Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-10-041_MiscSeptember 13, 2010 Renton City Council Minutes Page 267 Continuing, Ms. Simpson stated that even if the Department of Ecology (DOE) sends the document back with required changes the City can propose alternatives to those changes. She noted that the process is complicated, cumbersome, and that DOE expects it to take approximately two to three years. She remarked that Renton's SMP will affect its residents and businesses for decades and requested that Council take the time to understand how the program will affect the community prior to forwarding it to DOE. Citizen Comment: Dana - Buzz Dana (Renton) stated that he owns two properties on Lake Washington Proposed Shoreline Master and 40 years ago built a bulkhead to protect a sewer line that serves his and Program adjacent properties. He stated that he has been told that he would not have difficulty obtaining permits to develop his property because that bulkhead protects the sewer line and adjacent homes. Mr_ Dana pointed out, however, that as the SMP is currently written, he would have to go through the delay and expense of generating a geotechnical report when redeveloping. He requested that Council consider the coalition's proposed revisions, and take the additional time to fully understand the long-term impacts the SMP will have on the growth of Renton. Citizen Comment: Young - Gary Young (Renton) stated that he is a shoreline property owner and member Proposed Shoreline Master of the RSC. He requested that the SMP be referred to the Committee of the Program Whole so the full Council could consider the legislation before it is adopted. Citizen Comment: Riley - Virginia Riley (Renton) requested that the SMP be referred to the Committee of Proposed Shoreline Master the Whole so the full Council could consider the legislation, and the concerns of Program the Renton Shoreline Coalition, before it is adopted. Citizen Comment: Iden - Kevin Iden (King County) expressed appreciation to City officials, staff, and the Proposed Shoreline Master citizens who spent time working on the draft SMP. He requested that Council Program avoid making the SMP unnecessarily restrictive because once it is approved it cannot be revised without Department of Ecology approval. Mr. Iden explained that the Shorelines Hearings Board is the ultimate review authority for shoreline -related projects. He requested that Council resolve the coalition's final issues before approving the SMP. Citizen Comment: Richards - Darius Richards (Renton) thanked all parties responsible for shaping and Proposed Shoreline Master creating the SMP. He stated that he believes the Planning and Development Program Committee requires more time to review the revisions proposed by the Renton Shoreline Coalition regarding shoreline stabilization structures. Mr. Richards also stated that the requirements for existing bulkheads are more stringent than what State guidelines recommend. He requested that Council delay the vote on this issue until the proposed revisions are fully reviewed. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 8/16/201.0. Council concur. 8/16/2010 Appeal. Shoreline Substantial City Clerk reported receipt of an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board filed Development Permit, by Brad Nicholson, requesting a review of the approval of Shoreline Substantial Nicholson,LUAr 10 041 Development Permit, LUA-10-041. Refer to City Attorney Department. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Meeting: Appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of Regular Council - 13 Sep 2010 Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: LUA-10-041, ECM, SM, Brad Nicholson v. City of Renton Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: Petition for Review, Declaration of Brad Executive Nicholson, and Exhibits Staff Contact: Bonnie Walton Recommended Action: Refer to City Attorney Department Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ Transfer Amendment: $ Amount Budgeted: $ Revenue Generated: $ Total Project Budget: $ City Share Total Project: $ SUMMARY OF ACTION: Petition for Review, Declaration of Brad Nicholson, and Exhibits filed as an appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board requesting a review of the decision to approve Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, LUA-10-041, ECM, 5M, by Brad Nicholson, 2302 NE 28th St., Renton, 98056. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, v_ City of Renton Respondents. Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 425 445 0658 brad827@hotmail.com Name and address of Respondents: Vanessa DoIbee/Steve Lee City of Renton Storm. Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 48057 Parties necessary for just adjudication.: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #400 Seattle, WA 98104 Pebtion for Review Page 1 of 20 CITY OF RENTON SEP 0 2 2010 CITY CMAS &FICE �;,.� Case No.❑ L- C E 11 VIE a Petition for Revi AUO 2 6 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE Brad NiCh01Son 60! Z—ax V r~� ttyi nary Warren �1�� �retsc�i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BEFORE THE SHORELINES ) iEARiNGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASTINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUAI0-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. City of Renton Respondents. Name and address of Petitioner: 13 Brad Nicholson 14 2302 N.E. 28th Street 15 Renton, WA 98056 425 445 065 8 16 brad827@hotmail.com 17 18 Name and address of Respond6nts: 19 Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee 20 City of Renton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way 21 Renton WA. 98057 22 23 Parties necessary for just adjudication; 24 Property OwMer: 25 Fort Quendaff Company 111437 Atte, Steve Van Til 26 505 Union Station, 505 51h Avenue South 4900 27 Seattle, WA 98104 28 Pefi#ian for Review Page I of 20 Case No. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proponent: Spencer Alpert Alpert Intemational, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Parties Served: Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Washington office of the Attorney General Rob McKenna 800 5th. Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 This is a request for Shorelines Board review of the decision to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development Pernut designated LUA10-041, ECR, SM, issued on August 9, 2010, signed and approved by Renton's planning director "Chip" Vincent. A copy of the decision is attached herewith. I. INTRODUCTORY FACT Evidently, Renton's planning priorities are severely misplaced. The decision has the effect of approving of a Shoreline variance even though no evidence of the necessary criteria is present' The attached decision contains a bulleted list that claims to describe "each part' of the proposed project while incognizant of the need for a decision balancing the needs of the public. I The burden ofproof for a variance RCW 90.58.140(7) is on the applicant.. Among other requirements, the circumstances mast be " mamordiaary» to be consistent the with requirements RCW 90.58.100(5) Petition for Review Brad Nicholson Page 2 of 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The decision claim that "each part" is included on the bulleted list is very far from being the truth. The words "each part" are misleading, hiding many facts of the true nature and contents of the p ermit_ The following provides a description of some of the absent parts with a bulleted list that is reasonable, truthful, and appropriate: ■ On the north of the site, a functionally interrelated, interdependent connected, non-priority, non - water related, non-public, 100% impervious, 5 story tall pre -approved 173 room Hotel with a spa, fitness center, restaurant, and parking lot named "Rawl{'s Landing depends on the project. Even though required by the SMA to do so, the true proponents of the permit never sought the necessary Shoreline permits, and never sought the necessary storm water or infrastructure facilities on another segment of the same project under a different designation - LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H. The project will have around 350,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The Hotel does nothing to farther public access or water related or aesthetics interest but instead interferes with those interests. The defective permit is the latest of a series of surprises with regard to how the project's water runoff will be handled. At the Hotel's SEPA hearing, they were able to sneak approval of the bogus "Rain Garden" that violates code and isn't a "Rain Garden at all until after SEPA was performed. They said the "Rain Garden" was going to discharge to the "Ditch" Even though it has been improperly decided to designate the only portion of the "Urban" shoreline that is still undeveloped, the decision is still incorrect and the permit should still be reversed because it does nothing to allow the public to have access to the Shoreline. Some people believe therm that there is a "50 foot setback" applicable to the project. • On the west, there is a 500 foot long orange scum containing drainage ` Ditch" that is obviously contaminated with metals with a very high elevation conveyance output pipe that ponds the site's extremely large quantity of water runoff and infiltrates a significant portion of that water nmoffto Qaendall Terminals and Labe Washington_ Now they are going to fill the "Ditch", which is the opposite of what the project described in the SEPA apphGation for the Hotel project. This would be in lieu of the developer's responsibility, evidently because he refuses to mitigate the impacts of the hotel, a "bait and switch" tactic inconsistent with the previous pleas and decisions. Now, they contend the "Ditch" should be filled with imported material, under the guise that such action is ar Petition for Review Srid Nichoison Page 3 of 20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 0 acceptable continuation of a "direct discharge" to May Creels. It is simply not the case and not true. It is not a direct discharge to May Creels --it presently significantly infiltrates to Lake Washington. What the natural hydrologic regime would be in a natural environment in the area has been totally disregarded. One thing is clear and that is that they dont know if infiltration water will impact Lake Washington and Quendall Terminals or not, but it is easy to see (consistent with the other actions pleas) that the decision was made in support of the contention that the area is already degraded, and that since they are doing nothing to exacerbate the issues, the proposal has no impact. It is evidently hoped that chances of reversal in appeals that may cite impact to the superfund site directly downstream containing extremely hazardous chemicals would be reduced with the tactic, i, e. they will contend that it has already been decided. The "wet biofiltration swale" is being separately permitted on this project for another project it is intended to service, while both have separate numbers which is the first indication that there is a problem. Without utilizing precedent for decisions in the KCSWDM, they want to conceal facts so as to affirm the developer's position regarding refusal to dedicate any Land with the hope that the inconsistencies with the City's Shoreline Management Program will go unnoticed. • On the southern 200 feet of the site, there is untouched State Shoreline meeting the criteria for designation as a "Conservation Environment" under Renton's Shoreline Management Plane. Two regulated wetlands, and a Class one Salmon Stream that should be protected by the Shoreline Management Act and numerous valuable species of wildlife including species listed as "Threatened" and "Endangered" by the ESA that are directly downstream from the Hotel. At least 10,000 square feet of the site area of the shoreline have been permitted to be bulldozed, and a pit would be excavated and fenced for storm water facilities that are not approved by the Storm water manual' and would violate important regulatory requirements of the SMA, Renton's SMP and Renton's code. It is represented as an "improvement" over existing conditions even though such repiesertation is unsupported by substantial evidence, and while there is no authority in the I The ging county Surface water Design Manual (Ki ;SWDM) 2005 or 2009 edition requires the enhanced basic water quality menti to be used for this project A "wet biofiltration swale" is a feature listed on the `Basic" menu and therefore is not allowed. Petition for Review Page of 20 Brad Nicholson to rl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 Z5 26 27 28 SMA indicating "improvement" is all that is required. More than an "improvement" is required by the SMA. and Renton's Shoreline Management Plan. No restoration has been proposed. • With an ill considered location the experimental non -infiltration drainage facility inconsistent with the impositions unposed by the City in previous environmental review will be directed to May Creek should the permit stand. It thereby increases its flow, inconsistent with Renton's SMP with regard to stream alteration causI g unknown downstream damage. Increasing the flow of the Creek might be a way to permit the project without drain to Quendall Terrainals, but no facts are available indicating that such a decision is consistent with SMA are available. Few if no dissolvec pollutants will be removed by the "Swale" even though there is a problem with metal according to the 303(d) Map, the KCSV DM, hydrologic survey of the Creek, (see exhibits) transportation estimates in excess of those permitted, and huge galvanized buildings that are dissolving into the Creek that the developer insisted would reznmrr. It was discovered by the applicant during the SEPA hearing that one of the buildings would not be removed. The galvanized building is about 20,000 sq ft. and "straddling" the Shoreline jurisdictional line. • The decision inappropriately and unreasonably permits a very large "Mystery Area" of available land straddling the shoreline regulatory limits delineation and that is right down the middle of the project_ It has never been articulated what development or use will take place on the "Mystery Area" and thus its reasonableness cannot be determined, but it is suitable and possible and natural in size and characteristics to support the facilities that are listed on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu or public use elements. If they don't consider that the metals from the building in the `mystery area" dissolve and drain into May Creek, the permitted project violates the City's own code. Considering the public interest nature of the regulations that are intended to protect those interests with specific design criteria suggest only that the perrait is saving the "mystery area" with this stab at approval in Trope that more tax generating development can be added Iater. Depending on whether the dissolving zinc warehouse and other pollution generated by the project would be permitted to remain with absolutely no disclosure as to what use the area of land will be put --only that it is proposed to be continually dissolving heavy metals into the environment and discharging to May Creek ---untreated is an important issue that has never been addressed. The permit should also be reversed because of the high traffic and high pollution generating nature of Petition for Review Page 5 of 20 Brad Ncholsom 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the project. Perhaps the Seahawk's or Spencer Alpert may propose that the use on the 1-2 acre "Mystery area" in the center of the project within Shoreline jurisdiction be described later, on another unlawfully segmented part of the project like was done with the transportation and storm water facilities and previous plans. Originally, Spencer Alpert International applied for this project with the "Rain Garden" Whether the current project is the best or correct course of action is a very important question. It was insisted at SLPA that the proj ect would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, but this project does not comply with it nor is it consistent with the SMP or SMA. This segment of the project is alleged to be only for the transportation and infrastructure segment of the project including storm water. From the outset there have been so many surprises with regard to the project like the "Rain Garden" and the "filling of the "Ditch" The City issued the permit to itself. It would certainly be more compliant with full disclosure if environmental review would be conducted on actual projects, or if subsequent segments would be consistent with the previous, or if the entire true project could be reviewed all at once. The environmental review concluded that the water would be appropriately handled with respect before being discharged to the "Ditch" but now the ditch is proposed to be filled. Surprises like these that include features that have never been fully reviewed will probably continue if this type of procedure is used. The City has segmented the review to include only what is being proposed on each step of what is needed to avoid imposing the Shorelines regulations or impositions on the developer, evidently being driven the idea of securing more economic development. Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to try to convince the applicant there are appropriate and reasonable solutions to the projects shortcomings. Closing their eyes to the obvious need for a variance or exception to the SMA, S MP, or complying with the storm water manual, evidently relying upon misinformation and misplaced priorities instead, the shoddily and poorly planned piecemeal City "revitaliz tion" permit will needlessly tear up the shoreline 4 Ever since the surprise discovery that the Hawk's Landing "Rain Garden" was really an impervions perforated pipe conveyance system, petitioner and others have put it in quotation marks and it is continued here. Petition for Review Brad N cholson Page 6 of 20 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I esthetics and disturb habitat, permanently block the area from public access and enjoyment, and discharg Iits polluted water into May Creek, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class 1 Salmon stream" This appeal seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development of Washington's Shorelines and disregard of numerous provisions of RCW 90.58 and Renton's ShorelinE I Management Plan. II, BACKGROUND PACTS On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International applied for and obtained approval for a Master Site Pian for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail. space, 2 fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. Proposing to cut 32 trees and proposing to hydra -seed the Shoreline, the Seahawk's considered the project essential fo their football operations -although essentially submitted without lawfully articulated street and storm water improvements or a clear picture of the layout of the entire site plan. Another project that is across the street and downstream of this project is a 20 some acre parcel commonly called Quendall Terminals, that is presently being scoped for an LCIS for 800 residential units and a subdivision for "mixed use" retail development and is the subject of an EPA superfund investigation_ No coordinated storm water plan is yc in place for the area.. In yet another project, the Smhawk's practice facility next door was able to totally exclude the public from enjoying the shoreline. A Substantial Shoreline development permit was needed for the Seahawk's Hotel project to proceed to perform deconstruction and storm water work and/or stream alteration work within 200 feet of the high water mark on the State's Shoreline, but during it's SEPA hearing surprise Counsel insisted that the area would not be "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. Placing flower pots on the existing impervious asphalt was mentioned as a possible way to mitigate the distraction. It looks like the way that the proponent will keep his word now is that Planning director Chip Vincent already approved a Shoreline Permitto the City for the project's construction. Spencer Alpert anc his Counsel argued that storm water improvements should be identified at the permit stage of the project Petifion for Review Page 7 of 20 Brad Nicholson 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 223 22- 2,3 24 25 26 27 28 and appropriate facilities would be determined at that time. Counsel for Spencer Alpert also argued that if the City does not take action within 45 days, then the project should be approved automatically. 