismic Hard Areas 1:4,316 1 360 0 180 360 Fee: W GS_1984_ Web_ Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphare City of fon ,. . Finance & IT Division Legend City and County Boundary Other City of Renton Parcels Seismic niormation Technology - GIS This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear an this map may or may not be ZentonMapSupport@Rentonwa.gov accurate, current. or otherwise reliable, 511 9/2013 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION s Reference 11-A Flow Control Standards Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions) Pow Control Duration Standard (Existing Site Conditions) - Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) `•� •� Renton City Limits L.71 Potential Annexation Area van 25Vt 8E t .. ,n SE 112thMS_t _�SE 120th120Vt St121 pl �i_ _ I I SE 2F %_. - I �Eel I - rs' in t tt �.L..F § BE L .. 3 c. 5 J i SE 1g41m; tea. - & S 4 BBIh SI 1180th 3190th E 38 ,a-)--� _ t3t H 1 t �q Is 189th t m 8 Flow Control Application Map Printed 1I1412P1D C�Y. of. l.. . a 0 L— SE 17[Mt w r� i 11 i �Ra 492M1d lI 3 1�y�T�1} awi A �m I N A 2 1 Miles - --- _--------- ,tt 73 n O ' m Q CL i 1 F a v O o _ � w z f� P3 C� Cn O �S m_ >�> 9R 2 fir- D ➢� mT b7� CI1 o m coo o 0 owm'"� 1-3 (7' c ` n �o3g oz > m S�3r.o G z doa�2 Sao mem i T m C7m oC Ir bd ao m a g Ec adv Cr7 CL t3T T T av 00 n 0 a m c q 0 O 0 4 � C. I �n w SL Y m `y Q o-4 o� n o a "n D o o m z zm Z ;, Q z z z z z z z m m m m m m rn M m m m �y o r p x y x -n C C A D A O m0 > m rr rm > fv J 3 ryi 3 j- to a57 t y, x cr LA CA.10 a c a to 3L 10 t ca y � � • s5 � •.[ A� 7 � G r � r � .5 pa 7 � � � T m n �?°'3 i8m Id�ti � ?3 � �• h� =d�� a � � D C a 6•Y 9m. s3 �:] w w� ma"5"R3' �g Li X7 r v a�lo N x o rn Orn a qS z a n 5 3e r^ ��es.�� an � oQ g�oS �$ � 3Q n j Sa ca YSR� -�3$4 Z 215 �pn� � 3 1 dao � $ ?a ; A j �, T t> f 4 z�zD m PI © a D zz m �f d D Dto a,Ca C O Dz w am•+ m 3 m,� m m m '+�� ow to ��myp° 27<Fm�3cip i, b yc � c D c 3 2. -, G, r- � � tJl c 7 O: m' �'CT A► cb C n � ?LA0 .r % ORO vm z N O 0Ua C C m C .+ m O Q O 3® C 7> m ZID p t�pQwOw' z m CL C toS 03 C7 o yam r O Q tO p �Om 7' :3 gD C} N d M1# C7 m aorata� m m m i ware 3 mr � �3 g�T�Q �Jt SJ�JJiJ - - - - - - - - - EC Mai 1241,-,olpstt- Z1§13426 - a 2 gig a 0 1 9 12 x m m Rx AMR Xrn Qv 3d O ti"'i 4013 M4 Av#n LA* W9*1 awnt., WA rserr September 3, 2013 The Boeing Company c/o Don Scarberry Coffman Engineers, Inc 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Wetland Determination for Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Expansion Dear Don, On July 15, 2013, I met at your office in Seattle and was provided some conceptual plans for the proposed expansion of the parking area of Building 25-20 at the Boeing Longacres Office Park in Renton, Washington. The conceptual parking expansion is adjacent to and west of the existing parking area. This area was reportedly regraded as part of past development activity completed by Boeing in the late 1990'x. You provided documents, including a record drawing titled Landscape Layout & Materials Plan — Grid 28 for the BCAG Surface Water Management Project drawing LC 28 and a second drawing titled Grading Grid 33 Longacres Park (drawing 0933) that show this. Other figures provided included an as -built, record drawing titled Site Grading Plan Grid 33 for the BCAG Headquarters Bldg. 25-20 Site Development, which shows a small (3,800 sq. f1.) wetland between the helipad, existing access road to the helipad, and Building 25-20 parking area. Labeled Wetland J (Attachment A), the wetland is approximately 100 ft (east to west) by 35 ft. (north to south). Boeing has indicated that this wetland was compensated for as part of an approved compensatory wetland mitigation plan. A reconnaissance -level wetland investigation was conducted by Ecological Solutions on August 9, 2013 to assess whether this area was a wetland. This letter report identifies the methods used and my wetland determination findings. These findings are preliminary and subject to verification by the City of Renton and other regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Washington State Department of Ecology as appropriate. Introduedon The area has a long history of disturbance dating back to at least 1936 based upon aerial photographs available online through Google Earth and the King County iMAP website. A horse racetrack is shown in the 1936 aerial photo as are ditches and an old meander scroll of Green River. By 1990, many additional land use changes are evident, including construction of many buildings to the east of the Longacres racetrack in the vicinity of the existing Building 25- 20, parking, and helipad and the meander scroll is entirely filled. Two buildings are present within the area of the proposed parking expansion adjacent to the existing asphalt pavement W Im 0 F:CEa �. [i f,LCA1, ytl E, I'7'11}Yf INC;- September 3, 2013 Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Exp. (i.e., helipad, access road, and existing Building 25-20 parking). Between 1998 and 2000, the current building and compensatory wetland mitigation are constructed (Attachment B). The City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) requires the use of the 1997 Washington Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) to make wetland determinations and to delineate the boundaries of wetlands (RMC 4-3-050.M.4.a). RMC 4-3-050.M.3.e.i. indicates that wetlands unintentionally created after July 1, 1990 as a result of the construction of road, street or highway are non-regulated wetlands. RMC further indicates that the Department Administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements, and other evidence. Information provided herein includes aerial photographs, field data, and other lines of evidence that support a finding that there is no regulated wetlands present in the proposed parking expansion area. Methods A reconnaissance -level investigation was conducted to make a wetland determination on August 9, 2013. I met Cara Visintainer onsite. With few exceptions, an area is a wetland when all three required parameters are present: wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. Among the few exceptions is when an area is considered an atypical situation or problem area. Atypical situations include those in which one or more of the required parameters has recently been intentionally obliterated Problem areas include those areas that may not possess clear indicators of all three parameters throughout the year. Though vegetation and soils have clearly been disturbed in the past and there is clear evidence of such disturbance on the site, there have not been any recent alterations and normal circumstances now exist. The area also does not appear to be a problem area. Therefore, the routine determination method described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) was used for making a wetland determination on the arca previously identified as Wetland J. Hydrophytic vegetation was considered to be present if more than 50 percent of the dominant plants in an area have wetland indicator statuses of FAC, FACW, or QBL as defined by Reed (1988) and Reed et al. (1993) (Table 1). Dominant plants are those species that exert a controlling influence on the character of the plant community and not scattered individuals that may be indicators of wet or dry conditions. In general, those species contributing to an areal cover of 20 percent or more are considered dominant plants. Hydrophytic vegetation is considered present when the majority of the dominant species have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. A plant community composed of dominant species with these wetland indicator statuses constitute those typically adapted for life in anaerobic (wetland) soil conditions. Primary positive indicators of wetland hydrology used to assess whether or not wetland hydrology was present were inundation, saturation to the surface, and the location or presence of shallow ground water proximity to the ground surface. Less reliable indicators of hydrology, such as oxidized rhizospheres, also were noted where present. A tape measure was used to identify the depth of redoximorphic features or ground water in open test pits where these features were observed. 2 wdpl t; i', r,)2. tl ti l C, AT, `03 IT 143NI. IN L'. septecnber 3, 2013 Table 1. Kev to wetland indicator statuses. toeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Exp. WISi _ Designation Qualitative Desq ption2 OBL Hydrophyte Almost always occurs in wetlands FACW Hydrophyte Usually occurs in wetlands, but may occur in non -wetlands FAC Hydrophyte Occur in wetlands and non -wetlands FACU Nonhydrophyte Usually occur in non -wetlands, but may occur in wetlands UPL Nonhvdmnhvte Almost never occur in wetlands Notes: 1— wetland indicator si ftm (WIS) Wow Lichvar 2013. 2 -- Dawriptions follow Lichvar et al. 2012. Positive indicators of hydric soils include all organic soils, presence of a histic epipedon, mineral soils immediately below the surface horizon with a chrome of 1 (without redoximorphic features) or a chroma of 2 (with redoximorphic features), gleying, and hydrogen sulfide odor. A positive wetland determination requires positive indicators of all three parameters. Results and Discussion Vegetation in the proposed parking expansion area is composed of species commonly found in disturbed areas and is clearly a reflection of the past regarding done as part of Boeing development projects. Dominant plants observed in the slightly depressed area of unmowed vegetation included colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris - FAC), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus - FAC), common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus - FAC), red fescue (Festuca rubra — FAC), Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus - FACU). The lone (-10-inch diameter at breast height) black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) tree was not considered a dominant species. Though many species in this plant association are common in disturbed areas, more than 50 percent of the dominant species have FAC wetland indicator status, which is a positive indicator of hydrophytic vegetation. Thus hydrophytic vegetation is considered to be present. Plant associations similar to this often occur in wet pastures or wet meadow wetlands with hydric soils. A test pit was excavated with a sharpshooter shovel in the area sloping gently north at a gradient of <1 percent towards a 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe under the hchpad access road. This test pit location is approximately 7 to 8 meters west southwest of the solitary black cottonwood tree. Soils consisted of a depleted matrix and 30 to 40% redoximorphic concentrations from a depth of 0-6 inches. These conditions extended from the ground surface to a depth of more than 18 inches below the ground surface. Texture of the soil was very fine loamy sand to sandy loam. The King County Soil Survey (Snyder et al 1973) shows soils in this area as urban land (Attachment C), which is consistent with the long history of development activities in this area. Matrix color ranged from dark grayish brown (10YR 412) to grayish brown (10YR 512). Redox concentrations became more abundant towards the bottom of the test pit. Using either the 1997 Ecology manual or more recently adopted Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region supplement to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual (Corps), these soils are considered hydric. Under the 1997 Ecology manual, a matrix with a chroma of 2 and mottles or redoximorphic concentrations is a hydric mineral soil. Such soils are common in the floodplain of the Green River. It is possible that they are effectively drained and redoximorphic concentrations are relict features. Hydric soils can persist for 3 qW Y.COLOGJCAI. SOIA-TIONS, INC. September 3, 2013 Boeing Bldg 25-20 Panting Exp. decades following alteration of wetland hydrology that will render an area a non -wetland (Ecology 1997 c@ p. 6). Whether they are effectively drained or not, the soils are considered hydric. Though the soils are hydric, indicators of wetland hydrology are weak. Iron oxide plaque was observed around living roots. Oxidized rhizospheres are a positive indicator of wetland hydrology. This could be a reflection of soil compaction associated with development activities. Examination of aerial photographs show that this area has had a long history of disturbance dating back to the 1930s. Figure 1 shows what appear to be freshly cut hay, the Longacres racetrack, and hydrologic alterations (ditching) on the black and white aerial photograph from 1936. The red line on this figure and other aerial photographs represents the current edge of asphalt pavement and helps illustrate repeated disturbances in the area of the previously delineated Wetland J. It is noteworthy that the area previously identified and delineated as Wetland J is within the area of the east straightaway of the racetrack in Figure 1. Additional hydrologic alterations are apparent on black and white aerial photographs from 1990 and 1998. The 1990 image (Figure 2) shows filling in of the old meander scroll beginning just to the north of the existing parking area and curving first to the west then south and finally east southeast in a crescent shape ending at the racetrack. By 1998 the racetrack is gone and there are at least two buildings and other land use changes within the area as shown in Attachment B. As shown by the red line denoting the edge of existing asphalt pavement, buildings were present in the area delineated as Wetland J by others. By 2000, the buildings in the 1998 aerial are gone and the current Building 25-20, parking, helipad, and compensatory wetland mitigation are in place. Strong positive indicators of wetland hydrology are lacking. The indicators that are present (oxidized rhizospheres and drainage patterns) appear to be the result of regrading and past disturbance that likely resulted in soil compaction. Weiland Deten"inadon Technically, there are positive indicators of all three parameters present. Vegetation in the area is common in disturbed areas though it technically meets the definition because more than 50% of the dominant plants have FAC wetland indicator statuses. Soils are an entisol and a reflection of historic floodplain deposits from the Green River associated with the historic channel alignment (visible in the meander scroll on the 1936 aerial photograph in Figure 1). Entisols are hydric mineral soils and those in this area have clear positive indicators of hydric soils. Positive indicators of hydrology are weak and appear to be the result of regrading and construction of the helipad, helipad access road, and existing stormwater management. Assuming wetland hydrology is present for sufficient duration during the growing season, the area technically meets all three parameters and is a wetland. This wetland appears to have been unintentionally created after July 1, 1990 as a result of permitted development, including construction of the helipad and access roads and stormwater management activities. The presence of the 12 -inch concrete pipe (see Photograph 6 in Attachment D) that appears to receive stormwater that flows north seasonally from the regraded area where Wetland J once was found supports this conclusion. Furthermore, it is supported by record drawings that show the grading plan for this area (Attachment E) and observed site topography. Thus it appears that though this area has some wetland characteristics, it does not appear to be a regulated wetland under Menton Municipal Code. 4 'qlbdlW Rf: �)LCTfll r_�l� 501,UTIONA, INC. September 3, 2013 4oeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Exp. Swing Bldg 25-20 Parking Expansion 1' r Old meander scroll , or _! county Boundary x Mourftin Pears Lepnd 1$38 BIWAarial Plsotos Current extent of edge of asphalt pavement Figure 1. Historical disturbances within the area of previously delineated Wetland 7 in 1936. (Source: Black & white aerial downloaded from King County iMAP website 8,14/13), S M R C'01.Vo1CA1. 801.iiTloNR' 1N(— September 3, 2013 Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Exp. Two other test pits were excavated (see SP -2 and SP -3 data forms in Attachment F. One located approximately 7 meters south of the inlet to the 12 -inch concrete culvert beneath the helipad access road. A clod of clay loam was observed within the upper 8 inches of this test pit, which is evidence of past disturbance. The rest of the test pit profile to a depth of -23 inches below the ground surface was sandy loam similar to that observed in the SNI test pit. The third test pit (SP - 3) was excavated southeast of the helipad. Some construction debris (cement) was observed in the upper 6 inches of this test pit. The surface layer to —6 inches was very compact gravelly sandy loam. Beneath this was very fine sandy loam similar to the hydric mineral entisol observed in the two other test pits. Runoff from a portion of the helipad and access road drain to this area and likely contribute to stormwater runoff as sheet flow to the east during the wet season that is ultimately conveyed north through the 12 -inch concrete pipe. Conclusions The area near what was previously identified as Wetland J contains wetland characteristics and technically meets wetland parameters, assuming wetland hydrology is present for sufficient duration during the growing season. If present, hydrology is at least partially the result of stormwater runoff from the portions of the helipad and asphalt access road that drains to this area. Under RMC 4-3-050.M.I .e. i, regulated wetlands do not include those areas unintentionally created after July I, 1940 from road construction. In addition, even if the area is a wetland, the Boeing Company appears to have provided compensatory wetland mitigation for eliminating this feature and it would be unprecedented to require mitigation again, unless the previous mitigation failed to adequately compensate for the previously impacted wetlands. Therefore, it is my conclusion that there is no regulated wetland present in the area of the proposed parking expansion. This conclusion is subject to verification and should be confirmed by the City of Renton, the Corps, and Ecology as appropriate. Sincerely, '4 LA. Scott Luchessa Certified Ecologist, M.S. 6 V V 0 I.41G IC:A 1. Tia I. V T T I' dS, IA1:. September 3, 2013 References Corps (see U.S. Army Coags of Engineers) Ecology (see Washington State Department of Ecology) Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Exp. Lichvar, R.W. 2013. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast 2013 Regional Wetland Plant List. Available online at hgp://rsgisias.crrel.Usace.army.miVNWPUstatic/cfg/doe,'pol_2013_ publRegionslpdf/rep'. AWC 2013v1.ydf Lichvar, R.W., N.C. Melvin, M.L. Butterwick, and W.N. Kirchner. 2012. National Wetland Plant List indicator rating definitions. ERDC/CRREL TR -12-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(26.9), Washington, DC. Reed, P.H., Jr., D. Peters, J. Goudxwaard, I. Lines, and F. Weinman. 1993. Supplement to list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Supplement to Biological Report 88(26.9), Washington, DC. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey: King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR -10-3.1. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble (eds). U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vickburg, MS. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology, Publication No. 96-94, Olympia, WA. Available online at bM://www.cey.wa.pov/biblio/9694.htrni. Attachments: Attachment A — Previously delineated Wetland J Attachment B —1998, 2000, and 2007 aerial photographs Attachment C — NRCS mapped soils Attachment D — Reconnaissance photographs Attachment E — Boeing record drawings Attachment F — Wetland determination data forms 7 ATTACHMENT A PREVIOUSLY DELINEATED WETLAND J m m ATTACHriENY` B 199$, 20009 AND 2007 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS i Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Expansion .-�w Legend �I C4u+tY Boursdary 1998 BEVY Aerial Photos x Mountain Peaks ++� na+nwf+ svdso m A ^wP n�u o.� wrplla oy rainy nr ww f wwwry W •assn am is bspa o a— nma+s nou0f. 'v'f I Carry mak► no tp-rueorr a rrr�nt n. n�r4s a n b �mv.cr �.. �.ma. o ny a a yr �r n+ sua+ n�amrdon C. Donment s ml #�lenaea la m m a aow/ R+� eMi nd Ga 14C�a la env Qgnmm Kyp� rxl moi, a aawep�ermel '� a ate, eu"..�+rp is . P a ' da v.e da+�etkr+ ax ranee a Ihw mw ado of King County 6W Mbwl9 SONC6 Ov GW* AWP - P+uputy Wwr,* Pn WPs%�-mvnkc.QQvr.&.rAAFI m Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Expansion �r k 4 Legend 1 County Boundary 2007 Color Aerial Photos (61n) X mourakn Peaks 2007 Color Aerial Photos 112 In) !=on :t;w Ka bhm or wartantlp, =tYy.W:M W,=* U08a ID dWW marl roON rwft to Um V*Mwow. zeamytw King County manor whkudapt trf WMW PIMUWW cd KMg C^Xty LN Data RA 2013 Sara: KvVC4^ MAP - PmVerr, kiW"WA0m ATTACHMENT C NRCS MAPPED SOILS Soil Map-4Cing County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Sone In the Vicinity of the Boeing 25-20 SulltlkV Pang County Area, Washington (WA833) Map Unk liyrribt►1 Yap Unit !lams Acus In AOl Porcerrt at AOI Ng Newberg silt loam 1.5 0.9% Py Puyallup fine sandy loam tial 3.7% Ur _ mm Urban land 1522 88.2% Wo WoodlnAW slit loam 12.5 7.3% Totals for Area of Jntenst 172,7 100.0% Natural Resources Conservation Service 011 Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 812612013 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT D RECONNAISSANCE PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1— Looking south at the maintained vegetation adjacent to the heiipad access road and unmowed vegetation in the area of previously delineated Wetland J (arrow) on 814113. Photograph 2 Looking west at the previously delineated Wetland J (arrow) on 8/9113. Matted vegetation is from geotechnical exploration. Note existing Building 25-20 parking in the background. i Photograph 3 — Looping west from the area previously delineated as Wetland ) at typical mixed grasses and invasive shrub (Himalayan blackberry) and the helipad, a 13 4 e Photograph 4 Hydric sandy loam soil from test pit located approximately 7-8 m west of the lone black cottonwood tree in Photograph 2. Depleted matrix 1QYR 5,1 (black arrow) and 1pYR 611:8 redoximorphic concentrations (white arrow). i a r.. Photograph S — Similar positive indicator of depleted matrix with abundant redoximorphic concentrations extending to the surface in, the SP -1 test pit near the lone black cottonwood tree in Photograph 2. -&1O�� Photograph 6 — Looking north at a 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe that appears to carry seasonal stormwater flow from portions of the helipad and asphalt road north under the helipad access road from the area previously delineated as Wetland J. M ATTACHMENT E BOEING RECORD DRAWINGS m t0 -Ir Bldg 25-20 r! 12 -inch diameter culvert " -- -• -- --- -+� (see photograph 6 in ---� -" Attachment F) 1 Existing Bldg 25-20 Flow Parking Source: Excerpted from the record drawing for the BCAG Surface Water Management Project drawing LC28 dated July 24, 2000 (Approximate scale l inch = 40 ft.). r ATTACHMENT F WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS .Koutine Wetland Determination tAdanted from the Washinvton State Wetlands Identificadan and 1Dd1ncattnn Msnnatl Project/Site: Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Expansion Date: August 9, 2013 Applicant/owner. The Boeing Company County: King Investigator(s): S. Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SE'/, S 24, T 23 N R4 E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Emergent Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem arca? ❑ Yes 13 No Plot ID: SP -1 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION ' = dominant plant species using the 50120 rule; midpoints are shown in parentheses foUa %cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Agroslis capillaris H FAC Low corniculatim H FAG Holcus lanais H FAC Festuca rubra H FAC Rnbus armeniacus SH FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBI, FACW, & FAC: 80'/• FAC Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Pbysiologicaitreproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/satut2tion ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No Rationale for decisimvRemarks: More than 50•/. of the domimint plants have FAC wetland indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposita: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No ED Other (explain) Date lt. growth Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: [] Yes IR No Channels <12in R Yes No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to fries water in pit: > 18 inches ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 18 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Otlter (explain): ❑ Strcam, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wedand hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decisiontremarks: It is assumed that saturated soils and/or seasonally high ground water arc present earlier in the growing season that meet the wetland hydrology criterion. Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : 1 Taxonomy (subgroup) i Land Drainage Class Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Profile Descriptlon Mottle colors Depth )matrix color (h4unsell Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon upsell moist moist size and contrast strut etc. {match descriotlem 0-18+ A IQYR 5/2 10YR 618 Many, med-coarse, Very fine sandy loam to distinct loamy sand f Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chrome 5 2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Sulfrdic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Shmaldng in Sandy Soils I ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on NationslJLocal Hydric Soils List DGleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix 0 Otho lain in remarks Hydric solh present? 0 Yes ❑ No Rationale for decisionlRemarks: Low chrome matrix with mottles (redoximorphic features) is positive evidence of hydric mineral soil. Wetland Deternlaatlon Hydropbytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yea ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? Yes ❑ No Is the saMling point within a wetland? Yes No RatlonaWRemarha: Arno has wetland characteristics but does not ?Fid to be a regulated wetland (see NOTES) NOTES: Center of this sample plot is 7.8 m west southwest of the lone black cottonwood tree (-10 inches dbb). Vegetation is typical of disturbed area, in the Puget Lowlands though it technically meets the hydrophyde vegetation criterion. Soils maybe effectively drained from hydrologic alterations though mora likely wetland hydrology is provided at least in part by stormwatcr runoff from portions of the helipad and roads that dram to this area, which were constructed after July I, 1990. Wetland 1 was previously identified as a regulated wetland in this vicinity. It appears that this Wetland J was eliminated as part of the permitted development that resulted in the existing conditions, which included construction ofthe helipad and access roads, (liven the clear aerial photographic evidence that shows buildings covering this arse as recently as 1990 and that existing conditions have evolved after the more recent development between 1998 and 2000, the existing wetland characteristics have been unintentionally created by construction of the helipad and roads and thus it is an unregulated wetland under RMC 4-3-050, MA IN Routine Wetland Determination (Adapted from the Washiotrton State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manvall Project/Site: Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Expansion Date: August 9, 2013 Applicant/owner. The Boeing Company County: King Investigator(s): S. Luchessa State: WA S1T/1L- SE y. S 24, T 23 N R 4 E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Emergent Is the site significantly disturbed. (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: SP -2 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION • = dominant plant species using the 50120 rule midpoints are shown in parentheses folio % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant S ies Stratum % cover Indicator Agrostu capillaris H FAC Poa annua H FAC Loliarn perenne H FAC 7 oliwn repew H FAC HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: 1/a of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 1001/. Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wedand plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ® Personal knowledge of regional plant communities ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophyde vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decisiontRemarks: All of the dominant plants have FAC wetland indicator statuses and the vegetation is hydrophytic though all species are commonly found in maintained lawns. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: ❑ Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: ❑ Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Sod temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: Yes ❑ No Other lain Date It growth Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ®No Channels X12 it Yes No FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: Depth to five water in pit: > 24.5 inches ❑ Yes 0 No to saturated soil: > 24.5 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gale data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydroka present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decisionhanarks: It is assumed that saturated soils andlor seasonally high ground water are present earlier in the growing season. SOILS ` Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : Land Drainage Class Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) Profile Description Mottle colors Depth Matrix color (Munsell Mottle abund=DrC Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon(Munsell moist moist size and contrast structure etc. (match degdPtionl 0-8" A l OYR 5/2 I OYR 6/8 Common, mod -muse, distinct Loam to sandy loam 8-24.5 8 I OYR 5/2 1 OYR 618 Many, mod -coarse, Loamy sand to sandy loam distinct Hydric Soil Indkators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ® Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles I ❑ Hixdc Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ SWfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in &ufaoe Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aqm Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils E ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low -Chrome, -1 matrix Other (explain in romarks Hydric lolls present? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/Remarks: Low chroma matrix with mottles (redoximorphic features) is positive evidence of hydric mineral soil. Weiland Determlestiou I Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ NO Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ we is the Emling e2int within a wetland? 0 Yes ❑ No RationahMetnarks: Arca has wetland characteristics but does not appear to be a regulated wetland see NOTES for SP -1 NOTES: Sarnple plot is 6.5 m south of the inlet to the 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe. Vegetation is mowed and regularly maintained. III Routine Wetland Determination Wanted from the Washington State Wetlands IdentHiesdan and "incntinn Maneall ProjectlSite: Boeing Bldg 25-20 Parking Expansion Date: August 4, 2013 Applicant(owner: The Boeing Company County: King Investigator(s): S. Luchessa State: WA S/T/R: SE Y. S 24 T 23 N, R 4 E Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Emergent Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No Plot ID: SP -3 Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION dontinant elant species usiAg the 50/20 rule; midpoints are shown in pa=theses following % cover Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Plant Species Stratum 1. cover Indicator Agrostis capillaris H FAC Lotus corniculatus H FAC Holcas lanatus H FAC Festuca rubra H FAC Schedonorus aruudmaceus H FAC Rubus armeniatus SH FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 83% FAC Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/M mductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation ® Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations ® Personal knowledge of regional plant conmaw ties ❑ Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes []No Rationale for decision/Remarks: More than 509/0 of the dominant plants have FAC wetland indicator statuses. HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? ® Yes ❑ No Water Marks: [-]Yes ® No Sediment Deposits: [:]Yes ® No on Based on: ❑ Soil temp (record temp) Drift Lines: ❑ Yes ® No Drainage Patterns: ® Yes ❑ No Other ex lain Date It growth Depth of inundation: None Oxidized Root (live toots) Local Soil Survey: ❑ Yes ® No Channels X12 in: Yes Q Na Depth to free water in pit: > 14 inches FAC Neutral: ❑ Yes ® No Water -stained Leaves: ❑ Yes ® No Depth to saturated soil: > 14 inches Check all that apply & explain below: Other (explain): ❑ Stream, lake or gage data ❑ Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wedand hydrology preml? ® Yes ❑ No Rationale for decision/remarks: It is assumed that saturated soils and/or seasonally high ground water are present earlier in the growing season. Id SAILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase) : I i Land Drainage Class Field observations confirm mapped type? ® Yes ❑ No Taxonomy (subgroup) Proflk Daeripfive Mottle colors Depth Matrix color (Munsell Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Horizon unaell moist) moist size and contrast structure etc. (match descriptionl 0-6" A 10YR 3/2 l OYR 618 Common, mod-coarse, distinct Gravelly sandy loam 6-14+ B I OYR 5/2 I OYR 618 Common, med�oarse, very fine sandy loam to distinct loamy sand I Hydric Soil Indicatory: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosoi ® Matrix chromt S 2 with mottles I ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretkms ❑ Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑ Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils I ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils list ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix Other (explain in remarks Hydric soils present? 0 Ya ❑ No I Rationale for decisionlRemarks; Low chrome matrix with mollies (redoximorphic features) is positive evidence of hydric mineral soil. Naiad JklLenombs Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Hydric soils ptewal? ® Yes ❑ No Wetland hydrology present? 0 Yes ❑ No 1s the sampling powt within a wetland? ® Yea ❑ No RatiortaWlteaaarks: Area has wetland characteristics but does not appear to be a regulated wetland (see NOTES for SP-1) NOTES: Sample plot and test pit am --S m southeast of the edge of asphalt of the belipad within the area identified as buffer to Wetland I in Attachment A. Upper part of soils was very compact and difficult to dig in. Some construction debris, small pieces of concrete rubble, were observed in the upper six inches. Runoff from the adjacent helipad and access road is Likely seasonally perched on top of the compacted layer and sheet flows to the northeast and then north though the 12 -inch diameter concrete pipe. ACOFFMAN N G I N E E R December 13, 2013 Mr. Mark Clement Permit Specialist The Boeing Company 737 Logan Avenue North Renton, Washington 9$055 Project: Parking Lot Expansion - Biological Assessment Summary Boeing Building 25-20 Renton, Washington CEI Project #13459 Dear Mark: The Boeing Company is expanding the parking area that services Building 25-20 located at the Boeing Longacres Office Park in Renton, Washington. We have enclosed the Landau Biological Assessment that was conducted in April 2013, that The City of Renton requested because of the nearby wetlands. We are providing the new parking lot area further away from the sensitive areas than the referenced assessment area. This new parking lot will be contiguous to the existing large parking lot and separated from the sensitive area by a road and helicopter pad. We are providing LED lighting to better control the light patterns and minimize impacts to the wildlife by controlling light pollution upwards and to the sides. We are also changing out the existing parking lot lights from High Pressure Sodium to the more efficient and wildlife friendly LED system. Please call if we may be of further assistalnce. Si Donald K. Scarberry, E. Senior Discipline eager, Civil Engineering dks.-rzd Enclosures K.113Jobs113459 Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Expanswnll.0 CORRESPONDENCE',].I General Correspondence l 1345 9 Biological llssessment Cover Lelter.docx SEATTLE ANCHORAGE HONOLULU LOSANGELES SPOKANE 1601 Fifth Ave., Suite 900 907.276.6664 808.687.8884 818.285.2650 509.328,2994 Seattle, WA 98101-1620 206.623.0717 0 LASTING creativity I results I relationships Critical Areas Report Longacres Park Sounder Path Lighting Study Renton, Washington April 16, 2013 Prepared for The Boeing Company LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 778-0907 M EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Boeing Company (Boeing) is proposing to install lighting along an approximate 400 linear foot section of existing pedestrian pathway at Longacres Park (LAP) in the vicinity of Building 25-20, located in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. The existing path extends between two open water areas created for wetland mitigation associated with past development at LAP and connects LAP to the Tukwila Sounder Station. The lighting will consist of approximately twenty-two 42 -inch -high 10 watt LED bollards at a minimum spacing of 15 feet. The lights have an approximate 180 degree light pattern to minimize illumination of areas outside of the existing path. This report provides results of the critical areas study, including wetland delineation of the existing Boeing mitigation wetlands and characterization of habitat conservation areas; assessment of project -related impacts to wetlands, floodplain (i.e., flood hazards), wetland buffer, and habitat conservation areas; and a description of the proposed compensatory mitigation for those impacts in order to satisfy the City's critical areas regulations. Critical area impacts are avoided/minimized by the proposed project. Wetland areas are avoided by construction of the proposed project, and proposed lighting has been designed to minimize impact to adjacent wetland. Trenching will occur in disturbed areas adjacent to wetlands, and these areas will be restored following construction. Selective pruning of tree/shrubs in critical habitat may occur. Pruning will be limited to extent necessary for construction and will not have a significant impact to habitat. Proposed aboveground electrical infrastructure will be supported on metal stakes (2 inch diameter or smaller), and portions of the stakes may be below the base flood elevation of the 100 -year floodplain. The stakes would not reduce the effective storage volume in the floodplain, and no compensatory storage is proposed. All other aboveground structures associated with the proposed project are above the base flood elevation of the 100 -year floodplain. Landau Associates completed this report in support of mitigation sequencing for critical areas within the proposed project. 4116113 Mdmdeta011prajacts102511M120109RWACrificel Areas RptILAP_SounderAeth CdWal Areas_rpt.docu LANDAU AssocIATEs ii This page intentionally left blank. 