1400 new trips per day were purported to be generated, parking was to be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 new surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for "Tesla" electric vehicles. In addition to proposing to construct a "Kai Pond", his bogus "Rain Garden", and installing capillary break building drains to release groundwater just below the sites surface affecting the Hotel, the applicant planned to move 4, 450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil over the top of the existing asphalt. Even though the groundwater is nearly at the surface, it was contended that "best management practices" could be used to protect the environment during construction but none were specifically identified. Perhaps the construction water is proposed be directed to the "wet biofiltration swale" but it doesn't say. From a perspective of groundwater flow inferred from test pits and scientific measurements, the "Ditch" water is infiltrating directly upstream. into the Port Quendall Superfund site and thence flows to Lake Washington. Port Quendall is severely polluted from past manufacturers of woad preservative products that dumped large amounts of chemicals in numerous areas of the site over decades. In summation, the "ditch" along Lake Washington Blvd is very deep and around 500 feet long, infiltrating a significant portion of its storm watei directly to Qnendall Terminals, See Massman declaration.. In addition to not knowing exactly how much water infiltrates and how much rims off, it is not known how much of the sup erfund chemicals are being forced or "fluxed" into Lake Washington, this recent discovery was after the Hotel's SEPA hearing. See EPA attachment. There are large patches of percolating chemicals at Quendall 4-6 feet thick at significant depth significantly impacting the water quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up Quendall Terminals, there will probably need to be hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on that site. Relevant here, were facts discovered that indicate a significant amount of water from the hotel project and "Ditch" could enter the superfund site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. The remediation plan is presently in progress, being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up of Quendall Terminals. EPA Exhibits. The Dept. of Ecology evidently has given up on it. No facts regarding how the remediation fact'I Pett tion far Review Page 3 of20 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2a 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 might affect the project are available. ObViously, the results are not included in any review of the project because they are not available. The questions raised by the results were the essence of a previous SEPA appeal. SEGB and Brad Nicholson's SEPA appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner cited the lack of the Hotel projects' compliance with. SEPA and the SMA, and Iack of a coordinated and compliant Storm water Plan. The entire record of the information contained in the appeal is hereby incorporated into this appeal. The conclusion and decision for the Hotel project indicated that it was normal for the storm water system to remain un -designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be applied. That is one of the problems_ See Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Counsel for Spencer Alpert insisted on splitting the Hotel's hearings into two separate hearings one for SEPA issues and one for substantive site plan code issues, SEGB and Brad Nicholson obtained the testimony of Hydrogeologist Dr, Joel Massman to opine on the issues. On reconsideration to the City's Hearing Examiner, Dr. Massrnan found that a significant amount of the storm water from the ditch supplies groundwater flow into Quendall Terminals and that the groundwater flows to Lake Washington, The downstream area contains cancer causing chemicals impacting groundwater to depths up to 50 feet, such as (PAH) Poly -cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pentaclorophend and (BTEX) Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene.. The PAH chemical family and the site contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofuran. They are considered to be extremely dangerous. The groundwater in that zone flows to Lake Washington. It does not flow to May Creek- The reek The area was and still is of particular concern because, like May Creek the area is considered prime habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthmat and Steelhead Trout_ EPA exhibits_ There also recreational swimming areas nearby that pose a threat to humans. May Creek basin and Lake Washington are supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle and numerous other valuable species. May Creek's Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon are ESA listed species_ Recently Dr. Massman's conclusion that there is significant groundwater flow into Lake Washington has Petition for Review Page 9 of 20 Brad Mcholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington'; shoreline as part of the superfund investigations. Dr. Massman calculated the Storm water infiltration/runoff from the S eahawks Hotel that should be supported by what was then an unarticulated water quality facility that would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to an annual average 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably, not take into account the lack of footing drains on the one building that counsel and Spencer Alpert pledged would "not be touched". At least initially, it is also true that his calculations did not take into account other impervious calculations such as transportation mitigation measures or what a "Rain Garden" consisted of according to Spencer Alpert. With the fractionated review, it is next to impossible for anyone to check the calculations with regard to current project's storm water facility size (even thou it is on the wrong menu) effectively excluding the public from participating in that aspect of the project. When asked to reconsider based upon the fact that the very high outlet pipe to May Creek causes the ditcl to pond and infiltrate significantly to Quendall Terminals, Renton's Hearing Examiner refused, citing "that there is no need" because he had decided the use of the "Best Available Science" was a mandatory requirement and requiring that May Creek was `not to be put into jeopardy" would suffice, and then at Spencer Alp ert's insistence Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology to the use of "B est Management practices" and that "whatever "Rain Garden" feature" could be used as long as it would satisfy the 2005 design manual and be discharged to the "Ditch" They never decided or addressed whether more storm water flow would be added to May Creek or not or whether or where a different compliant feature might be located or what type or size it might be because at the time, no complete plan was in existence. Neither was a Shoreline permit sought at that time. They reiterated that "best management practices" would be used during the dewater operation needed for construction but did not identify any of them Sometime after the appeal requesting more consideration of the impacts of the project, the City identified State money citing community revitalization interests to provide mitigation measures for the Enterprise. This appeal follows: Petition for Review Page 10 of 20 BradNicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z5 26 27 28 II n A. This petition is timely filed according to WAC 461-08-340 because it is filed within 21 days of the date the decision was made. WAC 461-08 states that, "A petition for review by any person aggrieved by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state shall be filed with the board within twenty-one days of the "date of filing" as defined in WAC 461-08-305, I I rv. JURISDICTION A. The permit appeal issues are regulated by RCW 90.58.140(1) stating a development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the chapter and, after adoption or approval, as. appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master program, and RCW 90.5 8.140(2) stating, "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this 1 chapter"; B. State Law RCW 90.5 8.180(l) provides that "Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.21L RCW, seek review from the shorelines bearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the date of filling as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6). I V_ STANDING Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a very she distance from the site, and uses the May Creek Shoreline and Labe Washington waters bodies adjoining the site. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Brad Nicholson has an active interest in the integrity of City of Renton's land use and environmental review processes, has actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to the site and its shoreline, and seeks to ensure that the City abides Petition for Review Page 11 of 20 Brad Ncholson I its prior decisions and local and state SMA policies, procedures, and mandates and conducts all project 2 reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and is negatively impacted by the improper processing an 3 lack of appropriate designs in connection with this project. 4 As a result of the impacts caused by the permit approval, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased 5 damage to the shoreline quality envisioned by RCW 90,55 and Renton's Shoreline plan, including lower 6 water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington- than envisioned by local and State Shoreline policies, 7 loss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids and numerous 8 other wildlife that use these Shorelines that he enjoys. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Nicholson also has 9 a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in to appeals concerning water quality and environmental protection of fish and wildlife in the past, As a result 11 of the City's unprop er segmentation and fractionated review and decision making with regard to the 12 shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed 13 review of a single true project application and the projects lack of attention to design criteria and k4 shoreline management purposes. He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, 15 frequently walks, boat, fish bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of 16 May Creek surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and 17 wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project. See declaration of Brad 18 Nicholson. The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using 19 inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be 20 impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and 21 water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either hake 22 Washington or May Creek. 23 He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton 24 Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and 25 will be injured by the City's denial of the right to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline 26 Permit and consideration of all the facts that are relevant to this appeal. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. 27 28 Petition for Review Page 12 d2O Brad Nkhoisoo 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9� 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22. i 23 24 25 26 27 28 VI. JOINDER WAC 461-08-445 applies in this case. The presiding officer is requested to join parties including permittee, permitting agency and any other interested person or entity in accordance with civil rule 19. I VII. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR A. Without a variance or exception, Director Chip Vincent erroneously or arbitrarily and capriciously approved the Shoreline Substantial Development permit even though the following required design criteria of Renton's Shoreline Master Program and 90.58.020 RCW have not been incorporated into the project's design: 1. Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations § 5,03.01(D) reading as follows, "To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities" and, "Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to non -motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" note: A hots and parking structure.is not a water -dependent use given priority for shoreline development under RCW 90.5 8.020 see Gislason v. Town of Friday Harbor ShB No. 81-22 (198.1); Clifford, et A, v. City of Renton and Boeing SHB No. 92-52 (1993). Development consisting of a unified structure, such as a connection pipe to a storm water facility servicing the project, which is part in and part out of the shoreline with a potential for an adverse shoreline effect, is "within" the shoreline for the purposes of the SMA.. see Weyerhaeuser v King County 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P. 2d 1108 (1979). Since the pipe is connected and the storm water facilty is intended for the Hotel, it is also "on" the shoreline under RCW 90.58.140(2), and requires a shoreline permit for the entire project. Public access and habitat protection will be needed, as reflected by the master provision, an important value under the SMA. RGW 90.58.0; see Silver Lake Community Council v_ City ofFvereff. SHB No. 80-04 (1980)_ Pe fion for Review Page 13 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Public access and habitat preservation are both part of the public trust values, which inhere in the SMA, see Caminifi v. Boyle, 107 Wn.2d 262 (t987). Because the Decision Maher failed to inhere those values, the permit as approved fails to meet the requirements of both SEPA and the SMA 2. Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Landscape Native Vegetation regulations § 7.19.01 (A) (1) reading as follows, `°The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" note: Public access is not the only shoreline value protected under public trust through the SMA.. The policies of the SMA specifically contemplate "prat ang against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life... RCW 90.58.020. 3. Renton Shoreline Master Program Local Service Utility specifications § 7.19.04 (D) (1) covering discharges of pollutants reading as follows, " Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge" note: It is necessary for Renton to comply with the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as an MS4 jurisdiction. See Puget Soundkeeper - Stormwater is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urban waterways in the United States, Ex. MUNI -0127, Fact Sheet, p. 8. In December 1999, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules regarding the regulation of municipal stormwater_ Ex. COA-0028, Moore Testimony. EPA finalized the Phase 11 rules in 2040 (EPA Phase lI Rules), which applied the NPDES permit program to certain small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (called MS4s)_ Ex. MUNI - 0127, Fact Sheet, p_ 3. Emmett Testimony. The EPA Phase 11 Rules provide that the permits must require regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a storrnwater management program (SV MW) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40 C,F.R §12234(a). cite, Puget .SoundkeeperAlliance, Peoplefor Puget Sound; Coalition of Governmental Entities v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation PCHB NDS 07-022, 07-023 4. Renton Shoreline Master Program Stream Alteration regulations § 7.17.02 (A) (B) reading as follows, "Stream Alteration in unique and fragile areas is prohibited" and "Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable area of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of Petidan ror Review Page 14 of 20 BradNicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1a li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 land is prohibited" note: RCW 90.58.020 "The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation" and "In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state" and, "To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline" 5. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (A)(1)(2)(3), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (C), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (17)(2), Renton. Municipal Code 4-6-030 (E)(3)(h)(ii) note: Maple Valley Othensfor Responsihle Growth a City of Mole Valley and Richard and Jill Brawn SHB NO. 03-014 is distinguished in that the proposal discharging to Pipe Lake was not on the shoreline, not a salmon bearing water, it did comply with the KCSW DM, and they provided money and resources to insure by covenant that it would not pollute the Lake. None of those facts exist here. 6, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 12.8 Core Requirement 48 Water Quality, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1.2.8.1 Area Specific Water Quality Facility Requirement, KCSWDM 2009 edition Definitions section page 13, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 6.1.2 Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu_ Note: a "wet biofiltration Swale" is not an infiltration feature and not a stand alone enhanced basic feature. 7. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020, "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enj oy the shorelines of the state" The hotel is not on the list. 8. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.5 8.020 design criteria, "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water" PeUba for Review Page 15 of 20 Brad Nicholson M 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is notin the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest„ 10_ The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and Iocal governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines" B. Renton's Planning Director Chip Vincent, by approving the Substantial Development Permit approved a fractionated and piecemeal project in, violation of core requirements ofthe ,SMA 90.58 I RCW. 1. A proposed development that includes both shorelines and uplands is properly reviewed in its entirety for consistency with the SMA, see Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844 (1973)_ The SMA review is applicable to those portions of a proposed development that he within the shoreline as defined under RCW 90.5 8.030 and those portions of a project than may have adverse impacts on the shoreline. See also Weyerhaeuser v. Xing County, 91 Wn.2d 721 (1979); Allegra Development Company. Inc. v. Wright Hotels v. City ofSeattle, SHB No. 99-08 (1999). The reference to "adjacent lands" in the shoreline management act (RCW 90.5 8.100(2) (e)), is a reflection of the legislative scheme that lands adjacent to shorelines must be considered together with the area extending 200 feet inland from high water in order to achieve the consistency necessary for a systematic and intelligent management of the shorelines. "A single improvement or project of a governmental agency including and having an interrelated of on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with provisions of the environmental policy act and the shoreline management act" cite; Appletree C Protection Fund v. Xitsup SHS No. 93-55 PeUm for Raim Page 16 of 20 Brad Nithokii 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The issue applicable here, the piecemeal consideration of environmental impacts from development plans, "is one which strikes at the very core of both the State Environmental Policy Act and the Sho Management Act". Appletree Cove Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 (emphasis supplied) The question, therefore, is whether the City may take a single project and divide it into segments purposes of SEPA and SMA approval. The frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compel answer in the negative. The factual situation in Merkel and Appletree cove is remarkably similar to present case. In Merkel and Appletree Cove, an overall scheme of development existed, but only on( piece was submitted for environmental. review. In the instant case, an overall Project Master Plan exist, and has been reviewed, but at that time only part of the project was submitted for environmental review Now they are doing the storm water and transportation measures inconsistent with that review. Th( fractionated review is why significant questions about shoreline impacts have never been addressed. A conclusion that the City has an obligation to conduct a review of its entire Master Plan under the SMA. and lay out.the overall Master Plan of development including a storm water plan, public access water related use plan, and location of and priorities of the facilities in the context of the Shorelines permit application, prior to proceeding with a permit for one portion of the Plan is in order. At the same time, failing to use that master plan (which is what has occurred) to assess the overall environmental impacts of future development under this permit only leads to preventable damage to the natural environment which is the right of all citizens of the state. The test that is employed is that, the connection or link must be "dependant" on the other piece. Piecemeal review is impermissible where a "series of interrelated steps [constitutes] an integrated plan" and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases_ see Cheney V. Mountlake Terrace, 87 Wn.2d 338, 345, 552 P.2d 184 (1976) also, Murden Cove Preservation and .Protection Association v. K -asap county 41 Wn. App. 515 stating, WAC 197-10-060 (1) and (2) provide in part: (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together v all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the pres Petition for Review Page 17 of 20 Brad Nicbolsou 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 � 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proposal if: "(a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary operation of the present proposal; or "(b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite future activities. The latest codification is as follows: WAC 197-11-060 (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document. Proposals or parts of are closely related, and they shall be discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are Simultaneously with them; or (ii) Are interdependent parts of a Iarger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as justification or for their implementation. I VIII, GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL A. The protect is reversible as piecemeal because it is related to Hawk's Landing closely enough to be a single project and because it can not or will not proceed unless the other proposal is implemented simultaneously and because it is an interdependent part of the larger proposal and depends on the larger proposal as 'ustification for its implementation" Note: The overarching purpose of the SMA is to protect the state shorelines as fiilly as possible. Buechel w. Department of Ecology, 125'Wn.2d at 203, 884 P.2d 910 (1994)_ Consistent with this objective and the broad regulatory reach of the statute, the shoreline permit application should describe the full, unified, and integrated physical project, both within and without the shorelines of the state. The facilities or future activity and functionally related work necessary that the project depends on to proceed consistent with the SMA that been ignored by the Decision Maker in this case are as follows: 1, A redesign of the project to permit public access to waterfront activities is needed. 2, The project depends on dedication of Land for location of Storm water Facilities in areas where it is possible to locate outside of the native vegetation, A Redesign of the Shoreline with "preference" to PeU6on for RaPiem Page 18 of 20 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 facilities that would be more representative of that of the natural environment is needed and depends on the entire site plan for its lacation. 3. The project depends on obtaining additional shoreline permit to remove the zinc galvanized metal warehouse distracting to the shoreline experience and adding pollution. It needs to identify requirements for the Hotel project's necessary work to be performed on the shoreline to remove the building. 4, It is necessary to re -do the original application for the Hotel, to disclose and review Haat the applicant proposes to alter the flow of the Creek by filling the "Ditch' and requiring the description of the work to be performed on the Development site. They need to include identification of piping and outfall work to be performed on the Shoreline. It depends on whether it is appropriate to issue a permit that has a priority to restore and enhance the natural environment with respect to May Creek water flow. 5_ The project depends on additional planning work and additional lard dedication necessary to comply with the KCSWDM 2009 edition and Renton's code requirements for the "enhanced basic water quality menu" The land dedication will need to come from the site. The redesign will need to include a design for the project that this permit is intended to serve, such as Treatment Train, Stormwater Wetland, and Storrnfilter CF like is outlined on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu B. The Errors enumerated above are grounds for reversal. X_ RELIEF REQUESTED A. A declaratory order addressing whether the above Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issued the City of Renton is consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, the Renton Shoreline Managem Program and their implementing regulations, ordinances, and statutes in the following respects.- Issue espects: Issue no. 1: Whether adequate provisions for public use consistent with the ShoreliDes Management Act, Renton' Shoreline Master program, regulations, ordinances, and statutes have been provided. Issue no. 2 Whether the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" as permitted is adequate to minimize, "insofar as practical pollution to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, Rar ton's Shoreline Maste program, and other code regulations, design inanuals, ordinances, and statutes. PetiGan for Review Page 19 of 20 Brad -Nicholson 1 2, 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Issue no. 3: 'Whether it is possible and appropriate for the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" or for that matter any other water facility to be located on a location different than where it is. Issue no. 4: Whether a variance should have been sought for any of the issues, and whether a variance should grained for the project_ Issue no -5 -- Whether Whether the project is a prohibited uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's Shorelines. B. For any and all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this appeal and believe the facts herein to be true and correct Pefton for Review Page 20 of 20 Dated this 21" day of August, 2010 Brad Nicholson Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-441, ECM, SM Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, 8 V. 9 City of Renton 10 Respondents. 