4116113 1ledmdata0llprojects1025118511201FilaRmNMCritical Areas Rp11lAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rptdocx LANDAU ASSOCIATES iii 0 MITIGATION FACT SHEET Site Information Location Wetland Impact & Mitigation Sites (same) Site Names Boeing Longacres Park Sounder Path County King city Renton Section, Township, Range Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 East Latitude, Longitude (GIS verified) 47.462229 N latJ -122.236328 W long. Watershed Duwamish-Green WRIA 9 Is the mitigation site(s) off of the project development site? Not applicable Construction schedule (development site and compensation site[s]): Construction is planned for 2013, and may extend into 2014. Summary of project, including proposed type and location of worse, discussion of avoidance and minimization measures, goals and objectives, wetland functions, impacted and mitigated (note assessment method used), and the general design concept (include where it has been done before). The Boeing Company (Boeing) is proposing to install lighting along an approximate 400 linear foot section of existing pedestrian pathway at Longacres Park (LAP) in the vicinity of Building 25-20. The existing path extends between two open water areas created for wetland mitigation (Boeing wetland mitigation) associated with past development at LAP and connects LAP to the Tukwila Sounder Station. The lighting will consist of approximately twenty-two 42 -inch -high 10 watt LED bollards at a minimum spacing of 15 feet. The lights have an approximate 180 degree light pattern to minimize illumination of areas outside of the existing path. Project construction will include trenchinq in areas of topsoil outside of the wetland boundary and tra ching in exlstlng paved areas along the trail. WetlandMaterway Impact Sites Feature Impacts Type Rating (Total Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Landscape HGM Class Name (acres) Score) Score Score Score Position Wetland W11W2 0 NA 55 14 24 17 Depression Depressional Total acres of wetiandlwaterway Impact: None Acres of wetland Impacts and mitigation Wetland Type (Cowardin, Acres Impacted HGM classification, (Temporary Ecology Rating) only) Restoration (acres) N/A N/A N/A Describe other impacts andror other mitigation activities. Critical area impacts are avoided/minimized by the proposed project. Wetland areas are avoided by construction of the proposed project, and proposed lighting has been designed to minimize impact to adjacent wetland. Trenching will occur in disturbed areas adjacent to wetlands, and these areas will be restored following construction. Selective pruning of tree/shrubs in critical habitat may occur. Pruning will be limited to extent necessary for construction and will not have a significant Impact to habitat. Proposed electrical infrastructure aboveground will be supported on metal stakes (2 inch diameter or smaller), and portions of the stakes may be below the base flood elevation of the 100 -year floodplain. The stakes would not reduce the effective storage volume in the floodplain, and no compensatory storage is proposed. All other aboveground structures associated with the proposed project are above the base flood elevation of the 100- year floodplain. Describe the buffers being provided for the mitigation site, including minimum and maximum width, total buffer area, and description of surrounding land uses. Not applicable, work is limited to existing impervious surfaces. Describe the water regime at the mitigation site(s), Including source of water, expected water depth, average outflow (winter, spring, summer), and ownership of water rights. Not applicable Provide a list of performance standards and the estimated time to reach each. Not applicable. 4116113 Iledmdato011projectaW2MIM12e11FIIeRmkMCriUral Areas RptLLAP_SounderPeth Critical Areas_rptdo= LANDAU ASSOCIATES iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii MITIGATION FACT SHEET iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1-1 1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 1-2 2.0 METHODS 2-1 2.1 WETLAND INVESTIGATION 2-1 3-1 2.1.1 Background Information Review 2-1 3.13 Soils 2.1.2 Wetland Delineation 2-1 2.2 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION, RATING, AND BUFFER WIDTH 2-2 2.3 FLOODPLAINS 2-3 2.4 IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF HABITAT CONSERVATION 3-3 3.2.1.1 Vegetation AREAS 2-3 2.5 MITIGATION SEQUENCING AND DESIGN 2-4 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination 2.5.1 Impact Assessment 2-4 3-5 2.5.2 Mitigation Sequence 2-4 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3-1 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW 3-1 3.1.1 Wetlands 3-1 3.1.2 Species Occurrence 3-1 3.13 Soils 3-2 3.1.4 Floodplain 3-2 3.1.5 Land Use 3-2 3.1.6 Precipitation 3-2 3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3-2 3.2.1 Mitigation Wetland [Wetland W1/W2) 3-3 3.2.1.1 Vegetation 3-3 3.2.1.2 Soils 3-4 3.2.1.3 Hydrology 3-4 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination 3-4 3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization 3-5 3.2.2 Habitat Conservation Area Observations and Functions 3-5 4.0 MITIGATION 4-1 4.1 MITIGATION SEQUENCING 4-1 4.1.1.1 Avoidance 4-1 4.1.2 Minimization 4-2 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESMENT OF NO NET LOSS 5-1 6.0 USE OF THIS REPORT 6-1 4116113 4ledmdataD1Sorojects102511M120%FBaRm1RNCritical Areas RpBLAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rpt.do= v 0 LANDAU ASSOCIATES 7.0 REFERENCES FIGURES Figure Title 1 Vicinity Map 2 Study Area Map 3 Wetland and Features Map TABLES Table Title 1 Methods for Wetland Determination 2 Longacres Park Listed Bird/Mammal Species APPENDICES Appendix Title A Background Information Review Figures B Species Information C Flood Data and Datum Conversion D Precipitation Data E Data Sheets F Selected Site Photographs G Wetland Rating Forms H Design Plan and Lighting Specification 7-1 4M6I13 1$admdetsOl$prejectsWOMl8Mi201FileRmkR$Critical Areas RpfkLAP_SaunderPath Critical Areas_rptdocx LANDAU ASSOCIATE$ vi 1. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BGS Below Ground Surface Boeing The Boeing Company City City of Renton, Washington DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology FAC Facultative FACU Facultative Upland FACW Facultative Wetland FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ft Feet GPS Global Positioning System HGM Hydrogeomorphic HPA Hydraulic Project Approval LAP Longacres Park NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory OBL Obligate PFO Palustrine Forested PFO/PUB Palustrine Forested/Unconsolidated Bottom PHS Priority Habitats and Species RCW Revised Code of Washington RMC Renton Municipal Code USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area 4116113 k\edmdata014projectsl025085t1201F11aRmkMCr1dca1 Areas RpN-AP_SounderPath Critical Areaa_rp1.docx vii M LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Boeing Company (Boeing) is proposing to install lighting along an approximate 400 linear foot (ft) section of existing pedestrian pathway at Longacres Park (LAP) in the vicinity of Building 25-20, located in the City of Renton (City), King County, Washington (Figure 1). The existing path extends between two open water areas created for wetland mitigation (Boeing wetland mitigation) associated with past development at LAP and connects LAP to the Tukwila Sounder Station. The lighting will consist of approximately twenty-two 42 -inch -high 10 watt LED bollards at a minimum spacing of 15 ft. The lights have an approximate 180 degree light pattern to minimise illumination of areas outside of the existing path. The project purpose is to increase safety for pedestrians traveling between the Sounder Station and the LAP site. Project construction will include trenching in areas of topsoil outside of the wetland boundary and trenching in existing paved areas along the path. Landau Associates conducted an investigation to assist Boeing in determining potential impacts to the Boeing mitigation wetlands, other "waters of the U.S.," and other critical areas, specifically associated buffers, floodplains, and habitat conservation areas, regulated by the City. Critical area impacts are avoided/minimized by the proposed project. Landau Associates completed this report in support of mitigation sequencing for critical areas within the proposed project. The results of Landau Associates' investigation are presented in this report, along with description of the mitigation sequence for avoiding/minimizing impacts. 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The project is located within the Duwamish-Green watershed [Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9] in Section 24, Township 23 North, and Range 4 East. Land use in the project vicinity is primarily commercial uses associated with LAP. The existing path is a dual use pathway that includes paved walking trail and paved vehicle access road separated by an elevated curb. An observation deck is present within the project area that overlooks the southern portion of the Boeing wetland mitigation area connecting from the path. The topography in the vicinity of the project is relatively flat. The study area consists of the areas within 300 ft of the proposed lighting alignment, including underground utilities (Figure 2). Wetland delineation was limited to accessible areas within 100 ft of the proposed project. Habitats that extend beyond the project footprint, and within 300 ft, were estimated both visually based on field observation and using public domain resources. 4116113 I%admdata411projectsW251185112ptiFleRm%RNCOUcal Areas Rpt1LAP_SounderPath Critical Arees_rptd= LANDAU AssociATES 1-1 1.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND The Clean Water Act requires authorization for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the "waters of the U.S." under Section 404. Title IV, Chapter 3 of the City of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) contains requirements for establishing wetland buffer widths and building setbacks, and requirements for any alteration including fill of wetlands and their buffers. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires compliance with the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48), and it has administrative oversight of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for water quality certification in the case of impacts to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional "waters of the U.S." Any work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters, including streams and rivers, must do so under the terms of Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). WDFW HPA is administered under RCW 77.55 and rules set forth in Chapter 220-110 WAC. Wetlands and certain waterways are regulated by federal, state, and local governmental agencies, and compliance with one agency does not necessarily fulfill permitting requirements of any other agencies. All delineated wetlands and/or waterways described in this report are subject to verification by the USACE. The USAGE determines the jurisdiction of a wetland based on the connection, more commonly referred to as adjacency, to other "waters of the U.S." Those wetlands determined to be "isolated" do not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. If delineated wetlands are determined to be adjacent rather than isolated, any filling or dredging of onsite wetlands would require compliance with Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act_ Only the USACE can make the determination if a wetland is adjacent or isolated. If the wetlands are determined to be isolated, they may still be subject to regulation by Ecology under the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48). In addition, the City has requirements for establishing wetland buffer widths and building setbacks, as well as for any alteration, including fill, of wetlands and their buffers. Given an adequate enhancement plan, the City may allow a reduction of standard buffer widths along with averaging of buffer widths [Section 4-3-050(M)(6)(e) of the RMC]. Title IV, Chapter 3 of the RMC also contains requirements for developments in/adjacent to habitat conservation areas and flood hazard areas (i.e., floodplain). 4116/13%kadmdataGlVrojecls4U251185112MFileRrn RMCritical Areas Rp11LAP_SounderPalh Critical Areas_r¢kdod LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1-2 0 2.0 METHODS Landau Associates conducted an information review, wetland and waterway delineation, impact assessment, and prepared a mitigation sequencing plan for impacts to critical areas associated with the proposed project according to the methods described below. 2.1 WETLAND INVESTIGATION Landau Associates conducted the wetland investigation in accordance with the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987), the USACE Regional Guidance letter on the 1987 Manual (USACE 1994), the USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (USACE 2010). In general, the USACE typically recommend a preliminary data gathering and synthesis of available background information, followed by a field investigation. 2.1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW Landau Associates reviewed the following public domain resources to determine existing conditions, potential wetlands/other "waters of the U.S.," and other critical areas within the study area: + Topographic map (USDA MRCS 2001; Appendix A, Figure A-1) • Aerial photograph (Bing Maps 2010; Figure 2) + National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS 1981 to present; Appendix A, Figure A-2) • Soil Survey Geographic database (USDA, NRCS website 2006; Appendix A, Figure A-3) • National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS website 2012) + SalmonScape (WDFW 2013a) • Flood data (FEMA 1996; Appendix A, Figure A-4) * Precipitation data (USDA NRCS website 2002, National Climatic Data Center website 2013). 2.1.2 WETLAND DELINEATION The USACE outlines a three -parameter approach to determine the presence or absence of wetlands that requires evaluating vegetation, soil, and hydrology (Table 1). Landau Associates biologists completed the field delineation using the routine onsite method, where data are collected at locations representative of typical wetlands and/or uplands of the study area. Following this method, an area is determined to be wetland if each of the following three criteria are met (also see Table 1): + The dominant vegetation is hydrophytic. • Soils are hydric. 4/16113 11edmdeta014projectskMklW1241F11eRm\MCr1dca1 Arssa RpNLAP_SounderPath CrMcal Areas_rp[do= LAN©AL1 AssocIATES 2-1 0 • Wetland hydrology is present. The wetland boundaries were delineated using numbered flagging. A Global Positioning System (GPS) device capable of submeter accuracy was used to collect locations of wetland boundary flags and sampling points. 2.2 WETLAND CLASSIFICATION, RATING, AND BUFFER WIDTH Any wetlands identified as part of this project were classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and the USACE's hydrogeomorphic (HGW classification system (Brinson 1993). Wetlands were rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington (Hruby 2004), which is accepted practice by the City. This system categorizes wetlands based on their existing functions, including water quality, hydrology, and habitat, as well as the wetland's rarity, sensitivity to disturbance, or irreplaceability. The wetland categories range from 1 to 4 (highest to lowest category). Section 4-3-050(M) of the RMC identifies three categories of wetland as follows: Category 1 wetlands are those which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species; and/or (b) Wetlands having forty percent (40%) to sixty percent (60%) permanent open water (in dispersed patches or otherwise) with two (2) or more vegetation classes; and/or (c) Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water; and/or (d) The presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence; or at the geographic limits of their occurrence. Category 2 wetlands are those which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are not Category 1 or 3 wetlands; and/or (b) Wetlands that have heron rookeries or osprey nests, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (c) Wetlands of any size located at the headwaters of a watercourse (i.e., a wetland with a perennial or seasonal outflow channel), but with no defined influent channel, but are not Category 1 wetlands; and/or (d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human -related physical alteration such as diking, ditching, or channelization. Category 3 wetlands are those which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Wetlands that are severely disturbed (severely disturbed wetlands are wetlands which are characterized by hydrologic isolation, human -related hydrologic alterations such as diking, ditching, channelization, and/or outlet modification; and have soils alterations such as the presence of fill, soil removal, and/or compaction of soils; and may have altered vegetation); and/or (b) Wetlands that are newly emerging (newly emerging wetlands are wetlands occurring on top of fill materials; and characterized by emergent vegetation, low plant species richness and used minimally by wildlife. These wetlands are generally found in the areas such as the Green River Valley and Black River Drainage Basin); and/or (c) All other wetlands not classified as Category 1 or 2 such as smaller, high quality wetlands. Wetland buffers were determined according to Section 4-3-050(M)(6)(c) of the RMC. Existing buffer functions were assessed in a narrative evaluation using the Wetland Mitigation in Washington State 411W13 k%edmdeta811projects1025118511201FileRrn RMCrifical Areae RpN_AP_5ounderPath Critical Areas_rpLdocx LANDAu AssociATEs 2-2 M J Part 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology 2005) and best professional judgment given specific indicators. 2.3 FLOODPLAINS Section 4-3-050(1) of the RMC specifies regulations for flood hazards, which includes the 100 - year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The extent of the 100 -year floodplain was determined by reviewing FEMA flood mapping, including base flood elevations in the project vicinity. The base flood elevation is the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to rise during the base flood (FEMA 2013). Elevations of the project area were determined using 2 ft contour data available from the City (City of Renton 2010). Datum of the FEMA mapping was converted for consistency with City contour data using the National Geodetic Survey Orthometric Height Conversion (NOAA 2013). Project plans were overlaid on the City contour data to identify project activities between existing ground elevations and the base flood elevation. 2.4 IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS As defined in Section 4-3-050(K) of the RMC, habitat conservation areas include the following critical habitats: • Habitats associated with the documented presence of non -salmonid species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or • Category I wetlands. The City requires a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function, and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation. The identification of critical habitat includes wetland delineation and rating procedures detailed above, and review of the following sensitive species information: • WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Data on the Web (WDFW 2013b) • USFWS species listings for King County (Appendix B) • DNR Natural Heritage data (DNR 2013) • Boeing/U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) LAP species inventory (Appendix B). The presence of listed species was determined by comparison of Boeing species inventory data with listings maintained by USFWS and WDFW. Functions of identified critical habitat, which includes the existing wetland mitigation site, were assessed using the Washington State Wetlands Rating System 4118113 ftdmdata411piojecW02511M1241RIeRm\MCfl5ca1 Areas Rp&A.P_SounderPsth Critical Areas_ o.d= LANDAu Assocmms 2-3 for Western Washington (Hruby 2004), as described above. The Ecology rating system considers the following in determining habitat functions: Vegetation structure • Hydroperiods • Richness of Plant Species • Interspersion of Habitats • Special Habitat Features * Buffers • Corridors and Connections • Near or Adjacent to other Priority Habitats Listed by WDFW • Wetland Landscape. 2.5 MITIGATION SEQUENCING AND DESIGN This project was designed in accordance with City, USACE, and Ecology guidance and requirements for Mitigation Sequencing, which allow for impacts when impacts are unavoidable and necessary and where project design efforts have been made to reduce and/or minimize impacts. 2.5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Estimated proposed limits of clearing and grading were overlaid on critical area boundaries using ArcGIS software. The areas of critical area were calculated using ArcGIS software. 2.5.2 MITIGATION SEQUENCE The mitigation plan was developed using the sequence provided in Title IV, Chapter 4 of the RMC, which outlines requirements for mitigation associated with alternations to wetlands, critical habitat/wildlife habitat, associated buffers, and flood hazards. The mitigation sequence generally includes avoidance, minimization of impacts, and compensation for any impacts. This mitigation sequence is consistent with guidance provided by the USACE associated with wetland/waterway impacts. Information on the mitigation sequence is discussed in Section 4.0, 4/16/13 1ledrndata011projec W25118511201FileRmlMCritical Areas Rpt\LAP_SounderPath Crttical Areas_rpLdo= f.ANDAu AssociATE5 2-4 0 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW Below is a summary of topographic mapping, City documentation, NWI mapping, species mapping/databases, soil survey information, and other sources documenting conditions in and adjacent to the project area. 3.1.1 WETLANDS The topographic map for the project area (USDA MRCS 2001) does not identify wetlands or waterways in the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-1). The NWI Map (USFWS 1981 to present) does not identify any wetlands intersecting the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-2). City of Renton wetlands inventory identifies four wetlands in the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-2). Boeing has installed wetland mitigation at LAP. Portions of the Boeing mitigated wetlands intersect the study area along with other wetlands identified on the City wetland inventory. The City wetland inventory does not show the full extent of the Boeing mitigation wetlands. The mitigation wetlands consist of open water areas that drain to Springbrook Creek to the east. 3.1.2 SPECIES OCCURRENCE Fish WDFW PHS data on the web and the SalmonScape website do not identify salmon/trout within the open water areas of the mitigation wetlands (WDFW 2013a, 2013b). The outlet of the mitigation wetlands was designed to prohibit fish passage from Springbrook Creek (DeNune, D., 2013, personal communication). Other Species WDFW PHS data on the web does not identify any priority species/habitats in the study area (WDFW 2013b). The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Program does not identify any rare plant species, including those listed as threatened or endangered, within the township, range, sections of the project site (DNR 2013). Species inventory of the mitigation wetlands completed by Boeing and the USDA is included in Appendix B. Those species considered as part of critical habitat pursuant to Section 4-3-050(K) of the RMC are identified in Table 2. Due, in part, to the presence of listed species, the mitigation wetlands are considered habitat conservation areas. 4116/13%admdata0l%projeds102511651120kFUeRm4R%CrificaI Areas RpALAP_5ounderPath Critical Areas_rpLda= LANDAU AssOCIATES 3-1 a 3.1.3 SOILS The Soil Survey Geographic Database for King County, Washington (USDA, NCRS website 2006) identifies one soil series within the study area (Appendix A, Figure A-3): Urban Land (5) is soil that has been modified by disturbance of the natural layers with additions of fill material several feet thick to accommodate development (USDA NRCS 1973). Urban Land is not classified as hydric in the National Hydric Soils List (USDA, NRCS website 2012). 3.1.4 FLOODPLAIN The Q3 flood data (FEMA 1996) identifies the project area within the 100 -year floodplain of Springbrook Creek (Appendix A, Figure A-4). The base flood elevation identified by FEMA in the project vicinity is approximately 16 ft (datum in NGVD 29; Appendix Q. Review of current survey information available from the City for the project area indicates the 100 -year floodplain corresponds to elevation 19.5 ft (datum in NAVD 88; Appendix Q. 3.1.5 LAND USE Review of aerial photography shows the project area contains access paths associated with LAP; the mitigation wetlands, including vegetated and open water areas; helipad; and maintained lawn/landscape areas (Figure 2). 3.1.6 PRECIPITATION Precipitation data for the 3 -month period prior to the field investigation in the Puget Sound Lowlands (National Climatic Data Center website 2013) indicate recorded precipitation levels were within the normal range listed in Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) WETS tables (USDA, NRCS website 2002; Appendix D). However, the month previous to the field effort was drier than normal. 3.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION Landau Associates wetland ecologists Steven Quarterman and Rosemary Trimmer conducted a field investigation on March 14, 2013. The weather during the site reconnaissance was overcast. A sampling point was recorded in areas suspected to meet the mandatory wetland criteria and nearby upland to determine corresponding wetland/upland boundaries. The mitigation wetland boundaries were delineated using numbered flagging. Detailed information on soils, vegetation, and hydrology was recorded at three sampling points within wetland and upland location(s), as shown on 4116113 lledmde1a011projeds=.%l M1MFiWRmM$Cri*:e1 Areas RpMLAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rprLdom LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3-2 0 J Figure 3. The boundaries of one wetland (constituting two portions of the wetland mitigation area) were delineated and boundaries extending off site were estimated based on aerial photographs (Figure 3). A summary of the delineated wetlands, including classifications and buffer requirements, is provided in Table 2. The sampling point locations and delineated wetlands are shown on Figure 3, and the completed data sheets describing the sampling points and site photographs are provided in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. Wetland rating information is included in Appendix G. 3.2.1 MMGATTON WETLAND (WETLAND W1fW2) An approximate 1.1 -acre portion of the nearly 18 -acre wetland mitigation site at LAP is located within the project area (flags W1-1 to W1-24 and W2-1 to W2-14). A portion of the mitigation wetland, flags W24 to W2-14, north of the study area, is identified on the city's wetland inventory mapping (see Appendix A). Sampling Point SP -1 was recorded to characterize the vegetation, hydrology, and soils of the mitigation wetland south of the proposed project (flags W1-1 to W1-24), and Sampling Point SP -2 was recorded to describe the of the mitigation wetland north of the proposed project (flags W2-1 to W2-14; Figure 3 and Appendix F). Sample Point SP -3 was recorded to describe adjacent upland area (Figure 3 and Appendix F). The north and south portions of the wetland are hydrologically connected and are presented as a single wetland unit for this discussion. 3.2.1.1 Vegetation Wetland W1/W2 is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. The dominant plant species and their indicator status' at Sampling Point SP -1 and SP -2 include: • Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) • Slough sedge (Carex obnuta, OBL) • Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera, FAC) • Western red cedar (Thuja plicates, FAC) • Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis, FACU). Additional species found in Wetland W1/W2, but outside of the sampling points, include but are not limited to: black gooseberry (Ribes lacustre, FAC), flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum, no indicator provided), sticky currant (Ribes viscosissium, FAC), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus, FACU), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FAC), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW), rose spp. (Rosa spp.), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC), red osier dogwood (Cornus alba, FACW), soft rush (Juncus effuses, FACW), willows (Salix spp.), cattail (Typha latifolia, OBL), bulrush (Schoeneplectus acutus, OBL), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FACU), 4110113 11edmdata0l%projecls10251185)12(AFIleRm%MCritleal Areas RpALAP_SounderPalh Critical Areas_rptd= LANr)AU ASSOCIATES 3-3 M twinberry (Lonicera involucrata, FAC), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FAC+). 3.2.1.2 Soils The soil at Sampling Point SP -1 is characterized as a depleted matrix (173), which satisfies the USACE hydric soils parameters. From 0 to 4 inches below ground surface (BGS), the soil matrix was a dark grayish brown (1 OYR 412) loam, underlain by a dark grayish brown loam with gray (I OYR 5/ 1) and reddish yellow (7.5YR 618) redox features from 4 to 21 inches BGS. The soil at Sampling Point SP -2 is characterized as a redox dark surface (F6), which satisfies the USACE hydric soils parameters. From 0 to 21 inches BGS, the soil matrix was a very dark grayish brown (1 OYR 312) loam with grayish brown (I OYR 512) and strong brown (7.5YR 416) redox features. 3.2.1.3 Hydrology The primary indicator of wetland hydrology observed at Sampling Point SP -1 was saturation. The primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed at Sampling Point SP -2 were saturation and a high water table. Surface water was present in other parts of the wetland outside of the sample points. Hydrology for Wetland WI/W2 is primarily from groundwater and runoff from adjacent upland areas. 3.2.1.4 Wetland Determination All three mandatory wetland criteria are satisfied for Wetland W1/W2. Based on review of survey information of a portion of the mitigation area provided by Boeing, the depth of the surface water exceeds 6.6 ft (i.e., deep water habitat); however, active wave -formed or bedrock shoreline features were not observable. As a result, Landau Associates classified Wetland W1/W2 as a palustrine forested/unconsolidated bottom (PFO/PUB)/depressional (Cowardin/HGM classification) wetland, which constitutes the entirety of the mitigation area as designed. Using the wetland categories provided in Section 4-3-050(M) of the RMC, Wetland W 1/W2 is a Category 1 wetland due to: • The presence of species listed by Federal or State government as endangered or threatened, or the presence of essential habitat for those species (see Table 2) • Wetlands equal to or greater than ten (10) acres in size and having three (3) or more vegetation classes, one of which is open water. As a Category i wetland, Wetland W 1/W2 meets the criteria as a habitat conservation area. Using the Ecology wetland rating form, Wetland W1/W2 is rated as a Category 2 wetland, with a total score of 55. Wetland WI/W2 scored highest for hydrologic functions, receiving a score of 24; habitat and water quality functions were rated with a score of 17 and 14, respectively. 4/16/13%kedmdata011projsds1025118551 201FIeRm4R%Critica{ Areas RpflLAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rpt.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 1 3-4 In accordance with Section 4-3-050(M)(6)(c) of the RMC, Category 1 wetlands require a 100 -ft buffer. Habitat conditions of the buffer are consistent with the upland characterization described below. The buffer in the project area is limited by the existing pathway, which intersects the vegetated habitat. Furthermore, a safety clearance zone is maintained along the pathway, which consists of an approximate 3- to 4 -ft -wide area of maintained grass. 3.2.1.5 Upland Characterization The upland area adjacent to Wetland WI/W2 is characterized by Sampling Point SP -3, which satisfies only one of the three mandatory wetland criteria. Sampling Point SP -3 is east of the pathway adjacent to Wetland W1/W2, in the vicinity of the helipad west of Building 25-20. Sampling Point SP -3 is located in the vicinity of an area mapped by the City as wetland. The uplands adjacent to Wetland W1/W2 consist mostly of grass, shrubs, and trees typical of landscaping associated with commercial properties. Grasses are mowed, and likely consist of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FACU+). Due to maintenance of landscaped areas, much of the area within the sampling point was recently mowed and may be considered a "difficult wetland situation." Vegetation in uplands adjacent to Wetland W1/W2 is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation: • Western red cedar (FAC) • Himalayan blackberry (Rebus armeniacus, FACU) • Vine maple (FAC) • Slough sedge (OBL) • Soft rush (FACW). During the field investigation, the soil of the uplands adjacent to Wetland W1 was moist, but not saturated. The soil from 0 to 23 inches BGS was very dark grayish brown (IOYR 3/2) loamy sand. The upland area did not have hydric soils and there were no hydrology indicator; therefore, the only parameter met of the three parameters for a wetland was the hydrophytic vegetation. 3.2.2 HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA OBSERVATIONS AND FUNCTIONS At the time of the field delineation, waterfowl and songbirds were observed in Wetland Wl/W2. Species were not inventoried at the time of the delineation, but active nesting was observed by songbirds in the habitat adjacent to the proposed project. Habitat adjacent to the proposed project is forested, including shrub understory, and tree heights adjacent to the project are approximately 40 to SO ft. As a Category 1 wetland, Wetland W1/W2 meets the criteria as a habitat conservation area. Based on Ecology rating information and field observations, Wetland W1/W2 received a habitat score of 24 points out of 36 possible points. Wetland W1/W2 scored the highest for the following: 4116/13 lledmdataBl4projects1025116541201FieRm4RlCrilical Areas RpALAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rptdo= LANDAU AssocIAws 3-5 M • Hydroperiods Richness of Plant Species Interspersion of Habitats. These features indicate a high potential for the wetland unit to provide habitat for many species. 4116113 AMMdalaailprojads10254165 UMFNRmM2 Critical Areas Rp6LAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rM.d= LANDAU AS$QCIATES 3-6 M 4.0 MITIGATION This section presents the mitigation sequencing and impact analysis for wetlands, buffers, floodplains, and habitat conservation areas. Project plans are included as reference in Appendix H. 4.1 MITIGATION SEQUENCING Section 4-3-050M(g) of the RMC outlines requirements for mitigation associated with alternations to wetlands and buffers. Mitigation shall be required in the following order of preference: a. Avoid any disturbances to the wetland or buffer b. Minimize any wetland or buffer impacts c. Restore any wetlands or buffer impacted or lost temporarily d. Compensate for any permanent wetland or buffer impacts by one of the following methods: i. Restoring a former wetland and provide buffers at a site once exhibiting wetland characteristics to compensate for wetlands lost ii. Creating new wetlands and buffers for those lost iii. In addition to restoring or creating a wetland, enhancing an existing degraded wetland to compensate for lost functions and values. Section 4-3-050(I)(6)(a) of the RMC states that compensatory storage is required for floodplain fill that reduce the effective base flood storage volume of the floodplain. If grading or other activities reduce the effective storage volume, compensatory storage shall be provided. Section 4-3-050K(5) of the RMC identifies criteria for developing within habitat conservation areas, which includes (a) avoid any disturbance to the habitat, (b) minimize any impact to the habitat, and (c) compensate for any habitat impacts. 4.1.1.1 Avoidance Wetlands The proposed project is adjacent to the mitigation wetland, but construction does not intersect the wetland boundary and the work is in the already disturbed buffer areas (see Figure 3). Habitat conditions of the wetland buffer affected by the project consist of mowed grasses (i.e., nonfunctioning buffer leading up to the existing path), and disturbed buffer areas will be restored following construction. Floodplain The project will install underground utility lines and limited aboveground facilities, including lighting bollards and stand for electrical disconnect and transformer. The underground utilities will occur in areas below the base flood elevation, but will not result in a change to the existing topography and 4116/13%%admds1a011projeetati625iIM1201FIIaRmlRXCrtticalAreas RptUAP_SounderPath CdUcal Areas_rpt.docx LANDAU AssoCIATES 4-1 M therefore do not constitute fill within the flood plain. Furthermore, the aboveground features associated with the project are limited to the proposed lighting bollards and electrical facilities along the trail. The lighting bollards will be installed along the trail at elevation 20 ft or above (NAVD88; see Figure 3), which is above the base flood elevation of 19.5 ft (NAVD88) based on FEMA floodplain mapping. As a result, the underground utilities and light bollards do not impact the base flood storage volume of the floodplain. The floodplain impact associated with the stand for the electrical disconnect and transformer are discussed below in Section 4.1.2 Minimization. Habitat Conservation As discussed above, the proposed project avoids direct wetland impacts. The project will avoid cutting of trees/shrubs; however, selective pruning of low hanging branches may be required during construction (see Section 4.1.2 Minimization). The project will illuminate the walking path; the lights will be installed 48 inches above the ground. The lights have an approximate 180 degree light pattern to minimize illumination of areas outside of the existing path. In general, the lighting extends approximately 11 ft from the plane of the bollards facing the trail, and approximately 5 ft from the plane of the bollards behind the trail (see Figure 3 and Appendix H). As a result, approximately eight of the twenty-two lights will illuminate portions of the wetland mitigation area; the depth of illumination into the wetland ranges from 0.5 ft to 2 ft, and is limited to heights below the 48 -inch lamp height. Illumination avoids nesting habitat in the adjacent forested canopy, subcanopy, and open water areas of the mitigation wetland. 4.11.2 MINIMIZATION Minimization of impacts includes sensitive site design including placement of construction staging areas and site access away from wetlands and the innermost portion of buffers to the greatest extent practicable. Wetlands Section 4-3-050(M)(6)(c) of the RMC includes a condition to direct lights away from wetlands to protect buffer functions. As mentioned above, the buffer of the mitigation wetland in the project vicinity is a nonfunctioning buffer consisting of mowed grass up to the edge of the paved trail (the trail interrupts the remaining buffer). The proposed lighting will consist of approximately twenty-two 42 -inch -high 10 watt LED bollards. The lights have an approximate 180 degree light pattern to minimize illumination of areas outside of the existing path. In general, the lighting extends approximately 11 fi from the plane of the bollards facing the trail, and approximately 5 ft behind the trail (see Figure 3 and Appendix H). As a 4/16113lledmdata011projeeta1025118511201FIleRmIMCritical Areas Rp&AP_SounderPath Critical Areas—rptdom LANDAU AssoclATEs 4-2 0 result, approximately eight of the twenty-two lights will illuminate portions the wetland mitigation area; the area illuminated ranges from 0.5 ft to 2 ft of wetland, limited to heights below the 48 -inch lamp height. The extent of this impact is limited to existing edge habitat of the wetland, and avoids the adjacent forested canopy and subcanopy. Floodplains The stand for the electrical disconnect and transformer consists of a steel plate supported by metal stakes 2 ft above the ground surface. The metal stakes would be installed using a concrete anchor support (which would be installed to the existing ground elevation). The metal stakes have an approximate diameter of 2 inches or less. The location of the stand is in an area between 18 ft and 20 ft elevation (NAVD88; see Figure 3); base flood elevation based on FEMA floodplain mapping is 19.5 ft (NAVD88). The metal stakes may be at the base flood elevation, approximately 1.5 ft below, or less than 0.5 ft above the base flood elevation. Based on the relatively small diameter of the metal stakes and elevation at or near the base flood elevation, the volume of the metal stakes, if below the base flood elevation, would not reduce the effective storage volume in the floodplain, and no compensatory storage is proposed. Habitat Conservation The project will avoid cutting of trees/shrubs; however, selective pruning of low hanging branches of tree/shrubs may be required during construction. Pruning would be the minimum necessary to complete project construction. Suitable habitat for listed bird species is not present in the extent of project construction or illumination from the completed project, and those listed species that potentially utilize habitat on the ground in forested areas are not likely to be present or affected by the project. Listed mammals potentially affected by the project include black -tailed deer and meadow vole (see Table 2). As discussed above, selective pruning of low hanging branches of tree/shrubs may be required during construction. Selective pruning associated with construction is not likely to have a significant effect on black -tailed deer habitat or availability of forage. While the limited ground disturbance associated with construction has the potential to disturb meadow vole, this species is likely not present in the project area. This species requires loose organic soil (see Table 2) and soils in the project area are loamy/sandy, and were likely compacted as part of pathway construction. As a result, impacts to meadow vole habitat associated the proposed project are unlikely. 4118113 11edmdata011projects1025118511201FUeRmIRYCritleai Arses RpfkLAP SounderPsth Critical Areas rpt.dom tANDAu AssoclATr:s 4-3 MO 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND ASSESMENT OF NO NET LOSS The mitigation sequence presented in this report meets City requirements, as outlined in the RMC and meets state and federal agency guidance. The proposed project will provide no net loss of wetland or habitat conservation area functions, and no net loss of floodplain storage capacity. Impacts to these features have been avoided and minimized to the extent that any impacts are discountable and insignificant. 4118113 1Wmdata011projeds102 5118511201FileRrnWi Critical Areas RpMAP_SounderPath Critical Areas_rpt.do« LANDAU AssOCIATES 5-1 0 5.0 USE OF THIS REPORT The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the City of Renton Municipal Code, the USACE and Ecology wetland delineation methodology, and on our interpretation of the vegetative, soil, and hydrological conditions observed during the site visits on March 14, 2013. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. This report was prepared for the use of Boeing and applicable regulatory agencies. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. Wetland areas delineated by Landau Associates are considered preliminary until the USAGE and/or local jurisdictional agencies validate the wetland boundaries. Because wetlands are dynamic communities, wetland boundaries may change over time. The agencies typically recognize wetland delineations for a period of 5 years following an approved jurisdictional determination. In addition, changes in government code, regulations, and/or laws may occur. This document has been prepared under the supervision and direction of the following key staff. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. SAenQuarte Senior Ecologist SJQ/kes 4116113 IWrndataUllprojectsW2MlgM12MIaRmIRlCritical Areas Rpt1i SounderPath Critical Aresa_Ukdom 6-1 LANDAU AssOCIATES 7.0 REFERENCES Bing Maps. 2010. Aerial Imagery. Microsoft Corporation Brinson, M. 1993. Final Report: A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. East Carolina University, Biology Department. Greenville, North Carolina. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August. City of Renton. 2010. Contours-2ft Shapefile. ftp://ftp.rentonwa.gov/LAND/ Cornell University. 2013. All About Birds. http://www.birds.comell.edu/Page.aspx?pid=1478 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. DeNune, D. 2013. Personal communication (conversation with Steven Quarterman, Senior Ecologist, Landau Associates). Darrel DeNune, GA/Contract Management, Site Services, The Boeing Company. Re: discussion regarding site history. March 6. DNR. 2013. Sections That Contain Natural Heritage Features. March 1. Available at: h ://www.dnr.wa. oviPublications/am nh trs_ df Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. March. Ecology. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Publication No. 05-06-006. Washington State Department of Ecology. March. FEMA. 2013. Base Flood Elevation. http://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program/base- flood-elevation FEMA. 1996. Q3 Flood Data, King County, Washington. ARC/INFO Coverage. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington, D.C. Greytag Macbeth. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts. New Windsor, New York. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised. Publication No. 04-06-025. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. Hunn, E. 2012. Birding in Seattle and King County; Site Guide and Annotated List. Second Edition. Seattle Audubon Society. National Climatic Data Center website. 2013. Divisional Data. jlttp_://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/ CDODivisionalSelect.isp - NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ NOAA. 2013.Orthometric Height Conversion. http://www.n se noaa.gov/cgii-biniVERTCON/vert con.nrl National Geodetic Survey. 4116113 1ledmdateollproJec W251185112o1FileRmlMCHticel Areas Rpt1LAP_SounderPath Meal Areas_rpLd= LANDAU ASSOCIATES 7-1 M USACE. 2012. National Wetland Plant List. http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/ USACE. 1994. Washington Regional Guidance on the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Regulatory Branch. May 23. USACE. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. March. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report ERDC/EL TR -08-13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Research and Development Center Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, Mississippi. April. USDA, NRCS. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. Version 7.0. Available at http://soils.usda.gov/usc/bydric/. G.W. Hurt and L.M. Vasilas, eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. USDA, NRCS. 1973. Soil Survey King County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service. USDA, NRCS. 2001. USDA-NRCS-NCGC Digital Raster Graphic MrSID Mosaic; King. National Cartography and Geospatial Center. Ft. Worth, Texas. USDA, NRCS website. 2012. National Hydric Soils List. hitp:Hsoils.usda.gov/usglydric/. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed August 11. USDA, NRCS website. 2006. Soil Survey Geographic Database for King County Area. lunp://soil datamart.nres.usda.govl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. USDA, NRCS website. 2002. Climate Information — Wetlands Retrieval for Washington. http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/cgibin/getwetco.pl?state=s. Accessed November 3, 2008. USFWS. 1981 to present. National Wetlands Inventory Map for King County, Washington. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg, Florida. WDFW. 2013a. SalmonScape. v4.0. http://wdfw.wa,gov/mapping/sahnonscape/. WDFW. 2013b. PHS on the Web. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ 4118113 Redmdeta0i4projecls102bllM4201FieRmIRlCri cel Areas Rp11LAP_Sounderpath Eribcal Amas_rpLdxx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 7-2 M Frrystal `F sler Goff Course Pogy. fid! moriaka.Duw@rmsh,1%iRon $lack River Riparian rk is es Park y S i ,Park 16th wila Pa Project Location Rent 0 0.5 1 N Miles Data Source: ESRI 2008 Boeing Longacres Park 1ALANDAU Sounder Path Lighting Study ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington a M C 180kh t Wal Shopping Toasd Carr d Q E;Project atlon Spokane Tacoma Washington Figure Vicinity Map 1 Wetland Mitigation Area\ Legend Q Study Area Q Project Area LANDAU ASSOCIATES Data Source: Bing Maps Aerial Imagery. Boeing Longacres Park Sounder Path Lighting Study Renton, Washington Building 25-20 Helipad Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 200 400 Scale in Feet Figure Study Area Map 2 ( C o°> ^ -u 9 CD - \ � ;on> / E / @ U? m $± § \ /2 o 2 E \ ) $ { ( C [ I E / 7 ) $± ° \ \ \ / i ! § � co/ G ic C// \ g CD m 5' 7 07\ � I Z03 / CL fzq a / m 0 \Qƒ T :Er \ } } . 2 � � � � \ ■ - CL f 9 aZ E/%\�)\ek-n m %}fe2 ]} 222$ c CD /[2E{§ 0[k�{ � ([/ 77\ grƒ2222{ 24 \\\ % {§ƒ `}/ ]#L _ ��{ ) « f rL e E } ) CDCD� ( C 0 tm up! �=gym �m �3g'7' w � s m�$m� �=piqma ➢��RS ?�m�m m�5 1� a $�mwo a a 5.m � gm E0 mQ�s� mBa�S� Uj �aM d] q 4 CCp _no � W T �3m86 � n � w � � r m N -1 D= za 2 O m mom ? X0 OmW =mn Dr�mr Z m w— x, z v Dzv c� m Zr^z �m C D O D Z m TABLE 2 LONGACRES PARK LISTED BIRO MAMMAL SPECIES' SOUNDER PATH LIGHTING STUDY RENTON, WASHINGTON Pales' oh 2 4easca wa2areaas�snaamaAwer.,� ga..sas. uw careapben N LANDAU ASSOCIATES Canfkmed Nowli girds e : 91141110 jYVtNoj Shilaf Federal aloetin Mavitawillimadind Hahkol h NualarmactInto Na6Raf pni tinea in land Counly to) Nest In hoes except In regions where only cll 7c,.mnt of human activity vlan reeding, For PemNtnont reettlem (breeding March - faces or ground saes are available. Tend to use perching, prefer tell, metm mntfemus or July) tail, shady —rem that protrude above the fowl dedduous trees that etfnrd a wide view of the Bab eagle N SS,PHS/Fm nanopy, prerlutho easy light acmes and good surtaundings. In wlntar elan found in dry, open vsoldry_ Neat in yplraly 5 t S feel In diameter uplands l theca la awxsa to open water ler flaNng_ and 2 to 4 feet talk, end ranging in shape frem cylindrical lo cortical In flat A pNtham of dike placed In I or Caltaks. Various weland habeed, including see, bmcl..h, Vagrant (sporadic, —b—ding) Black —,ad night hemp N SM.PHSMme Nesta mtonAly; mora than a damn mats may be and freshwater marshes, swamp., streams. lakes, in s single tree- and andoulluml fields. Bread near ponds and lakes. Nest in tree cavity or In winler they occur mainly rear the coast Nniar, rare n summer (nonlowding) nest box_ (although they can ba found in smaller numbers Inland). They use shallow, aholerad covea, harbors, estuaries, or beaches, avoiding open Buflbhead N PHSINoca co"Hinas. Inland, they use ponds, lakes, Impourdmenb, or bays Yong slow-moving derma. During spring migration they spend time on major "am or valley, lakes, dean In the first spats to Breeds along lakes std rivers bordered by forest. Ones underwataz to capture Pray on bottom. Fkwk. Wird. (nan6readNg) Common g ldalaye N PHBNone Neel In tree ravlyr or neat lam. ripen dire togodier. During the breading season troy Iva in oolonks Forage In marshes, swamps, streams. rivers. Vagrant (sporadic, yeeraouhd) In trete a shrubs with ether waterhkds. The nag I lakes, Impoundments, lagoarw. tldnl (lata. Greet egret Y SM"One fiend N up to 100 keel off "ground, often over canals, ditches, flshy ftng ponds, boded form water occasionally neat on the ground a on felds, and sometimes upland hablaal. Ned malny In treef, but will else nest or the Lire In both freshwater and salwater hehI and Pemaahenl r sealant (breeding February - pound, on bW het, In margrevea, antl on aka forage In grasslands and agricultural flap.- July) sbucWres such as duck blinds, channel markers, Grea4Nue Italian, N 3M,PHSR46ne Or arlWkJel nest pNCorma. Med breeding colonies are lomlod within 2 to 4 miles of feeding areas, paten n Isolated swamps nolo Idandf, and neer lakes and ponds bordered by forests. Neat a bakel of elrJrs, placed b smell tree or Forages In swamps. Wong croaks and atreama, In Summer (breeding May -July), rare In Green hemp Y SMfNone shrub, audy over water. Need In small, pose marshes, ponds, lake o". and laashuea. winter, m6ries. Bread In Wasted welands. Nag carklea an be Families of newly hatched dwkkgs forage in Pi rmenant resident (breeding lad May - in We or dead "a antl are unmfrf Gose to shallow water such ea menshes, amyl Nkea, early Augudl water. Covina are typically to-do fast al the ponds, tanner wetlands. swamps, and fersatad ground, up m About 90 feet Nat readily D rives d neat on exposed rocks, logs, or bores. sandoem They wittier in these haEldd as wall as Hdotlatl N PFrSlNone on shallow fwwialer and braadsh bays. aerarias. merganser and Mal creaks, "I lay often concentrate Yang the edge of be. Durfrg inigretlpn they step in a wider rape of hahksts, including open waters of rivare ad lakes. braddsh coastal Imp, tidal creeks, and fsaaonalN lnodad forest. Nests are simple scrapes often placed on eight InI open areas such u sandbars, muAkals, PartmeMnl resident (brewing Mark - riess In their open habits[•. Neel is a shallow and grazed hide Gonerely, the vegetation In July) K UI N PHS(1 WHaas depression typically 3-3.5 inches across. Ager III inhohited by KI is no taker than one egg -laying begins Kildear often add rocks, Nis of inch. l=oud near water, but unlike many o9w shell. dike, antl torah to the neat ehaehima, May ere also common in dry area. A deep depression in gran a moss, III with Marsh habitude. Probes deapy into ace substances Migrant, kiy - November, adienvles rem Lnn9-6hNd dowkher H PHS(t)fNona greases and small Neva. Olen damp at battom to the depth of the bill. spmebmea subormVng Me In winter (nanbewding) head. Requlre not thea in open surroundfi gs for easy Open seas. Unable to diva In mare than about SpringiSurnmer (broedhg Mardi- archapproah, approach,with a wive, sturdy base and safety three reel below the waters eurface, Ospisye 9epe.mbar), rare whiter from ground predates. Nags are usually buil on grmdtale knrard shalkmlehing grounds. 0-prev SLVNene onago mad ops, er crotches between loge frequenting deep water ony where fish school near hienrhee and hunm; on dgfs or human -bull the sudace. Habaat Indudea dims[any expanse plstkrms. of shallow. lflrNled water, includling thrive, lakes, rooervoea, lAloorm, swamps. and marshes. Broods W seasonal or pemranent ponds with Utas mod type of wetlands In Winter. Diva Permanent resident lbroeding Fit"ry - demes elands of emagerit vepemlon, bays. and um4rwater for food, in open water and among Auguell Pied -billed grebe Y PHS(2yNone "Lighs. Neat Is an open bowl in a platform of squalb vagati floating vegetation. Cavity, neat. where meg toss, ars ypi®ky dead Macre dordduoue. or mowed dadduous�oonf ri Pemreram resident (beading May - eery and within a mature or old stand of coYNrow er wocdNnds. They can also be found In younger Judy) deciduous. trees, but may also 6e in dead trek in treats that have scalered, large, deed two or a N BC,PHSNone younger toasts oreven m ata, reedy supply of doeaying, downed wood. Can also Plleeled woodpecker be feud in suburban ama with large two and perch.. M woodland. Forage In large, dead wood—le.drV dead twhI stumps, or legs lying On tla forst limn. Breads on shallow t eahwater lakes, bays o1 Dura under waferfor food. Wiener (nmbreading) II lakes, marshes, and other inland bodies of water. Wintem on Open omen or on Inge lakes. Red -necked grebe N Sktlttna Neat N placed on aq-W vepgaCorn, samalmes In open water, end endared to the Nice bulom a mtbmarged legs. Nag a wimple bowl In Mick vegetani usually on Found h freshwater mud lad and needed FYI migrant (generally mere Short -billed dowitcher N PHS[i Where top of a clump ofsedge, Brad with riled gress, agricultural 4". Feede Inwater up to III depth of &Aimruspdngy leaves, help, and leannem. the lady. Neat N a 2-3 inch depress in soaped out in the Gorman near mad kinds of freshwater, Including Summer, rem winter (treadle June - July) soil antl knell wilh dead oras and wondy nvera and eheams, as well as near the saa coat. matarid; are always imatad Ons e edge Of a Forage Yng ogmembenks IPeke edges. Spomad sandpiper N PHS(7 WWas body of water. ueueiy within about 100 yards or the shone. The neat is typsaly placed under the shade of a bmadaesled Plaid. Brand un freshwater lakes and marshes with During wiener they nave to sattratsr or brackish W nar (rare aprtrhgnsummer, breeding astemive open water bordered by emergent bays. eatuarane. or shehened sea coasts end as Auguud - September) Western N SC,PHSNona c'aBata�n- Neat N most often hark on hoeing lea frequently found on freshwater Isms. a rivers grebe vegetekm hidden among emergent planta; ixosak rally neat in the open and rarely on and. Oft- neat In Broods in bags, fens, swamps. and around the Forages in mereha, wet meadows, wet laids, and Writer, rem in summer (breeding May - marehy edges of ponds, rivers, and brooks. Neat the marshy edges of a nkama and dhAm. June) Wilaon's snipe N PHS(1WNone woven cup of giesoos placed on ground, keen h hummock of gres , close to or surrounded by water. Typically cwoaa a tree more then t foot and Solentland foreab, swamps. freshwater marshes. Permanent madart (breedng June-hary nflen 2 fest in diameter. wind a owvly anywhere and heaver ponds. They am also cattlemen dap August) firm 2-00 feel high- Do not make Cao own neat streams Of an atm. III creeks b drera. Feed by Wood duck N PHSNons oavdle.. nod hem is normally,noalnormally,abrated nrur to dabbling a shod, shallow dives. wThe or over water, though wit uta caveNs up t 1.2 mlea tom wnter. 4easca wa2areaas�snaamaAwer.,� ga..sas. uw careapben N LANDAU ASSOCIATES TABLE 2 LONGACRES PARKLISTED BIRDIMAM1AL SPECIES' SOUNDER PATH LIGHTING STUDY RENTON, WASHINGTON Pee2Mi Ilunnrah LEGEND: New tednal 111,1111411, Reprodwathm Bstwhr 00 Nabisco P.esartaa in lama O.Wft BE -Slate Endanpersd FT -Fad" Pmpowd SC Staha Candidate Male In autumn, open min late No%mm6erm Oxupy many types of habimd in mountains and Permnent resklent (Loraky migranll Black -failed char N PHSJhlone mil-0ecember. Bills oc ur In late apdng, rrosry IaManAe. InGkK lrag varl—forasal and wsodkands, In May,luns In much of the range, eornatknea as loreal edges, ahmblenda, grasslands with shrub., lala as July a Auquat residential aroas Breads throughout year. Na.41n tunnala under Home range wklom exceeds 025 some. Found In Permanent resident Meadow Pah N SM(3dNoras rocks or logs, and In .adavrr.MxW grassy a wide —lely of hsbllats from dry pastures mrd clumps. wooded swamps lo marshes and orchards. Neese loose organic lolls for tumaling. LEGEND: Sash. Status: Fadaral Shuts: SS -auto Sanslihm FEfeden0Endangered BE -Slate Endanpersd FT -Fad" Pmpowd SC Staha Candidate FC. -Federd Ca sem ST -State Threatened FC federal Candidate SM Stala Mmlbmd PHS Slate PrbNty NOTES: (1) PH$ Iles includes, Western WA norbreadYq axvoarrtradons of Charedmildae, ScolopoacNae, Phalaropialk". Nonbraedlrg cencentrellons are assumed to oocurat Longsoae. (2) PHS IM lnducies Western WA nalbmedkg wnrerrbadl oh. Ltxms. Grebes, ComnrontiI, Fulmar, Shearwater., Sturm-palmla, Aldds, Nwbreadng can trsflons ara amumad m xav at Larva ., (3) SclentiSc nama or meadow rob 1. Mbeew pennaykWdMMr A .,be cies (MkmM panneyIvwk us kinmitfl) N listed at SM. 'No Ikted amahlblans are known m oma. Llai current as of 3(872013. SOURCE: Is) Boamg lb) Comell University 2013 10) Hunn 2012 1d) NehsaSe - 2012 soars eaearM+aMeWMTGaeaAy gaTale2 W Irwtl R.drr W11/,U ASSMOXES M APPENDIX A Background Information Review Figures W16,01011 1 .Y 0 N d 1:1, O IIIIIIIIIIINK-] wn .; a t I rr a. m 19 z a m o a Legend of Q Study Area 11 Q Project Area 2 4 61 Data Source: USDA NRCS. Boeing Longacres Park LANDAU Sounder Path Lighting Study ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington so Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this colc original may reduce its effectiveness am lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 Soo 1,00 Scale in Feet Figure USGS Topographic Map A-1 1 f • 4060 s 6 24 m _m LL #ba O � 8 a LL r Y O ° R2UB ♦ PFOC P 3 r a i C • r B 3 ., PEMC PEMC a E PS 3 z w Legend Wetland Key Note PEMC = Freshwater Emergent Wetland I. Black and white reproduction of this colo ° Q Study Area NWI Wetland PFOC = Freshwater Forested]Shrub Wetland original may reduce its effectiveness anc ❑ Q Project Area City of Renton Wetlands PSSC = Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland lead to incorrect interpretation. ' R2UBH = Riverine �I 0 500 1,00 511111 m Data Sources: USFW; USDA NRCS; City of Renton. Scale in Feet ° >1 Boeing Longacres Park Figure LANDAU Sounder Path Lighting Study Wetlands Inventory MapLA /► ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington A_2 W � r JFM24 Py 400 or. Ur g Py ;R all 4WW 4 AW%k a r � i C O WWo� m z N 2 Q 2 Ng; z,! N a # wo Py `c% • .irw ,rr Legend Soil Series Key Note Ng = Newberg Silt Loam 1. Black and white reproduction of this color 0 Q Study Area Py = Puyallup Fine Sandy Loam original may reduce its effectiveness and Q Project Area Ur = Urban Land lead to incorrect interpretation. Wo = Woodinville Silt Loam s L...� Soil Series W = Water 0 500 1,000 in m N m Data Source: USDA NRCS. Scale in Feet Boeing Longacres Park Figure LANDAU Sounder Path Lighting Study Soils Map A ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington /`''� w Z 4 k 400 U EL s U- 0 + 1 m � v � N 4 * i en m m Z ' a f Va r J: Legend Q Study Area m Q Project Area ® 100 -Year Flood Plain Data Sources: FEMA; King County GIS; USDA NRCS rk Boeing Longacres Park IALANnAU Sounder Path Lighting Study ASSOCINIT.5 Penton, Washington M Y f3 N Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this cola original may reduce its effectiveness anc lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 500 1,00 Scale in Feet Figure FEMA Map A-4 APPENDIX B Species Information LISTED AND PROPOS__ ENDANGERED AND THREATS& SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN KENG COLg4W AS PREPARED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised March 95, 2092) LISTED Bull trout (Salvefinus confluentus) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed animal species include: Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species, and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation (e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat) that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Castilleja levisecta (golden paintbrush) [historic] Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed plant species include: Distribution of taxon in project vicinity. 2. Disturbance (trampling, uprooting, collecting, etc.) of individual plants and loss of habitat. 1. Changes in hydrology where taxon is found. DESIGNATED Critical habitat for bull trout Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl ■ 0 PROPOSED None CANDIDATE Fisher (Martes pennanti) — West Coast DPS North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) — contiguous U.S. DPS Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) [historic] Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) SPECIES OF CONCERN Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Beller's ground beetle (Agonum belled) Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) Hatch's click beetle (Eanus hatchi) Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Northern goshawk (Accipitergentilis) Northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys (= Clemmys) marmorata mannorata) Olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus coopers) Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) Valley silverspot (Speyeria zerene bremed) Western toad (Bufo boreas) Aster curtus (white -top aster) Botrychium pedunculosum (stalked moonwort) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) Page 1 of 2 Lon acres Park Listed Bird/Mammal S sties Birds (a): Confirmed Nesting On -Site (Yes/No) State! Federal status American bittern Y -confirmed by USDA None/None American coot Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None American goldfinch None/None American kestrel None/None American trees arrow*** Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None American wi eon Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None Bald eagle N SS,PHS/ Fco Bank swallow N None/None Barn owl N None/None Barn swallow N None/None Barred owl N None/None Bewick's wren N None/None Black crowned night heron''* N SM PHS/None Black -capped chickadee N None/None Bufflehead N PHS/None Bushtit N None/None Canada goose N None/None Canvasback N None/None Cedar waxwing N None/None Chestnut -backed chickadee N None/None Cinnamon teal N None/None Cliff swallow N None/None Common goldeneye N PHS/None Common merganser NonelNone Common yellowthroat Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None Downy woodpecker Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None Fox sparrow None/None Gadwall Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None Glarucous-win ed gull None/None Glaucous gull None/None Golden -crowned sparrow None/None Great egret *** Y SM/None Great -blue heron N SM,PHSINone Green heron Y SMI None Green -winged teal None/None Hai woodpecker None/None Hooded merganser N PHS/None Killdeer N PHS 1 /None Lesser canada goose N None/None Long -billed dowitcher N PHS 1 (None Mallard N None/None Marsh wren N None/None Orange -crowned warbler N None/None Osprey N SMI None Pacifict winter wren N None/None Pied -billed grebe Y PHS 2INone Pileated woodpecker N SC,PHS/None Red -breasted sapsucker N None/None Red -necked grebe N SM/ None Red-tailed hawk N None/None Red -winged blackbird N None/None Page 2 of 2 Longacres Park Listed Bird/Mammal S ecies Birds (a): Confirmed Nesting On -Site (Yes/No) State/ Federal status Rin -necked duck N None/None Rock dove N None/None Ruby -crowned kinglet N None/None Ruddy duck N None/None Savannahs arrow N None/None Sharp -shinned hawk N None/None Short -billed dowitcher N PHS (1)/None Song Sparrow N None/None Sara N None/None Spotted sandier N PHS (1)/None Tree swallow N None/None Violet -green swallow N None/None Vir ina Rail N None/None Warbling vireo N None/None Western grebe N SC PHSINone Western tanager N None/None White -crowned sparrow N None/None Wilson's snipe N PHS 1 YNone Wilson's warbler N None/None Wood duck N PHS/None Yellow warbler Y -confirmed Ebird (WOS) None/None Yellow -rum ed warbler Y None/None Mammals (a): State! Federal status American mink None/None Beaver None/None Black -tailed deer PHS/None Coyote None/None Meadow vole SM 3 None Muskrat None/None Raccoon None/None River otter None/None Short -tailed weasel None/None Amphibians: Statef Federal status Western painted turtle None/None LEGEND: State Status: SS -State Sensitive SE -State Endangered SC -State Candidate ST -State Threatened SM -State Monitored PHS - State Priority Federal Status: FE -Federal Endangered FT -Federal Proposed FCo -Federal Concern FC -Federal Candidate NOTES: (1) PHS list includes Western WA nonbreeding concentrations of: Charedreiidae, Scolopoacidae, Phalaropididae. Nonbreeding concentrations are assumed to occur at Longacres. (2) PHS list includes Western WA nonbreeding concentrations of: Loons, Grebes, Cormorants, Fulmar, Shearwaters, Storm -petrels, Alcids. Nonbreeding concentrations are assumed to occur at Longacres. (3) Scientific name of meadow vole is Microtus pennsylvanicus. A subspecies (Microtus pennsylvanicus kincaidi) is listed as SM. SOURCE: Boeing 11 0 WIDO:IOO, Flood Data and Datum Conversion m a ♦�/ Legend 12 2ft Contours Q Study Area 0 150 300 Q Project Area ® 100 -Year Flood Plain Scale in Feet Data Sources: FEMA; King County GIS; Bing Maps Aerial I Boeing Longacres Park ------------ Notes 1. The base flood elevation identified by FEMA in the project vicinity is approximately 16 ft (datum in NGVD 29), and survey information available from the City indicates the 100 -year floodplain corresponds to elevation 19.5 ft (datum in NAVD 88). 2. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. Figure 14 LANDAU Sounder Path Lighting Study Flood Elevation Map �� �I ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington I 11 fD K-5 t14P.r.. 11'a x 10 - �rn4z '0 T"i m w mM m m r- r Z Z: Z O O O O Z7 1 7u :CJ Z m Qu cWi z a m M(0 - d M m m rn m a w .. -, .+ p a p .. �l Q CJ C3 0 G m 3 S= a [i 0 a A o �+ 3 mDm m (DacD z m ren 0 0 oz(n 03G7° m m G)� m W w m a m co C .+ a n' A N N y m ul l 0 m m rn o� m z d m n V4WMU)y �(D = .w•w t7 m m D C m m 1p < � A O m cs�n Q 3C c�D (J3 �'y " rn c , COL CD--6C� m � m rt W m W cp � to p � 2JnL CD A (� � Cl) r► 0 .-1. < � D OL CD a C5 or mm D �m m (D m on) 0 (DO O r ¢ [n p� (D a .+ c 0 M Q 3 Q m O O :rC7 N m3Amo .°'f y a z m ami Q a `� CD aD �. a ,� p+ z m to 70 N .4 a 3 cD 3 tD � D �. co 0 CD CL A�y 0 D o' w�3 ' Qo L� m C CD � a � c CL r� y 0O S [D CD 2r =30m N S El 96 ° n �9�0 X. oen �o— y Co �. r T rQ a y�}y 4 Q Oe CP N w wd0 �DWO �^ jyyyy r`, > ,1@iS AY 1601 +C� 9p6M-1 m<q!(O�I�i14iyU}npk y *� T AiJ00�" S'� aw oo -a ma Z Op m ° G ~w ib y / �1.!@Nfl �l Cr W NTm@ W bOCD O pilfp g pie t,]fq� boy pp lipilipN mta Cae pO {N/r 0p1 GW rlf W O roa 4/paPPa(p quO pJa+� V 6 W 2 a 'e u, Q o W YOm S�i1Y8 moi@ �[O1 OOO rn 3 a m a W � n � 4 'r' Questions concerning the VERTCON process may be mailed to NGS Latitude: 47 27 44.02 Longitude: 122 14 10.78 NGVD 29 height: 16 ft Datum shift (NAVD 88 minus NGM 29) : 3.547 feet Converted to NAVD 88 height: 19,547 feet M APPENDIX D Precipitation Data m WETS Station : SEATTLE TCOMA WSCMO AP, WA7473 Creation Date: 09/10/2002 Latitude: 4727 Longitude: 12218 Elevation: 00400 State FIPS/County(FIPS): 53033 County Name: King Start yr. --------------------------------------------------------------------------I - 1971 End yr. - 2000 I Temperature I Precipitation I I -----------------------I--------------------------------------I (Degrees F.) I (Inches) I I I 1 30% chance lavg I I I I I I will have 4 ofl avg I -------I-------k-------I I-----------------Idaysl totall Month I avg I avg I avg I avg I less I more Iw/.11 snow I I daily I daily I I I than l than I orl fall I I max 1 min I I I I (morel I -------------------------------------------------------------------------I January I 45.8 I 35.9 I 40.9 1 5.13 1 3.58 I 6.10 1 11 2.4 1 February I 49.5 I 37.2 I 43.3 l 4.18 1 2.73 1 5.02 1 10 1.3 1 March I 53.2 I 39.1 1 46.2 3.75 1 2.77 1 4.40 1 10 0.6 1 April I 58.2 I 42.1 1 50.1 2.59 I 1.71 I 3.11 1 7 1 0.1 I May I 64.3 I 47.2 I 55.7 I 1.77 1.16 I 2.13 1 5 1 0.0 I June 1 69.5 1 51.7 1 60.6 1 1.49 0.96 1 1.79 1 4 1 0.0 1 July I 75.2 I 55.3 I 65-3 I 0.79 k 0.43 I 0.97 1 2 1 0.0 I August l 75.5 I 55.7 I 65.6 I 1.02 I 0.38 I 1.24 12 I 0.0 I September l 70.1 I 51.9 I 61.0 I 1.63 1 0.62 1 2.03 1 4 1 0.0 1 October 59.7 I 45.7 I 52.7 I 3.19 I 1.96 1 3.86 1 7 1 0.1 1 November 50.5 I 39.9 I 45.2 5.90 I 4.10 I 7.02 1 13 1 1.1 1 December ----------I-------I-------I-------1--------I--------1--------I----I------I I 45.4 I 35.9 I 40-7 1 5-62 I 3.94 ( 6.68 111 I 1.9 I -----------I-------I-------I-------1--------I--------I--------I----I------I Annual I----- I----- I----- I------ I 33.52 I 40.09 I -- I---- I ----------I-------I-------I-------I--------I--------I--------I----I------I Average ----------I-------I-------I-------I--------I--------1--------I----l------I I 59.7 I 44.8 I 52.3 I------ I------ I------ Total ---------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------I I----- I ------- I----- I ------- I----- I ------- 1 37-07 I -------- 1------ I------ I -------- I -------- 1 86 I I ---- I 7.5 1 ------I [q MM 0D)s49 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Temperature --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Probability 124 F or higher 1 28 F or higher 1 32 F or higher ---------------------- ---------------- I Beginning and Ending Dates I Growing Season Length I 50 percent * I 1/20 to 12/28 I 2/ 7 to 12/ 8 3/ 9 to 11/15 I 343 days I 304 days 252 days I I I 70 percent * I > 365 days I 1/31 to 12/15 3/ 3 to 11/21 I > 365 days I 319 days ! 263 days I ! I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Percent chance of the growing season occurring between the Beginning and Ending dates. 0 StateCade Division VoArMnnth PCP TMP PDSI PHDI ZNDX PMDI Mn HDD SPO1 SP02 SP03 SP06 SP09 SP12 45 03 231212 8.04 40.5 3.85 3.85 2 3.85 0 760 .97 1.03 1.63 1 1.51 1.71 45 03 201301 5.59 37.2 3.47 3,47 .05 3-43 0 862 .11 .7 .85 .79 1.16 1.62 45 03 201302 2.47 43.1 2.35 2.35 -2.29 1.36 0 613 -.96 -.57 .14 .62 .67 1.35 t Chapter 19 Hydrology Tools for Wetland Determination Figure 19-7 Rainfall documentation worksheet 19-26 M Date: 7� Weather station:''1" County,_ Soil name: Photo date: 1st prior month* 2nd prior month's 3rd prior month" Conclusions: Rainfall Documentation (use with photographs) Landowner: Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook State:._ Growing season: 2/7— I 7— Long-term rainfall records Tract no.. Month 3 ws. in lb less than 3rs. i�h I more Normal than Rain fall Condition Condition dry, wet, value I normal Month Product of weight previous two value columns to S. ry7. 2 f 24- 3 3 Sg 15713 NoA'"I 2 2 5, (, I- G zt IA� -3 i Compared to photo date Note: if sum is 6 - 9 then prior period has been _ drier than normal ff• 10 14 tl� prior period has been `.--- normal 15- 18 then prior period has been wetter than normal (210-vi-GF1 f. August 1997) Condition value: Dry =1 Formal =2 Wet =3 Sum l� APPENDIX E Data Sheets m WETLAND DETERI TION DATA FORM —Western Mounta Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Longacres Park Path Lighting Study City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:3114113 Applicant/Owner: Boeing State: WA Sampling Point, SP -1 Investigator(s); Steven uarterman/Rosemary Trimmer Section, Township, Range: Sec. 24, Twnsho 23N, Rnge 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): LRR A Northwest Forests and Coasts Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification, Upland Are climatic f hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil ygs, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydraphytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetland? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Cover Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers M Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) % Cover Species?nt<ius Number of Dominant Species 1. Alnus rubra 100 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) Z Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 100 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 110% (A!B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Iffit 1 Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Total ° Cover of, Multiply bv: 3. OBL species x 1 = 4, FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x3= 0 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) UPL species X6= 1. Carex obnu to 100 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index = BIA = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation g ® Dominance Test is >50% 7. ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' g ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 100 =Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: Sft) 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers M Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP -1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indloators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvoe' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 412 100 ❑ High Water Table (A2) loam 4-21+ 10YR 412 70 10YR 5!1 15 loam ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) 7.5YR 618 15 ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) 'T e: C=Concentration D=De lotion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locatlon: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ❑ Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ® Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Type: Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 0 Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Soils throughout wetland are moist to saturated. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indloators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Seconds Indicators 2 or m uired ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2,4A, and 413) 4A, and 413) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (133) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soll Cracks (66) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Water marks on trees nearby at approximately the same elevation as the sampling point. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 s WETLAND DETERfI TION DATA FORM — Western Mounta Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Lonaacres Park Path Lighting Study City/County: Renton/Kine Sampling Date:3114113 Applicant/Owner: Boeing State: WA Sampling Point: SP -2 Investigator(s): Steven QuartermardRosemary Trimmer _ Section, Township, Range: Sect. 24, Twnshp. 23N, Rnge 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope Subregion (LRR): LRR A Northwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Upland Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ® No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil Mee, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ® No ❑ Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ within a Wetiand? Yes ® No ❑ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Cover Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers IIIIIIII Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30ft) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Po ulus balsamif r 20 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2. Thuja Olcata 20 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3. Alnus rubra 30 Y FAC Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species 70 =Total Cover ° (A/B) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80/o Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Oemleria cera ii rmis 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2_ Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3• OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x2= 5_ FAC species x3= 10 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: U UPL species x5=_ 1. Carex obnunta 40 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index = BIA = 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5 ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation B ® Dominance Test is >50% T ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8 ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9, ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetatlon' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 40 = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 5ft) 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes ® No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 50 Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers IIIIIIII Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP -2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) (inches) Color (moist) °lo Color (moist) % Type, Locz Texture Remarks 0-21+ 10YR 312 50 10YR 512 30 RM M Alam__ 4A, and 4B) 7.5YR 4/6 20-- _ RM M ❑ Salt Crust (B11) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 21-ocation: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain In Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ® Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present), Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Type: Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ® No ❑ Remarks: Depth (inches): 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more reauired) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (69) (MLRA 1, 2, ® High Water Table (A2) 1, 2,4A. and 48) 4A, and 4B) ® Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (B11) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (131) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (613) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (132) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (132) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (134) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (137) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 10 Saturation Present? Yes ® No ❑ Depth (inches): 2 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ® No ❑ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 M WETLAND DETERI TION DATA FORM —Western Mounta Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: Longacres Park Path Lighting Study City/County: Renton/King Sampling Date:3114113 Applicant/Owner: Boeing State: WA Sampling Point: SP -3 Investigator(s): Steven Quarterman/Rosemary Trimmer Section, Township, Range: Sect. 24, Twnshp 23N, Rnge. 4E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Swale Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope Subregion (LRR): LRR A No hwest Forests and Coast Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: Upland Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes E No ❑ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation no, Soil ygj, or Hydrology no significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes E No ❑ Are Vegetation no, Soil no, or Hydrology no naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes E No ❑ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No ® within a Wetland? Yes ❑ No Wettand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No ° Cover Remarks: VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers E Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast—Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ft) ° Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thula olicata 20 Y FAC That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2' Total Number of Dominant 3 • Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) 4, Percent of Dominant Species 20 = Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 5 ft) 1. Rubus armenlacus 10 Y FACU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Acer circinatum 5 Y FAC Total % Cover of: _Multinly by: 3, OBL species X1 = 4. FACW species x2= 5. FAC species x 3 = 15 = Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: §M UPL species X5= 1. Carex obnupta 10 Y OBL Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. Juncus effusus 5 Y FACW 3. Prevalence Index = B/A = 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑ Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation g_ ® Dominance Test is >50% 7 ❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. ❑ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 ❑ Wetland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 1_ = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation 0 = Total Cover Present? Yes E No ❑ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0 Remarks: Rubus armeniacus has been cut down. US Army Corps of Engineers E Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast—Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: SP -3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix __ Redox Features Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check (inches) Color moist) ° Color (moist) % Tyne' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-23+ 10YR 312 100 loamy sand 'Type: C=Conoentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic hydric Soils: ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF1 2) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Type: Field Observations: Depth (Inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ❑ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ❑ Surface Water (Al) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (except MLRA ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, ❑ High Water Table (A2) 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) ❑ Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Water Marks (81) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ❑ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Sediment Deposits (B2) ❑ hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (64) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ❑ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ❑ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (136) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ❑ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ❑ Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑ Frost -Heave Hummocks (D7) ❑ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes ❑ No ® Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Soil is moist but not saturated. US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — Version 2.0 APPENDIX F Selected Site Photographs 1. Existing path in project area, facing west. 2. Wetland observation deck in project area, facing south. LANDAU 14 ASSOCIATES Boeing Longacres Park Figure Sounder Path Lighting Study Selected Site Photographs C Tacoma, Washington F-1 1-1 + ti } � ti• S k `1 .01 ► I� 44 4�e �,YYY1ll,•Tr',� `. +.ifs. '} k '� • �f y s Y� - r� .Aix c �'[: i :}Ed •:� .