11 IM 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No: Declaration of Brad Nicholson I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows: I _ I am a life resident of Renton, and I have lived about 12 blocks from the above Seahawks Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years. 2. 1 have a much greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton. I created a Washington non profit corporation specifically for the purpose protecting amenities that this appeal seeks to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings and monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals_ I am the dynamic that inspired ideas that could solve the present design issues for the project. 3. I am aggrieved by the approval of the Shoreline substantial development permit for numerous reasons. I want to review information on the whole project at one time not just a number of pieces of the project, like regarding the storm water facilities such as facility size, placement, capacity, and effectiveness, and public access areas. I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the entire proposal because i would like to have my community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton's Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.5 8, and a compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do. I am aggrieved by the Declaration Brad Nicholson Page I of 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Io 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City's denial of my rights to such a community and aggrieved by the fact that development planning does not appear to be properly prioritized. By ignoring State policy and the procedural and substantial protections contained in the Renton Municipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's' decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is contrary to the letter and the spirit of those laws. I am aggrieved that practical and reasonable means and methods of protecting water quality and my rights to a shoreline developed consistent with the Laws are not being used or proposed when I know that there has been so much effort by the Department of Ecology to assist the City to develop practical measures to protect our interests according to Federal Laws. I have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing Salmon and Trout_ A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steeihead in May Creek. I have seen sockeye in the Creek just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we live above the May Creek Basin and know that they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I have enj oyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the permit will bulldoze and fence. 4. I am injured by the permit decision in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am harmed by the City's unproper processing of the application, including failure to study and properly describe all of the project's required physical characteristics and size and feature calculations required by the code. I am harmed by the failure to properly categorize or identify those features, and failure to submit a complete unified design so that I can develop input and be able to review and comment on an honest proposal. The project is riddled with proposals that have not notified me as to what they are really proposing. I am harmed by the City's failure to conduct a proper consistency review of the storm water design with the SMA and Renton's program for Shorelines. I will be harmed by the damage done to the State's Shoreline amenities by changes in flow and quality of May Creek Substantively, I will be injured if the project is constructed in noncompliance with the City's code. For example, Renton's past decision and code requires that the storm water features comply with the Declaration Paget of Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1z 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 King County storm water manual and certain Shoreline regulations, conform to the Shoreline Master Plan, and Comprehensive Plan's elements, goals, objectives and policies, anal must mitigate impacts (such as impacts to threatened or endangered species and opportunity for access to the Shoreline's amenities and protection of native vegetation) as well as clear prohibition on alterations and illicit discharges into salmon bearing streams. The City should bear the burden of proof to shove the method that will be used to avoid or abate pollution and comply with the above requirements but on this project they have consistently avoided review by submitting segmented and bogus facilities that do not truly explain the full) extent of what they are doing. I will be injured if the plan is not designed by taking into account what the natural environment should be. The City's Shoreline plan requires the City to explain the methods that will be used to mitigate pollution impacts to May Creek and demonstrate the necessity of developing the State's Shoreline but they have not done so. The proposal submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. I am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State. 6. If the project is built on May Creek according to inferior standards for Shoreline protection and means of achieving water quality standards iu May Creek while being incompatible with the neighboring superfund site, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project. The urban designations intended to protect my interests should be used and storm water measures to protect my interestsshould be used to protect my interests but as approved in the city's decision they do not provide the degree of protection to my interests as the code or Shoreline plan does and I would want the City to use those measures to protect my interests and the interests of my family. I want to review and comment on a compliant plan or honest effort to formulate such a plan but I have been deprived of that right because of the applications without them, My opinion is that the developer Spencer Alpert is just plain refusing to perform many of the requirements. I would have to do the design, do all of the design work for them while speculating as to the type of facilities or strategies they might contest. In the past, they have allowed applications to be submitted and reviewed even though they arc nc the real project. They fooled us and Dr. Massman by saying that they were using a 'Rain Garden" in the List application, and this time by saying that the flow of May Creek will not be altered. We actually thought it was a' Rain Garden" and that wasted a lot of our time and resources. I would like to see some effort made to restore natural conditions to the area, which there has not been. Dettarmon Page of Brad Niefiotsor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Z2 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. I do not have anything against the Seahawk's in general nor do I contend it is likely to. be impossible t, build a Hotel on the site. But the developer with a great deal more resources than ordinary citizens that come to Renton to have taxpayers like me pay with not only money, but with our Shoreline amenities for the needs of a private enterprise while causing the impacts l complain of does not impress me in the least. Most disturbing of all to me, is the fact that it appears it is nothing more than a strategy to disregard the City's Shoreline and to save money by using Lawyers to argue the project permits. In Renton they charge $250.00 for each appeal and it is necessary to take the issues to the Council in most instances_ That is $500.00 for each LUA, and double or triple that when it is done in pieces. It looks like they just want to I wear people down.....very few people can afford to participate. I am offended that variances are not sought with regard to non -discretionary design requirements. If they are able to just approve the project without variances, it is just the same as cbanging the code in response to the particular application. No other people around the area get to do that either. I think it is impacting the vitality of our Shorelines and Health, our Codes, our Laws, and the SMA and in tum the vitality of our community and economy. What it looks like to frustrated citizens like me that take the time to consider the permits is that the developer is just submitting a "low quality and low budget" proposal to save money and then using the Lawyers to cause so much litigation that anyone would want to just forget about it. I consider that to be very foolish and that it will be tragic to the City's long term fature. My neighborhood and community is what is suffering now and what will suffer when the project is built. I will suffer and so will ray family. In my opinion, compelling the City and the developer to adjust their priorities and plans with Shorelines Board power is the only thing that will improve the situation and protect my interests, that is why I made the appeal. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. DATED this 21th day of August, 2010. Respectfully, Dedaraiioa Page of rad Nicholson Brad Nichoison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. . City of Renton Respondents. Case No.. No. Exhibits The following exhibits are submitted to support the Petition for Review 1. Copy of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2. Project Description 2.1 City Council decision on Hawk's Landing 2.2 Hearing Examiner decision on Hawk's Landing 3. 4 Photos of site 4, 303(d) map 5. Shoreline Master Program and receipt 6. 1" and 2nd Declaration of Joel Massman 7. KCSWDM excerpts 8. EPA area description and investigation results 9. Hydrologic Stream data (KC) 10. Water Quality data (KC) 11. Photo of "swale" area 12. Photo of "ditch" area 13. Photo of May Creek 14. ERC report Hawk's Landing Exhibit List Page 1 of 2 Brad Nicholson I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. Graham and bunting study 16. Hearing Examiner Decision - Reconsideration I7_ Hawk's Landing TlR 18. Appeals to Council 19. Various pleadings, Original Hawk's Landing appeal and its exhibits DATED this 11th day of July, 2009. I Respectfully, rad Nicbolson Exlubit List Brad Nicholson Page 2 of 2 Exhibits are on Erle with the City ClerVs office_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, v. City of Renton Respondents. Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 425 4450658 brad827@hotmail,com Name and address of Respondents; Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee City of Renton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Attu. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Page 1 of 20 CITY OF RENTON SEP 0 2 2010 CITY CLE��}I 5 ORMCE jjr (G1,ldj'tft�sr. Jt]ij�4,y Case No. ❑ l� I—� Il = ED Petition for Revi AUG 2 6 2010 ENVIHONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE $radNicholson �aYr� Lcl;x �rer BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. City of Renton Respondents. Name and address of Petitioner: Brad Nicholson. 2302 N.E. 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 425 445 0658 brad827@hotmail.com Name and address of Respondents Vanessa Dolbee/Steve Lee City of Renton Storm Water Utility 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA. 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South 4900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Page 101720 Case No. Petition for Review Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proponent: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste, 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Parties Served: Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Washington office of the Attorney General Rob McKenna 800 5th Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 This is a request for Shorelines Board review of the decision to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit designated LUA10-041, ECR, SM, issued on August 9, 2010, signed and approved by Renton's planning director "Chip" Vincent. A copy of the decision is attached herewith. 1. INTRODUCTORY FACT Evidently, Renton's planning priorities are severely misplaced. The decision has the effect of approving of a Shoreline variance even though no evidence of the necessary criteria is present' The attached decision contains a bulleted list that claims to describe "each part" of the proposed project while incognizant of the need for a decision balancing the needs of the public. I The burden of proof for a variance RCW 90.58.140(7) is on the applicant. ,Among other requirements, the circumstances must be "extraordinary" to be consistent the with requirements RCW 90.58.100(5) Brad Nicholson Petition for Review Page 2 of 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The decision claim that "each part" is included on the bulleted list is very far from being the truth. The words "each part" are misleading, hiding many facts of the true nature and contents of the permit. The following provides a description of some of the absent parts with a bulleted list that is reasonable, truthful, and appropriate: On the north of the site, a functionally interrelated, interdependent, connected, non-priority, non - water related, non-public, 100% impervious, 5 story tall pre -approved 173 room Hotel with a spa, fitness center, restaurant, and parking lot named "Hawk's Landing depends on the project. Even though required by the SMA to do so, the true proponents of the permit never sought the necessary Shoreline permits, and never sought the necessary storm water or infrastructure facilities on another segment of the same project under a different designation - LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H. The project will have around 350,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The Hotel does nothing to further public access or water related or aesthetics interest but instead interferes with those interests, The defective permit is the latest of a series of surprises with regard to how the project's water runoff will be handled. At the Hotel's SEPA hearing, they were able to sneak approval of the bogus "Rain Garden" that violates code and isn't a "Rain Garden at all until after SEPA was performed. They said the "Rain Garden" was going to discharge to the "Ditch" Even though it has been improperly decided to designate the only portion of the "Urban" shoreline that is still undeveloped, the decision is still incorrect and the permit should still be reversed because it sloes nothing to allow the public to have access to the Shoreline. Some people believe them that there is a "50 foot setback" applicable to the project. • On the west, there is a 500 foot long orange scum containing drainage "Ditch" that is obviously contaminated with metals with a very high elevation conveyance output pipe that ponds the site's extremely large quantity of water runoff and infiltrates a significant portion of that water runoff to Quendall Terminals and Lake Washington. Now they are going to fill the "Ditch", which is the opposite of what the project described in the SEPA application for the Hotel project, This would be in lieu of the developer's responsibility, evidently because he refuses to mitigate the impacts of the hotel; a "bait and switch" tactic inconsistent with the previous pleas and decisions. Now, they contend the "Ditch" should be filled with imported material, under the guise that such action is an Petition for Review Page 3 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acceptable continuation of a "direct discharge" to May Creek It is simply not the case and not true. It is not a direct discharge to May Creek ---it presently significantly infiltrates to Lake Washington. What the natural hydrologic regime would be in a natural environment in the area has been totally disregarded. One thing is clear and that is that they dont know if infiltration water will impact Lake Washington and Quendall Terminals or not, but it is easy to see (consistent with the other actions pleas) that the decision was made in support of the contention that the area is already degraded, and that since they are doing nothing to exacerbate the issues, the proposal has no impact. It is evidently hoped that chances of reversal in appeals that may cite impact to the superfund site directly downstream containing extremely hazardous chemicals would be reduced with the tactic, i.e. they will contend that it has already been decided. The "wet biofiltration Swale" is being separately permitted on this project for another project it is intended to service, while both have separate numbers which is the first indication that there is a problem. Without utilizing precedent for decisions in the KCSWDM, they want to conceal facts so as to affirm the developer's position regarding refusal to dedicate any Land with the hope that the inconsistencies with the City's Shoreline Management Program will go unnoticed. • On the southern 200 feet of the site, there is untouched State Shoreline meeting the criteria for designation as a "Conservation Environment" under Renton's Shoreline Management Plane. Two regulated wetlands, and a Class one Salmon Stream that should be protected by the Shoreline Management Act and numerous valuable species of wildlife including species listed as "Threatened" and "Endangered" by the ESA that are directly downstream from the Hotel. At least 10,000 square feet of the site area of the shoreline have been permitted to be bulldozed, and a pit would be excavated and fenced for storm water facilities that are not approved by the Storm water manual' and would violate important regulatory requirements of the SMA, Renton's SMF and Renton's code. It is represented as an "improvement" over existing conditions even though such representation is unsupported by substantial evidence, and while there is no authority in the 3 The King county Surface water Design Manual (KCSWDM) 2005 or 2009 edition requires the enhanced basic water quality menu to be used for this project. A "wet biofiltration Swale" is a feature listed on the `Basic" menu and therefore is not allowed. Petition for Review Page of 20 Brad Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMA indicating "improvement' is all that is required. More than an "improvement" is required by the SMA and Renton's Shoreline Management Plan. No restoration has been proposed. • With an ill considered location the experimental non -infiltration drainage facility inconsistent with the impositions imposed by the City in previous environmental review will be directed to May Creek should the permit stand. It thereby increases its flow, inconsistent with Renton's SMP with regard to stream alteration causing unknown downstream damage. Increasing the flow of the Creek might be a way to permit the project without drain to Quendall Terminals, but no facts are available indicating that such a decision is consistent with SMA are available. Few if no dissolves pollutants will be removed by the "Swale" even though there is a problem with metal according to the 303(d) Map, the KCSWDM, hydrologic survey of the Creek, (see exhibits) transportation estimates in excess of those permitted, and huge galvanized buildings that are dissolving into the Creek that the developer insisted would remain. It was discovered by the applicant during the SEPA hearing that one of the buildings would not be removed. The galvanized building is about 20,000 sq ft. and "straddling" the Shoreline jurisdictional line, • The decision inappropriately and unreasonably permits a very large "Mystery Area" of available land straddling the shoreline regulatory limits delineation and that is right down the middle of the project. It has never been articulated what development or use will take place on the "Mystery Area" and thus its reasonableness cannot be determined, but it is suitable and possible and natural in size and characteristics to support the facilities that are listed on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu or public use elements. If they don't consider that the metals from the building in the "mystery area" dissolve and drain into May Creek, the permitted project violates the City's own code. Considering the public interest nature of the regulations that are intended to protect those interests with specific design criteria suggest only that the permit is saving the "mystery area" with this stab at approval in hope that more tax generating development can be added later. Depending on whether the dissolving zinc warehouse and other pollution generated by the project would be permitted to remain with absolutely no disclosure as to what use the area of land will be put ---only that it is proposed to be continually dissolving heavy metals into the environment and discharging to May Creek ----untreated is an important issue that has never been addressed. The permit should also be reversed because of the high traffic and high pollution generating nature of Petition for Review Page 5 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the project. Perhaps the Seahawk's or Spencer Alpert may propose that the use on the 1-2 acre "Mystery area" in the center of the project within Shoreline jurisdiction be described later, on another unlawfully segmented part of the project like was done with the transportation and storm water facilities and previous plans. Originally, Spencer Alpert International applied for this project with the "Rain Gardena4 Whether the current project is the best or correct course of action is a very important question. It was insisted at SEPA that the project would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, but this project does not comply with it nor is it consistent with the SMP or SMA. This segment of the project is alleged to be only for the transportation and infrastructure segment of the project including storm water. From the outset there have been so many surprises with regard to the project like the "Rain Garden" and the "filling of the "Ditch" The City issued the permit to itself, It would certainly be more compliant with full disclosure if environmental review would be conducted on actual projects, or if subsequent segments would be consistent with the previous, or if the entire true project could be reviewed all at once. The environmental review concluded that the water would be appropriately handled with respect before being discharged to the "Ditch" but now the ditch is proposed to be filled. Surprises like these that include features that have never been fully reviewed will probably continue if this type of procedure is used. The City has segmented the review to include only what is being proposed on each step of what is needed to avoid imposing the Shorelines regulations or impositions on the developer, evidently being driven the idea of securing more economic development. Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to try to convince the applicant there are appropriate and reasonable solutions to the projects shortcomings. Closing their eyes to the obvious need for a variance or exception to the SMA, SMP, or complying with the storm water manual, evidently relying upon misinformation and misplaced priorities instead, the shoddily and poorly planned piecemeal City "revitalization" permit will needlessly tear up the shoreline 4 Ever since the surprise discovery that the Hawk's Landing "Rain Garden" was really an impervious perforated pipe conveyance system, petitioner and others have put it in quotation marks and it is continued here. Peiition for Review Page 6 or20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 esthetics and disturb habitat, permanently block the area from public access and enjoyment, and discharge its polluted water into May Creck, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class I Salmon stream'' This appeal seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development of Washington's Shorelines and disregard of numerous provisions of RCW 90.5 8 and Renton's Shoreline Management Plan. II. BACKGROUND FACTS On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International applied for and obtained approval for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. Proposing to cut 32 trees and proposing to hydro -seed the Shoreline, the Seahawk's considered the project essential for their football operations -although essentially submitted without lawfully articulated street and storm water improvements or a clear picture of the layout of the entire site plan_ Another project that is across the street and downstream of this project is a 20 some acre parcel commonly called Quendall Terminals, that is presently being scoped for an EIS for 800 residential units and a subdivision for "mixed use" retail development and is the subject of an EPA superfund investigation. No coordinated storm water plan is) in place for the area. In yet another project, the Seahawk's practice facility next door was able to totally exclude the public from enjoying the shoreline. A Substantial Shoreline development permit was needed for the Seabawk's Hotel project to proceed to perform deconstruction and storm water work and/or stream alteration work within 200 feet of the high water mark on the State's Shoreline, but during it's SEPA hearing surprise Counsel insisted that the area would not be "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. Placing flower pots on the existing impervious asphalt was mentioned as a possible way to mitigate the distraction. It looks like the way that the proponent will keep his word now is that Planning director Chip Vincent already approved a Shoreline Permit to the City for the project's construction. Spencer Alpert an his Counsel argued that storm water improvements should be identified at the permit stage of the project Petition for Review Page 7 J20 BradNicbolsoa 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 and appropriate facilities would be determined at that time. Counsel for Spencer Alpert also argued that if he City does not take action within 45 days, then the project should be approved automatically. 1400 new :rips per day were purported to be generated, parking was to be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 ew surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for "Tesla" electric vehicles. In addition to ?roposing to construct a "Koi Pond", his bogus "Rain Garden", and installing capillary break building ]rains to release groundwater just below the sites surface affecting the Hotel, the applicant planned to move 4, 450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil over the top of the existing asphalt. Even though the groundwater is nearly at the surface, it was contended that "best management practices" could be used to protect the environment during construction but none were specifically identified. Perhaps the construction water is proposed be directed to the "wet biofiltration swale" but it doesn't say. From a perspective of groundwater flow inferred from test pits and scientific measurements, the "Ditch" water is infiltrating directly upstream into the Port Quendall Superfund site and thence flows to Lake Washington_ Port Quendall is severely polluted from past manufacturers of wood preservative products that dumped large amounts of chemicals in numerous areas of the site over decades. In summation, the "ditch" along Lake Washington Blvd is very deep and around 500 feet long, infiltrating a significant portion of its storm water directly to Quendall Terminals. See Massman declaration. In addition to not knowing exactly how much water infiltrates and how much runs off, it is not known how much of the superfund chemicals are being forced or "fluxed" into Lake Washington, this recent discovery was after the Hotel's SEPA hearing. See EPA attachment, There are large patches of percolating chemicals at Quendall 4-6 feet thick at significant depth significantly impacting the water quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up Quendall Terminals, there will probably need to be hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on that site. Relevant here, were facts discovered that indicate a significant amount of water from the hotel project and "Ditch" could enter the superfund site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. The remediation plan is presently in progress, being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up of Quendall Terminals, EPA Exhibits. The Dept. of Ecology evidently has given up on it. No facts regarding how the remediation facts Petition for Review Page 8 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 might affect the project are available. Obviously, the results are not included in any review of the project because they are not available. The questions raised by the results were the essence of a previous SEPA appeal. SEGB and Brad Nicholson's SEPA appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner cited the lack of the Hotel projects' compliance with SEPA and the SMA, and lack of a coordinated and compliant Storm water Plan. The entire record of the information contained in the appeal is hereby incorporated into this appeal. The conclusion and decision for the Hotel project indicated that it was normal for the storm water system to remain un -designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be applied. That is one of the problems. See Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Counsel for Spencer Alpert insisted on splitting the Hotel's hearings into two separate hearings one for SEPA issues and one for substantive site plan code issues. SEGB and Brad Nicholson obtained the testimony of Hydrogeologist Dr. Joel Massman to opine on the issues. On reconsideration to the City's Hearing Examiner, Dr. Massman found that a significant amount of the storm water from the ditch supplies groundwater flow into Quendall Terminals and that the groundwater flows to Lake Washington_ The downstream area contains cancer causing chemicals impacting groundwater to depths up to 50 feet, such as (FAH) Poly -cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pentaclorophenc and (BTEX) Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene.. The PAH chemical family and the site contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofuran. They are considered to be extremely dangerous. The groundwater in that zone flows to Lake Washington. It does not flow to May Creek. The area was and still is of particular concern because, like May Creek the area is considered prime habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthroat and Steelhcad Trout. EPA exhibits. There are also recreational swimming areas nearby that pose a threat to humans. May Creek basin and Lake Washington are supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle and numerous other valuable species. May Creek's Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon are ESA listed species. Recently Dr. Massman's conclusion that there is significant groundwater flow into Lake Washington has Petition for Review Page 9 of 20 Brad Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington's shoreline as part of the superfund investigations. Dr, Massman calculated the Storm water infiltrationlrunoff from the Seahawks Hotel that should be supported by what was then an unarticulated water quality facility that would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to an annual average 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably di not take into account the lack of footing drains on the one building that counsel and Spencer Alpert pledged would "not be touched". At least initially, it is also true that his calculations did not take into account other impervious calculations such as transportation mitigation measures or what a "Rain Garden" consisted of according to Spencer Alpert, With the fractionated review, it is next to impossible for anyone to cheek the calculations with regard to current project's storm water facility size (even thoug it is on the wrong menu) effectively excluding the public from participating in that aspect of the project. When asked to reconsider based upon the fact that the very high outlet pipe to May Creek causes the ditch) to pond and infiltrate significantly to Quendall Terminals, Renton's Hearing Examiner refused, citing "that there is no need" because he had decided the use of the `Best Available Science" was a mandatory requirement and requiring that May Creek was "not to be put into jeopardy" would suffice, and then at Spencer Alpert's insistence Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology to the use of `Best Management practices" and that "whatever "Rain Garden" feature" could be used as long as it would satisfy the 2005 design manual and be discharged to the "Ditch" They never decided or addressed whether more storm water flow would be added to May Creek or not or whether or where a different compliant feature might be located or what type or size it might be because at the time, no complete plan was in existence. Neither was a Shoreline permit sought at that time. They reiterated that "best management practices" would be used during the dewater operation needed for construction but did not identify any of them_ Sometime after the appeal requesting more consideration of the impacts of the project, the City identified State money citing community revitalization interests to provide mitigation measures for the Enterprise_ This appeal follows: Petition for Review Page to or2o Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1111. TIMING A. This petition is timely filed according to WAC 461-08-340 because it is filed within 21 days of the date the decision was made. WAC 461-08 states that, "A petition for review by any person aggrieved by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state shall be filed with the board within twenty-one days of the "date of filing" as defined in WAC 461-08-305. IV. JURISDICTION A. The permit appeal issues are regulated by RCW 90.58.140(1) stating a development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the chapter and, after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master program, and RCW 90.58.140(2) stating, "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this chapter"; B. State Law RCW 90.58.180(1) provides that "Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.5 8.140 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.21L RCW, seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6). V. STANDING Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a very she distance from the site, and uses the May Creek Shoreline and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining the site. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Brad Nicholson has an active interest in the integrity of City of Renton's land use and environmental review processes, has actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to the site and its shoreline, and seeks to ensure that the City abides I Petition for Review I Page 11 of 20 Brad Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 its prior decisions and local and state SMA policies, procedures, and mandates and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and is negatively impacted by the improper processing ane lack of appropriate designs in connection with this project. As a result of the impacts caused by the permit approval, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased damage to the shoreline quality envisioned by RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline plan, including lower water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington than envisioned by local and State Shoreline policies, loss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids and numerous other wildlife that use these Shorelines that he enjoys. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in appeals concerning water quality and environmental protection of fish and wildlife in the past. As a result of the City's improper segmentation and fractionated review and decision making with regard to the shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed review of a single true project application and the projects lack of attention to design criteria and shoreline management purposes. He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walks, boat, fish, bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of May Creek surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project. See declaration of Brad Nicholson. The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake Washington or May Creek. He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and will be injured by the City's dcnial of the right to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline Permit and consideration of all the facts that are relevant to this appeal. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Petition for Review Page 12 of 20 Brad Nicholson I I I VI. JOINDER 2 3 WAC 461-08-445 applies in this case. The presiding officer is requested to join parties including 4 permittee, permitting agency and any other interested person or entity in accordance with civil rule 19. 5 6 11 VII, ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 7 8 A. Without a variance or exception, Director Chip Vincent erroneously or arbitrarily and 9 capriciously approved the Shoreline Substantial Development permit even though the followin la re uired design criteria of Renton's Shoreline Master Program and 90.58.020 RCW have not been 11 1 incorporated into the project's design: 12 1. Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations § 5.03.01(D) reading as follows, "To 13 11 enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be 14 11 redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities" and, "Where practicable, various access points 15 ought to be linked to non -motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" note: A hotel 16 and parking structure is not a water -dependent use given priority for shoreline development under RCW 17 90.5$.020 see Gislason v. Town of Friday Harbor, SHB No. 81-22 (1981}; Clifford, et atv. Cit o 18 19 Renton and Boein SHB No. 92-52 (1993). Development consisting of a unified structure, such as a 24 connection pipe to a storm water facility servicing the project, which is part in and part out of the 21 shoreline with a potential for an adverse shoreline effect, is "within" the shoreline for the purposes of the 22 11 SMA. see Weyerhaeuser Y. King County 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P. 2d 1108 (1979). Since the pipe is 23 I connected and the storm water facilty is intended for the Hotel, it is also "on" the shoreline under RCW 24 90.58.140(2), and requires a shoreline permit for the entire project. Public access and habitat protection 25 will be needed, as reflected by the master provision, an important value under the SMA. RCW 90.58.02( 26 11 see Silver Lake Communitv Council v. Cit2 of Everett, SHB No. 80-04 (1980). 27 28 Petition for Review Page 13 of20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Public access and habitat preservation are both part of the public trust values, which inhere in the SMA. see Caminiti v. $ogle, 107 Wn.2d 262 (1.987). Because the Decision Maker failed to inhere those values, the permit as approved fails to .meet the requirements of both SEPA and the SMA 2. Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Landscape Native Vegetation regulations § 7.19.01 (A) (1) reading as follows, "The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever passible" note; Public access is not the only shoreline value protected under public trust through the SMA. The policies of the SMA specifically contemplate "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life... RCW 90.58.020. 3. Renton Shoreline Master Program Local Service Utility specifications § 7.19.04 (D) (1) covering discharges of pollutants reading as follows, " Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge" note: It is necessary for Renton to comply with the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as an MS4 jurisdiction. See Puget Soundkeeper - Stormwater is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urban waterways in the United States. Ex. MUNI -0127, Fact Sheet, p. 8. In December 1999, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules regarding the regulation of municipal stormwater. Ex. COA-0028, M Testimony_ EPA finalized the Phase II rules in 2000 (EPA Phase II Rules), which applied the NPDES permit program to certain small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (called MS4s). Ex. MUNI - 0127, Fact Sheet, p. 3. Emmett Testimony, The EPA Phase II Rules provide that the permits must require regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater management program (SWMP) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40 C.F.R. §122,34(a). cite, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance; People for Puget Sound; Coalition of Governmental Entities v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation PCHB NOS. 07-022, 07--023 4. Renton Shoreline Master Program Stream Alteration regulations § 7.17.02 (A) (B) reading as follows, "Stream Alteration in unique and fragile areas is prohibited" and "Stream alteration solely for the propose of enlarging the developable area of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of I Petition for Review Page 14 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 land is prohibited" note: RCW 90.58.020 "The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation" and "In addition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state" and, "To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline" 5. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (A)(1)(2)(3), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (C), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (D)(2), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (E)(3)(h)(ii) note: Maple Valley Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Maple Valley and Richard and Jill Brown SHB NO. 03-014 is distinguished in that the proposal discharging to Pipe Lake was not on the shoreline, not a salmon bearing water, it did comply with the KCSWDM, and they provided money and resources to insure by covenant that it would not pollute the Lake. None of those facts exist here. 6. KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1,2.8 Core Requirement #8 Water Quality, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1.2.8.1 Area Specific Water Quality Facility Requirement, KCSWDM 2009 edition Definitions section page 13; KCSWDM 2009 edition § 6.1,2 Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. Note: a "wet biofiltration swale" is not an infiltration feature and not a stand alone enhanced basic feature. 7. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020, "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residence: and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state" The hotel is not on the list. 8. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 design criteria, "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water" Petition for Review Page 15 of 20 Brad Nicholson 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state isnot in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest" 10. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines" B. Renton's Plannine Director Chip Vincent by, approvin2 the Substantial Development Permit approved a fractionated and piecemeal prooect in violation of core re uirements of the SMA 90.58 RCW. 1. A proposed development that includes both shorelines and uplands is properly reviewed in its entirety for consistency with the SMA. see Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844 (1973). The SMA review is applicable to those portions of a proposed development that lie within the shoreline as defined under RCW 90.58.030 and those portions of a project than may have adverse impacts on the shoreline. See also Weyerhaeuser v. King County, 91 Wn.2d 721 (1979); Allegra Development Company. Inc. v. Wright Hotels v. City of Seattle, SHB No. 99-08 (1999). The reference to "adjacent lands" in the shoreline management act (RCW 90.5 8.100(2) (e)), is a reflection of the legislative scheme that lands adjacent to shorelines must be considered together with the area extending 200 feet inland from high water in order to achieve the consistency necessary for a systematic and intelligent management of the shorelines. "A single improvement or project of a governmental agency including and having an interrelated effe on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with t] provisions of the environmental policy act and the shoreline management act" cite: Appletree Ca Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 Petition for Review Page 16 of 20 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The issue applicable here, the piecemeal consideration of environmental impacts from development plans, "is one which strikes at the very core of both the State Environmental Policy Act and the Sh Management Act". Appletree Cove Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 (emphasis supplied) The question, therefore, is whether the City may take a single project and divide it into segments purposes of SEPA and SMA approval. The frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compel an answer in the negative. The factual situation in Merkel and Appletree cove is remarkably similar to the present case. In Merkel and Appletree Cove, an overall scheme of development existed, but only one piece was submitted for environmental review. In the instant case, an overall Project Master Plan exists and has been reviewed, but at that time only part of the project was submitted for environmental review. Now they are doing the storm water and transportation measures inconsistent with that review. The fractionated review is why significant questions about shoreline impacts have never been addressed. A conclusion that the City has an obligation to conduct a review of its entire Master Plan under the SMA, and lay out the overall Master Plan of development including a storm water plan, public access water related use plan, and location of and priorities of the facilities in the context of the Shorelines permit application, prior to proceeding with a permit for one portion of the Plan is in order. At the same time, failing to use that master plan (which is what has occurred) to assess the overall environmental impacts of future development under this permit only leads to preventable damage to the natural environment which is the right of all citizens of the state. The test that is employed is that, the connection or link must be "dependant" on the other piece. Piecemeal review is impermissible where a "series of interrelated steps (constitutes] an integrated plan" and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases. see Cheney v. Mountlake Terrace, 8i Wn.2d 338, 345, 552 P. 2d 184 (1976) also, Murden Cove Preservation and Protection Association v. Kitsap county 41 Wn. App. 515 stating, WAC 197-10-060 (1) and (2) provide in part, (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together with all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the present Petition for Review Page 17 of 20 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M 27 28 proposal if: "(a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary operation of the present proposal, or "(b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite future activities. The latest codification is as follows: WAC 197-11-060 (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document. Proposals or parts of are closely related, and they shall be discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are simultaneously with them; or (ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as justification or for their implementation. VIII. GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL A. The proiect is reversible as piecemeal because it is related to Hawk's Landing closely enough to be a sin ie ro'ect and because it can not or will not proceed unless the other proposal is implemented simultaneously and because it is an interdependent part of the lar er proposal and depends on the larger proposal as Justification for its implementation" Note: The overarching purpose of the SMA is to protect the state shorelines as fully as possible. Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d at 243, 884 P.2d 910 (1994). Consistent with this objective and the broad regulatory reach of the statute, the shoreline permit application should describe the full; unified; and integrated physical project, both within and without the shorelines of the state. The facilities or future activity and functionally related work necessary that the project depends on to proceed consistent with the SMA that been ignored by the Decision Maker in this case are as follows: 1. A redesign of the project to permit public access to waterfront activities is needed. 2. The project depends on dedication of Land for location of Storm water Facilities in areas where it is possible to locate outside of the native vegetation. A Redesign of the Shoreline with "preference" to Petition for Review Page 18 of 20 Brad Nicholson I I I facilities that would be more representative of that of the natural environment is needed and depends on 2 the entire site plan for its location. 3 3. The project depends on obtaining additional shoreline permit to remove the zinc galvanized metal 4 warehouse distracting to the shoreline experience and adding pollution. It needs to identify requirements 5 for the Hotel project's necessary work to be performed on the shoreline to remove the building, 6 4. It is necessary to re -do the original application for the Hotel, to disclose and review that the applicant proposes to alter the flow of the Creek by filling the "Ditch" and requiring the description of the work to 7 be performed on the Development site. They need to include identification of piping and outfall work to s be performed on the Shoreline, It depends on whether it is appropriate to issue a permit that has a priority 9 to restore and enhance the natural environment with respect to May Creek water flow, 10 5. The project depends on additional planning work and additional land dedication necessary to comply 11 with the KCSWDM 2049 edition and Renton's code requirements for the "enhanced basic water quality 12 menu" The land dedication will need to come from the site. The redesign will need to include a design for 13 the project that this permit is intended to serve, such as Treatment Train, Stormwater Wetland, and 11 14 Stormfilter CF like is outlined on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu 15 16 I I B. The Errors enumerated above are grounds for reversal. 17 X. RELIEF REQUESTED 18 19 A. A declaratory order addressing whether the above Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issued b 20 the City of Renton is consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, the Renton Shoreline Managemei Program and their implementing regulations, ordinances, and statutes in the following respects: 21 22 Issue no. 1: 23 Whether adequate provisions for public use consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, Renton' 24 Shoreline Master program, regulations, ordinances, and statutes have been provided. 25 Issue no. 2 26 Whether the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" as permitted is adequate to minimize, "insofar as pY 27 pollution to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, Renton's Shoreline 28 program, and other code regulations, design manuals, ordinances, and statutes. Petition for Review Page 19 of20 Brad Nicholson 21 3 4 5 6 71 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2B Issue no. 3: Whether it is possible and appropriate for the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" or for that matter any other water facility to be located on a location different than where it is. Issue no. 4; Whether a variance should have been sought for any of the issues, and whether a variance should b granted for the project. Issue no. 5: Whether the project is a prohibited uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's Shorelines. IB, For any and all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just. I have personal knowledge of the facts in this appeal and believe the facts herein to be true and correct Petition for Review Page 20 of 20 Dated this 21" day of August, 2010 Brad Nicholson Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD 1N AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. City of Renton Respondents. Case No: Declaration of Brad Nicholson I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows: 1. I am a life resident of Renton, and I have lived about 12 blocks from the above Seahawks Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years, 2. I have a much greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton. I created a Washington non-profit corporation specifically for the purpose protecting amenities that this appeal seeks to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings and monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals. I am the dynamic that inspired ideas that could solve the present design issues for the project. 3. I am aggrieved by the approval of the Shoreline substantial development permit for numerous reasons. I want to review information on the whole project at one time not just a number of pieces of the project, like regarding the storm water facilities such as facility size, placement, capacity, and effectiveness, and public access areas. I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the entire proposal because I would like to have any community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton's Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58, and a compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do. I am aggrieved by the Declaration Brad Nicholson Page 1 of4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 14 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City's denial of my rights to such a community and aggrieved by the fact that development planning does not appear to be properly prioritized_ By ignoring State policy and the procedural and substantial protections contained in the Renton Municipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's' decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is contrary to the letter and the spirit of those laws. I am aggrieved that practical and reasonable means and methods of protecting water quality and my rights to a shoreline developed consistent with the Laws are not being used or proposed when I know that there has been so much effort by the Department of Ecology to assist the City to develop practical measures to protect our interests according to Federal Laws. 1 have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing Salmon and Trout. A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in May Creek, I have seen sockeye in the Creek just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we live above the May Creek Basin and know that they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I have enjoyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the permit will bulldoze and fence, 4. I am injured by the permit decision in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am harmed by the City's improper processing of the application, including failure to study and properly describe all of the project's required physical characteristics and size and feature calculations required by the code. I am harmed by the failure to properly categorize or identify those features, and failure to submit a complete unified design so that I can develop input and be able to review and comment on an honest proposal. The project is riddled with proposals that have not notified me as to what they are really proposing. I am harmed by the City's failure to conduct a proper consistency review of the storm water design with the SMA and Renton's program for Shorelines. I will be harmed by the damage done to the State's Shoreline amenities by changes in flow and quality of May Creek. Substantively, I will be injured if the project is constructed in noncompliance with the City's code. For example, Renton's past decision and code requires that the storm water features comply with the Declaration Page 2 of 4 Brad Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 King County storm water manual and certain Shoreline regulations, conform to the Shoreline Master Plan; and Comprehensive Plan's elements, goals, objectives and policies, and must mitigate impacts (such as impacts to threatened or endangered species and opportunity for access to the Shoreline's amenities and protection of native vegetation) as well as clear prohibition on alterations and illicit discharges into salmon bearing streams. The City should bear the burden of proof to show the method that will be used to avoid or abate pollution and comply with the above requirements but on this project they have consistently avoided review by submitting segmented and bogus facilities that do not truly explain the full extent of what they are doing, I will be injured if the plan is not designed by taking into account what the natural environment should be. The City's Shoreline plan requires the City to explain the methods that will be used to mitigate pollution impacts to May Creek and demonstrate the necessity of developing the State's Shoreline but they have not done so. The proposal submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. I am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State. 6. If the project is built on May Creek according to inferior standards for Shoreline protection and means of achieving water quality standards in May Creek while being incompatible with the neighboring superfund site, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project. The urban designations intended to protect my interests should be used and storm water measures to protect my interestsshould be used to protect my interests but as approved in the city's decision they do not provide the degree of protection to my interests as the code or Shoreline plan does and I would want the City to use those measures to protect my interests and the interests of my family. I want to review and comment on a compliant plan or honest effort to formulate such a plan but I have been deprived of that right because of the applications without them. My opinion is that the developer Spencer Alpert is just plain refusing to perform many of the requirements. I would have to do the design, do all of the design work for them, while speculating as to the type of facilities or strategies they might contest. In the past, they have allowed applications to be submitted and reviewed even though they are nc the real project_ They fooled us and Dr. Massman by saying that they were using a "Rain Garden" in the last application, and this time by saying that the flow of May Creek will not be altered. We actually thought it was a "Rain. Garden" and that wasted a lot of our time and resources. I would like to see some effort made to restore natural conditions to the area, which there has not been. Declaration Page 3 of Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. I do not have anything against the Seahawk's in general nor do I contend it is likely to be impossible to build a Hotel on the site. But the developer with a great deal more resources than ordinary citizens that conte to Renton to have taxpayers like me pay with not only money, but with our Shoreline amenities for the needs of a private enterprise while causing the impacts I complain of does not impress me in the least. Most disturbing of all to me, is the fact that it appears it is nothing more than a strategy to disregard the City's Shoreline and to save money by using Lawyers to argue the project permits_ In Renton they charge $250.00 for each appeal and it is necessary to take the issues to the Council in most instances. That is $500.00 for each LUA, and double or triple that when it is done in pieces. It looks like they just want to wear people down- ....very few people can afford to participate. I am offended that variances are not being sought with regard to non -discretionary design requirements. If they are able to just approve the project without variances, it is just the same as changing the code in response to the particular application. No other people around the area get to do that either. I think it is impacting the vitality of our Shorelines and Health, our Codes, our Laws, and the SMA and in turn the vitality of our community and economy. What it looks like to frustrated citizens like me that take the time to consider the permits is that the developer is just submitting a "low quality and low budget" proposal to save money and then using the Lawyers to cause so much litigation that anyone would want to just forget about it. I consider that to be very foolish and that it will be tragic to the City's long term future. My neighborhood and community is what is suffering now and what will suffer when the project is built. I will suffer and so will my family. In my opinion, compelling the City and the developer to adjust their priorities and plans with Shorelines Board power is the only thing that will improve the situation and protect my interests, that is why I made the appeal. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. DATED this 21th day of August, 2010. Respectfully, Declaration Page 4 of 4 rad Nicholson Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM: Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. City of Renton Respondents. Case No.: No. Exhibits The following exhibits are submitted to support the Petition for Review 1. Copy of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2. Project Description 2.1 City Council decision on Hawk's Landing 2.2 Hearing Examiner decision on Hawk's Landing 3.4 Photos of site 4, 303(d) map 5. Shoreline Master Program and receipt 6. 151 and 2nd Declaration of Joel Massman 7. KCSWDM excerpts 8. EPA area description and investigation results 9. Hydrologic Stream data (KC) 10. Water Quality data (KC) 11. Photo of "swale" area 12. Photo of "ditch" area 13. Photo of May Creek 14. ERC report Hawk's Landing Exhibit List Page 1 of 2 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15. Graham and bunting study 16. Hearing Examiner Decision - Reconsideration 17. Hawk's Landing T1R 18. Appeals to Council 19. Various pleadings, Original Hawk's Landing appeal and its exhibits DATED this I Ith day of July, 2009. Respectfully, Exhibit List Page 2 of 2 rad Nicholson Brad Nicholson Exhibits are on file with the City ClerVs office_ ey 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Qt Qt,. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT _- PLANNING DIVISION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION. DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: DATE RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: TYPE OF ACTION(S): August 9, 2010 LUA10-MI, ECR, SM June 24, 2010 July 1, 2010 N Substantial Development Permit [] Conditional Use Permit 11 Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd. Storrs Improvements PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner OWNER: City of Benton, City right-of-way, Renton, WA 98057; and Port Quendall Company, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton, WA 98057 APPLICANT/CONTACT: City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn: Steve Lee, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PROJECT LOCATION: In existing ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd_ N LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Within the ROW of Sec. 32, Twn. 24, R. 5 E SEC T#NN-R: Sec. 32, Twn. 24, R, 5 E WITHIN THE SHORELINES OF: May Creek APPUCABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the project is to install curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd_ N_ to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the viem ity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area, including the Harks Landing development. The proposed infrastructure's design expands beyond the existing City of Renton Department of Community & Economic development Shoreline Management Permit Lake Washingivn Blvd Storm Improvements LUA1 1, FCR, SM DATE OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 � Page 2 of 4 right-of-way(BOW); therefore, a portion of the development would occur on private property located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N_ The small portion of the project that would occur outside of the existing ROW would be located on the site commonly known as the Pan Abode Site {Tax Parcel# 3224659049, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N). The following list describes each part of the proposed project: • Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 660 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk would continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. • Pervious Sidewalk: The sidewalk would be installed from approximately 270 -feet north of the May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk connection_ The sidewalk is proposed to be 12 -feet wide with a 10 foot landscape strip behind the curb and be made of porous concrete_ • Stormwater System: The stormwater system would collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharging to an existing stormwater system flowing to May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. • Wet Bio Swale: The project also includes a wet bio swale, approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) of which, will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. one 20 -foot wide gravel maintenance access road is proposed off of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The landscape strip is proposed to terminate just north of the maintenance access road. Water Line: The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd_ N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. A 106 - foot portion of the water fine will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. The reach of May Creek near the project site has been designated as an Urban Shoreline pursuant to the City's SMP. May Creek runs through the south end of project area; it flows under Lake Washington Blvd. N into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The downstream portion of the new storrn system is within 60 feet of May Creek and the new water line will cross May Creek in an .existing 18 -inch steel casing located within the May Creek Bridge. Under current conditions stormwater directly discharges into May Creek from the existing road side ditch. After the proposed project completion, discharge would remain in May Creek however, the subject project includes the addition of a wet bio swale to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into May Creek. Moreover, the subject project would result in improvements in the water quality discharging into the creek. The applicant has indicated that the creek itself would not be disturbed during construction and best management practices would be conducted to ensure the creek is protected from sediment flowing downstream during construction. No fill or dredge is proposed to be placed within May Creek. City of Renton Department of Community & ,Economic Development Shoreline Management permit Lake Washington Blvd_ Sturm Improvements LVA10-041, ECR, SM DATE OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 Page 3 of 4 The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: RMC5ection Description Page 4-3-09W Urban Environment 3-25 4^3-0901( General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses 3-26 4-3-090L Specific Use Regulations 3-27 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions of State Agencies. 2. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the SEPA Environmental Review for the subject project_ This Permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to. the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements_ 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 its the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition(s) hereof. 3. Construction permits shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. I � C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Date Planning Division APPEALS: Appeals of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issuance must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appeals are made by filing a request in writing within the twenty -orae (21.) days of receipt of the final order and concurrently filing copies of such request with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Attorney GeneraYs office as provided in section 1.8(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. All copies of appeal notices shall also be filed with the City of Renton Planning Division and the City Clerk's office. EXPIRATION: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of RMC 4-9-190, construction activities, or a use or City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit Lake Washington Blvd Storm improvements LUA10-041, ECR, SM BATE OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 Page 4 of 4 activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Washington State Department of Ecology. DEFINITION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: the construction applications gust be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period. Attachments: A_ Neighborhood Detail Map cc. Attorney General's Office Owners)/Applicant—QW of Renton & Port Quendall Company Contact — City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Steve Lee City of Renton Wficiaf File (Updated July 6, 2010) IROJ�G'i .' �' �.A�0 041�';CF, SM , ..a.. '' r_.».�._.... _ PROSECT NAME Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement tAO {tl,gal En�r�ranmenfal'Rev]eyv'and a Shoreline Substantial Deu'o till Intalltlrs°of curb/gutter and p4rtlons of a` sidewalk, a sa u, ` =ysrii,,a�teiJane oj�ter�srari �vlthln'l�a�t2.Vtfashingtan Bled. N. to 3 °n ° E t eettth r��ct�+ie hgds fqr tt�ture:develo.pmenrtk� tl~e vicinity of the i-405 Fxit 7 ish'pIrC3p+lIlocte U+tlththe+.#n9 right-of-way of Lake } ad�e`cerlt11 to 4 '5 `Lain Wasltio't`Jr'131vd N� However, a small p( �5 of ppt 4 30 lake 4Wou v5T>4SSr3�l7} i .;.a L`3, '' E. t ::t utnr; 4b.ww* i tillfas "Jnl l g N to p op ed urf and' Butt l au c "excel d ori=the a Side of Aescrlp#Illiaka'hlgOn�fJ=, fiotTl plpleY Lane [ approximately 600 fret South, and rPv� cufib, g_utt r aY d � k ll wlll`;eontlrfue soluth'on the east side of..Lake;VVashirigton, Blvd to,grinectbo tib exrst�ng bride Over May Creep. The new. stor.:m, system. woul ; tansl of a prp mately 810 lineal feet of2!+-.inch Storm pipe with;a.cpt h- bdsul; c�ll�ct�4ra System and,the- new,m, er;iine.extensian would. consist . about 1,.}g9 fit c fif1 anch:wgter Iilte In La }Was)i ragtort Blvd f� :from:f E 40th St. to NE 44th St : e ss4�e also Ir'i'ciode5 a w6t bioswaie, a: proxirriatoiy 14b Brie l feet, The appiicaht has provided strearri andietland studies; a traffic study;`a geotechnical report, acid a hydrologic analysis Wth,their application. General Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & Abutting R O W Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Zone: Public Appr_avals: M Environmental (SEPA Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit }— _ a ,;apt tulananer : 1/anessa D,00b e, tel: -425 430-731h,:.emall: v olbe Applicant/ Project Contact Person: mate of Steve Lee, City of Renton; 1055 S Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057; email: Notice of Compete Application: _ Corm-hents mai► be Submitted hrpugh L t Map: The map to the right is for illustrative pu ..June -24,:2010 1, 2010 July.15,. 