�..ylr,.ti�t'�f w'l./ �:'iA�'�r�S ,s•��`� P�Y.lti ���...,'+�! 3. Sample point SP -1, south wetland mitigation area. 4_ Sample point SP -2, north wetland mitigation area. LANDAU ASSOCIATES 0 Boeing Longacres Park Sounder Path Lighting Study Tacoma, Washington Selected Site Photographs Figure F-2 5_ Sample point SP -3, uplands. Boeing Longacres Park Figure LANDAU Sounder Path Lighting Study Selected Site Photographs14 - ASSOCIATES Tacoma, Washington r F M APPENDIX G Wetland Rating Forms a Wetland name or number *P WETLAND RATING FORM – WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated July 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Updated Oct 2006 with the new W DFW definitions for priority habitats Name of wetland (if known): _IAJ Agmj 4J Date of site visit: 3 3 Rated by Trained by Ecology? Yes)�No_ Date of trainin SEC: �TWNSHP: ,�3RNGE: 7 i� Is SIT/R in Appendix D? Yes— No_X, Map of wetland unit: Figure A/6 Estimated size I? AC SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I IIX- III IV Category I = Score >=70 Category II = Score 51-69 Category III = Score 30-50 Category IV = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit I.E1 Wetland Rating Form—western Washington I version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 f 1Iff 2IMP,im, MWER-1 Estuarine De ressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine -Bog Lake -fringe Mature Forest Slope Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal TaterdunaI None of the above Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form—western Washington I version 2 To be used with Ecology Publication 04-06-025 August 2004 f Wetland name or number %- O w L Does the wetland emit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. 'Check List for Wethand9.ThA M,ay Need: Add1tioaalTrut ua'SES , 0 ` , i 0d #�a>� t� �ihe ratection;xecommended for its nate godl . SP1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitatfor any Federally listed ......... Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (TIE species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands see p. 19 of data form). SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydro ammorphic Class of the wetland being rated The hydrogeornorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 2 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 a Wetland name or number /J I P 2— Classification - Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington `e <d ag crlta ilhiw7,aPldtg, �tt ,_ F -, 1. Are thew ter le in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? O�—go YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe yes, is he salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and 1I estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. C!N:O— go to YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? _The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size, At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake -fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) rVoes the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small avid shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than I foot deep). O)_- go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 3 August 2444 vcrsion 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2048 M Weiland name or number [cul Z- 5. 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is 5flooding. NO go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is Higher than the interior of the wetla� NO - go to 7 YES - e wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetly unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO - go to 8 YES - The wetland class is Depressional S. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide), Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. �� ss �dhrtr t �=�etltlae qui b:7.7 Slope + Riverine Riverine S12pe + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake-frin a Lake -fin e Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake -fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 4 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new W DFW definitions Oct. 2008 M Wetland riame or number Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW dclinitions Oct. 2008 M ' r -:ID # . =�.�v �:�,-r'�' J� � ''�, asyr - ,3�'� ..,�-.�.�s' x5 �'a"ftar� ��,•_ �� ti �' _. D D 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to improve water quality? (seep,38) D 1.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland: Figure Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 3 D Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points = 2 Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (permanently flowing) points= 1 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q. 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = 1 Qf ditch is not permanently flowing treat unit as "intermittently flowing ") Provide photo or drawing S 1.2 The soil 2 incites below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (arse NRCS definitions) D YES points = 4 NO points = 0 D 1.3 Characteristics of persistent vegetation (emergent, shrub, and/or forest Cowardin class) Figure � Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation > = 95% of area points = 5 D Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, vegetation> = 1/2 of area points = 3 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation > =1/14 of arta points =1 Wetland has persistent, ungrazed vegetation <1/10 of area points = 0 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes DIA Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation figure This is the area of the wetland unit that is ponded for at least 2 months, but dries out D sometime during the year. Do not count the area that is permanently ponded Estimate area as the average condition 5 out of 10 yrs. Area seasonally ponded is > %x total area of wetland points = 4 Area seasonally ponded is > 1/4 total area of wetland points = 2 Area seasonally ponded is <'/4 total area of wetland points = 0 Map of Hygroverlods D Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above I —�7 D D 2. Does the wetland unit have the 9Mrtunity to Improve water quality? (seeµ 44) Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water corning into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would quay as opportunity. `f Grazing in the wetland or within 150 ft 74 Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields or orchards within 150 ft of wetland — A stream or culvert discharges into wetland that drains developed areas, residential areas, farmed fields, roads, or clear-cut logging — Residential, urban areas, golf coerses are within 150 ft of wetland multiplier -- Wetland is fed by groundwater high in phosphorus or nitrogen — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Water duality Functions Multiply the score from D I by DZ Add score to table on p. 1 j Wetland Rating Form – western Washington 5 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW dclinitions Oct. 2008 M Wetland name or number %1i I, D Depressional and Flats Wetlands POintS HYDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS - Indicatots that the wetland'unit functions to (only l scam reduce flooding and stream de adation tet"") D 3. Does the wetland unit have the patentlal to reduce flooding and erosion? (seep.46) D D 3.1 Characteristics of surface water flows out of the wetland unit Unit is a depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet) points = 4 Unit has an intermittently flowing, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet points --2 Unit is a "flat" depression (Q_ 7 on key), or in the Flats class, with permanent surface outflow and no obvious natural outlet and/or outlet is a man-made ditch points = i Qfditch is not permanently jlmving treat unit as "infermiffenilvjlowing ") Unit has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet (perrnanentlyflowinoints = 0 D D 3.2 Depth of storage during wet periods Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For units with no outlet measure from the surface ofpermanent water or deepest part (if dry). Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet points = 7 The wetland is a "headwater" wetland" points = 5 Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet points = 5 Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 R from surface or bottom of outlet points = 3 Unit is flat (yes to Q. 2 or Q. 7 on key) but has small depressions on the surface that trap water points = I Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft points = 0 D D 3.3 Contribution of wetland unit to storage in the watershed Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of unit points = 5 The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit points = 3 The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit points = 0 Entire unit is in the FLATS class points = 5 D Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above E l D D 4. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to reduce flooding and erosion? (see p. 49) Answer YES if the unit is in a location in the watershed where the flood storage, or reduction in water velocity, it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows. Answer NO if the water coming into the wetland is controlled by a structure such as flood gate, tide gate, flap valve, reservoir etc. OR you estimate that more than 90% of the water in the wetland is from groundwater in areas where damaging groundwater flooding does not occur. Note which of the following indicators of opportunity apply. -- Wetland is in a headwater of a river or stream that has flooding problems Wetland drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Wetland has no outlet and impounds surface runoff water that might otherwise flow into a river or stream that has flooding problems multiplier -- Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 D TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from D 3 by D 4 Add score to table on P. l Wetland Rating Form —western Washington 6 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 200$ M August 2004 Wetland name or number kJ J-7- �J,ff /�y1�71�G1r {I+TR+�' L�•� p j'�M�� {/ \R� M*�`T ".'��„"Y" , � ,� ti�� .F H 1. Does the wetland unit have the patential to provide habitat for many species" H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Figure, Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is 'l, acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. Aquatic bed Emergent plants Scrub/shrub (areas where shrubs have X30% cover) Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the writ has a forested class check if The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub -canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 201/a within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that qualify. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetation classes 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points= 1 1 structure points = 0 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Figure Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or Y4 acre to count. (see Lexi for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point =1 Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake fringe wetland - 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map of hydroperiods H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the numbe=r of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft=. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You deo not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Mobil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 Gist species below if you want to: 5 -19 species points = 1 e 5 species points = 0 Total for page Wetland Rating Form -- western Washington 7 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct: 2008 M Wetland name or number H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) Figure Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion between Cowardin vegetation classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, medium, low, or none. 0 None = 0 points Low =1 point Moderate = 2 points [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "hi h". Use map of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Sped 1 Habitat Features: (seeA 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number ofpoints you put into the next column. Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (>4in. diameter and 6 ft long). Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (1m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft (1(hn) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (>30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned greylbrown) ,kAt least'/, acre of thin -stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated" (structures for egg -laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE.- The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H i , TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat Add the scores ront H.1.1. H1.2, HL3, H1.4, HI.S 11 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form --western Washington 13 August 2444 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2148 0 Wetland name or number��' H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed " — 100 in (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no -grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 --- 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points – 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 ---- 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer sloes not meet any of the criteria above No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK.. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0. — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 Aerial photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (seep. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (darns in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at Ieast 25 acres in size? OR a Lake -fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.23 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (81an) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture (>40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES =1 point NO = 0 291ats Total for page Wetland hating Form — westem Washington 1-1 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new W DFW definitions Oct. 2008 a Wetland name or number � �— H 2.3 Near or adjacent to otheryriority habitats listed by WDFW (see new and complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in the PHS report httn://Wtlfiv wa.eoilhablolislist.htrn ) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit'? NOTE. the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.4 ha (1 acre). Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 152). Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and £orbs on shallow soils over bedrock. Old-growth/Mature forests: (Old-growth west of Cascade crests Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees/acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. (Mature forests) Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crowd cover may be less that 10011/0; crown cover may be less that 100°/x; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oaldconifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158). Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non -forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161). Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report: pp. 167-169 and glossary in Appendix A). Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cin (20 in) in western Washington and are > 2 m (6.5 ft) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 in (20 ft) long. If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat - 1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition apriotity habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in_question H2.4) Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 1-0 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2008 a Wetland name or numbers WZ H 2.4 Wetland Landsca (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that best fits) (seep. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within. %z mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within '/z mile paints = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within 1/2 mile, BUT the connections between disturbed ints = 3 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetland within 1/7 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within '/z mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within 1/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat ; Add the scores kom H2. 1, 1-12.2. H2.3, H2.4 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result P.on 1 j-7 Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 11 August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct: 2008 M Wetland name or number '/j 1 iJ 2 - CATEGORIZATION CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type Category Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the appropriate criteria are met. SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (seep. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and - With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES= Go to SC 1.1 NO SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Cat. I Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? YES = Cateo I NO go to SC 1.2 SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category 1 NO = Category II Cat. I — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, Cat. II cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. If the non-native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, them the wetland should be given a dual Dual rating (1/11). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category 11 while the rating relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category 1. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in IIII determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Wetland Rating Fonn — westem Washington 1 L August 2404 version Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 2408 0 Wetland name or number W)(/P P Z SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (seep. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHPIDNR) SIT/R information from Appendix D _ or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site r YES — contact WNHPIDNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 2.2 NO SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES Category I NO not a Heritage Wetland SC 3.0 Bogs (seep. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to idents if the wetland is a bog. rf you answer yes you will still need to rate the wedand based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - go to Q. 3 CN�O- o to Q. 2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% 4;er"of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (mora than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30016 coverage of the total shnibflrerbaceous cover)? 2. YES= Category I No Is not a bog for purpose of rating Wetland Rating Form — western Washington 13 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct; 2008 August 2004 Cat. l Cat. l Wetland name or number W -1 - Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 11 Augmt 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 200$ M SC 4.0 Forested Wetlands (seep. 90) Does the wetland unit have at least 1 acre of forest that meet one of these criteria for the Department of Fish and Wildlife's forests as priority habitats? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. -- Old-growth forests: (west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi -layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/acre (20 trees/hectare) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 inches (81 cm) or more. NOTE: The criterion for dbh is based on measurements for upland forests. Two -hundred year old trees in wetlands will often have a smaller dbh because their growth rates are often slower. The DFW criterion is and "OR" so old-growth forests do not necessarily have to have trees of this diameter. --- Mature forests: (west of the Cascade Crest) Stands where the largest trees are 80 – 200 years old OR have average diameters (dbh) exceeding 21 inches (53cm); crown cover may be less that 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth. yy YES= Category I NO Y1not a forested wetland with special characteristics Cat. I SC 5.0 Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons (seep. 91) Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? — The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks — The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains surface water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) YES = Go to SC 5.1 NO not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1 Does the wetland meets all of the following three conditions? — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has fess than 20% cover of invasive plant species (see list of invasive species on p. 74). — At least % of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un -mowed grassland. — The wetland is larger than 1/10 acre (43 50 square feet) Cat. I YES = Category I NO = Category lI Cat. II Wetland Rating Form - western Washington 11 Augmt 2004 version 2 Updated with new WDFW definitions Oct. 200$ M Wetland name or number �JIJ I-- SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (seep. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO Xat an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still geed to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 * Grayland-Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores-Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to 5C 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III 'Corst i,id i��:� 11 Wetland stating Form — western Washington S August 2004 version 2 Updated with new WOFW definitions Oct. 2008 M 1 1 1 1 1 1-405 Oaksdale Ave SW T4 5 Building 25-20 Legend Note 1 - Black and white reproduction of this color Wetland ( 5 A-tv r-47CP) original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation, rr,�rT r, 2. Wetland area shown is approximate extent of p 350 7C mitigation areas constructed onsite. Scale in Feet Base Map Source: Bing Maps Sound Path Lighting Study Rating Map - Fi ure LANDAU Boeing Longacres Park ASSOCIATES Renton, 4qi k,),- + r 1-405 r � h axsy,y t �`s" Building 25-20 EWTI Tr ` ey kQdafe Ave SW Legend Note 7. Black and white reproduction of this color Wetland"�5) original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 2. Wetland area shown is approximate extent of B 350 700 mitigation areas constructed onsite. — Base Map Source; Bing Maps State in Feel Sound Path Lighting Study Rating Map - Figure LANDAU Boeing Longacres Paris ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington V M APPENDIX H Design Plan and Lighting Specification I e I �D _€ � AyT I �R■ O � I e I �D R Q 11I lox� s1Lj 70 S aY Y v Y tw N PV RoN pn�mpe zzo-9 0 3 -- po�� C7 m 88i �iSi 'G7 r W L— ��� psi m o g=ao8 o� m p�x2 nay $snni� con" > xcm �a �^ aoo�jm o Z biz =rm rte& xo mo azo ���A nsm� o.���m8po r~E _ m FTI = cn 9 z 2 z7 ;xrt O 0 9 CD & ~ V: -n a � MHO iWa l =s P4 - W i - T I � � m m c a4� NO 2 z7 ■ 9 b r � 2 2 9 C O 0 9 CD & ~ V: a � MHO iWa l ■ 9 b r � 2 2 9 c7 r m 'I z z 7 r o r d Cil a r 0 MHO iWa l =s P4 - W i - T sisn c7 r m 'I z z 7 r o r d Cil Job: Type: Nates: Bollard LED. - z1ft Page I of 3 Round Full Cutoff Bollard BR840 Series, Including Motion Response The Phillps Gardco LED Bollard Family features the round full cutaif bol" the BRW series.This sleek series features LEDs concealed below cast louvers to provide down lighting for landscape and pathway applications. The 88640 series features 4" diameter extruded aluminum shafts.Avallable mountings include the standard shaft, with a welded can base mounted firmly to anchor bok3.The FIRM series also is available with a galvanaed steel base tenon reinforced shaft (BR842) for applications requiring additional support, such as schools. BR840 series bollards provide full cutoff performance. LIGHTED LED COVERAGE/ PREFIX HEIGHT LED CONTROL SELECTION LED WATTAGE VOLTAGE FINISH OPTIONS Faster the order code into the appropriate boat above. Note: Gordo reserves the right to refuse o conAgumban. Not oN combirwtiaru and eonpgurations are valid. Refer to rotes below for exclusions and knitadons. For questions or concems, pkose corwh the rectory. PREFIX HEIGHT OR840 Standard Shaft 42" 3611 3011 BRII41 Bead Only 7.1" School Bollard BR842 Reinforced Shaft with 42" 36" 30" FINISH Galvanized Steel Tenon OPTIONS LED CONTROL CWL ConstantWatrage Full Light Output M wattage and fight output only. DIM 0 - IOV Dimming Dimming convai by Mhers.The dimming driver utilized pemHta dimming roused ria a parrnommew (by ashen) or via 0 - I OV eortW (by adrws) Comrdt instagatloa lnstruca m fw more infwmaatn. MR Motion Response kawring two (2) ftimo Pawn k4itred (M wwrs. M the obs&= a{motim Furedo res operate at 20% of m id power and Vt aatput {80% dimmed.) See page 3 for mare Mfomiadm on Man Respw fumhoim LED SELECTION LIGHTED COVERAGE 1 LED WATTAGE VOLTAGE CW 5,700-K, 750R1 360° kited louvers - 14 LEDs UNIV 120V through 277V, 360-10 10 watts at 225mA Mote A vWatlon of LED wrattage 50hz to 60hz input (+/- 6%) may ocwr due to LEA NW 4,000°K, 75CR1 360-18 18 watts at 350mA manufncturers forward wah spedhoaWn 360-26 26 watts at 500mA aad ambient ter"perowra, WW 3,000°K, 75CR1 " (Provides reduced boOside tight 1611 Clovis Barker Road, San Marcos,TX 76666 (800) 217-0759 (512) 763-1090 FAX; -(512)753-7855 sitallshting com m 2013 Koninklijke Phdips Electronic N.V. All Rights Reserved, Philips Gardco reserves the riot to change materials or modify the design of la product without notification as part of the company's continuing product improvement program. G200-02010113 3. Not ovaikbk in 98841 PHILIPS a, GARDCO 180.10 10 watts at 450mA 180-18 18 watts at 7OOmA 1. 190° achkved by popuktMg half of LEDs. 2. 180° dwhua'ons Include an Internal house side shkld to Wit the amount of back8ght FINISH OPTIONS BRP Bronze Paint OC Optional Color Paint PCBs Button Photocontrol BLP Black Paint Spedfy RAL desig"Oon as SPR Surge Protection for WP White Paint ex: OGRAL7024. I through ANSI SC Special Color Paint Inpputut meeting ANSI NP Natural Aluminum Paint Speci6k Must suppy cpkr chip. C62.41.2 1611 Clovis Barker Road, San Marcos,TX 76666 (800) 217-0759 (512) 763-1090 FAX; -(512)753-7855 sitallshting com m 2013 Koninklijke Phdips Electronic N.V. All Rights Reserved, Philips Gardco reserves the riot to change materials or modify the design of la product without notification as part of the company's continuing product improvement program. G200-02010113 3. Not ovaikbk in 98841 PHILIPS a, GARDCO Page 2 of 3 DIMENSIONS 7-1" 18.034cm Bollard LED Round Full Cutoff Bollard BR840 Series, Including Motion Response BR844 BR842 BR841 School Bollard Head Only Z1,082tm 9with Steel Base Tenon It—�I PIR Motion Sensor - Motion Response Luminaires Only. Approximate diameter 0.8" (2cm.) Height 2.75" (6.985 I. 3.492: iround Lug 0.5" (1.27cm) or ,75" (1,905cm) Conduit (by others) 2.75" (6.985 r -m) Bah Circle 45" I 1 gal Steel Base Fenny 2.25" (5.71: Squar cm 1.75" Dia. [onduit . (� Opening 0. BR841 mounts to a concrete structure via four (4) 318" #16 hex head bolts inserted into threaded concrete Inserts (provided by others.) 2.75" (6.965 an) Bolt Circle 1.945" 4.940 cm NOTE: Factory supplied template must be used when setting anchor bolts. Philips Gardeo will not honor any claim for incorrect anchorage placement from failure to use factory supplied templates. 1611 Clovis Barker (load, Saul Mamos,TX 78666 (Boa) 2x7-a75a (512) 753-1 00 FAX -.(512)753-7855 titellighting.com C 2013 KoninMi" Philips Electronics N.V. All Rights Reserved, Philips Gardco reserves the right to change materials or modify the design of its product without notification as part of the company's mntlnuing product Improvem6rit program. G20"20101 13 M PHILIPS ()p GARDCO Bollard LED Page 3 of 3 Round Full Cutoff Ballard BR840 Series, Including Motion Response SPECIFICATIONS UPPER HOUSING: Die cast aluminum upper housing featuring shielding BR$42:A high strength steel mounting tenon, hot -dip galvanized after fabrication, louvers to provide down light is secured to the concrete footing with (4) 318" x 8" x 1 112" anchor bolts on a Driver mA lye i"IntAts 2'/," bolt circle. LOWER HOUSING: 350 220,000 4501500 165.000 IP RATING: IP66 Is the rating for the optical compartment. BR840 :The lower housing assembly consists of a. 140"wall by 4" diameter high 225 212,000 strength 6463-T6 extruded aluminum section incorporating a flush, weather -tight ELECTRICAL: The LED power supply Is located within the bollard head. gasketed hand hole cover. Bollards accept from 120 Volts through 277 Vola, 50hz to 60 hz, Input supply. The LED driver is located in the upper dome. LED drivers are replaceable. LEDs DR41 : Louver head assembly Is suitable for attachment to architectural provided as specified. Power factor is not less than 94%. Luminaires consume 0.0 elements (by others). watts in the off state. BRE42 :The lower housing assembly consists of a.140" wall by 4" diameter high strength 6063-T6 extruded aluminum section, incorporating a flush, weather -tight gasketed hand hole cover, for placement over the galvanized steel tenon support structure.Tenon support structure is nude from a. 12" thick wall, I I gauge steel, 2.25" square tube, welded to top and bottom round steel support plates. The steel tenon support structure includes an opening aligned with the aluminum shaft hand hole to permit wiring. The entire steel tenon support structure is hot dipped galvanized after fabrication. LED PERFORMANCE: PREDICTED LUNEN DEPREC IATIM DATA4 Ambient Tempera4ne Driver mA lye i"IntAts 25 'C 225 230,000 350 220,000 4501500 165.000 700 150,000 40 "C 225 212,000 350 188,000 4SD / S00 150,000 700 137,000 4. Predicted peOrmwce &awed from LEO manufb=rt4 dow and enpmeerinr design estimow, based on IESNA LM40 method ft. Acord experience may wry due to Tseid app abw awfuoas. 5. L„ is the predicted time when LED pe4 mance depredates to 70% of kvtlal lumen output OPTICAL SYSTEM: Philips Gardco LED Bollards feature advanced Philips Gardco LED technology, assuring maxmimized light output LED arrays are replaceable, ANCHORAGE: 01111111140: Base assembly consists of an Internal welded cast ring section that provides for mounting to the foundation with four (4) 318" X 8" X 114" anchor bolts on a 2%` bolt circle. B11111141 The luminatre head mounts to a concrete structure utilizing four (4) 318" #16 hex head bolts inserted Into threaded concrete inserts (provided by others) on a 2%" bolt circle. MOTION RESPONSE LUMINAIRES: Each Motion Response (MR) luminaire Includes two (2) Panasonic EKM91203112 Passive Infrared (PIR) sensors to detect motion. When motion Is not detected for a 5 minute period, luminaires automatically dim to 20% power and light, gradually over a 2 minute period. Once Motion Is detected, luminaires immediately ramp to full power and light output until motion is not detected for a 5 minute period. PIR sensors aro able to detect motion in the approximate patterns shown below: TopVlew--39'! 12m Maximum Detection Area 1 —100° bollard / Note: Motion sensors rely on specific zonal crossings to detect motion. It Is possible for a person to directly approach the bollard motion sensor without crossing between zones until 15 feet from the motion sensor. The actual motion detection distance may vary based on spedfic application characteristics. LUMINAIRE FINISH: Each luminalre receives a fade and abrasion resistant, electrostatically applied, thermally cured textured powdercoat finish LABELS: All luminaires bear UL or CUL (where applicable) Wet Location labels. WARRANTY: Philips Gardco luminaires feature a 5 year limited warranty. Philips Gardco LED luminaires with LED arrays or modules feature a 5 year limited warranty covering the LED arrays or modules. LED drivers carry a 5 year limited warranty. See Warranty Information on www,sitelighting.com for complete details and exclusions. FULL CUTOFF PERFORMANCE: Full cutoff performance means a luminaire distribution where zero candela intensity occurs at an angle at or above 90° above nadir Additionally, the andela per 1000 lamp lumens does not numerically exceed 100 (10 percent) at a vertical angle of 80` above nadir. This applies to all lateral angles around the luminaire, 1611 Clovis barker Rood, Sat Marcos,TX 71666 (600) 227-0738 (512) 753-1000 FAX -(512)753-1555 siteiiihtin`.s:om © 2013 Koninklilke Philips Electronics KV. All Rights Reserved. Philips Gardco reserves the right to change materials or modify the design of its product without notification as part of the company s continuing product Improvement program. G200-020/0113 PHILIPS ()p GARDCO Electrical Disconnect and Transformer (Typical). C FTI QD _ FTI 9 4�4 y L C r 7 (-) F -r O 7 z C. p r C C ? V � G �J -� a 0 C N C m C) o m O Q - rm F- F- rC-) C-) CJS z z O —i o Q � � C m m L � � C7 �p � m• s> o o •a q V ] � v a n v a P c } a v o � a F j a w IEL d a o m a W w _ • U t] h - o P u W ¢ ti W !f m .s a N m m w ., � � a yy f' ry _o q o v q p � o 7 v o o v ^-' a _ �.- . �. .. w q P a v a :.. q` o + � c' p' o' c G t] o' a' O C• :.r' > n .s' P n a � r � • .- 41ti n` - q m ti• V d' O O O O ,o + N H` W" W` V p P p c q 4 q p 7i`" o' ® Fj ka+ L - u + s a m + V ", c• o r� q q q q pm m f p m m r a r W + +' c O 4 4• tl o a 4 0 Q []' •? P p Q o• q q O o o . NN o 4' O' + IJ F• c N - P A W v U m m w' } q - u p. i• w p + + + O' O• O qq ...Pgagq i C1 n - - •.• o s O - P• P• + u ¢ - + c u P e e• m m a. as P + m u W y u + + .� + p c o a o p o a o o a o �� + C C O O' D o O • Oo rr� r o o o a a .] a P P q q + m a W m a w q p m tJ + + c a a' e' o' o' n' n a nP" O c q P P P q a P q o q aP q q p ¢ a u i p' a' o' n' n` o' c' { >• a u w m' W' e' d o' c' o' a b 6 b e' c' o' b b b - ctl.- c b ❑❑ y --y tC f _ , v o n G 3 O C O' +Va i p, v i` Et• bi M ¢ m` N�' f �' � i � 4' u v + � + + � 9• c O 4 4 C o O O O' P A C v ,]' fA O a O• a 4 q P + W ip p m m m m a a m +� 0 0 4 . o o, w f w++ a Y G O s o± G O U O 7 O O P O Q O' G m` WIN fs-iu N N e b +4 O O e e" e' a C O O G O' O O O 7 O' G O O }' [a [• > a 4 a P P p q q P G s a w u N m O a m ., m m O iP• 4 . p p C O O P q P b' O O' a Y' q O' O ;} q c }' . G' i]• p c • C' ,p• O G P• O' q' p + } + Q D O O O + O P O + + G i a a k u N + {.�• + + J N P N + � + + + . + P c p q C C c p p P q P O P p P a a q 4 9 q ' o+ L}, 4' q ? O' O O O O' n G O O q. tl O' O j O P` C 4 O• O O G O O O• 8 O' O O O 14 m Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Owner Boeing Commercial Airplanes P.D. Box 3707, MIC IW -08 Seattle, WA 98124 David Keneddy 206.544.8356 For 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion Prepared For Boeing Commercial Airplanes Seattle District P.O. Box 3707, MIC IW -08 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Developer Same as Owner. Operator/Contractor TBD TBD TBD Project Site Location 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead TBD TBD SWPPP Prepared By Coffman Engineers, Inc. 601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 623-0717 Dean Furr, P.E., Project Engineer SWPPP Preparation Date 1212013 Approximate Project Construction Dates May 2014 July 2014 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Contents 1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................4 2.0 Site Description........................................................................................................................6 2.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................6 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities......................................................................................6 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs...............................................................................................8 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements.......................................................................................................8 3.1.1 Element #1 — Mark Clearing Limits...................................................................8 3.1.2 Element #2 — Establish Constriction Access.....................................................8 3.1.3 Element #3 — Control Flow Rates.......................................................................9 3.1.4 Element #4 — Install Sediment Controls.............................................................9 3.1.5 Element #5 Stabilize Soils.............................................................................1 l 3.1.6 Element #6 — Protect Slopes.............................................................................12 3.1.7 Element #7 — Protect Drain Inlets.....................................................................12 3.1.8 Element #8 — Stabilize Channels and Outlets...................................................13 3.1.9 Element #9 — Control Pollutants.......................................................................13 3.1.10 Element #10 —Control Dewatering.................................................................16 3. 1.11 Element #] 1 —Maintain BMPs.......................................................................17 3.1.12 Element #12 -- Manage the Project..................................................................17 3.2 Site Specific BMPs..........................................................................................................20 33 Additional Advanced BMPs............................................................................................20 4,0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation...................................................................21 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team......................................................................................................22 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities...............................................................................................22 5.2 Team Members................................................................................................................23 6.1 Site Inspection.................................................................................................................24 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency................................................................................24 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation.........................................................................25 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring......................................................................................25 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling...........................................................................................25 6.2.2 pH Sampling.....................................................................................................26 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping................................................................................................27 7.1 Recordkeeping.................................................................................................................27 7. 1.1 Site Log Book...................................................................................................27 7.1.2 Records Retention.............................................................................................27 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records............................................................................27 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP................................. . ......................................................27 7.2 Reporting..................................................................................... ................................... .28 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports.........................................................................28 a& Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance........................................................................28 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes......................................................................28 AppendixA — Site Plans................................................................................... .................29 Appendix B Construction BMPs.........................................................................................30 Appendix C — Alternative BMPs............................................................................................31 AppendixD — General Permit................................................................................................33 Appendix E — Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log)..............................................................34 Appendix F — Engineering Calculations.................................................................................42 Appendix A Site plans ■ Vicinity map (with all discharge points) ■ Site plan with TESL measures Appendix B Construction BMPs ■ Possibly reference in BMPs, but likely it will be a consolidated list so that the applicant can photocopy from the list from the SWMM. Appendix C Alternative Construction BMP list ■ List of BMPs not selected, but can be referenced if needed in each of the 12 elements Appendix D General Permit Appendix E Site Log and Inspection Forms Appendix F Engineering Calculations (if necessary) ■ Flows, ponds, etc... 0 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 1.0 Introduction This Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the NPDES stormwater permit requirements for the Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Lot expansion construction project in Renton, Washington. The site is located at 1901 Oaksdale Avenue Southwest and is within Section 24, Township 23 North, Range 4 east. The existing site is a redevelopment of the old longacres horse race track and is currently a grass area west of the existing parking lot. The proposed 1.21 acre project consists of construction of a permeable pavement parking lot, internal and perimeter landscaping, sidewalk and a swale. The site is located within the 100 -year floodplain per current adopted FIRM mapping. Compensatory storage will be provided to offset the impact to the floodplain. The developed site maintain the existing natural discharge locations. Construction activities will include excavation, grading, permeable paving, concrete curbs and sidewalk and landscaping. The purpose of this SWPPP is to describe the proposed construction activities and all temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures, pollution prevention measures, inspection/monitoring activities, and recordkeeping that will be implemented during the proposed construction project. The objectives of the SWPPP are to: 1. Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and to identify, reduce, eliminate or prevent stormwater contamination and water pollution from construction activity. 2. Prevent violations of surface water quality, ground water quality, or sediment management standards. 3. Prevent, during the construction phase, adverse water quality impacts including impacts on beneficial uses of the receiving water by controlling peak flow rates and volumes of stormwater runoff at the Permittee's outfalls and downstream of the outfalls. This SWPPP was prepared using the Ecology SWPPP Template downloaded from the Ecology website on January 2, 2013. This SWPPP was prepared based on the requirements set forth in the Construction Stormwater General Permit, Stormwater Management Manual far Western Washington (SWMMWW 2005) and in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW 2004). The report is divided into seven main sections with several appendices that include stormwater related reference materials. The topics presented in the each of the main sections are: 57 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ■ Section 1— INTRODUCTION. This section provides a summary description of the project, and the organization of the SWPPP document. ■ Section 2 — SITE DESCRIPTION. This section provides a detailed description of the existing site conditions, proposed construction activities, and calculated stormwater flow rates for existing conditions and post— construction conditions. ■ Section 3 — CONSTRUCTION BMPs. This section provides a detailed description of the BMPs to be implemented based on the 12 required elements of the SWPPP (SWMMEW 2004). ■ Section 4 — CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND BMP IMPLEMENTATION. This section provides a description of the timing of the BMP implementation in relation to the project schedule. ■ Section 5 — POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM. This section identifies the appropriate contact names (emergency and non -emergency), monitoring personnel, and the onsite temporary erosion and sedimentation control inspector Section 6 — INSPECTION AND MONITORING. This section provides a description of the inspection and monitoring requirements such as the parameters of concern to be monitored, sample locations, sample frequencies, and sampling methods for all stormwater discharge locations from the site. Section 7 — RECORDKEEPING. This section describes the requirements for documentation of the BMP implementation, site inspections, monitoring results, and changes to the implementation of certain BMPs due to site factors experienced during construction. Supporting documentation and standard forms are provided in the following Appendices: Appendix A — Site plans Appendix B — Construction BMPs Appendix C — Alternative Construction BMP list Appendix D — General Permit Appendix E — Site Log and Inspection Forms Appendix F — Engineering Calculations 'W1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2.0 Site Description 2.1 Existing Conditions The project site is currently an undeveloped grassed area just west of an existing parking lot. The surrounding properties are the Boeing Building 25-01 to the north, Oakesdale Avenue Southwest to the east, vacant land owned by Boeing to the south, and existing stormwater ponds and mitigated wetlands to the west. According to the City of Renton soils maps, the on-site soils consist of Puget Silty Clay Loam, also known as till soils. The site is located within the 100 -year floodplain per current adopted FIRM mapping. No regulated wetlands currently exist on site. The site is also located within a Seismic Hazard Area according to the City of Renton mapping. The project area drains to the north through an existing 12 -inch culvert to existing the stormwater detention ponds that were constructed as a part of the Boeing Company Surface Water Management Project in 1999. The site is within the Black River Basin, also a part of the Duwamish-Green watershed. 2.2 Proposed Construction Activities The proposed 2.21 acre project consists of construction of a permeable pavement parking lot with internal landscape islands a sidewalk and a swale. The site is located within the 100 -year floodplain per current adopted FIRM mapping. Compensatory storage will be provided to offset the impact to the floodplain. The developed site maintain the existing natural discharge locations. The parking lot expansion area will incorporate permeable paving, a Low Impact Development (LID) technique, is proposed to mitigate for the increased stormwater from new impervious surfaces constructed on site. The 8 -inch base will provide stormwater storage, while the stormwater infiltrates into the underlying soils. Surface runoff from the permeable pavement is not anticipated and will only occur in the event that the asphalt pores get clogged or a storm event that exceeds the 100 year model. The permeable pavement section has been modeled to infiltrate the entire 100 -year developed storm event. The parking area expansion will minimize impacts to the existing floodplain and will not reduce the effective storage volume within the floodplain. Construction activities will include site preparation, TESC installation, removal of existing paving, excavation for the pavement, site grading, and asphalt paving. The schedule and phasing of BMPs during construction is provided in Section 4.0. a.r 5tormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater runoff rates were calculated using the WWHM software. The temporary sedimentation pond that will be used during construction was designed using the 2 -year storm event since construction will not occur over a long time -frame (approximately three months). The following summarizes details regarding site areas: ■ Total site area: 2.21 acres ■ Percent impervious area before construction: 3% ■ Percent impervious area after construction: 97% ■ Disturbed area during construction: 2.21 acres ■ 2 -year stormwater runoff pear flow during construction for sediment pond sizing: 0.54 cfs All stormwater flow calculations are provided. in Appendix F. M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.0 Construction Stormwater BMPs 3.1 The 12 BMP Elements 3.1.1 Element #1— Mark Clearing Limits To protect adjacent properties and to reduce the area of soil exposed to construction, the limits of construction will be clearly marked before land -disturbing activities begin. Trees that are to be preserved, as well as all sensitive areas and their buffers, shall be clearly delineated, both in the field and on the plans. In general, natural vegetation and native topsoil shall be retained in an undisturbed state to the maximum extent possible. The BMPs relevant to marking the clearing limits that will be applied for this project include: High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP 0103) • Stake and Wire Fence (BMP C104) The clearing limits shall be flagged or fenced in the field. Alternate BMPs for marking clearing limits are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.2 Element #2 — Establish Construction Access Construction access or activities occurring on unpaved areas shall be minimized, yet where necessary, access points shall be stabilized to minimize the tracking of sediment onto public roads, and wheel washing, street sweeping, and street cleaning shall be employed to prevent sediment from entering state waters. All wash wastewater shall be controlled on site. The specific BMPs related to establishing construction access that will be used on this project include: • Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C105) This site is already developed and therefore most of the site is already paved. After some of the existing asphalt is removed, a temporary construction entrance can be installed to limit the sediment being tracked into the public right-of-way. Alternate construction access BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.3 Element 93 — Control Flow Rates In order to protect the properties and waterways downstream of the project site, stormwater discharges from the site will be controlled. The specific BMPs for flow control that shall be used on this project include: • Sediment Trap (BMP 0240) Alternate flow control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference too] for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the project must comply with Minimum Requirement 7 (Ecology 2005). In general, discharge rates of stormwater from the site will be controlled where increases in impervious area or soil compaction during construction could lead to downstream erosion, or where necessary to meet local agency stormwater discharge requirements (e.g. discharge to combined sewer systems). 3.1.4 Element #4 — Install Sediment Controls All stormwater runoff from disturbed areas shall pass through an appropriate sediment removal BMP before leaving the construction site or prior to being discharged to an infiltration facility. The specific BMPs to be used for controlling sediment on this project include: • Silt Fence (BMP C233) • Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP 0220) • Materials on Hand (BMP C150) may also be applicable Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Silt fence is to be installed onsite where the applicable. Runoff from the parking lot area will be routed through a sediment trap prior to being discharged to the onsite conveyance system. The adjacent parking lot catch basin inlets shall be protected from sediment with storm drain protection insert as shown in the erosion control plans. Alternate sediment control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. In addition, sediment will be removed from paved areas in and adjacent to construction work areas manually or using mechanical sweepers, as needed, to minimize track out of sediments on vehicle tires away from the site and to minimize washoffof sediments from adjacent streets in runoff. Whenever possible, sediment laden water shall be discharged into onsite, relatively level, vegetated areas (BMP 0240 paragraph 5, page 4-102). In some cases, sediment discharge in concentrated runoff can be controlled using permanent stormwater BMPs (e.g., infiltration swales, ponds, trenches). Sediment loads can limit the effectiveness of some permanent stormwater BMPs, such as those used for infiltration or biofiltration; however, those BMPs designed to remove solids by settling (wet ponds or detention ponds) can be used during the construction phase. When permanent stormwater BMPs will be used to control sediment discharge during construction, the structure will be protected from excessive sedimentation with adequate erosion and sediment control BMPs. Any accumulated sediment shall be removed after construction is complete and the permanent stormwater BMF will be restabilized with vegetation per applicable design requirements once the remainder of the site has been stabilized. The following BMPs will be implemented as end -of -pipe sediment controls as required to meet permitted turbidity limits in the site discharge(s). Prior to the implementation of these technologies, sediment sources and erosion control and soil stabilization BMP efforts will be maximized to reduce the need for end -of -pipe sedimentation controls. • Temporary Sediment Pond (BMF C24 1) ■ Construction Stormwater Filtration (BMP C251) Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment (BMP C 250) (implemented only with prior written approval from Ecology). M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.5 Element #5 — Stabilize Soils Exposed and unworked soils shall be stabilized with the application of effective BMPs to prevent erosion throughout the life of the project. The specific BMPs for soil stabilization that shall be used on this project include: • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C 120) Mulching (BMP C121) • Nets and Blankets (BMP C 122) Plastic Covering (BMP C123) 0 Topsoiling (BMP C 125) • Dust Control (BMP C140) • Early application of gravel base on areas to be paved All areas disturbed by construction activities shall be hydroseeded upon completion of grading activities or if they will be unworked for more than 2 days in the wet season or 7 days in the dry season. Landscaping, including topsoiling shall be installed after final grades have been reached in the landscape areas. Mulch shall be installed as necessary to stabilize soils. Stockpiles can be covered with plastic sheeting to prevent sediment from being transported to the storm system. The asphalt base course can be installed when the replaced pavement areas have reached the proposed grades. Alternate soil stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, no soils shall remain exposed and unworked for more than 7 days during the dry season (May 1 to September 30) and 2 days during the wet season (October 1 to April 30). Regardless of the time of year, all soils shall be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on weather forecasts. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan In general, cut and fill slopes will be stabilized as soon as possible and soil stockpiles will be temporarily covered with plastic sheeting. All stockpiled soils shall be stabilized from erosion, protected with sediment trapping measures, and where possible, be located away from storm drain inlets, waterways, and drainage channels. 3.1.6 Element #6 — Protect Slopes All cut and fill slopes will be designed, constructed, and protected in a manner that minimizes erosion. The following specific BMPs will be used to protect slopes for this project: • Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C120) All areas disturbed by construction activities shall be hydroseeded upon completion of grading activities or if they will be unworked for more than 2 days in the wet season or 7 days in the dry season. Mulching, nets or blankets can also be used to stabilize any slopes denuded during construction. Alternate slope protection BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. 3.1.7 Element #7 — Protect Drain Inlets All storm drain inlets and culverts made operable during construction shall be protected to prevent unfiltered or untreated water from entering the drainage conveyance system. However, the first priority is to keep all access roads clean of sediment and keep street wash water separate from entering storm drains until treatment can be provided. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMF C220) will be implemented for all drainage inlets and culverts that could potentially be impacted by sediment -laden runoff on and near the project site. The following inlet protection measures will be applied on this project: Drop Inlet Protection Excavated Drop Inlet Protection • Block and Gravel Drop Inlet Protection • Gravel and Wire Drop Inlet Protection M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Catch Basin Filters Alternative BMP not included in the SWMMWW (2005) or SWMMEW (2004) All onsite catch basins shall be fitted with storm drain inlet protection per the City of Kirkland standard detail CK -E.11 as shown on the erosion control plans. If the BMP options listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D), or if no BMPs are listed above but deemed necessary during construction, the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall implement one or more of the alternative BMP inlet protection options listed in Appendix C. 3.1.8 Element #8 — Stabilize Channels and Outlets Where site runoff is to be conveyed in channels, or discharged to a stream or some other natural drainage point, efforts will be taken to prevent downstream erosion. The specific BMPs for channel and outlet stabilization that shall be used on this project include: No BMPs to be implemented Alternate channel and outlet stabilization BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, all temporary on-site conveyance channels shall be designed, constructed, and stabilized to prevent erosion from the expected peak 10 minute velocity of flow from a Type 1A, 10 -year, 24-hour recurrence interval storm for the developed condition. Alternatively, the 10 -year, 1 -hour peak flow rate indicated by an approved continuous runoff simulation model, increased by a factor of 1.6, shall be used. Stabilization, including armoring material, adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent streambanks, slopes, and downstream reaches shall be provided at the outlets of all conveyance systems. 3.1.9 Element #9 — Control Pollutants All pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, that occur onsite shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not cause contamination of Stormwater. Good housekeeping and preventative measures will be taken to ensure that the site will be kept clean, 0 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan well organized, and free of debris. If required, BMPs to be implemented to control specific sources of pollutants are discussed below. Vehicles, construction equipment, and/or petroleum product storage/dispensing: ■ All vehicles, equipment, and petroleum product storage/dispensing areas will be inspected regularly to detect any leaks or spills, and to identify maintenance needs to prevent leaks or spills. ■ On-site fueling tanks and petroleum product storage containers shall include secondary containment. ■ Spill prevention measures, such as drip pans, will be used when conducting maintenance and repair of vehicles or equipment. ■ In order to perform emergency repairs on site, temporary plastic will be placed beneath and, if raining, over the vehicle. ■ Contaminated surfaces shall be cleaned immediately following any discharge or spill incident. Chemical storage: Any chemicals stored in the construction areas will conform to the appropriate source control BMPs listed in Volume IV of the Ecology stormwater manual. In Western WA, all chemicals shall have cover, containment, and protection provided on site, per BMP C I S 3 for Material Delivery, Storage and Containment in SWMMWW 2005 Application of agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides, shall be conducted in a manner and at application rates that will not result in loss of chemical to stormwater runoff. Manufacturers' recommendations for application procedures and rates shall be followed. Excavation and tunneling spoils dewatering waste: Demolition: Dewatering BMPs and BMPs specific to the excavation and tunneling (including handling of contaminated soils) are discussed under Element 10. Dust released from demolished sidewalks, buildings, or structures will be controlled using Dust Control measures (BMP C 140). Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Storm drain inlets vulnerable to stormwater discharge carrying dust, soil, or debris will be protected using Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220 as described above for Element 7). Process water and slurry resulting from sawcutting and surfacing operations will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention measures (BMF C 152). Concrete and grout: ■ Process water and slurry resulting from concrete work will be prevented from entering the waters of the State by implementing Concrete Handling measures (BMP C151). Sanitary wastewater: Solid Waste: Other: Portable sanitation facilities will be firmly secured, regularly maintained, and emptied when necessary. Wheel wash or tire bath wastewater shall be discharged to a separate on- site treatment system or to the sanitary sewer as part of Wheel Wash implementation (BMP C106). Solid waste will be stored in secure, clearly marked containers. Other BMPs will be administered as necessary to address any additional pollutant sources on site. The facility is transportation -related and therefore not subject to the Federal requirements of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan under the Clean Water Act (CWA). If applicable, the Contractor shall prepare an SPCC Plan according to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Requirements (see the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction 2004). As per the Federal regulations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and according to Final Rule 40 CFR Part 112, as stated in the National Register, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan is required for construction activities. A SPCC Plan has been prepared to address an approach to prevent, respond to, and report spills or releases to the environment that could result from construction activities. This Plan must: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ■ Be well thought out in accordance with good engineering; ■ Achieve three objectives - prevent spills, contain a spill that occurs, and clean up the spill; ■ Identify the name, location, owner, and type of facility; ■ Include the date of initial operation and oil spill history; ■ Name the designated person responsible; ■ Show evidence of approval and certification by the person in authority; and ■ Contain a facility analysis. 3.1.10 Element #10 — Control Dewatering All dewatering water from open cut excavation, tunneling, foundation work, trench, or underground vaults shall be discharged into a controlled conveyance system prior to discharge to a sediment trap or sediment pond. Channels will be stabilized, per Element #S. Clean, non - turbid dewatering water will not be routed through stormwater sediment ponds, and will be discharged to systems tributary to the receiving waters of the State in a manner that does not cause erosion, flooding, or a violation of State water quality standards in the receiving water. Highly turbid dewatering water from soils known or suspected to be contaminated, or from use of construction equipment, will require additional monitoring and treatment as required for the specific pollutants based on the receiving waters into which the discharge is occurring. Such monitoring is the responsibility of the contractor. However, the dewatering of soils known to be free of contamination will trigger BMPs to trap sediment and reduce turbidity. At a minimum, geotextile fabric socks/bags/cells will be used to filter this material. Other BMPs to be used for sediment trapping and turbidity reduction include the following: Concrete Handling (BMP C 15 1) Alternate dewatering control BMPs are included in Appendix C as a quick reference tool for the onsite inspector in the event the BMP(s) listed above are deemed ineffective or inappropriate during construction to satisfy the requirements set forth in the General NPDES Permit (Appendix D). To avoid potential erosion and sediment control issues that may cause a violation(s) of the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit (as provided in Appendix D), the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead will promptly initiate the implementation of one or more of the alternative BMPs listed in Appendix C after the first sign that existing BMPs are ineffective or failing. M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.1.11 Element #11 — Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMP's specifications. Visual monitoring of the BMPs will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any rainfall event that causes a discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive, and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency will be reduced to once every month. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after the final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be removed or stabilized on site. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. 3.1.12 Element #12 — Manage the Project Erosion and sediment control BMPs for this project have been designed based on the following principles: ■ Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns. ■ Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control. ■ Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed. ■ Keep runoff velocities low. ■ Retain sediment on site. ■ Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures. ■ Schedule major earthwork during the dry season. In addition, project management will incorporate the key components listed below: As this project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest, the project will be managed according to the following key project components: Phasing of Construction The construction project is being phased to the extent practicable in order to prevent soil erosion, and, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the site during construction. r -l 5tormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Revegetation of exposed areas and maintenance of that vegetation shall be an integral part of the clearing activities during each phase of construction, per the Scheduling BMP (C 162). Seasonal Work Limitations • From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities shall only be permitted if shown to the satisfaction of the local permitting authority that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the site through a combination of the following: ❑ Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to receiving waters; and ❑ Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and ❑ Proposed erosion and sediment control measures. Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the local permitting authority may expand or restrict the seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing and grading limitations: ❑ Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs; ❑ Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil; and ❑ Activities where there is 100 percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities. Coordination with Utilities and Other Jurisdictions • Care has been taken to coordinate with utilities, other construction projects, and the local jurisdiction in preparing this SWPPP and scheduling the construction work. M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Inspection and Monitoring All BMPs shall be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Site inspections shall be conducted by a person who is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person has the necessary skills to: ❑ Assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of stormwater, and ❑ Assess the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the quality of stormwater discharges. A Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead shall be on-site or on-call at all times. Whenever inspection and/or monitoring reveals that the BMPs identified in this SWPPP are inadequate, due to the actual discharge of or potential to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMPs or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. Maintaining an Updated Construction SWPPP This SWPPP shall be retained on-site or within reasonable access to the site. The SWPPP shall be modified whenever there is a change in the design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. The SWPPP shall be modified if, during inspections or investigations conducted by the owner/operator, or the applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. The SWPPP shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP shall be completed within seven (7) days following the inspection. M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 3.2 Site Specific BMPs Site specific BMPs are shown on the TESC Plan Sheets and Details in Appendix A. These site specific plan sheets will be updated annually. 3.3 Additional Advanced BMPs No additional BMPs are proposed. m Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan 4.0 Construction Phasing and BMP Implementation The BMP implementation schedule will be driven by the construction schedule. The following provides a sequential list of the proposed construction schedule milestones and the corresponding BMP implementation schedule. The list contains key milestones such as wet season construction. The BMP implementation schedule listed below is keyed to proposed phases of the construction project, and reflects differences in BMP installations and inspections that relate to wet season construction. The project site is located west of the Cascade Mountain Crest. As such, the dry season is considered to be from May 1 to September 34 and the wet season is considered to be from October 1 to April 30. ■ Estimate of Construction start date: May 2014 ■ Estimate of Construction finish date: July 2014 ■ Mobilize equipment on site: 5/5/14 ■ Mobilize and store all ESC and soil stabilization products: 5/5/14 ■ Install ESC measures: 5/6/14 ■ Install stabilized construction entrance: 5/6/14 ■ Begin clearing and grubbing: 5n1l4 ■ Excavation for parking lot and sidewalk 5/9/14 ■ Install base course (pavement and sidewalk) 5/19/14 ■ Begin concrete pour/permeable asphalt) 5/21/14 ■ Site grading ends 6/2/14 ■ Final landscaping and planting 6/9/14 ■ Final paving 6/16/14 ■ Final stabilization/Remove TESC measures 6/30/14 0 5tormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.0 Pollution Prevention Team 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities The pollution prevention team consists of personnel responsible for implementation of the SWPPP, including the following: ■ Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) — primary contractor contact, responsible for site inspections (BMPs, visual monitoring, sampling, etc.); to be called upon in case of failure of any ■ ESC measures. ■ Resident Engineer — For projects with engineered structures only (sediment ponds/traps, sand filters, etc.): site representative for the owner that is the project's supervising engineer responsible for inspections and issuing instructions and drawings to the contractor's site supervisor or representative ■ Emergency Ecology Contact — individual to be contacted at Ecology in case of emergency. Go to the following website to get the name and number for the Ecology contact information: htLtp://www.ecy.wa.ov/org.htmi. v/erg. ■ Emergency Owner Contact -- individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner to be contacted in the case of an emergency. ■ Non -Emergency Ecology Contact — individual that is the site owner or representative of the site owner than can be contacted if required. ■ Monitoring Personnel personnel responsible for conducting water quality monitoring; for most sites this person is also the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead. NJ 5tormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 5.2 Team Members Names and contact information for those identified as members of the pollution prevention team are provided in the following table. Title Name(s) Phone Number Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) TBD TBD Resident Engineer Dean A. Furr, P -E. 206-623-0717 Emergency Ecology Contact Northwest Regional Office ERTS Hotline 425-649-7000 Emergency Owner Contact David Keneddy 206-544-8356 Non -Emergency Ecology Contact Clay Keown 360-407-0048 Monitoring Personnel TBD -- r Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.0 Site Inspections and Monitoring Monitoring includes visual inspection, monitoring for water quality parameters of concern, and documentation of the inspection and monitoring findings in a site log book. A site log book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; • Site inspections; and, Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. This SWPPP may function as the site log book if desired, or the forms may be separated and included in a separate site log book. However, if separated, the site log book but must be maintained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.1 Site Inspection All BMPs will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. The inspector will be a Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) per BMP C 160. The name and contact information for the CESCL is provided in Section 5 of this SWPPP. Site inspection will occur in all areas disturbed by construction activities and at all stormwater discharge points. Stormwater will be examined for the presence of suspended sediment, turbidity, discoloration, and oily sheen. The site inspector will evaluate and document the effectiveness of the installed BMPs and determine if it is necessary to repair or replace any of the BMPs to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. All maintenance and repairs will be documented in the site log book or forms provided in this document. All new BMPs or design changes will be documented in the SWPPP as soon as possible. 6.1.1 Site Inspection Frequency Site inspections will be conducted at least once a week and within 24 hours following any discharge firom the site. For sites with temporary stabilization measures, the site inspection frequency can be reduced to once every month if the site operator has successfully applied for inactive status for the site using the Permit Fee Activity Status Change Form, which can be found at the following web site. http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/wq_/pertnits/permit fees/ConstructionActivity5tatusChanUFor m.pdf VQ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6.1.2 Site Inspection Documentation The site inspector will record each site inspection using the site log inspection forms provided in Appendix E. The site inspection log forms may be separated from this SWPPP document, but will be maintained on-site or within reasonable access to the site and be made available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 6.2 Stormwater Quality Monitoring 6.2.1 Turbidity Sampling Monitoring requirements for the proposed project will include either turbidity or water transparency sampling to monitor site discharges for water quality compliance with the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). Sampling will be conducted at all discharge points at least once per calendar week. Turbidity or transparency monitoring will follow the analytical methodologies described in Section S4 of the 2005 Construction Stormwater General Permit (Appendix D). The key benchmark values that require action are 25 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) and 250 NTU for turbidity (equivalent to 6 cm transparency). If the 25 NTU benchmark for turbidity (equivalent to 32 cm transparency) is exceeded, the following steps will be conducted: Ensure all BMPs specified in this SWPPP are installed and functioning as intended. 2. Assess whether additional BMPs should be implemented, and document revisions to the SWPPP as necessary. 3. Sample discharge location daily until the analysis results are less than 25 NTU (turbidity) or greater than 32 cm (transparency). If the turbidity is greater than 25 NTU (or transparency is less than 32 cm) but less than 250 NTU (transparency greater than 6 cm) for more than 3 days, additional treatment BMPs will be implemented within 24 hours of the third consecutive sample that exceeded the benchmark value. Additional treatment BMPs to be considered will include, but are not limited to, off-site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment. If the 250 NTU benchmark for turbidity (or less than 6 cm transparency) is exceeded at any time, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Notify Ecology by phone within 24 hours of analysis (see Section 5.0 of this SWPPP for contact information). M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 2. Continue daily sampling until the turbidity is less than 25 NTU (or transparency is greater than 32 cm). 3. Initiate additional treatment BMPs such as off-site treatment, infiltration, filtration and chemical treatment within 24 hours of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 4. Implement additional treatment BMPs as soon as possible, but within 7 days of the first 250 NTU exceedance. 5. Describe inspection results and remedial actions taken in the site log book and in monthly discharge monitoring reports as described in Section 7.0 of this SWPPP. 6.2.2 pH Sampling Stormwater runoff will be monitored for pH starting on the first day of any activity that includes more than 40 yards of poured or recycled concrete, or after the application of "Engineered Soils" such as, Portland cement treated base, cement kiln dust, or fly ash. This does not include fertilizers. For concrete work, pH monitoring will start the first day concrete is poured and continue until 3 weeks after the last pour. For engineered soils, the pH monitoring period begins when engineered soils are first exposed to precipitation and continue until the area is fully stabilized. Stormwater samples will be collected daily from all points of discharge from the site and measured for pH using a calibrated pH meter, pH test kit, or wide range pH indicator paper. If the measured pH is 8.5 or greater, the following steps will be conducted: 1. Prevent the high pH water from entering storm drains or surface water. 2. Adjust or neutralize the high pH water if necessary using appropriate technology such as CO2 sparging (liquid or dry ice). 3. Contact Ecology if chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging is planned. M Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.0 Reporting and Recordkeeping 7.1 Recordkeeping 7.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements; Site inspections; and, Stormwater quality monitoring. For convenience, the inspection form and water quality monitoring forms included in this SWPPP include the required information for the site log book. 7.1.2 Records Retention Records of all monitoring information (site log book, inspection reports/checklists, etc.), this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and any other documentation of compliance with permit requirements will be retained during the life of the construction project and for a minimum of three years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with permit condition S5.C. 7.1.3 Access to Plans and Records The SWPPP, General Permit, Notice of Authorization letter, and Site Log Book will be retained on site or within reasonable access to the site and will be made immediately available upon request to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. A copy of this SWPPP will be provided to Ecology within 14 days of receipt of a written request for the SWPPP from Ecology. Any other information requested by Ecology will be submitted within a reasonable time. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with permit condition S5.G. 7.1.4 Updating the SWPPP In accordance with Conditions S3, S4.B, and S9.B.3 of the General Permit, this SWPPP will be modified if the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site or there has been a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the site that has a significant effect on the discharge, or potential for discharge, of pollutants to the waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven days of determination based on inspection(s) that additional or modified BMPs are necessary to correct problems identified, and an updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 0 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 7.2 Reporting 7.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports If cumulative soil disturbance is 5 acres or larger: Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) will be submitted to Ecology monthly. If there was no discharge during a given monitoring period, the Permittee shall submit the form as required, with the words "No discharge" entered in the place of monitoring results. The DMR due date is 15 days following the end of each month. 7.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the terms and conditions of the permit are not met, and it causes a threat to human health or the environment, the following steps will be taken in accordance with permit section 55.17: Ecology will be immediately notified of the failure to comply. 2. Immediate action will be taken to control the noncompliance issue and to correct the problem. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. 7.2.3 Permit Application and Changes In accordance with permit condition S2.A, a complete application form will be submitted to Ecology and the appropriate local jurisdiction to be covered by the General Permit. W Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix A — Site Plans w m�'aSy �-5-- i�in tic- o�rr'm�Zy - a��R tirs5?�Y riff %gc cn- - ^-''..p-n�sJAn Ln a a < a,3�.T 88 �._MF ABx 8 m ,A�8�8; � X88 e j, gcmgna ��oga a�o R'" Ni 0-S Y z `g�"��_ �r� z fio� �z ^_ an °3 s zo"no m r,g� �^g�a�e gang =A =op__�� -$W �n =>Nga gso°°� a z 0 CD��� yg om��@=�'m �o � � -� �€ �-� 29 €�,_�,'n€"'��$• R � O grm z� ��f - �A�� � �mA o g w 3= "�3 o m N� - 3a��€ � ➢des o9�g4g CZi� esSU�a� zm m gayg gCIFam -g Sao _� Ag R�i ISM A2 1 r c o �gvrwV9-32-?i .`�� . 2J1� VA 9- 32 �z un � o 9 F'4o $ m 90 m Q eA Nga ' Ln Ws a �m a g m� ate g = ow�g o g 12 S =,A m ng8�o �o>;gym -"-n g= ora" gF=maIag z € Aga ��a o y� =s w➢ LS 52 "''oEL oao o; ������oY➢o yaZ2 R ;4g o 5R x oN x a Ro maw 9 o a a� o ahH :s_ € o° W Ln $jam=R �ei3mp� R-�"»sgma��'�, iS�^pi -X ^ t,g Z �A^���mVpa WAao :r,rvPr ..� �--. j„t �S•-ray $R -� ��, ..,� r9 �Ay,� �x3o���� C7 vmg�oAm a 52m9M 9 Qsogmm€=maxo_c_ 8�m- g5 -.j4% o,pm�m o9a�a83m- ==� � € ma 4. W ➢� �; ogo om G a� ��s= ��^�=�$pg69 = _.a �5 =o�� €9�g" sa^oila � a g�c z -"3-_ mo m��N ,P. Has �� m � _� = 09{ � �oa�om o 0 0 =3�"$a�� Am a m N �xFR �m goa �� € mS' $=a ay m '�= ma3 §� gsm ms ��� r, �➢=m�a� ����f�" ^r xm� A�=€Rg_or, g =go��- ; m2, a � �m�°= U- Flog _ ^,� � a om `�A a z �ro��� �9T yin o�� s� a ��r$ As x o � A`e sS �my m " fir„ y H �o S HUCD Z o w n ami _ n F fl;sa ra h aa.am; m a ro o 01. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix B — Construction BMPs High Visibility Plastic or Metal Fence (BMP C 103) Stake and Wire Fence (BMP C104) Stabilized Construction Entrance (BMP C 105) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Detention Pond or Vault Silt Fence (BMP C233) Straw Wattles (BMP C235) Sediment Trap (BMP C240) Storm Drain Inlet Protection (BMP C220) Materials on Hand (BMP C 15 0) may also be applicable Detention Pond Or Vault Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP 0120) Mulching (BMP C121) Nets and Blankets (BMP C 122) Plastic Covering (BMP C123) Topsoiling (BMP C125) Dust Control (BMP C140) Early application of gravel base on areas to be paved Temporary and Permanent Seeding (BMP C 120) Interceptor Dike and Swale (BMP C200) mi Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix C — Alternative BMPs The following includes a list of possible alternative BMPs for each of the 12 elements not described in the main SWPPP text. This list can be referenced in the event a BMP for a specific element is not functioning as designed and an alternative BMP needs to be implemented. Element #1 - Mark Clearing Limits BMP C 101: Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C 102: Buffer Zones Element #2 - Establish Construction Access BMP C106: Wheel Wash BMP C 107: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization Element #3 - Control Flow Rates BMP C241: Temporary Sediment Pond Element #4 - Install Sediment Controls BMP C230: Straw Bale Barrier BMP C231: Brush Barrier BMP C232: Gravel Filter Berm BMP C234: Vegetated Strip BMP C235: Straw Wattles Element #5 - Stabilize Soils BMP C126: Polyacrylamide for Soil Erosion Protection BMP C124: Sodding Element #6 - Protect Slopes BMP C 130: Surface Roughening BMP C 131: Gradient Terraces BMP C206: Level Spreader BMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C203: Water Bars BMP C204: Pipe Slope Drains BMP C205: Subsurface Drains Element #S - Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP C201: Grass -Lined Channels BMP C202: Channel Lining BMP C207: Check Dams BMP C208: Triangular Silt Dike (Geotextile-Encased Check Dam) BMP C209: Outlet Protection W Element #9 — Control Pollutants BMP C153. Material Delivery, Storage and Containment Element #10 - Control Dewatering BMP C 152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention Additional Advanced BMPs to Control Dewatering: BMP C250: Construction Stormwater Chemical Treatment BMP C251: Construction Stormwater Filtration Element #12 — Manage the Project BMP C160: Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead BMP C 162: Scheduling w Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Storm r Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix D — General Permit Storm r Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix E — Site Inspection Forms (and Site Log) The results of each inspection shall be summarized in an inspection report or checklist that is entered into or attached to the site log book. It is suggested that the inspection report or checklist be included in this appendix to keep monitoring and inspection information in one document, but this is optional. However, it is mandatory that this SWPPP and the site inspection forms be kept onsite at all times during construction, and that inspections be performed and documented as outlined below. At a minimum, each inspection report or checklist shall include: a. Inspection date/times b. Weather information: general conditions during inspection, approximate amount of precipitation since the last inspection, and approximate amount of precipitation within the last 24 hours. C. A summary or list of all BMPs that have been implemented, including observations of all erosion/sediment control structures or practices. d. The following shall be noted: i. locations of BMPs inspected, ii. locations of BMPs that need maintenance, iii. the reason maintenance is needed, iv. locations of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or intended, and v. locations where additional or different BMPs are needed, and the reason(s) why e. A description of stormwater discharged from the site. The presence of suspended sediment, turbid water, discoloration, and/or oil sheen shall be noted, as applicable. f. A description of any water quality monitoring performed during inspection, and the results of that monitoring. g. General comments and notes, including a brief description of any BMP repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. h. A statement that, in the judgment of the person conducting the site inspection, the site is either in compliance or out of compliance with the terms and conditions of the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. If the site inspection indicates that the site is out of compliance, the inspection report shall include a summary of the 0 Stormi rPollution Prevention Plan remedial actions required to bring the site back into compliance, as well as a schedule of implementation. i. Name, title, and signature of person conducting the site inspection; and the following statement: "I certify under penalty of law that this report is true, accurate, and complete, to the best of my knowledge and belief'. When the site inspection indicates that the site is not in compliance with any terms and conditions of the NPDES permit, the Permittee shall take immediate action(s) to: stop, contain, and clean up the unauthorized discharges, or otherwise stop the noncompliance; correct the problem(s); implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), and/or conduct maintenance of existing BMPs; and achieve compliance with all applicable standards and permit conditions. In addition, if the noncompliance causes a threat to human health or the environment, the Permittee shall comply with the Noncompliance Notification requirements in Special Condition S5.F of the permit. Stormi r Pollution Prevention Plan Site Inspection Form General Information Project Name: Fred Meyer Fuel Facility, Kirkland, WA Inspector Name: Title: CESCL #: Date: Time: Inspection Type: ❑ After a rain event ❑ Weekly ❑ Turbidity/transparency benchmark exceedance ❑ Other Weather Precipitation Since last inspection In last 24 hours Description of General Site Conditions: Inspection of BMPs Element 1: Mark Clearing Limits BMP: Temporary Fencing Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y 7N NIP BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Y N Y —NJ NIP Element 2 Establish Construction Access BMP: Stabilized Construction Entrance Location Inspected Functioning YFY— NNIP BMP: Problem/Corrective Action Problern/Corrective Action Inspected Functioning Location Y N Y N Nip Problem/Corrective Action ■■ Element 3: Control Flow Rates BMP: Sediment Trap Location Inspected Functioning Y N Y 7N NIP BMP: Existing Detention Vault Location Inspected Functioning Y N Y N NIP Element 4: Install Sediment Controls BMP: Silt Fence Location Inspected Y N Location Inspected Y N Element 5: Stabilize Soils BMP: Seeding/Mulching Location Inspected Y N Functioning FY --N NIP Functioning Y 7N NIP Functioning Y N NIP Storm r Pollution Prevention Plan Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Inspected Functioning Location Y N Y N NIP Problem/Corrective Action BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N I YIN NIP M Element 6: Protect Slopes BMP: Storms r Pollution Prevention Plan Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Y N Y N NIP Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets BMP: Storm Drain Protection Insert Inspected Functioning Location Y N Y N NIP BMP: Location Inspected Functioning Y N FY—7N NIP Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets BMP: Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Location Inspected Functioning Problem/Corrective Action Y N Y N NIP Element 9: Control Pollutants BMP: Materials on Hand Location Inspected Functioning Y N Y 7N NIP Problem/Corrective Action Location Inspected Functioning Y N Y N NIP Element 10: Control Dewatering BMP: Concrete Handling Location Inspected Functioning Y N FTY7N NIP Al2 Location Inspected Functioning Y N F Y 7N NIP M Storni r Pollution Prevention Plan Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Problem/Corrective Action Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen Location Turbidity Discoloration Sheen M Storms r Pollution Prevention Plan Stormwater Discharges From the Site Observed? Problem/Corrective Action Y7NN Storm r Pollution Prevention Plan Water Quality Monitoring Was any water quality monitoring conducted? ❑ Yes ❑ No If water quality monitoring was conducted, record results here: If water quality monitoring indicated turbidity 250 NTU or greater; or transparency 6 cm or less, was Ecology notified by phone within 24 hrs? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Ecology was notified, indicate the date, time, contact name and phone number below: Date: Time: Contact Name: Phone #: General Comments and Notes Include BMP repairs, maintenance or installations made as a result of the inspection. Were Photos Taken? ❑ Yes ❑ No If photos taken describe photos below: M Storm r Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix F — Engineering Calculations I� IIIIIIIII Geotechnical Engineering Services Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Addition Boeing Longacres Park Renton, Washington File No. 01.20-280-00 November 15, 2013 Prepared for: The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, Washington 981242207 Attention: Martin Probst, David Kennedy Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. Plaza 600 Building 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98101 206.728.2674 Timothy D. Bailey, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Bo McFadden, PE, LEG Principal HRP,MB:JJM:Ieh Ira �11 5 a cc: Donald Scarberry, PE, Coffman Engineers, Inc. (one copy sent by email) Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile OF hard ropy of the original document (email, te)t, table, and/or figure), If provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stared by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyrighto 2013 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. GWENGINEERS� INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................................1 SCOPE OF SERVICES.................................................................................................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING...............................................................................2 FieldExplorations...................................................................................................................................2 LaboratoryTesting................................................................................................................................. 2 SITE CONDITIONS................................................................ ........................ 2 SurfaceConditions................................................................................................................................. 2 SubsurfaceConditions..........................................................................................................................3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ ....3 General...................................................................................................................................................3 Site Preparation and Earthwork..................................................................................... ..................3 Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation........................................................................................................ 5 Pavements.............................................................................................................................................. 7 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services...............................................................................8 LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................................................a LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs Figure A-2 through A-9 - Logs of Test Pits Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use GEOENGINEERS� November 15, 2013 Page i File No. 0120-28000 BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOT "-FTION Renton, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our design phase geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Addition project at the Boeing Longacres Park facility in Renton, Washington. The project site is located with respect to surrounding features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The parking lot addition area is located southwest of Building 25-20 and west of an existing parking lot, as shown in Figure 2, Site Plan. We prepared a draft version of this report dated November 1, 2013; this report incorporates and supersedes the draft report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the Boeing Company is planning an addition to the west of the existing parking lot, in the former track area of the Longacres race track. The addition area will be about 125 feet wide (west -east) by 425 feet long (north -south). The parking lot addition will be used primarily by light passenger vehicles belonging to Boeing employees. It will be accessed by driveways from the north and south. Grading for the parking lot addition will either slope down to the middle of the addition or will slope down to the west. We understand that grading restrictions apply to the area due to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps, so the project is being designed to result in no net fill in the mapped floodplain area. We understand the parking lot addition will be designed with permeable pavement and a permeable subbase with the intent of eliminating the need for stormwater detention facilities. The permeable asphalt pavement section will consist of a top course, a choker course, and a coarse aggregate base course, overlying scarified existing subgrade. A filter fabric will be placed over the subgrade prior to placement of the pavement section and we understand the team is also considering placing a geogrid above the filter fabric to provide additional strength and stability for the pavement section. A stormwater overflow and treatment ditch will be provided west of the addition area, as shown in Figure 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical design phase services was to evaluate the near -surface soil and groundwater conditions as a basis for providing geotechnical design recommendations for the parking lot addition. our specific scope of services included the following tasks: 1. Review logs of previous explorations in the vicinity of Building 25-20 and discuss the information with the project team. 2. Complete a site visit to mark test pit locations and coordinate equipment access. 3. Locate and clear existing utilities. We contacted the Washington Utilities Coordinating Council, One Call Service, before beginning our explorations. We also arranged for the exploration locations to be cleared by a private utility locating service, and we coordinated with Boeing to identify known utilities in the area. GEOENGINEERS rd) F-1 November 15, 2013 Pagel File No. 111211-280-08 BOEING 25.20 PARKING L 'MON Renton, Washington 4. Explore soil and groundwater conditions within the area of the proposed parking lot addition by completing eight test pits to depths of 2 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface with a small track -mounted excavator. 5. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the subsurface soils based on laboratory tests performed on samples obtained from the test pits. The laboratory tests included moisture content, percent fines, organic content, and cation exchange capacity (CEC) tests. We used the percent fines test results to provide correlations with infiltration rates across the site. 6. Develop recommendations for design of the subgrade support for the permeable asphalt pavement, as well as recommendations for earthwork. 7. Summarize our conclusions and recommendations in a geotechnical report, together with supporting subsurface information. 8. Maintain communication and coordination with the project team (Boeing and Coffman Engineers). We understand GeoEngineers will provide construction observation services for this project in the future. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations We evaluated subsurface conditions in the parking lot addition area by excavating eight test pits (TP -1 through TP -8) to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 8 feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A detailed description of the field exploration program is presented in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples collected from the test pits were transported to our Redmond laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil types encountered. We selected representative samples for geotechnical laboratory tests including moisture content determinations, percent fines (particles passing the US No. 200 sieve), organic content, and CEC tests. The CEC tests were completed by AgSource Laboratories under subcontract to GeoEngineers. Appendix B presents a description of the laboratory testing and the test results. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project site is located southwest of Boeing Building 25-20 and west of an existing paved parking lot for the building in Renton, Washington. Figure 1, Vicinity Map, shows the general location of the site. Figure 2, Site Plan, shows the project site in relation to existing features. Page 2 November 15, 2013 GeoEngineers, Inc. File Na 4120280-04 M BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOTA— TION Renton, Washington The site of the proposed parking lot addition is nearly level, with site grades generally ranging from about Elevation 13 to 16 feet. (Elevations in this report refer to the datum used in the base survey map provided by Coffman Engineers and shown on Figure 2.) A shallow swale exists in the northern portion of the site. Vegetation across the site consists of brush and tall grass. A row of deciduous trees lines the east side of the site. A paved road extends along the west side of the site and leads to a helicopter pad near the northeast corner of the site. Subsurface Conditions Based on the results of the explorations, the near -surface soil conditions generally consist of the following: ■ Sod and Topsoil: Approximately 6 inches of sod and topsoil was observed at the ground surface in the test pits. ■ Alluvial Deposits: Alluvial deposits were encountered below the sod and topsoil. The alluvial deposits include layers of sandy slit, silty sand, sand with silt, and sand. The near -surface alluvial soils consist of a layer of stiff silt and medium dense silty fine sand that extends to a depth of about 2 feet below the ground surface (bgs) in the test pits. The silt and silty sand layer is underlain by loose to medium dense silty sand that extends to depths of about 5V2 to 6 feet bgs. At greater depths, the alluvial soils consist of loose sand and sand with silt. Caving of the test pit sidewalls occurred during excavation of test pits TP -2 through TP -6, which is an indication of the loose condition of these soils. Groundwater seepage was observed in several of the test pits at depths ranging from 6;/2 to 7Y2 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater conditions observed during the time the test pits were open represent a short term conditions and may or may not be representative of the longterm groundwater conditions at this site. We anticipate that groundwater levels at the site will fluctuate on a seasonal basis in response to precipitation and level of the Green River, which is about 1/2 mile west of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of the subsurface explorations, previous experience on similar projects in the vicinity, and our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the parking lot addition can be satisfactorily designed and constructed as planned. The following sections present our conclusions and recommendations for various geotechnical elements of the project. Site Preparation and Earthwork General The site soils contain a significant percentage of silt and are therefore moisture sensitive. It will be difficult to properly compact or operate equipment on these soils when they are wet. Accordingly, we recommend that site preparation, earthwork and paving activities generally be planned for the GEoENGINEERS November 15, 2013 Page3 File No. 0120-280-00 BOEING 25-20 PARKING L, BION Renton, Washington normally drier late summer to early fall months so that difficulties and costs associated with these activities may be reduced. However, construction during the normally wet season is feasible for this site provided that proper attention is given to erosion and sediment control, subgrade preparation, and suitability and compaction of fill soils. Eroslon and Sedimentation Control Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing and weather. Implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan will reduce project impacts on erosion -prone areas. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable City of Renton standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles including: ■ Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; ■ Retaining existing vegetation whenever feasible; ■ Revegetating or mulching denuded areas; ■ Directing runoff away from denuded areas; ■ Minimizing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; ■ Decreasing runoff velocities; ■ Protecting existing stormwater catch basins; ■ Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff; ■ Confining sediment to the project site; and ■ Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently. In addition, we recommend that slope surfaces in exposed or disturbed soil be restored so that surface runoff does not become channeled. Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce the potential for erosion and to reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas and receiving waters. Temporary erosion protection should include the construction of a silt fence around the perimeter of the work area prior to commencing grading activities. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by re-establishing native vegetation using hydroseeding or planting and by prompt paving of the parking lot addition area. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and to repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Page 4 November 15, 2013 GeoEngineers, inc. File No. 0120-280-00 M BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOT ""TION Renton, Washington Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation and tree roots larger than 2 inches in diameter and stumps should be removed from new pavement areas. We recommend the existing vegetation be mowed and then left in place, in order to protect the infiltration capacity of the existing subgrade soils. It may be necessary to remove existing asphalt concrete pavement along the perimeter of the parking lot addition area. Depressions/excavations that result from removal of vegetation and existing pavement should be cleaned of loose soil and filled with properly compacted structural fill. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade in the new pavement area should be evaluated prior to placing the pavement section. The subgrade should be observed and probed by a representative of our firm to evaluate if there are localized areas of soft soils that need to be replaced. These soft areas should be excavated to firm soil or to a depth of 2 feet, whichever is less, and replaced with compacted structural fill. A geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent) should be placed over the exposed subgrade to provide separation between the pavement section and the subgrade soil, and to reduce the potential for loss of pavement section fill into the subgrade, particularly if wet conditions occur. The existing subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and left uncompacted prior to placement of structural fill, in order to protect the infiltration capacity of the soils. Excavation Considerations Stiff and loose to medium dense alluvial soils were encountered in our test pit explorations. We anticipate these deposits may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. Open excavations into which personnel must enter should be sloped back in accordance with the following recommendations. We recommend that temporary slopes have an inclination of 1.5HAV (horizontal to vertical) or flatter for excavations that are 4 feet or greater in depth. Temporary out slopes may need to be inclined flatter by the contractor if significant caving/sloughing or groundwater seepage occurs. Where open cuts are not feasible or practical, trench boxes or temporary shoring should be used to support near vertical sides. Surface water should be diverted away from the excavations. The contractor should follow all safety requirements of federal, state and local agencies when excavating slopes and trenches, including the use of trench boxes and shoring. In addition, the contractor should be responsible for maintaining support of adjacent facilities during trenching operations so they are not damaged. Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation Empirical Correlations Two methods were used to evaluate an appropriate design (long term) infiltration rate for the existing soil encountered in our test pit explorations. The two methods consist of correlations GEoENGINEER5 November 15, 2013 Page 5 rile No. 0120-280-00 0 BOEING 25-20 PARKING U MON Renton, Washington based on United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification and ASTM laboratory gradation testing, as discussed in Section 3.3.6 of the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW), (2005). Table 1 presents a summary of the estimated infiltration rates based on the two methods. Groundwater conditions at the site are summarized in the "Subsurface Conditions" section of this report. TABLE 1. ESTIMATED INFILTRATION RATES FROM CORRELATIONS Esme of LanjF1rw1N WAltirstilm Raft Depth UIIIDA Tsxtrara# � {hlropr) Exploration Term (feet) Class {In�ser�/h�urj USDA ASTM TP -2 V2 silt loam 0.5 <0.25 < 0.8 (0.2 to 2)2 TP -2 7 sand 8 2.0 1 (0.2 to 2)2 1 TP -3 5112 sand 8 2.0 (0.2 to 2)2 TP -4 51/2 sand 8 2.0 1 (0.2 to 2)2 TP -6 7% sand 8 2.0 1 (0.2 to 2)2 TP -7 1/2 sandy loam 1 0.25 < 0.8 (0.2 to 2)2 Notes: 1 Infiltration rates shown for two different methodologies per DOE simplified procedure. These values incorporate a correction factor as described in volume I11, chapter 3 of the SWMWW. 2 Recommend using 0.5 in/hr. (range dependent on influent control, long-term maintenance, soil layering, and groundwater separation). After Massmann, et al. (2003), A Design Manual for sizing Infiltration Ponds. Based on the USDA textural and the ASTM Gradation methods of evaluating approximate design (long-term) infiltration rates, the near -surface on-site soils are generally suitable for slow to moderate stormwater infiltration. We recommend a long-term design infiltration rate of 0.25 inches per hour, considering the fact that the existing low permeability soils near the ground surface will not be removed during construction. It is our opinion the infiltration rate of the proposed pavement section is much higher than for the existing soils. We submitted three samples of the native soils to measure the cation exchange capacity (CEC) for evaluating the suitability of the native soils for water quality treatment. The SMMWW requires that for soils to be chemically suitable for treatment, the "treatment soils" must have a minimum CEC of 5 milliequivalents (meq) per 100 grams of material. The three submitted samples exceeded this threshold. Page 6 November 15, 2013 GeoEngineers, Inc. He No. 0120-28000 BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOT "—MON Renton, Washington Pavements Subgrade Preparation We recommend the subgrade soils in new pavement areas be prepared and evaluated as described in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. Permeable Asphalt Pavement GENERAL The design of permeable pavements for stormwater management should consider storage capacity of the permeable pavement system and infiltration rate of the subgrade soils, as well as water quality treatment considerations. INFILTRATION The long term infiltration rate is dependent on several factors, including site variability, degree of long term maintenance, pretreatment for total suspended solids, and depth to groundwater. For design of permeable pavements, it is typically assumed that there will be low to moderate long term maintenance and pretreatment. Refer to our "Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation" section above for recommended infiltration rate values. STORAGE CAPACITY The total stormwater storage capacity of the permeable pavement system includes the effective porosity (or percent voids that can be filled with stormwater) of the permeable pavement and the capacity of the base course in the parking lot addition area. The porosity of the pervious pavement depends on the mix design- The effective porosity used for design should be adjusted to account for naturally occurring moisture. For the base course layers recommended below in the "Pavement" Section, we anticipate a total porosity of approximately 40 to 45 percent. For design, we recommend an effective porosity of 35 percent to account for natural moisture. The storage capacity for the base course should be calculated by multiplying the volume of base course by the effective porosity, and we understand the base course will be designed for storage of the design storm as required. Additionally, landscaped areas adjacent to the parking lot addition pavement should be sloped to drain away from the pavement so that fines in the runoff from landscaped areas can be prevented from contaminating the pavement and base course and thereby reducing storage capacity. PAVEMENT SECTION The planned parking lot addition will include new light-duty pavement areas (automobile parking). For light-duty pavement, we concur with the pavement section proposed by Coffman Engineers, which consists of a 3 -inch -thick permeable asphalt layer over a 2 -inch -thick choker course layer over coarse aggregate base course. The coarse aggregate base course thickness will vary as required to establish grades at the site and will consist of 1 to 2 inch uniformly graded washed gravel. The coarse aggregate base course should be underlain by a non -woven geotextile such as Mirafi 140N placed over the prepared subgrade. We understand Coffman Engineers is considering GEoENGINEERNovember 15, 2©13 Page 7 He No. 0220-280-00 BOEING 25-20 PARKING L BION Renton, Washington placement of a geogrid over the non -woven geotextile to provide additional strength and stability for the pavement section, and we concur with this approach. The choker course and the coarse aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). We recommend that a proof -roil of the compacted choler course be observed by a representative from our firm prior to paving. Soft or yielding areas observed during proof -rolling may require localized excavation and replacement with additional choker course. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services Throughout this report, recommendations are provided where we consider additional geotechnical services to be appropriate. These additional services are summarized below: n GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. ■ During construction, GeoEngineers should observe and evaluate the suitability of the pavement subgrades, observe and test structural fill, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix C, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the Boeing Company and Coffman Engineers, Inc. Client may distribute copies of this report to the owner's authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments should be considered a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix C titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. Page S November 15, 2013 GeoEngineers, Inc. Fie No. 0120-28MO m Baker Blvd —M 5trsnderBlvd------ HfceRtennial i Track pr' ?� G o` Corporate Dr N � G m Corporals Dr S — Minkler Blvd 'c '� Upland Dr � y0 EL a Com+ a C3 Saxon Dr oQ m do N N - Tdland Dr F3riington Pars' ® ! 3W3 � Ra �. &#0� �� 5 3Rd PI t WW ° % Ty in g r; m Ay m Sur 5th C N g 4th S 5Th St 818ck RiverRiparfan Forazst ! South Sumeft Linear Z I y N SW 7Th $I m _ S 7Th St 4 m w m m m orada�'ay 74 a J SAN 10Th St _ M12.' St _ S Renton Village PI $7 51 SW 16Th Si 5W 1�6Th.5t`` ,/ 515Th St Ls.a 'StigetAar0 � 4 516Th St SW 19Th St "m w m � f Site SW 19Th St S 19Th St VJ } co S211StS S 22Nd Pf SW 23Rd St - S 23Rd St m ro SW 27Th St J Ik r tT` 'z1 r3elce M Notes: a. 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate_ 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. a 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for M personal use or resale, without permission. N Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 d Transverse Memalar, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1963 North arrow orlanted to grid north SW 29Th St SW 30Th S1 SW 39Th 51 SW 41St S1 i 2,000 SW 33Rd St OV, . rS26ThSt SZ S31Stst S 32Nd PI S 168Th AI S 11172Nd W I- s 367-h St a S 37Th S 1;E W 2,000 Vicinity Map Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Lot Addition Renton, Washington GEOENGINEERS� Figure 9 uwarnish River pa m N� co } S 143Rd St } C 4 S 144Th St K River BEaG N m L ,Hazelnut Park m rq a' m m N � 4 m Port Dent Ps W 7 2 �A S 152Nd St Cqm not N Green r S 153Rd St h. ` �.. TuW41a P _ W a mm tY F7lt4ila- - � c m Baker Blvd —M 5trsnderBlvd------ HfceRtennial i Track pr' ?� G o` Corporate Dr N � G m Corporals Dr S — Minkler Blvd 'c '� Upland Dr � y0 EL a Com+ a C3 Saxon Dr oQ m do N N - Tdland Dr F3riington Pars' ® ! 3W3 � Ra �. &#0� �� 5 3Rd PI t WW ° % Ty in g r; m Ay m Sur 5th C N g 4th S 5Th St 818ck RiverRiparfan Forazst ! South Sumeft Linear Z I y N SW 7Th $I m _ S 7Th St 4 m w m m m orada�'ay 74 a J SAN 10Th St _ M12.' St _ S Renton Village PI $7 51 SW 16Th Si 5W 1�6Th.5t`` ,/ 515Th St Ls.a 'StigetAar0 � 4 516Th St SW 19Th St "m w m � f Site SW 19Th St S 19Th St VJ } co S211StS S 22Nd Pf SW 23Rd St - S 23Rd St m ro SW 27Th St J Ik r tT` 'z1 r3elce M Notes: a. 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate_ 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. a 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for M personal use or resale, without permission. N Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 d Transverse Memalar, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1963 North arrow orlanted to grid north SW 29Th St SW 30Th S1 SW 39Th 51 SW 41St S1 i 2,000 SW 33Rd St OV, . rS26ThSt SZ S31Stst S 32Nd PI S 168Th AI S 11172Nd W I- s 367-h St a S 37Th S 1;E W 2,000 Vicinity Map Boeing Building 25-20 Parking Lot Addition Renton, Washington GEOENGINEERS� Figure 9 � � PAM012G250M)CADW120289-99m,_ _P41111itAMS_ MODIFIED .____wm-_ � � §2= � 2�J� d�§§] %§k ! -- -- -- -- -- r -- -- -- -- --� | � � � | � K; �z � r � � / � , | ■ !|l2�E zkGIN [ z s J ■ �||�§A ( ® k :J K■- - �2 SL \ R E « FJK| a J \ _ � 0 *& § ! - GO §§ 0 $ [= BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOT ADDM tenton, Washington APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by excavating eight test pits (TP -1 to TP -8). The test pits were completed on August 7, 2013 to depths ranging from approximately 2 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. Test pit locations were estimated with a hand-held global positioning unit (GPS). The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Ground surface elevations shown on the test pit logs were estimated based on interpolation from contours on the base survey map shown on Figure 2. Test pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used. The test pits were excavated using a small track -mounted excavator provided by Kelly's Excavating, Inc. under subcontract to GeoEngineers. The test pits were continuously observed by a member of our geotechnical engineering staff who located the test pits, classified the soils encountered, conducted hand probing in the upper portion of the test pits, obtained representative soil samples and maintained a detailed log of each test pit. In addition, pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, and groundwater conditions were recorded. The soils encountered in the test pits were visually classified using the soil classification system described in Figure A-1. Figures A-2 through A-9 present the logs of the test pits. The logs reflect our interpretation of the field conditions and the results of laboratory evaluation and testing of samples. They also indicate the depths at which the soil types or their characteristics change, although the change might actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. Representative soil samples were obtained from the test pits using a shovel and directly from the backhoe bucket. Relative density or consistency of the soils encountered was estimated using a V2 -inch -diameter hand probe and by observing digging action of the backhoe. The soils samples we obtained were logged, sealed in plastic bags, and transported to our Redmond laboratory. The field classifications were further evaluated in our laboratory. Observations of groundwater seepage conditions were made while completing the test pits. The groundwater conditions encountered during excavation are presented on the test pit logs. Groundwater conditions observed while completing the test pits represent a short term condition and may or may not be representative of the longterm groundwater conditions at the site. GEOENGINEERS Novernber 15, 2013 Page A-1 rle No. 020-20-0f] F = SOIL CLA IFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AC GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS 0 O0 ° GWGRAVEL WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, - SAND MIXTURES CC AND GRAVELLY SOILS {LIlnEORNOFINESI o 0 00 o 0 GP GRAVELS, GRAVEL GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES Crushed Rock/ Organic content PM �+M SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN SD% OF COARSE FRACM4 Pocket penetrometer �•`• CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES SA RETAINEOONNO. a SIEVE {APPRECIPBLEA MVUNT OFFINE Triaxial compression UC CLEAN SANDS VS sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS MORE THAN 50% SAND No Visible Sheen SS Slight Sheen MS Moderate Sheen SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND RETAINED ON NO. ZOO SIEVE AND SANDY Iu OR NO FINES) SOILS SANDS WITH FINES SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO./ SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMONNT OF FINES} ' SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY DG MRJRES ML INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLAsncITY FINE GRAINED SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICnY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW SOILSOL PLASTICITY MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY SOILS MORE THAN SO% PASSING NO. ?AO SIEVE CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY SILTS AND uQU10 OMIT GREATERTNANso CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSPEAT, PT HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4 -inch I.Q. split barrel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube ® Piston K] Direct -Push ® Bulk or grab Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 Inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. DITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER CA AC Asphalt Concrete Laboratory compaction test CS Consolidation test DS CC Cement Concrete Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content MD CR Crushed Rock/ Organic content PM Quarry Spalls PI TS Topsoil/ Pocket penetrometer PPM Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact TMeasured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Material Description Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units ____ Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Laboratory/ Field Tests %F Percent fines AL Atterberg limits CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS Consolidation test DS Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content MD Moisture content and dry density OC Organic content PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity PI Plasticity index PP Pocket penetrometer PPM Parts per million SA Sieve analysis TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Sheen Classification NS No Visible Sheen SS Slight Sheen MS Moderate Sheen HS Heavy Sheen NT Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GMENGINEERS FIGURE A-1 M Date Excavated: 8712013 Logged By: ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 5.5 Log of Test Pit TP -1 SAMPLE G W E N G I N E E RS r Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 0120-284-00 Sheet 1 of 1 m C (a 8' MATERIAL REMARKS o 9 rn J DESCRIPTION { on 0 a g a E $ c 7,S a 03 LU M w` TS 6 inches sod and topsoil Probed 1 to 3 inches Ml. Brown sandy sift with occasional gravel and trace organics (stiff, moist) 1 2 aches probed 1 6 5 " SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 3 Probed 1 to 2 inches 4- Ili 5 a Approximate ground surface elevation: 15 feet. Teat pit completed at 5.5 feet No groundwater seepage observed. I I i I No caving observed. i I I F I F l t t i l 1 t i 3 t 5 1 Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. S The depths on the lest pit logo are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -1 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G W E N G I N E E RS r Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 0120-284-00 Sheet 1 of 1 alrr Date Excavated: 8/712013 Logged By: ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 7-5 Log of Test Pit TP -2 SAMPLE Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 of 1 3 C MATERIAL REMARKS om DESCRIPTION CL m� y m m m a Q R C w .20 pbp �U W F F 0 or) W TS 6 inches sod and topsoil ' 1tS PM %Fto70nahas ML Light brown sandy silt with occasional gravel and trace organics (stiff, moist) 1 2 A2Probed SM 3 to 5 inches Brown silly fine sand (loose to medium dense, mast) 3 Probed 1 to 3 inches 4- 5— 5SPSM SP-SM Dark brownish -gray fine to medium sand with silt (loose, wet) s 3 30 %F=8 Approximate ground surface elevation: 14 feet. Test pit completed at 7.5 feet. Slaw groundwater seepage observed at 7 feet. Moderate caving observed at 5.5 to 7.5 feet. Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0-5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -2 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 of 1 M Date Excavated: 8/7/2013 Logged By: ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 7.0 Log of Test Pit TP -3 SAMPLE Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 E a MATERIAL REMARKS co DESCRIPTION r y a a a 11 0, W O an 1 0 0U W TS 6 Inches sod and topsoil Probed t to 2 inches ML Brown sandy silt with occasional gravel and trace organics (stiff, moist) 1 2 2 2 to 4 inches P CEG ? 10.2 meq SM Brown silty fine Sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 3 Probed 1 to 3 Inches 4- 5- 53 3 32 %F = 15 SM Dark gray silty fine to medium sand (loose, wat) 6 7 Approximate ground surface elevation: 13% feet. Test pit completed at 7 feet. Slow groundwater seepage observed at 6.5 feet_ Moderate caving observed at 6 to 7 feet. Notes: Sae Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit lags are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -3 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-4 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 t� Date Excavated: 8/7/2013 Logged By. ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 6.5 Log of Test Pit TP -4 SAMPLE Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 `m m m `� 6 C MATERIAL REMARKS t � DESCRIPTION � p L a C G EL Q 'o . C A m m A i W o F- F- L5 Lo 0 w VMV T5 6 inches sod and topsoil Probed 1 to 2 inches ML Light brown sandy silt with roots (stiff, moist) 1 2 2 Probed 1 to 3 Inches SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 3 -Probed 1 to 3 inches 4 5 3 15 %F=3 Sp bark gray fine to medium sand (loose, wet) 6 Appropmate ground surface elevation; 14% feet. Test pit completed at 6.5 feet. Slow groundwater seepage observed at 6.5 feet. Moderate caving observed at 5.5 to 6_5 feet. Notes: See Figure AA for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -4 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-5 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 M Date Excavated: 817/2013 Logged By: ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 7.0 0 to 4 Inches 2 SM Brown silly fine sand (loose to medium dense, mash I Probed OEC � 10.3 meq Probed 1 to 3 Inches 4 5 SP oartcgray u 2 7 Approximate ground surface elevation: 15 feet, Test pit completed at 7 feet. Slow groundwater seepage observed at 7 feet. Moderate caving observed at 5 to 7 feet. i I Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. {l The depths on the test pit loge are basad on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -5 SAMPLE Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of of 1 1 go E a MATERIAL REMARKS o Ncm DESCRIPTION co a Q n 3 $ �� »E m W O F 1 U' 00 W Tfi B inches sod and topsoil 1 Probed 1 to 3 inches ML Light brown sandy sill with roots (stiff, moist) 0 to 4 Inches 2 SM Brown silly fine sand (loose to medium dense, mash I Probed OEC � 10.3 meq Probed 1 to 3 Inches 4 5 SP oartcgray u 2 7 Approximate ground surface elevation: 15 feet, Test pit completed at 7 feet. Slow groundwater seepage observed at 7 feet. Moderate caving observed at 5 to 7 feet. i I Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. {l The depths on the test pit loge are basad on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -5 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of of 1 1 Date Excavated: 8/7/2013 Logged By. ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 8.0 M SAMPLE m m m g REMARKS DESCRIPTION M Ir - w a w w F F 2_m 00 w` TS 6 inches sod and topsoil Probed 1 to 3 inches ML Light brown sandy sift with trace organics (Stiff, moist) 1 2 Probed 1 to 3 inches SM Brown Bitty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) 2 Probed 1 to 3 inches 3 4- 5- 56SPSM 6— SP-SM Dark gray fine to medium sand with sift (looser wet) 7 a 25 %F=11 B Approximate ground surface elevation: 16 feet. Test pit completed at 6 feet. Slow groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 feet. Moderate caving observed at 6 to 6 feet. Motes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths o1 the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to a.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -6 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G Eo E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-7 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 M Date Excavated: 8/7/2013 Logged By: ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 2.0 1-09 yr eSi r11L r r-- if Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G M E N G I N E E RS r Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-8 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 0 a 0 Date Excavated: $17/2013 Logged By: ET Equipment: Mini -excavator Total Depth (ft) 2.0 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition SAMPLE Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-9 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 E 0 3 MATERIAL REMARKS o t N DESCRIPTION R.t - �9 S CL A m E! C LU ❑ t? 00 [u T5 6 inches sod and topsoil j Pm OC1 =3 3% ChBS ML Light brawn silt with occasional sand and trace organics (stiff, moist) f 2 Test pit completed at 2 feet. No groundwater seepage observed. No caving observed. Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP -8 Project: Boeing Building 25-20, Parking Lot Addition G EO E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-9 Project Number: 0120-280-00 Sheet 1 of 1 BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOTA--TION Renton, Washington APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING General Soil samples obtained from the test pits were transported to our Redmond laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering and index properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of moisture content tests, percent fines tests, organic content, and cation exchange capacity (CEG). We performed the tests using the test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. Soil Classification Soil samples obtained from the test pits were visually classified in the field and/or in our laboratory using a system based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM classification methods. ASTM Test Method D 2488 was used to visually classify the soil samples, while ASTM D 2487 was used to classify the soils based on laboratory tests results. These classification procedures are incorporated in the test pit logs shown in Figures A-2 through A-9. Moisture Content Testing Moisture content tests were completed using the ASTM D 2210 test method for representative samples obtained from the test pits. The results of these tests are presented on the test pit logs (Figures A-2 through A-9) at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Fines Testing Tests to evaluate the percent fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) were completed on six samples using ASTM D 1140. The wet sieve method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the percent fines tests are presented on the test pit logs (Figures A-2 through A-9) at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Organic Content Testing Organic content tests were completed on two samples using the ASTM D 2974 test method. The results of these tests are presented on the test pit logs (Figures A-2 through A-9) at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Cation Exchange Capacity Testing Cation exchange capacity (CEC) tests were completed on three soil samples by AgSource Laboratories under subcontract to GeoEngineers. The results of these tests are presented on the test pit logs (Figures A-2 through A-9) at the depths at which the samples were obtained. GEOENGINEERS November 15, 2013 Page B-1 F€e No. 0120-289-00 M m 80EING 25-20 PARKING LOTA--710N Renton. Washington APPENDIX C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist. To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the following explanatory "limitations" provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the Boeing Company and Coffman Engineers, Inc. and for the Project(s) specifically identified in the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects. GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No parry other than the party to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our proposal dated July 10, 2013, Contract No. L 13066-2-00 with the Boeing Company dated July 25, 2013, Change Order #01 to the contract dated October 10, 2013, and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project - Specific f=actors This report has been prepared for the Boeing 25-20 Parking Lot Addition project located in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, ■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or 1 developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. GEoENGINEERS M November 15, 2013 Page C-1 Re Nn. 0120-280-00 BOEING 25-20 PARKING L MON Renton, Washington ■ completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■I the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final The construction recommendations included in this report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform construction observation. We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for Page C-2 November 15, 2013 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No, 4120280-00 BOEING 25-20 PARKING LOTA—TION Renton, Washington this project is the most effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and test pit logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use." When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal that: ■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its accuracy is limited; and ■ encourages contractors to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties. Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GEoENGINEERS November 15, 2013 Page C-3 f� No. nzza-zao--oo 0 Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www. geoengineers.com/feedback. GMENGINEERS� December 13, 2013 Mr. Mark Clement Permit Specialist The Boeing Company 737 Logan Ave N Renton, WA 98055 Project: Parking Lot Expansion — Traffic Generation Summary Boeing Building 25-20 Renton, Washington CEI Project #13459 Dear Mr. Clement: The Boeing Company is expanding the parking area that services Building 25-20 located at the Boeing Longacres Office Park in Renton, Washington- The City of Renton requested an updated Traffic Impact Analysis based on the improvements that are taking place. We have reviewed the Transportation Study for the Boeing Longacres Office Park Master Plan Update that was completed in September 2000. The peak hour trips were generated based on the square footage of the buildings being constructed. No additional trips are being generated by the expansion of the Boeing 25-20 Building Parking Lot since the area of the Building is not changing with this project. We believe that this is a conservative approach and the addition of employees will not have a significant impact on the total traffic volumes. Please call if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely Donald K. Scarberry, P.E. Senior Discipline Manager, Civil Engineering M KO: Boeing Longacres Office Park — Master Plan Update: Transporlalion Study \%ceisea-fsllSeattle Boeing, lobs113jobs113459 Boeing, 25-20 Parking Lot Expansion11,0 CORRESPONDENCEII.I General Correspondence\[3459 Traffic Summary Letter dks.docx SEATTLE ANCHORAGE HONOLULU LOS ANGELES SPOKANE 1601 Fifth Avenue 907.276.6666 808.687.8881 818.285.2650 509.328.2994 Suite 900 SeaW e. WA 98101 4 Acil&gj- I , . Boeing Longacres Office Chaster Clan Update Stud ira Kenton WA nsportarlan INTRODUCTION This study doc4ments programmatic transportation impacts associated with the proposed Boeing LOP— Master Plan Update, located in Renton, WA (see Figure 1). Based on discussions with the City of Renton, the following tasks were undertaken to analyze transportation impacts associated with the proposed action: D Documentation of the proposed project location and action. Assessment of existing conditions through Meld reconnaissance and review of existing planning documents. Identification of planned roadway improvements. ➢ Evaluation of existing operations for weekday vehicular a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour trips, and daily trips generated at existing office uses within the mitigation arca, which includes Building 25-10 (Family Center) and Building 25-20 (BCUG Corporate Headquarters). > Estimation of future weekday vehicular a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour trips, and daily traffic that would be generated by the Boeing LOP at full buildout )i- Evaluation of traffic impacts in relation to site access and public transportation issues. ➢ Documentation of existing mitigation requirements and agreements. ➢ Recommcnded project mitigation as a result of the Master Plan Update. Primary Data and Information Sources • Renton/Boeing Draft EIS, Longaars Office Park, August 1994. • RtntonlBoeing Final EIS, Longacrrs Ofa Park, March 1995. • Ensimnmenlal Impact Statement (EIS) Mitigation Doemment, I-4ngacres Office Park Boeing Comrnerxial Airplane Gmup, City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works May 1995. • SOsrnd Transit Tacoma -to -Seattle Commuter Rail Envi►nnmentall4ssessmeel, June 1999. • WSDOT, 1998 Annual Traffrc Rrport • Sound TranJit Fax io TENW, August 18, 2000. • Sound Transit, Ms Val Batey and AIr. f ff Vlolfe, 206-398-5117. Telephone Conversations in August 2000. • King County -Metro, Transit Planning Section, Mr. Doug Johnson, 206-684-1597. Telephone Conversations in .August 2000. • Sound Station Updates Tukwila Station Web Site, http://www.svundrr.org/Stalfons/ tukudia.btm, August 2000. %9 Transportation Engineering NorthWem LLC M 5epternber 29, 2000 Page 2 Boeing Lonpaes Office Park - Master Pian Update RentDRWA Transportation Study rt 1 iG S 14 th t SW 7th St a�Ve,ti 405 SW 4th St t 8 iter �Vd 405 �wda Ploy aY� . < !Sw 2 St Strander Bhrd Project 3 Site vwSW a 34th St � — crit �6 Mtnkler Blvd >; La a C83 SW 41$t St Tdkrid Dr SW 43rd St S 5 ISeth St loot m sold Boeing LOP TrarespnrtadonIgL[re Master Plan Engineering Project Site Vicinity update NarthWest, LLC Transportation sway seatembcr 29 Transportation Engineeduo NorchWest, LLCp2ge 3 Boeing Longacres Office P 4a-ter.Plan Update Transportation Stud y. Renton WA • WSDOT, Stars/Sunshine bort, 2000, http://www.wsdot.wa,gov/Regions /Northwest/Shared/sunshine /SUN.HTM • King Counto Roads Capital improvement Program, King County, Washington, http://www.metrokc.gov/dp/projiist.cfn, August 2000. • Six Year Transportation Improvement Program, City of Renton, 2001 to 2006, • Six-YearTranrpoitation 1VrVscmen1 Program, City of Tukwila, 2001 to 2006. • Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program, City of Kent, 2001 to 2006. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In 1994, Boeing submitted an EIS to the City of Renton describing the environmental impacts of a 164 -acre, 2.5 minion square -feet master planned development including offices, an employee center, related support and utility facilities, and open spare amenities. It was then estimated that the office park would be developed over a ten to fifteen year period according to Boeing's corporate needs, and would include approximately 10,000 employees at full buildout. In 1995, the City of Renton issued a Mitigation Document for the office park setting forth required mitigation for project development. Two buildings have been constructed since 1995 — BCAG Headquarters Cm 1997) and Renton Family Can Center (1998). In 1999, the Surface Waster Management Project (SWMP) was constructed. SWMP is a stormwater system for the office park consisting of a combination of wetponds, detention ponds and created wetlands sized to accommodate the roaster plan at full buildout. In preparation for site development, Boeing now proposes to enter into a development agreement with the City pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70B.170. The agreement will described the basic parameters of the proposed office park development and will be based on the 1994 EIS and additional environmental analysis of certain aspects of the project. The updated environmental analysis will also discuss any additional impacts caused by increasing the height of certain buildings to achieve a 500,000 square -foot increase in total gross floor area of the office park The development agreement will also establish applicable development regulations, including development standards set fordo in the Renton Code, a testing framework, and other restrictions. The following paragraphs summarize the proposed Boeing Longacres Office Park (LOP) — Master Plan update in relation to its general location, a description of the proposed action and existing zoning characteristics. Project Location The proposed 158 -acre Boeing LOP is located in Renton, WA, at the site formerly comprising the Longacres Park Racetrack (Figure 1). Regional access to the site would be provided pr'smarily via Interstates 5 and 405 (I-5 and 1-405) and State Route (5R) 167. Existing major September 29, 2004 Transportstton Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 4 M Boeing Longaaes Office Park . Master Pian Update Renton WA TraTR2rtadon Study principal arterials that would provide access to the site include Oaksdale Avenue, SW Grady Way, SW 16' Street, and SR 181 /West Valley Highway. Within the City of Renton, the property is generally bounded by The Boeing Company's Customer Services Training Center to the north, approximately 1,000 feet south of SW 27' Street alignment to the south, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mainline railroad track to the west, and at or ;toughly 500 feet east of Oaksdale Avenue. Description of Proposed Action Full occupancy of the project site would take place between 2005 and 2010 depending on the corporate creeds of The Boeing Company. The proposed LOP Master Pian Update would increase the proposed office space from approximately 2.5 million square -feet to 3.0 million square -feet in gross floor area. Tire proposed action would also include 79 acres of landscaping and a lake to serve as a water amenity and storm water detention system. A roadway network within the site would provide access and circulation within the site and to the major transportation arterial network adjacent to the site. Project site driveways would access directly onto Oaksdale Avenue SW, SW 27' Street and Jackson Avenue SW. Currently, two buildings (totaling 330,905 square feet) have been constructed as part of the Boeing LOP Development. One main building, a 308,900 square foot office complex that comprises the Commercial Airplane Group Headquarters (Building 25-20), and a 22,000 square foot employee daycare facility known as the Family Center (Building 25-10). A general layout of the proposed Boeing LOP Master Plan Update yet to be developed is shown in Figure 2. Existing Zoning The LOP site is located within an area designated Commercial Office by Renton City code. This zoning designation provides for professional, administrative, and business offices as primary uses. Secondary uses include support to primary uses including day care centers, financial institutions, and Limited retail sacks. Some light industrial uses are also allowed as secondary uses. The primary purpose of the proposed action is to vast development rights to current zoning requirements and other City standards. EXISTING CONDITIONS This section generally describes existing transportation system conditions in the study area. It includes a summary of existing roadways, traffic volumes, public transportation services, and planned roadway improvements. Transportation Engineer#na NorrhWest, LLC September 29, 2000 Page 5 M Boeing Lonpatres Office Master Pian Up&te RentonWA Tra rCation Study ** i I , �ff E I I �1 Maswr Plan Area —_ —-------------------- , t -- �� 90EING L.ONGACRES CfME PA" RENTON. WASHINGTON Sverdrup _ tiw14� Trans on Figure 2: Engineering Boeing LOP Master Plan Area NorthWest, LLC Boeing LOP Master Plan Update Trans tody rtadon Sw September 29, 2000 Trauporsadon Engineering NorthWes4 LLC Page b IS Boeing Lonzacres office Park - Master Plan Update Rennin WA Tranmrtation Study Roadway Conditions The following paragraphs describe existing arterial roadways in the project vicinity- Roadway characteristics are described in tet7ms of number of lanes, shoulder types and widths, posted speed limits and average daily traffic volumes. Figure 3 shows existing average daily traffic volumes on vicinity roadways. Interstate 5 (I-5) is classified by the WSDOT as a principal urban limited access freeway. It provides north -south regional access within Washtagton State between British Columbia, Canada, and Oregon. In the project vicinity, the freeway consists of S travel lanes in each direction with one travel lane dedicated as a High Occupancy Vehicle (MOV 2+ persons) lane. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide with 6- to 10 -foot paved shoulders. The posted speed limit is 60 mph. This roadway carries approximately 208,000 vehicles per day south of 1-405 and 241,400 vehicles per day north of I-405. 1-405 is classified by the 'WSDOT as a principal urban limited access freeway. It provides regional access to, from and within King County and southeastern Snohomish County. in the site vicinity, the roadway consists of 3 travel lanes in each direction with one of the travel lanes dedicated as a HOV (2+) lane. A median concrete barrier separates the northbound- southbound/eastbound-westbound travel lanes. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide with 6- to 10 -foot paved shoulders. The posted speed limit is 60 mph. An average of 144,600 vehicles travel daily on 1-405 west of Tukwila Parkway, and approximately 137,300 daily vehicles use 1-405 west of this roadway. State Route (SR) 167/Rawer Avenue S is classified by the WSDOT as an urban principal arterial. South of I-405, the facility is a limited access freeway consisting of 3 travel 12nes in each direction with one of the travel lanes dedicated as a HOV (2+) lane..A median concrete barriet separates the northbound -southbound travel lanes. The roadway consists of 12 -foot travel lanes and $- to 10 -foot paved shoulders. The speed limit is posted at 60 mph. North of 1-405, the roadway consists of 5- to 7 -lane urban roadway, with raised curbs, gutters and sidewalks oa both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Approximately 104,000 vehicles travel on SR 167 south of I-405 and about 48,900 vehicles travel on SR 167 north of I-445 on a daily basis. SR 181/West Valley Highway is classified by WSDOT as a north -south urban principal arterial. North of Strander Boulevard, the roadway consists of 6 travel lanes with an additional center left -turning lane. Travel lanes are 11 to 12 feet wide. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are located on both sides of the street South of Strander Boulevard, the roadway consists of 4 travel lanes with an additional center left -turning lane. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks or 3- to 6 - foot paved shoulders are located on both sides of the street at non -continuous sections of the roadway. The speed limit is posted at 40 mph. Day traffic volumes on SR 181 currently average 30,200 vehicles. September 24, 20D0 Trantportatlon En&eerwg NoMWest, LLC Pate 7 Boeing Longacm O€fim i Master Plan Update Renton WA Tra tu rtatlan S %9 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC M September 29, 2000 Page 8 Boeing Longacres Office Park - Master Plan Update kentDnr WA Transportation Surd Oaksdale Avenue SW is a north-south roadway providing access to the Boeing LOP and other businesses in the area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. North of the signalized intersection providing access to Building 25-20 (BCAG Corporate Headquarters) and Building 25-10 (Family Center), the roadway consists of 4 travel lanes and a center, two-way left-turning lane. Total curb-to-curb width is approximately 67 feet. Curbs, gutters, 6-foot sidewalks and 5-foot bice_ cle lanes are located on both sides of the street. South of this intersection, Oaksdale Avenue SW consists of 2 travel lanes and a center two-way left-turning lane. Curbs, gutters and 6-foot sidewalks are located on the west side of the street only. Paved shoulders on the east side of the street are 5 feet in width. Approximately 8,000 daily vehicles currently travel Oakesdale Avenue SW north of SW 16" Street. jaekson Avenue SW was once used as the access roadway for event parking at Longacres Race Track. The paved roadway is about 25 feet in width. South of Longacres Way, the roadway is blocked off and is currently used as a nomnotorized facility by Boeing employees. SW 16* Street is an east -west roadway providing access to and from existing Boeing buildings and other businesses in the area. The roadway consists of Ttravel lanes and a center, two-way left -turning lane. The total curb -to width roadway width is 44 feet. East of Oaksdale Avenue SW, the posted speed krait is 35 mph. Curbs, gutters and 6 -foot sidewalks are located on the south side of the street and curbs are located on the north side of the street. Roadway signs designate it as a bicycle route; however, there is no pavement channelization for this designation until its intersection with Lind Avenue SW. There are also two, 15 -minute parking spaces located on the south side of the roadway neat its intersection with Lind Avenue SW. West of Oaksdale Avenue SW, the speed limit is posted at 25 mph. The roadway consists of curbs, gutters and 6 -foot sidewalkson the south side of the roadway. The roadway is signed as a bicycle route and 5 -foot painted bicycle lanes are located on both sides of the roadway. Existing average daily traffic volumes are 8,3000 vehicles east in the vicinity of Lind Avenue SW. S Longacres Way/S 158th Street is 2 two-lane roadway, which once provided access to Longacres Race Track. The roadway no longer provides through -access from. Jackson Avenue SW to SR 181 /West Valley Highway. In the vicinity of Jackson Avenue SW, the roadway is 26 feet wide and unchannelized. In the vicinity of SR 181/West Valley Highway, the roadway is channelized and approximately 43 feet wide. Curbs, gutters, a 5 -foot paved sidewalk and a 5 - foot paved shoulder are located on the south side of the street. Shoulder curbs are located on the north side of the street only. SW 27" Street is a four -lane, east -west roadway with two travel lanes in each direction. The total curb -to -curb width is 44 feet. Curbs, gutters, 16 -foot landscaped planters and 6 -foot sidewalks are provided on the north side of the street. Curbs are located on the south side of the street. The roadway continues west of its intersection with Oaksdale Avenue SW, however, it is blocked off to the public via signs and a gated entrance. Boeing err►ployees are currently using the closed portion of the roadway for nonmotodzed purposes. Approximately 1,000 daily vehicles currently travel on SW 27`h Street east of Oaksdale Avenue SW. Grady Way S is an east -west, four -lane primary arterial. Travel lanes are 11 to 12 feet wide. Curbs, gutters and 6 -foot sidewalks are located on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Grady Way S Carries approximately 29,600 vehicles per day west and 18,400 vehicles per day east of Oakesdale Avenue SW. t� September 29, 2000 Transportation Engineering 1`iorthWest, LLC Page 9 e Boeing Longacres office Master Plan Update Renton WA Transponation Stud E Valley Road is a north -south primary roadway providing access to and from SR 167 and to and from business and commercial districts within the City of Renton. Travel lanes are 12 feet wide. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks ate provided on both sides of the street_ The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. North of SW 41' Street, the roadway consists of 2 lanes with a center, left - turning lane. South of SW 41' Street, the roadway is 4 lanes with a center, left -turning lane. Approximately 12,900 vehicles travel on E Valley Road daily north of SW 27h Street. Lind Avenue SW is a four -lane, north -south secondary roadway. The curb -to -curb width is 44 feet. There is a center, left -turning lane along various sections of the roadway. Curbs, gutters and 6- to 8 -foot sidewalks are located the west side of the street and along various sections of the east side of the street. In places where there are no sidewalks, curbs are located on the east side of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Existing daily traffic volumes are roughly 16,600 daily vehicles on Lind Avenue SW in the vicinity of SW 16' Street.. Strander Boulevard is a four -lane, east -west secondary roadway. Travel lanes are 11 to 12 feet wide. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are located on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Currently this roadway is constructed between Southcenter parkway and SR 181 only. SW 43'a Street is a Four -lane, east -west roadway providing access to and from Tukwila, Kent, Renton and unincorporated King County. Total curb -to -curb width is about 57 feet. Curbs, gutters and 5 -foot sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. Approximately 41,000 vehicles travel SW 43`d Street east of Oaksdale Avenue SW on an average weekday. Public Transportation Services King County -Metro provides public transportation services near the project site vicinity. Transit service is provided on SW 16' Street, S Grady Way, SR 181 /West Valley Highway, Lind Avenue SW and SW 43'� Street in the immediate site vicinity. King County -Metro offers dial -a -ride and tideshare (ridematch, carpool, vanpool, and/or employer outreach) services. King County - Metro also offers accessible transit services to citizens with disabilities. Bicycle racks are also located on the front of most buses. Transit routes serving the proposed project site vicinity are summarized below. Route 110 travels along SW Grady Wats and Lind Avenue SW. Weekday transit service is provided within Renton city limits, with connections to other routes provided at the Renton Transit Center, located S 3'a Street and Burnett Avenue S. Transit service is provided during peak times in the mornings between about 5:30 a.m_ to 8:50 a.m. and afternoons /evenings between 2:30 p.m, to 5:50 p.m_ Headways average 30 minutes. Route 153 travels along S Grady Way, Oaksdale Avenue SW, SW 16'h Street and Lind Avenue SW. Weekday service is offered during a.m.. and p.m, peak times within Renton, to the Renton and Kent Transit Centers and to the South Renton Park -and -Ride. Transit service is provided in the mornings between 5:55 a.m. to about 8:25 a.m., and afternoons/evenings from about 2:45 p.m. to about 6:20 p.m. Average beadways are 30 minutes. Transportation Engineering NonhWest, LLC September 29, 2000 Page 10 Boeing Longacres OMce Park - Master Plan Update Renton WA Transportation Stud Rotate 155 serves Sttander Boulevard and SW 43d Street. Weekday service is provided to Cascade Vista, Fairwood and Southcenter Mal Headways are one hour in both directions. Routes 160 and 163 travel along West Valley Highway, Lind Avenue SW and SW 43'd Street. Peak weekday service is provided in the mornings from North Meridian Park to Downtown Seattle between about 5:45 a.m. and 7;20 a.m. Service from Downtown Seattle to North meridian Park is provided during the afternoon commute between 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Headways average 30 minutes. Route 280 travels along SW Grady Way and provides "Night'' owl service Sunday through Saturday to Mountlake, Bellevue, Kennydale, Renton, Tukwila and Downtown Seattle. Service from Downtown Seattle to the South Renton Park -and -Ride is provided at 2:15 a.m. and about 3:20 a.m. Service from the South Renton Park -and -Ride to Downtown Seattle is provided at about 2:50 a-tn. and 4:10 a.m. Route 140 (formerly known as Route 340) travels along Sunder Boulevard, West Valley Highway and SW Grady Way. Service is provided both on weekdays and weekends every 15 minutes during peak weekday periods, and every 30 to 60 minutes on off-peak weekday and weekend periods. Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Raised sidewalks are located on many of the roadways within the project site vicinity. SW 166` Street and Oaksdale Avenue SW are currently designated as bicycle routes by the City of Renton. Many Boeing employees use the blocked off roadways of Jackson Avenue SW and SW tis` Street and the unused Longacres event parking for nonmotorized purposes during non -working hours (break time, lunch time, etc.) of the business day. The Springbrook Trail travels along the west side of Springbrook Creek. Access near the project site viciwry to this nearly 1 -mile long trail is located on SW 16'' Street, about 200 feet west of its intersection with Oaksdale Avenue SW. The Interurban Trail is approximately 14 miles in length and extends from 1-405 is the City of Tukwila south to the City of Pacific. The trail travels along the west side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks near the project site vicinity and can be accessed via S Longacres Way/S 158th Street. Planned Transportation Improvements This section documents planned transportation improvements within the site vicinity by the cities of Renton, Tukwila and Kent, and the regional agencies of King County -Metro, Sound Transit, and WSDOT. This list was generated from a review of the City of Renton's Six-year Transportation improvement Program, 2001 to 2006, King County Road Capital Improvement Program 2000, City of Kent Transportation Improvement Program 2001-2006, and the City of Tukwila Transportation Improvement Program 2001-2006. WSDOT planned roadway improvements were obtained from the Smrrshint Rtpott, 2000. Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC 5eptetnber 29, 2000 Page 1 i M Boeing Longacres Office P Master Plan Update Renton WA Transportation Sn,dy Figure 4 provides a graphic depiction of transportation improvements in the immediate site vicinity. Other projects located outside the boundaries of the figure, but in the general vicinity are also listed below. City of Renton > Oakesdale Avenue SW from SW 27e' Street to SW 31" Street. Construct a four -lane roadway plus turn lanes. In addition, construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, street lighting, drainage and traffic signals. Completion is scheduled for 2041. % Lind Avenue SW between SW 16`h Street and SW 43`s Street. Widen roadway to five lanes. Includes new roadway, curbs, sidewalks, drainage, signals, lighting and channeliaation. Completion is scheduled for 2003. F SR 167/S 27'h Street and SW 27' Street from SR 167 to Oa%esdale Avenue SW. Add a new HOV only interchange on SR 167 and tie into planned HOV lanes on SR 167. Add a separate HOV facility on SW 27`h Street. 9 SW 27' Street. There is an existing, blocked off stretch of SW 27`x' Street west of Oaksdale Avenue SW. This roadway will be replaced by the construction of a new roadway for SW 27" Street west of Oaksdale Avenue SW to connect to Strander Boulevard to the west. Approximately 1,244 feet of this roadway will be located below - grade, under the BNSF and UP mainline railroad tracks. The SW 271' Street extension would consist of four travel lanes with a center, two-way, left -turning lane along various parts of the roadway. This project is in conjunction with the City of Tukwila, King County, Sound Transit and King County -Metro. City of Tukwila ➢ S 1 So`" Street railroad crossing. Construct a grade -separated railroad crossing at BNSI~ and UP tracks and S 18Yh Street/SW 43'1 Street. ➢ SR 181 /West Valley Highway. Widen roadway to 7 lanes between I-405 and Strander Boulevard. Southcenter Parkway between Strander Boulevard and S 1800' Street. Design and construct signals with pedestrian crossings. Completion scheduled for 2000. %9 Transpomdon Engineering NomhWest, LLC, M September 24, 2000 Page 12 Boeing Longacres Office Park - Muter Plan Update Renton WA Tra €radon Stu dy TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS The following section generally describes transportation impacts of the Boeing LOP Master Plan Update. The discussion includes vehicular trips generated by the proposed action, transit ridership and mode share estimates, vehicular site access, circulation, and safety issues. Project Trip Generation The methodologies used to prepare trip generation estimates of the proposed office space buildout of 3.0 million sf at Boeing LOP involved three main efforts: 1. Documentation of vehicular trip generation by existing office uses within the Mitigation Area at Boeing LOP (i.e., Buildings 25-10 and 25-20). 2. Estimation of total site vehicular trip generation using the methods and assumptions consistent with those documented in Chapter 14 — Transportation of the Rexion/Boeing DEIS -- Boeing Lonpms Office Park, August 1994, with adjustments made for mode split given the adjacent Tukwila commuter rail station and multimodal center between Longacres Way (SW 1 S Street) and SW 27' Street along ]acksonAvenue 5W. 3. Estimation of total site vehicular trip generation using current transportation engineering methods and assumptions and considering the adjacent Tukwila commuter rail station and multimodal center. Vehicular Trip Generation of Existing Buildings and uses A trip -generation study was conducted by TENW for existing uses within the Mitigation Area at Boeing LOP. Traffic Data Gathering, a local traffic counting firm, conducted 24-hour traffic counts - over a 3 -day period in August 2000 at 5 existing site driveway locations that serve Buildings 25.10 and 25-20. Daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour counts at the existing driveway locations are summarized in Table 1. Average weekday trip generation of existing offices rises at Boeing LOP is. approximately 3,250 daily, 360 a.m. peak hour, and 390 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips. Table 1: Traffic Volumes at Existing Driveways at Boein LOP Dally A.M. Peak P.M. P4 Number Location Voiumes Volumes Volum 1 South entrance to Building 25-20 on Oaksdale Avenue 5W 871 103 202 2 Main entrance to Building 25-20 on Oaksdale Avenue SW 1,413 154 1 17 3 Service entrance to Building 25-20 on oaksdale Avenue SW 659 58 40 4 Access road north of Building 25-20 on Oaksdale Avenue 223 25 9 SW 5 Entrance to Family Center Building 25-10 ort Oaksdale 90 20 20 Avenue SW' Totals 3,256 360 388 1 –Trips associated with cmpiorecs onh• arc reported at this site. All other n ps da -ell on the site for las than ail rninutce and ri-T-sent 1506ng errtpltx ees from Buildings 2S-01 2rw3 1 dropping off oris! picking up children within the Boeing LOP mnipus and do not invact extctnaI npdwars. C September 29, 2000 Transwudon Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 16 M Boeing Longacres Offc - Master Pian Update Renton WA Tran rradon Stud Table 2 summarizes the results of the trip generation study by building, identifying the total number of vehicles entering and exiting office uses within the Mitigation Area. These buildings comprise approximately 330,905 square -feet in gross floor area, with 835 employees. Employee density of existing office uses (ie., Building 25-10) is approximately 2.5 employees per 1,040 sf of gross floor area. Existing employee densities are nearly 25 percent lower than average densities (3.3 employees per 1,000 sf of gross floor area) of similar office uses published in the Institute of Transportation Engineering (ITE), 7np Generation Manual, Erb Edition, 1997. Table 2: Existing Vehicular Trip Generation Summary by Building at Boeing LOP Given existing building areas and employment levels, trip generation .rates of existing buildings within the Boeing LOP were identified and compared with standard TIE rates and methods as published in the Trr� Genemtion Manual, Gab Edition. Table 3 summarizes existing trip generation rates per 1,000 sf of gross floor area and per employee observed at Boeing LOP. T.2hla 3- EYlstina Rullcfina Trio Generation Rates Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Pear P.M. Peals Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Building Headquarters (Building 25-20) 1,589 1,577 3,166 274 66 340 50 318 368 308,905 sf, 765 employees Employee Headquarters (Building 25-20) 10.25 4.09 1.10 0.44 1.19 0.47 308,905 sf, 765 employees Family Center (Building 25-10) 45 45 90 20 0 20 0 20 20 22,000 sf, 60 employees 0.91 0.33 22,000 sf, 60 employees Three -Day Weekday Average 1,634 1,622 3,236 294 66 360 1 50 338 388 Given existing building areas and employment levels, trip generation .rates of existing buildings within the Boeing LOP were identified and compared with standard TIE rates and methods as published in the Trr� Genemtion Manual, Gab Edition. Table 3 summarizes existing trip generation rates per 1,000 sf of gross floor area and per employee observed at Boeing LOP. T.2hla 3- EYlstina Rullcfina Trio Generation Rates FEIS Trip Generation Methodology and Results The first approach used to estimate vehicular trip generation of the proposed Boeing LOP Master Plan Update were those methods and assumptions found in the DEIS and FEIS for the Boeing Longacres Office Park in 1994 and 1995. The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate vehicular trip generation at full buildout: Total office building square_fo4tasre: 2,500,000 sf. Employmenr Isvels: 10,000 employees. F,mpigyee De si 4.0 employees per 1,000 sf of gross floor area. ITE Trip Gt;neration Ra e: Average Rate per Employee, 3.62 daily trips, 0.52 a.m. peak hour, and 0.50 p.m. peak hour trips per employee. ITE Land Use_Cod e: 715 Single -Tenant Office. Averagc Vehicle OccWangy of Vehicle T : 1.1 persons per vehicle during peak periods, and 1.08 persons per vehicle for daily trips. Transportation Engineering HarthWest, LLC s September 29, 2000 Page 17 Da ly A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peals Hour Per 1,000 Per 1,000 Per 1,000 sf of Gross Per sf of Gross Per sf of Gross Per Building Floor Area Ern to ee Floor Area Emp(oyee Floor Area Employee Headquarters (Building 25-20) 10.25 4.09 1.10 0.44 1.19 0.47 308,905 sf, 765 employees Family Center (Building 25-10) 4.09 1.50 0.91 0.33 0.91 0.33 22,000 sf, 60 employees Trip Generation Rates of 9 84 3.90 1.09 0.43 1.17 0.46 Existing Uses at Boeing LOP FEIS Trip Generation Methodology and Results The first approach used to estimate vehicular trip generation of the proposed Boeing LOP Master Plan Update were those methods and assumptions found in the DEIS and FEIS for the Boeing Longacres Office Park in 1994 and 1995. The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate vehicular trip generation at full buildout: Total office building square_fo4tasre: 2,500,000 sf. Employmenr Isvels: 10,000 employees. F,mpigyee De si 4.0 employees per 1,000 sf of gross floor area. ITE Trip Gt;neration Ra e: Average Rate per Employee, 3.62 daily trips, 0.52 a.m. peak hour, and 0.50 p.m. peak hour trips per employee. ITE Land Use_Cod e: 715 Single -Tenant Office. Averagc Vehicle OccWangy of Vehicle T : 1.1 persons per vehicle during peak periods, and 1.08 persons per vehicle for daily trips. Transportation Engineering HarthWest, LLC s September 29, 2000 Page 17 Boeing Longacres office Park - Master Plan Update Renton WA Trzuportatlon Stud The resulting vehicle trip generation using the above assumptions is approximately 36,200 daily, 5,200 a.m. peak hour, and 5,000 p.m. peak hour vehicular trips before any mode split adjustments are made (for detailed trip generation calculations, see Table A-1 in Appendix A). Converting these vehicular trip generation estimates to person trips results in an estimated 39,100 daily, 5,270 a.m. peak hour, and 5,500 p.m, peak hour person trips at full buildout of 2.5 million sf. It should be noted, that this method uses the most conservative trip generation rate for office uses. Mode Split Adjustments used in FEIS Modal shares of person trips, average vehicle occupancy, and resulting non-HOV vehicular trip generation rates consistent with those outlined in Chapter 14, of the Rentor/Boeing D.EIS — Boeing L.ongaems Office Park, August 1994, were applied to person trip estimates. A conservative non- HOV rate of 78 percent during peak travel periods, and 81 percent throughout a typical workday results in a net trip generation of approximately 28,900 daily, 4,250 a.m. peak hour, and 4,085 p.m. peak hour vehicle trips for detailed trip generation calculations of this scenario, see Table A-1 in Appendix A). This net vehicular trip generation estimate was used to evaluated traffic impacts of the original 2.5 million sf of office buildout and prepare the Longactrr Office Park EIS Mitigation Dotument, May 1995. This Mitigation Agreement contains a list of specific transportation improvements that would be constructed, and traffic mitigation fees payable to the cities of Renton and Tukwila by the applicant. Trip Generation Estimates using Current Transportation Engineering Methods A comparison of the application of all potential office trip generation rates and categories documented with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6' Edition, 1997, was conducted by TENW. This effort was undertaken to determine the most applicable approach to estimate trip generation using current transportation engineering methods and to be consistent with other processes used at other major office and mixed-use developments within Renton. Table A-2 in Appendix A provides a comparative summary of trip generation rates for office uses applied to building square -footage and employee density assumptions vested in the original Boeing LOP Master Plan (i.e., 2.5 million sf of office and 10,000 employees). It was determined that the trip generation rate applied during the documentation of environmental impacts in 1994/95 is the most conservative rate (i.e. average trip rate per employee for Land Use Cod 715 -- Single - Tenant Office), resulting is trip estimates that are 33 percent and 63 percent higher than aggregate average rates on a p.m. peak hour and daily basis, respectively, In reviewing the description of the proposed action and the application of comparable trip generation rates based on office uses published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, G Edition, the average trip rate per 1,000 sf of gross floor area for Land Use Code 710 — General Office is more applicable to the project action (given existing employee densities and other recent studies in the Cit} of Renton), and results in trip generation rates that are fairly* close to aggregate averages shown in Table A-2 in Appendix A. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC September 29, 2000 Page 18 M Boeing Lonperes Offlce - Master Plan Update Remmn WA Transportation Stud As such, the average trip rate per 1,000 sf of gross floor area for ITE Land Use Code 710 — General Office was selected to estimate gross vehicular trip generation of the proposed 3.0 million sf under the Boeing LOP Master Plan Update. It should be noted, that by the use of an average trip generation rate per employee or per gross floor area, no adjustments are made to account for the ultimate size of office uses. It is well documented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, that as office size increases, the trip generation rate per unit diminishes. In addition, no trip reductions or internalization assumptions were made between the proposed action and the 20 -acre transit -oriented development that is proposed at the Sound Commuter Rail station and Tukwila Multimodal Centet. Therefore, these estimates using current transportation engineering methods should be considered conservative. Mode Split Adjustments Given Sounder Commuter Rail/Tukwila Multimodal Center Recent mode split research completed by TENW as part of the 1-405/NE 44't' Street Interchange (Port Quendall) as well as other recent studies and commuter rail forecasts were evaluated for their application to the proposed Boeing LOP Master Plan Update. This effort was conducted to evaluate adjustments to mode share assumptions originally made for the Boeing LOP given the adjacent commuter rail services and transit center. Our research concluded that peak period non-HOV mode splits of approximately 65 percent could be achieved at locations in close proximity to moderate transit service levels and the implementation of traditional transportation demand management (TDM) measures at the site. In addition, given the "single -use" nature of the proposed action, a 75 percent non-HOV mode split could be achieved outside of peak commute periods. These non-HOV mode splits compare to a 78 percent and 81 percent non-HOV mode split assumed in the original documentation of environmental impacts of the Boeing LOP for peak period and daily trips, respectively. FEIS Dip Generation Rates with Updated Mode S A net decrease in vehicle trip generation over vested buildout levels results when considering the proposed buildout of 3.0 million sf of office, existing uses built and in operation at the site, and the adjacent Souader commuter rail station and Tukwila Multimodal Center. Table. A-3 in Appendix A summarizes adjustments made to mode split assumptions in the .original FEIS to account for future service levels at the adjacent Tukwila commuter rail station and multimodal center. Net vehicle trip generation is estimated at 28,000 daily, 3,775 a.m. peak hour trips, and 3,630 p.m. peak hour trips using. the employee density assumptions and trip generation rates documented in the Renton/Boeing DEIS -- Boeing Longaner Office Park, August 1994, with updated mode splits. These net vehicular trip generation estimates are approximately 3 percent less on a daily basis and 11 percent less on a peak hour basis than those vehicle trip generation levels used to identify transportation improvements and mitigation in the Longacrer Office Park EIS Mitigation Document, May 1995. As such, when considering existing uses at the site, FEIS trip generation methodology, and adjusting for adjacent development and operation of the Sounder commuter rail station and Tukwila Multimodal Center, net vehicle trips generated by 3.0 million sf of office space at Sepumber 29, 2000 Transparwtian Engineering NonhWest, LLC Page 19 M Boeing Longacres Office Park - Master Plan Update Renton WA Transportation Study Boeing LOP would be less than those levels evaluated and vested as part of the original Boeing LOP Master Plan development action at 2.5 trillion sf of office. Current TriGeneraTion Methods and Updated Mode S lit Using more current trip generation methods and applying non-HOV mode splits of 65 percent during peak periods and 75 percent clung off peak periods, net vehicle trips generated by 3.0 tnilEon sf of office space at Boeing LOP would be 17 percent less on a daily basis, and roughly 25 percent less on a peak hour basis than those trip generation levels evaluated and vested at 2.5 million sf of office (for detailed trip generation calculations of this scenario, see Table A4 in Appendix A). Table 4 summarizes the results of trip generation evaluation for the Boeing LOP Master Plan Update under the two scenarios requested by the City of Renton. As shown, net vehicle trip generation estimates assuming 3.0 million sf of office uses using previous methods and assumptions, that are adjusted to reflect adjacent commuter rail service and Tukwila Multimodal Center and existing office uses built at the site, are estimated to be 3 percent less on a daily basis, and I I percent less on a peak hour basis than those trip generation levels vested at an office buildout of 2.5 million sf. If current trip generation methodologies are applied, net vehicular trip generation is estimated at 17 percent less on a daily basis, and 25 percent less on a peak hour basis, than vested trip generation levels. As such, with an additional 500,000 sf of office uses at Boeing LOP as proposed under this Master Plan Update, no net increase in vehicle tdp generation is expected to result beyond those levels documented in the original FRIS. Table 4: Boeing LOP Trin Generation Results Scenario Ralf AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Total Enter I Exit I Total I Enter I Exit. I Total fxhting Boeing IAP Master Plan - 2.5 million sflgfa (Vested Trip Generation Levels) Gross ITE Trip Generation (715 Average Rate per Employee) 36,200 4,630 570 5,200 750 4,250 5,000 2.5 million sf/gfa, 10,000 employees Vehicle Trip Generation After Mode Split Adjustments 28,900 3,785 465 4,250 615 3,470 4,085 Boeing LOP Master Pian Update - 3.0 adillon sf/gfa using FEIS Methods and Mode Split Rerrnernents for Sounder Commuter Raft and Muldrnodaf Center Xonsiders ezistln use WO Reneratla►r Gross ITE Trip Generation (715 Average Rate per Employee) 41,900 5,235 675 5,910 850 4,880 5,730 3.0 million sf/gfa, 1 1,510 employees Vehicle Trip Generation After Mode Split Adjustments 28,000 3,355 415 3,775 545 3,085 3,630 Percent Change From FEIS Vested Trip Generation 1 -346 1 -11% % 1 -11% 1 196 -1 l 96 - i l 9b -1196 Boeing LOP Master Plan Update - 3.0 million sf/gfa using Current Transportation Engineering Methods and Mode Split Refinements for Sounder Commuter Rail and Mtdtlmodal Center Gross ITE Trip Generation (710 Average Rate per 1,000 sflgfa) 33,000 4,120 $60 4,680 760 3,710 4,470 3.0 mlillon sf/gfa Vehicle Trip Generatlon After Mode Split Adjustments 23,900 2,800 380 3,185 515 2,525 3,040 Percent Change from FEIS Vested Trip Generation -17% -26% -18% -25% -16% -27% -2696 sf/Ffa - square -feel of FmFs floor area. 1 TraMortation Engineering NorthWest, LLC September 29, 2000 Page 20 Boeing Longacres Offiicu - Master Plan Update Renton WA Tran2nation Stud Site Access and Circulation Access to the existing site is currently provided via 5 existing driveways onto Oakesdaie Avenue SW. Vehicular access at existing site driveways are regulated by a center, two-way left-n,ming lane, which minimizes turning movement impacts into and out of project driveways on roadway operations. A fully -actuated traffic signal is currently located on Oakesdale Avenue SW at its intersection with site driveways leading to the BCAG Headquarters (Building 25-10) to the west, and the Family Center (Building 25-20) to the east Future vehicular access would be provided onto Oaksdale Avenue SW, Jackson Avenue SW, and SW 27"' Street. Driveways locations and off -sets relative to adjacent intersections and driveways would be designed based on standard traffic engineering methods and practices and in accordance with local guidelines as follows: ➢ No driveways would be located within a minimum of 150 feet of an arterial intersection. 9 Minimum spacing standards of 150 feet between driveways along roadways would -be developed such that adequate left turning storage is provided, traffic flow constraints are reduced, and turning movement conflicts are minim+ryed. l'- Opposing driveways would be aligned when possible, or offset by 150 feet. A Access and egress control at most driveways where moderate volumes are expected would be afforded through center, two-way left -turning lanes on public streets. Separate right -turn only or left -turn only lanes would be provided where moderate to high turning movements are anticipated and located where volume warrants are met. Public Transportation impacts Ridership forecasts at the Tukwila Multimodal Station by 2010 are estimated at 800 a.m. commuter rail boardings, and 100 reverse direction (p.m. inbound and a.m. outbound) commuter rail boardings. Sound Transit estimates access mode shares to the station during peak periods as 50 percent bus transfer, 45 percent park-and-ride, and 5 percent via nonmotonzed modes. These ridership forecasts prepared by Sound Transit were made prior to the Boeing LOP Master Pian that was completed in 1995, and assumed continued operation of the Longacres Race Track. Commuter rail ridership estimates prepared by TENW of the Boeing LOP campus itself is estimated at 400 inbound and 400 outbound passengers per day at the Tukwila Multimodal Station at full buildout. Inbound commuter rail ridership of 100 reverse direction boardings per day prepared by Sound Transit assurned the construction of a convention center and other supporting uses at the station. Given that a convention center and the Longacres Race Track are no longer anticipated or in use at the site, an estimated net increase in commuter rail ridership of approximately 300 inbound reverse direction boardings per day would result due to Boeing LOP Master Plan over those ridership projections prepared by Sound Transit in 1992. Note: these commuter rail ridership projections do not include any ridership potential of the proposed 20 -acre transit -oriented development at the Tukwila Multimodal Station that is being proposed jointly by Sound Transit and the City of Tukwila. September 29, 2000 Transportation Engineering HorthWest, LLC page 21 M Boeing Longacres Office Paric - Master Plan Update Renton WA Transpomation Stud Nonmotorized Transportation impacts Pedestrian access to the eastern platform of the Tukwila Multimodal Station would be provided via the existing grade -separated underpass at S Longacres Way/S 158th Street. A pedestrian tunnel would connect both sides of the train tracks. Walkways and roadways would also be unproved to enhance pedestrian access to the Station area. Access to the station area from Boeing LOP should be made via an appropriate crossing treatment on Jackson Avenue SW within a minimum of 300 feet of the passenger boarding/alighting area at the Tukwila Multimodal Station. Placement of office buildings in the immediate vicinity of the station area within the Boeing LOP campus, internal walkways and employee entrances would be designed to minimize pedestrian -vehicle conflicts and walking distance of walk access trips to commuter rail and transit services at the Tukwila Multimodal Center. PROJECT MITIGATION When considering existing uses at the site and adjusting for adjacent development and operation of the Sounder commuter rail station and Tukwila Multimodal Center, net vehicular trips generated by the proposed 3.0 million sf of office space under the Master Plan Update would be less than those levels evaluated and vested as part of the original Boeing LOP Master Plan development action (at 2.5 million sf of office). In summary, no net increase in vehicle trip generation over what was estimated in the FEIS is anticipated as part of the proposed action. Table 5 sunmiarizes general impacts of the proposed action and describes actions proposed to reduce or eliminate project impacts. The following pages further document in detail existing transportation mitigation requirements and agreements between Boeing, the cities of Renton and Tukwila, and adjacent property owners with respect to buildout of the Boeing Longacres Office Park. Mitigation Requirements and Agreements Previously Established Street Improvements Oaksdale Avenue SWC The I.nngacrer Qffitr park EIS Mitigation Docmment, May 1995, identified site improvements pertaining to the Oakesdale Avenue SW extension. One of the mitigation agreements identified the construction of a private two-lane roadway by Boeing within the alignment for the Oakesdale Avenue SW extension. Other mitigation agreements related to right-of-way reservations and dedications for the private roadway and Oakesdale Avenue SW. The City of Renton was also to commence construction of the Oakesdale Avenue SW extension before the buildout of Longacres Office Park, or within 20 years, or the required mitigation was null and void. 5eprenilw 29, 2000 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 22 Boeing Longacres Office - Master Plan Update Renton,,WA Tra ortation Sind Tahir ';! Mitisratinn tn Address Project Imnacts of Boelnz LOP Master Plan Update Impacts Description Project Mltigatlon Trip generation during peak Net vehicle trip generation Is The project applicant would implement commute periods. estimated at 28,000 daily, 3,775 traditional transportation demand a.m. peak hour trips, and 3,630 p.m. management (TDM) programs through a peak hour trips assuming non-NOV series of parking management strategies, mode splits of 65% during peak subsidy elements and incentives, site commute periods and 75% on a daily amenities, work schedule and other basis. special programs and operations to reduce project impacts during peak commute periods and meet Commute Trip Reduction CTR requirements. Increased traffic on adjacent Vehicular site access would be Details on specific roles and streets and roadways that provided onto Oaksdale Avenue SW, responsibilities of new construction or would provide site access. Jackson Avenue $W, and SW 27th Improvements to existing roadway by the Street. These streets are currently not applicant and the City of Renton are constructed or will be Improved. summarized In the Mitigadon Requirements and Agreements Previously Esrablkhed section of this report (pages 24 to 25). Systemwide Impacts to vicinity increased vehicle traffic onto vicinity The applicant would pay Impact fees in roadway network. arteM systems would occur as a result proportion to their relative Impacts of of the proposed action. vehicle trip generation. Currently, these midgation fees are based on $75 per daily vehicle trip (esdrnated at $2.03 million) payable to the CAy of Renton, and $550 per p.m. peak hour trip (estimated at $1.03 million) to the City of Tukwila for those trips Impacting the respective lurisdictions. Ridership impacts to public Impacts to ridership on commuter rail Install an appropriate crossing treatment transportation systems. services are estimated at 400 one-way on Jackson Avenue SW to minimize boardings during the p.m. peak hour conflicts between vehicle traffic and In the reverse commute direction, employee walk access and to provide a resulting in a net increase of 300 one- safe and attractive route for commuter way daily boardings over current rail patrons between the Tukwila ridership estimates. This demand for Multimodal Station and Boeing LOP. ridership Is for the reverse commute direction and would not adversely Impact excess passenger capacity of commuter rail operations. impacts to safety. Increased vehicle and nonmotorized Site design guidelines and planning of travel generated by the project could vehicular and pedestrian access points Increase collision occurrence on and related facilities would be developed vicinity roadways and other to minimize the potential for conflict transportation systems. zones between motorized and nonmotorized modes. Transportation En&eerintNarthWest, LLC ■■ September 29, 20M Page 23 Boeing Longacres Office Park - Master Plan Update Renton WA Tra tion Said The Memoramdmm of Agreement Between the City of Renton and the Boeing Comrpany Rrgardwg Oakesdale Avenme SW, November 26, 1997, identified the Oakesdale Avenue SW development would include the following elements: D Oaksdale Avenue SW would ultimately be constructed to 5 lanes between SW 1641 and SW 2741 Street with intersections at SW 16'h, SW 19" and SW 274' Streets, and 4 lanes south of SW 27`s Street to the southern property line. The roadway would include curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, traffic control markings, signing and signaliaation, lighting, landscaping and drainage facilities. ➢ Phase I would include a 2 -lane roadway between SW 16' and SW 27`' Street with frontage improvements on the west side of the roadway. Statmt.' complete. 9 Phase II would -include the completion of two more lanes from SW 16" Street to SW 27`x' Street, and four lanes from SW 27a' Street to SW 31" Street with frontage improvements on both sides of the roadway..S'tatmr. not woplete. Boeing's and the City of Reantoes responsibilities would include the following > Boeing will Construct a private two-lane road within the alignment of the Oaksdale Avenue extension, following design, permitting, right-of-way, and contracting practices and standards to allow the City of Renton to qualify for grant funding for the extension, and adding the subgrade and drainage to support a five -lane roadway. Stators: mmpiete. ➢ Boeing will reserve the right-of-way for it 5 -lane roadway from SW 16" to SW 274' Streets, and will reserve half the right-of-way fora five -lane roadway from SW 27'" Street to the south property line. Status: compiele. Boeing will record a covenant to encumber the right-of-way reservation for dedication and to.bind its successors with the mitigation required under the Agreement until the LOP is built out or for 20 years, whichever is earlier. Statmr. compkk. "r When the City proceeds with the Oaksdale construction, Boeing will dedicate the private road right-of-way and improvements to the City. Staw.. not complete. ➢ When the City proceeds with the OAsdale construction, Boeing will sell to the City the additional right-of-way necessary for the 5 -lame roadway, plus any additional right-of-way (e.g., Group Health, Drainage District #1), plus Boeing's additional costs for subgrade and drainage for a 5 -lane road and other similar costs. Status. ool complete. 9 If the City is ready to proceed with the Oaksdale construction when Boeing is to construct its private road, Boeing will dedicate the full 5 -lane right-of-way to the City, and the City and Boeing will cooperate to .n;�e interference with Boeing's activities on the site. Statms: not complete. ➢ Additionally, Boeing will pay $2,512,00 toward the development of Oakesdale Avenue extension across LOP, according to a fixed payment schedule of four installments from 8/1/97 to 11/1/98. Payments to date have included: $800,000 (7/97),$343,179 (4/98), G� and 51,186,311 S/98), totaling 52,329,490. As of September 17, 1999 a spreadsheet DO !� September 29, Transportation Erteneerint NorthWest, LLC a6 Page 24 LJ Boeing i.ongacres Office Master Plan Update Renton WA Transportation Stud prepared by the Oaksdale Avenue Steering committee indicated that Boeing's commitment to the Oaksdale extension project had increased to $2,769,717. Siatus• partially complete, rrmainim obligation estimated at $440,227. ➢ The City of Renton would complete phase II of the Oaksdale Avenue extension at no cost to Boeing. Status. not complete. SW 27e Street Other elements in the Metnorandum Agreement in November 1997 were related to right-of- way, easement and environmental areas as they relate to SW 2701 Street. Dick McCann Memorandum to Phil Cyburt and Colette Temmink Regarding Pa ht of I ay I~ eseruahon on Longacru Prvpeny for Strander Bmrlepard, December 30, 1999, identified the agreement between Broadacres, Inc., owner of the Longacres Racetrack and the City of Renton in on May 11, 1984. The agreement reserved a 90 -foot right-of-way for the westerly extension of SW 27i6 Street to Strander Boulevard. The agreement prohibits the construction of permanent structures within the reserved area for 25 ,years until May 10, 2009. The property owner would be compensated at fair market value for any condemnation. of the right-of-way within the 25 -year period. The property owner would also be required to construct a local access road to provide access froth SW 27' Street to parcels abutting the right-of-way that are rezoned and developed in any use incompatible with recreational horse racing. Additionally, if and when the City of Renton constructs any westerly extension of SW 27i6 Street beyond its current terminus, any assessments or other charges allocated to Boeing to pay for some portion of the extension shall be reduced by no less than the full cost expended by Boeing in designing and constructing the local access roadway. Of the portion of SW 27`'' Street extension within the boundaries of LID 314 (i.e., between the its current terminus at Boeing's eastern property line and a point 300 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of- way), Boeing allocated share of the cost of such portion of the extension, including water and sewer improvements, if any, shall not exceed 30 percent. Slatus.• not Complete- Impact/Mitigation Fees The following impact or mitigation fees are currently attached to development at Boeing LOP: The I.7ngacns Qfiee Park EIS 11lirigation Document, May 1995, identified Boeing's traffic mitigation fee to the City of Renton was set at $75 per vehicle trips, which amounted to $2,025,000 based on 27,000 daily trips. Impact fees are payable in increments at the time of each building permit application is submitted, based on the fee in effect at the time of permit application. Under the terms of the Mitigation, Document for the Longacres Office Park (1995), Boeing has an option to pay a lump Burn of $1,755,000 prior to 12/31/00, and fulfill its entire mitigation fee to the City of Renton. Swut.• partially complete, BRC has paid ;157,500 to date. The City of Tukaila Lo�rgaars Park Tranrportatron Mili$ation Agrrenrent, December 20, 1995, identified Boeing's traffic mitigation fee to the City of Tukwila at $1,029,560 based on an estimated 1,831 peak hour trips impacting City streets and an average $550 per vehicle trip. The Agreement allows the LOP a fixed total of 390 a.m, and p.m. peak hour vehicular trips on S September 29, 2000 Tranuportason Eagineering Northwest, LLC Page 25 0 i3oetng Longecres Office Park - Master Platt Update (tenon WA Tran tZdtion Study Longacre' Way/S 1580' Street. The City reserves the right to assess additional .traffic impacts fees against LOP for S Longacres Wap/S 1 S8d Street improvements. Statue not complete. Transportation Demand Management Programs Ridership on public transportation (Le., transit, commuter rail, etc.) and attractiveness at the employment site trip -end is primarily related to parking management characteristics, transit accessibility and levels of service, and vicinity land uses within walking distance. Secondary issues include total travel time, congestion, and other available modal opportunities. Parking management strategies at the employment site are inherently part of the equation for transportation demand managerrent, such as parking pricing strategies or carpool/vanpool incentives. To achieve not;,-HOV mode splits identified in this transportation study and to meet the requirements of Washington State's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Act of 1990, Boeing would implement a series of traditional transportation demand management (TDM) programs that would be targeted at employees working at the site. Types of specific TDM elements that would be considered at Boeing LOP are summarized in Table 6, however, no specific elements have been identified at this time, Boeing currently provides preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, subsidy for transit and other public transportation modes, work schedule options and staggered work shifts, and on-site transportation coordinators and =idematching services to existing employees at Boeing LOP and at many other of their employment sites throughout Renton and the Puget Sound region. Status- not complete. This miligafion conditions would be nein to Boeing LOP 11larler Plan. Table 6: Types of Traditional TUM Programs at Boeing f.Of TDM Types of Element Proattts Parking Management - Priority carpool/vanpooi stalls Strategies - Company vehicles Subsidy dements - Transit ferry/cothmuter rail fare subsidy - Vanpool fare subsidy - Carpool Incentives - BlgcIlaVwaIklng Incentives Site Amenities - Showers and lockers - Covered bicycle parking - Secured bicycle lockers - Passenger loading area Work Schedule - Flex -time Options - Compressed work week - Staggered work shifts Special Programs - Guaranteed ride home - Ridematching services • Transportation coordinator - Telecommuting • Employer/site shuttles Fleet Vehicles - Vehicles available for work-related travel Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC September 29, 2000 Page 26 aati Boeing Longacres Office Master Plan tlndate Renton WA Trapmortation Study Safety Needs Additional vehicular and norunototized trips that would be generated by the proposed action could increase the potential risk of collisions, there is no generally accepted and reliable method to predict future collision occurrence. Generally, as vehicular traffic volumes increase, the transportation system becomes more congested, and a commensurate increase in collision experience can occur. However, given existing safety conditions in the site vicinity and planned transportation improvements, it is anticipated that collision experience would remain ' similar to existing patterns and rates exhibited by existing facilities and not result in adverse impacts to public safety via transportation systems in the immediate site viciszity. Walk trips and access to the adjacent Tukwila Multimodal Station as well as other transit services in the immediate site vicinity could increase the potential for conflicts to occur between walking and bicycling activity and vehicle traffic. As such, general site development guidelines and planning of vehicular and pedestrian access points and related facilities would be developed to minimize as best possible the potential for conflict zones between motorized and nonmotorized modes. In addition the applicant, to ensure safe nonmotorized movements and access to the Tukwila Multimodal Station area, would construct an appropriate crossing treatment of Jackson Avenue SW. Status: not complete. This miti,galion anditio?v rvaxld be new to. Boring LAP Martyr Plan. Remaining Mitigation Obligations of Applicant .In, summary, the following mitigation elements comprise remaining obligations of the applicant to .reduce or eliminate transportation impacts of the proposed 3.0 million sf of office uses at Boeing LOP. Roadway Improvements When the City proceeds with the Oaksdale construction, Boeing will dedicate the private road right -of wag and improvements to the City. When the City proceeds with the Oaksdale construction, Boeing will sell to the City the additional right-of-way necessary for the 5 -lane roadway, plus any additional right-of-way (e.g., Group Health, Drainage District #1), plus Boeing's additional costs for subgrade and drainage for a 5 -lane road and other similar costs. > Remaining contribution toward the development of Oakesdale Avenue extension across LOP is estimated at $440,227 per the September 17, 1999, spreadsheet prepared by the Oaksdale Avenue Steering committee. > Upon development of offices uses abutting the SW 27`h Street tight -of -way, Boeing will construct a local access road to Renton City standards to provide site access. ➢ Upon construction of the Stander Boulevard extension by the City of Renton, any assessments or other charges allocated to Boeing to pay for some portion of the extension shall be reduced by no less than the full cost expended by Boeing in designing and constructing the local access roadway. Of the portion of SW 27h Street extension within the Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC September 29, 2400 Page 27 Boeing Longatres Office Paris - Master Plan Update Renton WA Transportation Stud boundaries of LID 314 (i.e., between the its current teminus at Boeing's eastern property line and a point 300 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way), Boeing allocated' share of the cost of such portion of the extension, including water and sewer improvements, if any, shall not exceed 30 percent. Traffic Mitigation lees ➢ Mitigation fees to the City of Renton are estimated at $75 per vehicle trips, which amounted to $2,025,000 based on 27,000 daily trips. Impact fees are payable in increments at the time of each building permit application is submitted, based on the fee in effect at the time of permit application. Under the terms of the Mitigation Document for the Longacres Office Park (1995), Boeing has an option to pay a lump sum of $1,755,000 prior to 12/31 /00, and F„ lfili its entire mitigation fee to the City of Renton. D Traffic mitigation fees to the City of Tukwila are estimated at $1,029,564 based on an estimated 1,831 peak hour trips impacting City streets and an average $550 per vehicle trip. Transportation Demand Management Measures ➢ Implement traditional transportation demand management (TDM} progratns through a series of parking management strategies, subsidy elements and incentives, site amenities, work schedule and other special programs and operations to reduce project impacts during peak commute periods and sheet Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) requirements. Safety Improvements A Construct an appropriate crossing treatment of Jackson Avenue SW to ensure safe nonmotorized movements and access to the Tukwila Multimodal Station area from Boeing LOP. Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC September 29, 2000 Page 28 Billing Invoice EGO00171 Job or PO #: Boeing 96327 BILLING CONTACT Mark Clement BOEING COMPANY THE Po Box 3707 MIC 20-00 Seattle, WA 98124 Phone: (206) 617-2944 REFERENCE NUMBER Department: CED - Planning 29 Eden Invoice: FEE NAME I GL Number LUA13-001722 PLAN - Environmental Review The applicant is proposing to add a new parking lot to serve the 000.000000.007.345.81.04.000 Boeing office building 25-20. The new parking lot would contain PLAN - Site Plan Review - Admin 155 parking stalls of which 28 would be compact stalls. 000.000000.007.345.81.14.000 Technology Fee 503.000000.004.322.10.00.000 Amount Due $1,000-00 $1,000.00 $60.00 SUBTOTAL $2,060.00 TOTAL $2,060.00 Created On: 12IM013 1:59:26PM Prepared By: Vanessa Dolbee 425-430-7314 Page 1 of 1