2010 only, In the event of omissions, errors or differen 2, � Zi APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT December 7, 2009 In re Appeal of HAVWS LANDING by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Bads LUA 49-060, ECF, SA -Mr SA -H. (Referred November 10, 2009) The Planning and Development Committee (`•Committee") heard this appeal on December 3, 2009. Pursuant to RMC 4-8-110F, the Committee's decision arid recommendation is limited to the record, which consists of, but is not limited to, the Hearing Examiner's Report, the Notice of Appeal and the submissions and presentations made by the respective parties. BACKGROUND The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N. in Renton, VILA, and is approximately 7.8 acres in size. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, and to the south by an underdeveloped parcel that contains May Creels (a Class 1 water body) with at least two associated wetlands (category 2).. Alpert international LLP ("Applicant") seeks to develop 3.07 acres on the northerly portion of the subject site.with "Hawks Landing" hotel, a 5 story, hotel that would include retail, fitness.center,.spa and a.restaurant. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Applicant submitted a -request for SEPA review and Master Site Plan/Site Plan review for the proposed Hawks Landing hotel. The Environmental Review Committee issued a_DNS-M with ten (10) mitigation conditions. Brad Nicholson, and South End Gives Back ("Appellants') timely appealed the SEPA determination. On August 25, 2049, a public hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner on the SEPA appeal and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan. Appellant appeared and presented at both portions of the hearing. The Hearing Examiner affirmed the SEPA determination and approved the Master Site Pian and Site Plan subject to ten (10) conditions. Both Applicant and Appellant then filed respective mations for reconsideration. Appellant also submitted a request to include new evidence, to wit, the "Second Declaration of Joel Massman" their expert witness. Applicant filed a Motion to Strike this declaration. On October 19, 2009, the Hearing Examiner issued the reconsideration affirming his original decision with a small modification to condition 10 of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling, as it pertains to street trees and landscaping on the remainder of the project site. He also granted the Motion to Strike, denying Appellant's request to have the Second Declaration included into the record. Both parties timely appealed both the SEPA and the Master Site Plan/Site Plan ruling to the City Council. Hawks Landing Appeal December *, 2049 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION DECISION: Having considered the comments made by the respective parties, and having reviewed the submissions, files and evidence in this matter, the Committee recommends that the Hearing Examiner's ruling to grant the Motion to Strike be affirmed, and that the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the SEPA appeal be affirmed. The Committee further recommends thatthe Council finds that the Hearing Examiner made a substantial error of law in that the Hearing Examiner erroneously required "best available science" as a standard for stormwater treatment. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the fallowing modifications be made to the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision, but otherwise affirm the approval of the Master Site Plan/Site Plan and conditions. Conclusion 5. ....Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "raid garden" feature is used. The applicant must comply with the-Cily of Renton's standards regarding stormwater lthe 2005 King County Surface. Water Design Manual). The applie�r,t f,hould use be5t available seience "in tFeating staFmwater- before conveying it to the 4th P19110tant—s' . eat • Ar. r-..IIe+.- PJ tqp_this; sale's payed.or-treated ted l-. .: ea min Conclusion 6. ....The Master Pian process does include `master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant -is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will ;detract from what appears to be a quality image. :M �r ei the • i uld b6 incorporated t l .' The T3TeTL7•STr�C7TL1 GTITCIITiT7TSIIGTL"O .�,C 7TlV�7�T'rJcriT�.Va�JVTfxtCR'Vi .resaac-n�i�iririT�aiiT Master Plan cannot escape that there is a rnuch larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that Will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that.aceommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site -east and west of the parking areas. , tie eS alORg thVe rPema U 4 i Rg�Lake SIl ashingte n BeuleyaFd fie Mage_ i the same FatiG and r pedes as eM the no-Fth fr-eFitage Decision. Condition 9: The applicant shall comply with the .2005 King County Surface `i Water design Manual re best available science :n treating.stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The suerm-%-oater- shall be Ueated by vAawmer- Panc in0i -ding wat& eteAtie detentiee,, ^r 4ain gapden" f-p-MRm-a i ara„r to then May Creek- The develepmes" rhall Rot n this sites ..nd or tre aked IaPds..3..h4g a - - Hawks landing Appeal December *, 2009 Page 3 Decision Condition 10: The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and . west of the parking areas. , 1R the eve;,4 !hat the City deE�s Rat p4mA applicant shall plant suGh tFees at the sar-ne ratio and species as is plamed along the ICING PARKER, Chair cc: Alex Pietsch Chip Vincent Jennifer Henning Vanessa Dolbee Fred Kaufman . Appellant Brad Nicholson/SEGS (v�a Attorney Keith Scully) Applicant Alpert International LLC (via Attorney lack McCollough) Ann Nielsen September 10, 2009 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANTS: Brad Nicholson South End Gives Back (SEGS) Represented by: Keith Scully OWNER: Port Quendall Company Ann: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Ave S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 APPLICANT/CONTACT: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 RESPONDENT: City of Renton Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney File No.: LUA 09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H LOCATION: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North SUMMARY OF APPEAL AND LAND USE ACTION: Appeal of SEPA Determination and request for Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The, following minutes are a summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney representing City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner, Development Services Keith Scully, Attorney representing Appellant Brad Nicholson and SEGB Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 2 Jack McCullough and Jessie CIawson, Attorneys representing Alpert International, LLP The following exhibits were entered into the record for the SEPA Appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA- M, SA -14 containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA Appeal and Staff analysis. Exhibit A: Vicinity Map Exhibit B: Site Plan Exhibit C: Ask Fred what he wrote down! Exhibit No. 2: Notice of Appeal with Attachments A- L Exhibit No. 3: Notice of Supplemental Brief and Attachments Exhibit No. 4: Larger Overview of Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 5: Close-up of Vicinity Ma Exhibit D: Existing Condition of Site Exhibit E: Deconstruction Plan Exhibit F: Post Deconstruction Plan Exhibit G: Site Utility Plan Exhibit H: Grading Plan Exhibit 1: Dan Mitzel Biography Exhibit : Sound Design Group LLC Exhibit K: TiR The Examiner stated that today the Hawks Landing Land Use, LUA-09-060 hearing for a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review, and a SEPA Appeal filed by SEGB and Brad Nicholson, who are challenging the SEPA Determination by the City would be heard. The SEPA appeal will be first followed by the Land Use. The Examiner asked for preliminary remarks: Ann Nielsen stated that in the submissions by the appellant in the initial notice of appeal, along with their supplemental brief, appellants raised an issue in regards to the Master Site Plan, the City and the applicant did respond to that issue. The Master Site Plan and the Site Plan hearing is separate and apart from the SEPA appeal, those issues raised that pertain to the Master Site Plan and Site Plan should be stricken and barred from the SEPA appeal hearing. Keith Scully stated that he did not disagree with Ms. Nielsen, his document should have been titled differently in order to separate the two hearings. It was agreed by all parties to strike the Master Site Plan and Site Pian issues from the SEPA appeal hearing. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd North and is a 7.8 acre parcel, however the project site is only 3.07 acres in the northern part of Renton in the COR zone just north of May Creek. It is east of Lake Washington Boulevard, and south and west of I-405. The project proposes to build a hotel on the site that would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa and a restaurant. The building would be 60 -feet high and 5 stories. It would be a total of 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms and a 124 space surface parking lot in addition to an underground parking garage. The hotel would be located in the northwestern corner of the project. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 3 There are two wetlands associated with May Creek, both are to the north of May Creek. One wetland is 63 feet from the property line where the development will take place. The other one is approximately 117 feet south of the property line of the developed site. The Shoreline Master Program would have different buffers depending on the use, the Shoreline jurisdiction is invoked if development is within 200 feet of May Creek, all the proposed development is outside of that 200 foot area. Keith Scully, Gendler and Mann asked to submit all the attachments to their Notice of Appeal Hearing Brief and a Notice of Supplemental Evidence. Included within the attachments are Declarations from Dr. Massmann and Mr. Nicholson. They do not need to repeat everything if the Examiner would be willing to accept them in lieu of live testimony. They are present, if there should be cross examination, they would be willing to answer any questions that there may be. Dr_ Joel Massmann, 6520 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Dr. Massmann stated that his declaration represented his comments on this pending application. In paragraph 3 on page 2 where it states that 85% of the impervious surface was taken out of the plans leaving the assumption that there would be a potential for a reduction of 4 acres in impervious surface on this site. His analysis in his declaration was based on that potential. The impervious surface over the larger site, beyond the 3.7 acres is actually less than 85%. The assumption was that any land that was currently impervious and it became pervious the recharge onto that portion would become ground water. Rain Gardens would also infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Dr. Massmann stated that 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed and would then infiltrate at a rate typical of soils in this part of the county. If it would be less than 4 acres you could simply divide that ratio by the actual amount of impervious surface. A Rain Garden is a place to collect surface water runoff and store it to potentially infiltrate the water. There may be less infiltration in a Rain Garden due to the plants that would transpire, they are roughly similar to simple surface water runoff, and there would be less recharge in the Rain Gardens because of evapotranspiration. Keith Scully stated that Mr. Nicholson was also present and his Declaration was part of the record. If there were no questions for Mr. Nicholson, he would not be called to testify. There were no questions for Mr. Nicholson. It is their burden to show that there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts that clearly shows that an Environmental Impact Statement should have been ordered, rather than what did happen when the City decided that there were no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The point of an EIS is to study the exact impacts. One of those is not available, they cannot tell exactly what will happen should this project be developed. They must show that it is more likely than not that it is probable that something bad is going to happen to the environment if this plan goes forward as designed. On SEPA, they are resting on one point and that is the stormwater. It rains all the time in Washington, there is a ton of water that any site must deal with. This particular site is 85% impermeable and currently there are some old warehouses and a bunch of pavement. When you have a site like this, and you take away pavement and permeable surface that rain water can simply go through into ground water rather than landing on and flowing off. Usually that is an unmitigated good thing and usually fights over developments like this in that there is not enough ground water recharge, there would be too much water flowing off the site and flowing into water bodies like May Creek or into the drainage ditch that carries the water off the site. This site is unique and SEPA requires looking at not just how most sites would affect the environment but how this particular site impacts the environment. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECIC, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 4 The goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be, but to create a document that lets the decision maker really understand the environmental impacts of the proposal. The question is, is there going to be a probable significant adverse environmental impact? This is not the case of sample sites described in the Surface Water Design Manual, where more water flowing into the ground is automatically a good thing. Because of where this site is located, there are residential and commercial properties to the south, there are freeways close by, a residential development to the west and close to the site is the Quendall terminal which is loaded with chemicals and toxic soils that move via groundwater to the lake. There are hot spots of environmental contaminants in Lake Washington that have been flushed from the land. With this project, pavement will be torn out, buildings will be deconstructed, Rain Gardens will be added, which will absorb some of the water but not enough, there will be landscaping added and impervious surfaces will be dug up and replaced with a different impervious surface and permeable surfaces. The rain that currently flows on this site is channeled to a drainage ditch and on to May Creek, more of that is going to be going into the ground than previously. With this new construction, all water will now go directly to the Quendall site and add toxins to Lake Washington. An EIS would tell how much of an impact this new construction would have on existing water flow and Lake Washington. In order to begin construction on this site, they will need to dig a de -watering trench to drain the site while they use construction equipment. This ground is already saturated, there would be more ground water flow during the construction. They may need to add catch basins in order to flow water to May Creek without more toxins from the surface. The Appellant is asking for a finding of probably significant adverse environmental impact and asks that this be remanded back for a Determination of Significance and an Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Nielsen waived an opening statement, the City will present their information via a presentation by the project manager, Vanessa Dolbee. She will then join with the applicant in any specific presentation with respect to the stormwater issues. Vanessa Dolbee stated that the City did receive an application from Spencer Alpert of Alpert International, LLP for a SEPA Environmental Review, Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review for the Hawk's Landing Hotel, the applicant did provide all documents required by Renton Code. The SEPA review returned a Determination of Significance — Mitigated with 10 mitigation measures. The site is vacant, but used to be the home of Pan Abode Cedar Homes. All of the buildings on the site will be deconstructed with the exception of the one building on the south. That building does have a corner within the 200 -foot shoreline. The hotel and parking will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mitigation measures 3 and 4 require the applicant to comply with the 2005 King County Storm Water Design Manual in addition to providing erosion and sediment control per Department of Ecology during construction. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Ms. Dolbee stated that the white space shown on Exhibit G is in general impervious surface. It is old concrete and other buildings as well as other items left on the site. Discussion was had regarding the materials left on the site, whether the hotel would face those leftover materials. The Examiner inquired as to what was going to happen to the rest of the white space. Mr. Scully continued stating that in fact, the City does not know what is going to happen with all the stuff remaining on the site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -1-1 September 10, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Dolbee stated that based on the submittal documents, she believed that the areas not marked "TBR" would not be removed. There is no condition that requires them to leave that area impervious. There also has been no document issued at this point by the City regulating that space outside the development area. A permit would be required to do any type of work on the site. There is nothing in the plans that states what will happen to the soil under the buildings that are to be removed. Mr. McCullough stated that they would defer any opening statement and called Mr. Mitzel to testify. Dan Mitzel, 1111 Cleveland Avenue, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that he was developing this site in conjunction with Spencer Alpert of Alpert International. He is the developer for the hotel and has been active in the real estate business since 1977 and active in the hotel business since 1984. About a year ago he got together with Mr. Alpert and starting discussing possibilities of developing this site for a hotel that would work in conjunction with the Seattle Seahawks. An agreement was entered into with the Seahawks to build a hotel that would be considered the official hotel for the Seattle Seahawks, it was very important that they have a hotel that was within close proximity to the VMAC Center and training center. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullough, Mr. Mitzel stated that the plan was to remove the buildings, leave the concrete slabs under the buildings and leave the asphalt that surrounds the buildings so that the impervious areas are mimicking the existing conditions in the area outside of where the hotel will occur. There will not be 4 acres of new pervious surface in the area of this new construction. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area unrelated to the hotel development. All buildings are sitting on concrete slabs. The hotel that will be built on this site will have some rooms looking to the east and southeast. Those views would be essentially of asphalt and concrete, there might be a minor amount of general cleanup that happens, the site is not a junk yard, rather a series of buildings that will be taken down, the slabs will be left, the asphalt will be left and that will be the condition they must deal with in terms of the view from some of the rooms, it is not perfect or ideal, but neither is looking at the freeway. They feel it is a condition they are willing to live with and they are willing to take that risk. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Mitzel stated that the entire site is under their control under a real estate purchase and sale agreement. It is one tax parcel. They operate hotels in many different conditions. The premium rooms will be looking at Lake Washington. At this point they have not begun to obtain their demolition permits. There have been no specific conditions about how they leave the area that does not include the project area. Nothing will be removed outside the project area. Pat Severin, Sound Development Group, LLC, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273. Upon questioning by Mr. McCullou-gh,_Mr._ Severin identified a statement of qualifications for Sound Development Group. He has been an engineer in the Skagit Valley for 10-12 years and been practicing engineering since 1989 and licensed since 1995_ Mr. Severin was contacted by Mr. Mitzel to provide engineering and surveying services for the project. They addressed storm drainage, utility designs, site layout and grading plans for the site. They worked with the project architect to develop a site plan that was aesthetically pleasing and functions from a utility standpoint. Exhibits E and G are true depictions of the existing conditions and post development conditions of the site. Rain Gardens have a two -fold function, it is a point of collection for stormwater, it provides water quality treatment and in some cases infiltration to actually dispose of stormwater runoff. This site is only using Rain Gardens for the treatment of the water, they do not intend to infiltrate any water in the Rain Garden area. The TIR for this project contained a diagram of the Rain Garden Treatment System. After the water was collected Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal ]=File No_: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 6 in the Rain Garden it flows into the drainage system and out to May Creek where it currently discharges. There would be a collection pipe at the bottom of the Rain Garden to receive all the surface water that percolates through the Rain Garden down to the drain rock below. The bottom of the Rain Garden would be fined. Per the King County Manual, they are required to treat pollution generating impervious surfaces, which is primarily asphalt and some concrete surfaces and that is what they are collecting. Roof waters are typically considered not a pollution generating impervious surface, that water will be collected and diverted to the ditch in a separate system. Per the King County Manual, impervious surfaces are actually considered asphalt, concrete and typically graveled surfaces, even if it were all to be removed, which the applicant does not intend to do, it would still be considered impervious. Pre -development to post -development, all the water would be discharged to the ditch much as it is today. The only difference is that they are treating the stormwater runoff and the Rain Garden will provide some flow attenuation from stormwater. They are providing a better water quality than what is there today. Upon questioning by Mr. Scully, Mr. Severin stated that there was no water evaluation on the undeveloped portion of the site other than knowing from the grades in the standpoint that the water would continue to flow like it has done previously into the ditch. He only addressed what they currently were developing. The site slopes more from the east to the west. The area outside of the hotel generally flows to the west and Lake Washington Blvd. and it will continue to flow that way. In the Water Quality Manual there are several menus, there is one that determines if it is a high or low use site, which is generated by average daily use traffic. This site was determined to be low volume traffic therefore, they were required to do basic water quality treatment. They chose Rain Gardens because it is a very attractive technology that is available and is promoted by a lot of the jurisdictions. There are many ways to provide basic treatment, the Rain Garden treatment actually qualifies for enhanced treatment and it does a better job of cleaning the water. Mr. McCulionh stater] that they have addressed the legal arguments in the briefing submitted earlier and it remains their view that the burden that the appellants face in the SEPA appeal is a burden under the applicable case law of actually producing evidence. That has not been seen today, the only evidence that has been submitted is the Declaration of Dr. Massmann and he testified here that he clearly made two fundamental assumptions to reach the conclusion that he did: 1. Four acres of the larger site would be converted from impervious to pervious surface and 2. He assumed the Rain Garden feature would be a stormwater element that would provide for the infiltration of stormwater. It has been clarified in their response/presentation that both those assumptions are absolutely inaccurate. There will be no conversion of impervious to pervious as a result of the deconstruction and the Rain Garden is a water quality treatment feature. There is no likelihood of any increased infiltration of any material amount in this ground. There is no evidence in support of this SEPA appeal. Any change would be subject to review and there are no plans to change the impervious surfaces. The appellant has failed in their burden to show error and therefore asks the Examiner to uphold the SEPA Determination. Ann Nielsen stated that the applicant more than complied with all the necessary application materials and documents in his request for a SEPA review to the ERC. The ERC had all the necessary information before them that they needed to make an adequate SEPA assessment, in doing so they came to a DSN-M with specific mitigation measures. The Appellant has done nothing to show that there was any significant adverse environmental impact that was not contemplated or could not be mitigated by the conditions that were put upon by the ERC committee. The City would request that the Examiner find that the appellant has failed in their burden to show clear error and that the SEPA determination should be upheld. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Scully stated that the specific evidence they have pointed out is what happens if you do remove all the structures and impervious surfaces. They learned today on the record that they are not going to be doing that. That is not a condition of mitigation and not a part of their application. Contrary to what Mr. McCullough said the fact that it is in the record in front of the Examiner means nothing for the future. The fact that they said they were not going to do it, does not bind them from proceeding with separate projects. It does not prevent them from getting a separate permit, it also does not prevent them from doing things that do not require a permit. There is a glaring omission on what is going to happen on the majority of the site. At a minimum they ask that the Examiner require a mitigation condition that what is currently impervious outside the development area should remain impervious. Today there is not enough information as to what is going to happen to the rest of the site and an EIS should be required. The Examiner stated that if by imposing an additional condition the parties would agree to retract their appeal that is something that the Examiner is entitled to do. By taking the appellant's concerns under advisement and the applicant's willingness at this point to say they are not going to do any of that action without permitting of the City. A 10 minute Break was taken LAND USE HEARING began at 10.49 am The following exhibits were entered into the record for the Hawk's Landing Land Use Hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file, LUA-09-064, ECF, SA- M, SA -H containing the original application, various reports, correspondence file, SEPA documents, SEPA .A Mal and Staff analysis - Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 3: Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 4: Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Hawk's Landing Site Plan Exhibit No. 6: Site Dimension Plan Exhibit No. 7: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 8: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 9: Site Uti1ity Plan Exhibit No. 10: Grading Platt Exhibit No. 11: East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 12: West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit No. 13: S & E Elevations (graphic) Exhibit No. 14: N & W Elevations (gra hic) Exhibit No. 15: Hotel Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 16: First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 17: Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: Third and Fourth Floor Plans Exhibit No. 19: Fifth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: Roof Plan Exhibit No. 21: Building Sections Exhibit No. 22: Demolition Plan Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal Pile No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 1.0, 2009 Page S Exhibit No. 23: All Exhibits entered during the SEPA Appeal for the Hawk's Landing Hotel Exhibit No. 24: Reinart Statement of Qualifications Exhibit No. 25: Traffic Im act Analysis dated 512009 Exhibit No. 26: Pat Bunting Qualifications Exhibit No. 27: Wetlands Re ort Exhibit No. 28: Mel Maertz Qualifications Exhibit No. 29: VMAC location Detail map showing hotel site to Exhibit No. 30: Map showing the area around the proposed site from WSDOT plans for 1-105 The hearing continued on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10:49 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. This portion is the hearing of the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The Examiner did ask for additional time in preparing his decision due to the length of the material presented. Vanessa Dolbee stated that she is the project manager for the Hawk's Landing Hotel for the City of Renton. The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review. The City of Renton did receive some Capital Improvement Funds during the 2009 Legislative Session; Staff is currently working to identify how those will be expended, although it has to be approved by City Council, which has not approved the expenditures at this time. Some of the items on the table that do have a direct relationship to this project would be a water line extension on Lake Washington Blvd and the extension of a trail along May Creek and some storm drainage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd that may include some impervious sidewalk improvements. Review and permitting of this would happen at a separate time. The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes, to the northwest is VMAC, the home of The Seahawks, to the west are Barbee Mill and Quendall Terminal and to the south is May Creek. The parcel is 7.88 acres in size and the project area is 3.07 acres. There is a small triangular parcel of land at the far north end of the site which is currently owned by the City of Renton. A vacation request has been made by the applicant to acquire that parcel under file #VAC -09-001. It has been approved with some conditions associated with the approval. The hotel is proposed to be 60 -feet tall with 5 stories, 122,000 square feet with 173 rooms, with retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. Access to the site would be from Lake Washington Blvd via two locations; first is north located in the existing vacation area, which with approval would become a part of this parcel and would be limited to right-inhight-out only, the second access is to the center of the larger parcel and would provide access from both directions. There would be parking in an underground garage as well as surface parking, with 231 parking stalls total, 107 in the garage and 124 surface stalls. This project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, its elements, goals, objectives and policies. Lot coverage for the CDR zone is 65%, the building footprint has a 22% coverage. Setbacks for the COR zone are determined through the site plan review, the applicant has proposed a 20 -foot front setback from Lake Washington Blvd, a 60 -foot setback from the north side of the property line, a 480 -foot south setback and a 129 - foot setback from the rear property line along 1-405. The COR zone requires portions of the building which exceed 50 -feet in height would include upper story setbacks at a minimum of 10 -feet from the preceding story, the building should include vertical and horizontal modulation on roof lines and facades at a minimum of two feet and an interval minimum of 40 feet. The fifth Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 9 story of this hotel would be subject to these requirements. The proposed architectural design meets the intent of the special development standard. The landscaping is determined through site plan review, perimeter landscaping has been proposed in widths from 6 -feet to 25 -feet, screening around the refuse and recycling areas, ornamental landscaping at the hotel entrance with a Koi pond and a pedestrian bridge crossing. Street trees would be planted along Lake Washington Blvd. This landscape plan further complies with the City's parking regulations. There are no specific standards for landscaping refuse and recycling for hotel developments. This proposal would improve the character of the site, new access would be provided and street frontage improvements provided. Landscaping would be provided that would screen the surface parking area from surrounding properties. The scale of the structure is larger than the Barbee Mill but smaller than the VMAC. This hotel does provide a much needed transition from the existing residential and 1-405. The hotel would be more compatible with the surrounding residential than the former industrial site and the impacts to the surrounding properties and uses are expected to be minimal. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings are appropriate for the site and would be compatible with surrounding properties. If and when the remainder of the site is developed, it would need to be compatible with the hotel. The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. In addition to access and parking on the site, pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks are proposed along the street frontage which would provide safe pedestrian access throughout the site. The applicant would be required to provide a 12 -foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd with a 10 -foot landscaping strip for safety. The single building would not have an impact on the site's light and air circulation. There would be minimal noise impacts from the increased traffic, although the noise would be virtually unnoticeable because of the proximity of I-405. The Fire and Police Departments for the City of Renton have indicated that their existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. Impact fees have been required as a mitigation measure of the SEPA. Redevelopment of this site would help prevent deterioration and blight of the neighborhood. It would actually increase the quality of the subject site and the project is expected to contribute to the well-being of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. This site is located in Design District C, which is an overlay design district and it is in compliance with most of the requirements of the Design District, except for the following: The west elevation of the building has some blank walls and Staff has requested that the west side be re- designed at that portion to feature a pedestrian oriented fagade. Design District requires that all sides and top of refuse and recycling areas be enclosed. Having a top enclosure would not function well with garbage collection, they have asked for a modification to not put a top on the enclosure. The proposed surface parking lot is not intended to be built into a structured parking at future phases of potential development. This site is constrained by access off of one road and the internal circulation of the site is vital for future potential development and this parking lot would serve as that internal vehicular circulation. The applicant should submit new site plans indicating the entire pedestrian pathway throughout the parking lot as differentiating materials or texture from the adjacent paving. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal Pile No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 10 The applicants have proposed to provide canopies along the fagade fronting Lake Washington Blvd that exceed the minimum width standards, although they do not meet the in length standards they have proposed them along 38.5% of the fayade, which pertains to approximately 60 linear feet. The hotel design also provides modulation as it fronts Lake Washington Blvd, some portions of the hotel are set back and not immediately adjacent to the sidewalk. As such, the design requirement of the overhangs would not be achieving their goal in some of those areas, therefore the 60 -feet of linear canopy coverage. There are some additional requirements if the project is located in the COR zone, which this proposed project meets. Hearing was adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am... Back on record at 1:00 pm Pat Severin, 15214 Avon -Allen Road, Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 stated that they had taken a look at the site with the existing conditions and constraints from elevations in the roadways and they came up with a grading plan that actually would grade the entire site towards the surface areas of the Rain Gardens from the entrance road and from all the parking areas towards the Rain Gardens. All this water would be collected in the Rain Gardens, treated, and conveyed to the discharge point down through the bottom of the ditch. Any of the water around the hotel would be picked up with downspouts and/or yard area drains directed to the same discharge location. He did not believe that any flow control would be required on this site per an exemption in the King County Manual. Some flow attenuation would happen with the Rain Garden. They do not have an approved construction document at this time, it is only a planning document. The next step would be to receive site plan approval and then proceed with the construction documents where they would finalize their design depending on comments from the City Staff. The Rain Gardens have not been approved as a design feature and in fact when the approval comes through it might not include Rain Gardens but some other feature. There are a number of features that would provide the same level of treatment to choose from. The final plan would need to comply with the City's Code. This 3.07 acre site is not within the 100 year flood plain, a portion of the south boundary just crosses the 100 year flood plain. Geralyn Reinart, PE, 159 Denny Way #111, Seattle, WA 98109 stated she is a self employed traffic engineering consultant specializing in the preparation of Traffic Impact Analyses, She was responsible for the preparation of the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project. The analysis included a review of the existing conditions adjacent to the project including the operations of three intersections along NE 44`b, the northbound and southbound ramps to 1105, along with the Seahawks Way intersection. This included a review of the number of accidents along Lake Washington Blvd and NE 44'x' Street. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts completed for the project were also used in the analysis, along with a review of the site accesses at two locations along Lake Washington Blvd. Looking at the site accesses, the existing Pan Abode driveway should be limited to right turns in and out due to its close location to the ramp interchange. The main access to the site is located towards the southerly end of the hotel portion of the property. In looking at the future volumes at that intersection left turns into the site were recommended. Build out of the hotel could generate over 1400 daily trips, 97 during the AM peak hour and 102 during the PM peak hour per the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation Manual. The future trip Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 11 volume projections at the intersections mentioned earlier included pipeline trips from the adjacent Barbee Mill development that is ongoing currently plus a 2% annual growth rate in the traffic volumes, which is consistent with prior studies that have been completed in the area. The project trips were added into the future values to analyze the impacts from the project itself. The trip assignment for the hotel was based on prior work that was done in the vicinity and specifically the Port Quendall analysis of the I-4051NE 44" Street interchange project access report prepared by WSDOT. There were some adjustments made to that report since this road was going to be serving Seahawks visitors, some of that traffic was redistributed up to the Seahawks facility. The critical movement at the intersection of Seahawks Way and Lake Washington Blvd near the northerly access to the site is currently moving at Level Service D during the peak hours. Future increases would drop that level of service to E with or without the hotel. The other critical intersection operations would be the north and southbound ramps to I-405, some of the movements are operating at Level Service F during the AM peak hour and the delay on those movements would continue to increase over the next few years with or without the hotel project. All of these intersections are within the WSDOT limited access area, they are also subject to review as part of this project. Measures to raise the level of service at these intersections was reviewed by both agencies and included the installation of traffic signals for the ramps and then some restriping of lanes and construction involved with lane additions. WSDOT did concur with these measures and requesting that the applicant participate in a proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, which are being proposed by WSDOT. Pat Bunting, 3643 Leg Road, Bow, WA 98232 stated that her firm, Graham and Bunting, is an environmental and land use service. She was one of three on the project team that was assigned to go to the site and look for critical areas that could possibly be anywhere from the site down to May Creek. They found two small wetlands off site by May Creek, they are Category 2 wetlands. There was May Creek, a Class 1 stream, there is also a ditch alongside Lake Washington Blvd which is a Class 5 stream. The hotel would be more than 200 feet from May Creek. The small wetlands were offsite and so are not buffered, they are well out of the range of the project site. Checking the habitat of the stream requires walking up and down the stream banks and looking for habitat including large debris, downed logs, vegetation, ripples and pools places where fish can spawn and feed, they looked at the classified ditch as well for that reason. May Creek is a habitat for fish. The wetlands were so small, their habitat value was found to be over winter when there would be water, and there might be some winter habitat. But there was not much there, the wetlands were not even wet at this time of year. Each one is less than 500 square feet. This project, as proposed, meets all requirements for the City of Renton. Mel Maertz, 16921 Larch Way, Lynnwood, WA 98037 gave a brief description of his qualifications. His role in this project was to help programming and master planning of the project. He worked on the design of the hotel. The site plan for the hotel is oriented to Lake Washington, taking advantage of the views, they planned this hotel so it would not affect the future development of the remainder of the site. They tried to accommodate the pedestrians and the traffic, it was important to look at the Seahawks facility and the connectivity between the two facilities. Parking to the back and easy access to the underground parking were very important. The hotel was designed with a Northwest Craftsman look and incorporated materials like those used in the Seahawks facility as well as the Barbee Mill community across the street. They are trying to create a sustainable building that would be a leader in the community. Vanessa Dolbee responded to an earlier question by the Examiner regarding refuse and recycling. Renton Municipal Code requires for multi -family developments one and a half square feet per dwelling unit and three square feet for recycling and three square feet per dwelling unit for refuse. The office analysis was based on two square feet per 1000 gross building square feet for recycling and four square feet for refuse for 1000 gross Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 12 building square feet, which results in for recycling the 244 square feet and refuse at 488 for the office requirement. Looking at the multi-fanuly requirements the recycling (hotel rooms as dwelling units) 259.5 square feet for recycling and 519 square feet for refuse, which is actually an increase from the office calculations. Keith Scully, Attorney representing Brad Nicholson 1424 4`'' Ave, Ste. 1015, Seattle, WA 98103 stated that they had submitted some written comments as part of the Notice of Appeal. They learned a fair amount today and so would modify some of those comments. There are some greater concerns but also some reduced concerns with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. A drainage plan is required under Renton Municipal Code as part of a Master Site Plan or Site Plan application. There is an exception to that requirement which allows the City to make a determination that if the proposal will not substantially alter the drainage pattern and/or it will not adversely affect the drainage pattern, then the City can waive that requirement. There has been no formal request for that and no formal waiver made and based on what they learned today that waiver is not applicable. This proposal does substantially alter the drainage pattern. They are going to grade the entirety of the site and route it into the Rain Garden. Currently water flows into the creek, this will adversely impact water quality because of flowing over what is undeveloped impervious surface, and it will be flowing over an active parking lot_ The Drainage plan is a document that is reviewed by the Examiner and determines if what is proposed is compliant with Renton's code and with Renton's incorporation with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. What you have is a conceptual outline of what they might ask the City to approve as part of their building permit. This does not comply with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is nothing for the Examiner to rule on, they don't know if they are going to be doing the Rain Garden plan or something else. They are planning to deal with flow control and toxin removal through a Rain Garden treatment system, although they disagree with them, however they do admit that they need to do something to control the toxins that will come off the parking lot. A Rain Garden would be okay for this proposal, but what they have called a Rain Garden, includes an impermeable surface layer. A Rain Garden is something that has plants in it and lets water infiltrate the ground. There is an infiltration component to every single Rain Garden design, this impervious liner snakes this not a Rain Garden. The water that is flowing off the parking lot now flows through a little bit of gravel into a pipe and straight to May Creek. What they are actually proposing is a thing called a perforated pipe collection system, which is a box with some gravel in it and a pipe at the bottom. There are no flow control credits for it, and that is because it does not work as a pollution control plan. He disagreed with the comments made by the wetlands specialist that you don't buffer something off site. If the property line stops and there are no critters on your property, you are done with the evaluation. The habitat and the impacts on the habitat should be studied, not just the impacts on your property. There are fish in the creek, birdlife in the vegetation, and all the stuff that comes with a small conservancy designated wetland. The hotel is far from the wetlands, but the blank space in an unknown at this point. What do they intend to do with it? It appears that it is currently being used as overflow parking for the Seahawk's games, is it going to be lit with the lights shining on what may be song bird nesting habitat, what is the flow going to be like when cars are parking on it, are they going to be putting heavy equipment on it for some later project. No one knows what is going to happen. They have Iess of a concern on the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. If any part of this one project goes within 200 feet of May Creek, a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is needed. They have been told today that no part of this development will be within 200 feet of May Creek. If the south building is left untouched and no work done in that area, then they do not need a SSDP. They would ask for a special condition to be added that no work incur in that area within 200 feet of May Creek. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 13 Kayren Kittrick, Dev Engineering Supervisor, Community and Economic Development showed a map of the project site, she marked the site with an "X". Directly across to the northwest is the entrance of Seahawk Way and the VMAC building, it further showed the location of Barbee Mill development. This development has triggered improvements to the intersections including stop lights. The start of a LUA file is only preliminary discussions, included in those preliminary discussions is a preliminary drainage plan, it is required. The final construction plans takes in things brought in during the hearing, things added as conditions, best management practices plus changes they find on the site during construction. The Rain Garden design is very interesting, it seems closer to a bioswale design and that is one of the acceptable items. It will have to be studied to see if it works, if it does not, the applicant must find another method that is acceptable within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The hotel and hotel parking could change anything that Wright affect the final calculations of what they have to treat and what has to be released. The standards are not relaxed, a preliminary design is presented, and that is what we know at this point based on specific calculations. Conditions can be made, ERC could have made a condition, plus once it gets looked into and they find it does not meet the King County Surface Water Design conditions or standards or doesn't do what they think it is going to do, the City runs their own calculations and checks on everything. Evert under an EIS it is still a preliminary design subject to change. Any soils that are removed from this site would be checked for contamination and treated as deemed necessary_ Vanessa Dolbee stated that Mr. Scully had been referring to a habitat management plan, the City code does not specify a habitat management plan, and they have a habitat assessment and a habitat data report. The habitat data report was waived (which is the same thing as the habitat assessment). It was waived because there was a Fish and Wildlife habitat section within the wetland and stream study that provided sufficient information to the City to determine that the habitat assessment report could be waived. Keith Scully stated that he believed that Renton's policy is to allow a preliminary drainage plan but that is wrong and now seems like the time to fix it. RMC 4-60-030C says that persons applying for specific permits or approvals would submit for approval a drainage plan for their application or request. Further on, drainage plan is defined in the same section 4-60-03OF stating that the drainage plan will be prepared in conformance with the department's construction plan drafting standards and contents and the design criteria contained in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. Nothing in the code section about the start of a conversation or a preliminary plan, which means the final thing and they need to make a determination that it does or doesn't that the Hearing Examiner can then repeal. Jack McCullough stated that the only lingering issues have to do with the drainage plan. The testimony from Mr. Severin and the City stated that a drainage plan was submitted. The confusion here is that the comments from Mr. Scully on behalf of his client suggest that it is the Examiner's position in this proceeding to pass judgment on approved drainage plan. That is not the case. Sub -section G of the Code section referenced by Mr. Scully, Review and Approval of Plan, it indicates that the decision on the plan is reserved to the approval of the Development Services Division. In the second sentence of sub -section G1, it says that if no action is taken by the City after submission of the Final Drainage Pians within 45 days, then such plan is deemed approved. In Sub -section G3 it indicates under additional information that the permit application shall be supplemented by any plans, specifications or other information considered pertinent in the judgment of the Administrator or his duly authorized representative. This is the process that Ms. Kittrick outlined, there is an additional submittal, it's not just a conversation, a report has been issued showing the process and treatment that is anticipated to take place. At this point it is incumbent on the Examiner in review of this information only to determine that the plan, in its current state, is feasible on the property. What has been heard from Ms. Kittrick and Mr. Severin is that there will be comments and they have not passed judgment on the acceptability under the manual or the City's Code. Mr. Severin testified that there are alternates that can easily be employed that qualify under the Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 14 manual. Once the process of comment is completed then you arrive at what G1 refers to as the Final Drainage Plan. Then the Administrator has 45 days to take final action. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 2:07 p.m. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION ON SEPA APPEAL: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellants, South End Gives Back (aka SEGB) and Brad Nicholson, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non -Significance —Mitigated (DNS -M) that the City issued for the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel. The appellants filed the appeal in a timely manner. 2. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, hereinafter applicant, applied for a Master Site Plan and a Site Plan review for a hotel complex that would include a 173 room hotel, retail space, a fitness center, spa and restaurant. The project would be developed on an approximately 3.07 acre portion of a larger 7.8 acre site located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a proposed "rain garden' which is designed to handle stormwater collected on the subject site. 3. The subject site is located between Lake Washington Boulevard on the west and 1-405 on the east and is almost directly south of the on-ramp for 1-405 at NE 44th Street. 4. Lake Washington itself is located west of the subject site separated from the subject site by Lake Washington Boulevard, the Barbee Mill subdivision and the Quendall Terminals site. The new Seahawk's Training Center (Virginia Mason Athletic Center) is located a bit further north. May Creek and associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. The subject site was the location of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes manufacturing site. The site is developed with old, now vacant warehouses and almost the entire site is covered with pavement. There are approximately 75,214 square feet of warehouses and impervious surface covers approximately 85% of the subject site. 6. The applicant will be removing pavement and warehouses, "deconstructing" in terms used by the parties, from the north portion of the subject site, the approximately 3.07 acres that will be developed with the hotel and associated surface parking and landscaping. 7. May Creek and Lake Washington are both shorelines of the State and are both subject to the criteria of the Shoreline Master Program. The applicant has designed their demolition and redevelopment proposal to avoid any work within the 200 foot threshold of the Shoreline Master Program The ERC imposed ten (10) conditions. Four of those conditions related to geotechnical issues, wetland/stream issues, in compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, and erosion control under Department of Ecology regulations. Those four conditions are: L The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 15 "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & ConsuIting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. " The appellant calculates that if there is 85% impervious surface that subject site will generate storm water in the amounts of 10 to 20 acre feet of water or between 900 and 1800 gallons per day.Based on the applicant's submissions the appellant calculates that there will be approximately 38,866 square feet of landscaping. They also calculated the change in impervious surfaces. From those calculations the appellants deduce that "a reduction in impervious surface would dramatically increase the rate of groundwater recharge." (Appeal page 3) 10. The appellants then explain that based on topography, measured groundwater at the site, and hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels that groundwater will flow to the west, down and toward Lake Washington through the Quendall Terminals site. Since these groundwaters are inferred to flow toward the Quendall Terminals property the appellants anticipate that these groundwaters will pick up or increase the rate of contaminant discharge from Quendall to Lake Washington. The appellants allege contaminants entering the lake will have a deleterious impact on fish and people who use the lake. 11. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. That means it has been found to be significantly contaminated and is listed by the Federal Government due to the levels and nature of the contaminants found at the site. Past practices on the site released or produced dangerous hydrocarbons and toxic materials such as arsenic as part of the creosote and tar manufacturing and pole treatments produced on the site. 12. The appellants noted that "rain gardens are 'excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth."' (Notice of Appeal, Page 2). Relying on the definitions found in the 2005 King County Manual, the manual referenced by the ERC to govern stormwater management on the subject site. 13. In summary the gist of the appellants' arguments are that the applicant will be using the rain garden and or other aspects of the proposal to infiltrate stormwater into the soils under the subject site. This will recharge or supplement the groundwater which will flow toward the west and the Quendall Terminals Superfund site. This will increase the contaminants leaching to Lake Washington from beneath the Quendall site. The toxics in turn will affect the health and safety of the lake for both humans and fish and animal populations. 14. The appellants base much of the appeal on the declaration of Joel Massmann in particular, the following paragraphs: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 16 "7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site of Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site." (Declaration of Joel Massmann) 15. The applicant's submissions and testimony indicate that the feature called a "rain garden" will be installed. The applicant's "rain garden" is designed as a water collection system which captures and treats stormwater collected on the subject site and then conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has been conveying stormwater from the site in the past_ Therefore, even if the above numbers are correct, the fact that the applicant proposes capturing most of the stormwater and conveying it to the existing ditch and then into May Creek, makes the numbers and probably the conclusions of the Massmann declaration inconsequential. If much of the stormwater is captured then it will not be entering or recharging the groundwater and will not exacerbate leaching of contaminants into the lake from the Quendall site. 16. There was some confusion or disagreement over whether the applicant's proposed rain garden installation would function to cleanse or treat pollutants. It may not meet the normal definitions for a "rain garden." If a review shows the proposed design is not suitable for its intended purpose than it should not be used. The applicant is still bound by the 2005 King County manual for detention, retention and treatment. The appellants also attempted to appeal the Master Site Plan as part of their original submission. There was no Master Site Plan decision issued when the appeal was filed. As a matter of fact, one of the land use decisions for which the SEPA appeal was filed was for a review of the Master Site Plan by the Hearing Examiner. CONCLUSIONS: The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate error. 2. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 17 when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. {WAC 197-11-782). 6. The appellant did not provide a basis that could be used to reverse the City's determination. The proposal will undoubtedly create impacts to the community but they are not substantial, at least, not on the issues the appellants have raised. The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the ERC made a mistake. The applicant will be capturing stormwater water and conveying it in a manner similar to how it was previously conveyed from the subject site. Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment. The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate into the underlying soils. It will not travel the downhill gradient toward and to Lake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake. The post development groundwater quantities suggested by the appellants' evidence is unsupported by the facts. The ERC did not err in its review. 7. The reviewing body has to determine if this proposal would have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. This office is not left with any doubt about the reasonableness of the underlying decision. The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 18 below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. 8. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affumed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Spencer Alpert, filed a request for a Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North. The subject site is the vacated Pan Abode factory site located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. I-405 is east of the site and its NE 44th Street access ramps are located north of the subject site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned COR (Commercial, Office, Residential). In addition to being located in the COR Zone, the subject site is governed by the Urban Design District "C" overlay regulations. The COR requirements also require all development to undergo both Master Plan and Site Plan review. The Master Plan review is an overview of a project to determine the overall project concept and how the project meets the City's goals. 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1804 enacted in December 1959. The applicant proposes developing approximately 3.07 acres of an approximately 7.8 acre site. The subject site is generally trapazoidal in shape. The south property line is approximately 732 feet (east to west). The western, Lake Washington Blvd frontage is approximately 800 feet long. The eastern and northeast property lines together are approximately 900 feet long. At the north end of what appears to be part of the parcel is City of Renton property abutting the I-405 ramps. The applicant has requested a vacation of this property. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 19 10. The south portion of the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. The applicant proposes an estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and approximately 15,000 cubic yards of fill for construction- IL onstruction_ IL May Creek, a Class 1 shoreline of the state, and at least two associated wetlands are located south of the subject site. Any development within 200 feet of May Creek would be subject to the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit and Shorelines Management regulations. The applicant's proposed development will be outside of the 200 foot threshold and staff determined that it is not subject to those regulations. A drainage ditch along the City right-of-way runs along the west side of the property. The ditch is a non-regulated stream with associated non-regulated wetlands. (Wetland and Stream study for the project). 12. The tree inventory showed 32 existing trees. The applicant proposes replacing those with 73 new trees and other landscaping (see below). 13. The applicant will be demolishing the existing warehouse structures that cover the 3.07 acres proposed for the hotel. The applicant will be retaining the other building on the remaining 4.73 acres. There will be no development or demolition within 200 feet of May Creek. 14. The applicant proposes developing a 5 -story hotel on the north portion or 3.07 acres of the site. The 173 room hotel building will be 60 feet tall and contain 122,000 square feet of interior space. It will have a footprint of approximately 29,336 square feet. The complex will also contain retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities and a restaurant. There will be underground parking. 15. The hotel's footprint will be L-shaped. The long leg of the "L", oriented north to south, will face Lake Washington Boulevard. The short leg will be oriented east to west along the north end of the parcel. A plaza with water feature will be located in the crook of the "L". Parking will generally be located east of the building. 16. The applicant will be using a variety of materials for the exterior of the building. It will contain stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding and metal roofs. There will be "northwest" style overhangs and trusses. The appearance is intended to complement the development of the Barbee Mill plat west of Lake Washington Boulevard. The COR Zone and the Urban Design District require both vertical and horizontal modulation a minimum of 2 feet at an interval of 40 feet to add interest and quality to the project. Additionally, there is to be a building setback of 10 feet for buildings over 50 feet in height. The plans show that the building does meet the horizontal and vertical modulations and that the top story observes an approximately 12 -foot setback for most of that story and varies from zero feet to 39.5 feet. Staff has suggested that does meet the intent and with the variety of eaves, trusses, bump -outs, balconies and differentiated materials it more than meets the spirit of the "guidelines." 17. The entry from the east side or parking areas will be set off by the water feature that contains a Koi pond and pedestrian bridge. The Lake Washington entry will have a canopy. 18. Landscaping in the COR zone is developed as part of the Site Plan review process but is also governed by landscape requirements for surface parking lots. Along with the 73 new trees replacing the 32 that would be removed, the applicant proposes approximately 39,000 square feet of landscaping. New landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the subject site, around the perimeter of the hotel building and in and around the parking lot. The landscaping will be confined to the 3.07 acres that the applicant proposes developing with the hotel. Street trees will be planted along Lake Washington Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 20 Boulevard and will be spaced 30 feet on center. A large variety of other landscape plants will be used throughout the site. The applicant did not submit the necessary irrigation plan. Parking lots with 100 or more stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per stall, a minimum of 5 feet in width, 1 tree per 6 stalls, 5 shrubs per100 square feet and landscaping within 50 feet of parking stalls. Staff calculated that the submitted plans meet the minimum requirements. 19. Staff has calculated the required parking based on use as a minimum of 223 and a maximum of 235 stalls and the applicant proposes 231 stalls, meeting code. There would be 107 stalls in the parking garage, and 124 surface stalls including 6 ADA stalls and stalls for five Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. Staff noted that for parking lots of this size 7 ADA stalls are required. Staff noted that both parking areas meet code for dimensions and compact stalls. 20. Lot coverage permitted in the COR zone for a building with surface parking is 65 percent. The proposed 29,336 square foot building covers approximately 22 percent of the 3.08 acres proposed for the hotel complex. The setback from the freeway is a required 10 feet whereas other setbacks are determined during site plan review. The applicant proposes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington Boulevard, its apparent front yard, 60 feet from the north property line, 129 feet from its eastern, freeway property line and 418 feet from the south property line (including the acreage outside of the 3.07 acres). The zone permits buildings of 125 feet or 10 stories whereas 60 feet and five stories are proposed. 21. The applicant will provide access to the subject site via two locations. One driveway will be located along the north boundary of the subject site. The second, main driveway will be a more formai, two- lane gateway driveway at Lake Washington Boulevard located south of the hotel building. 22. Garbage and recycling areas are determined by use but hotels are not specifically identified. Staff evaluated the use as an office use that would require approximately 732 square feet of space and considered the fact that the applicant will be using a trash compactor in determining that the proposed 379.52 feet was adequate. The applicant has requested that this refuge complex not contain the roof required by the minimum standards since it requires dumpsters be moved out for collection since the dumpsters cannot be raised to truck level with a roof enclosure. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 1,400 trips. There will be approximately 97 a.m. trips and 102 p.m. trips. The City's estimate of 1,413 trips matches the numbers predicted by the applicant. 24. As part of the development of the subject site the applicant proposes raising the grade of the site to match Lake Washington Boulevard. This will expose the hotel to the general public and allow the public to enter the site from surrounding sidewalks and trails. 25. Staff in its matrix chart has identified compliance, partial compliance or failure to meet the District C Design Guidelines minimum standards as well as suggested guidelines. That matrix is adopted by this office and incorporated into this report by reference. Particular reference is made to lighting for safety and not spilling off the site, facade treatment along the Lake Washington frontage lacking character elements to break up blank or rather unadorned lengths of facade, pedestrian paths in the parking areas and sufficient to provide both a trail link and pedestrian link around the site and connecting to the May Creek and King County paths and trails. 26. No Planned Action Ordinance was adopted for this site. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 21 27. Stormwater will be collected and conveyed to what the applicant terms a rain garden for treatment and then conveyed to an offsite ditch that runs along the west side of the site. The ditch conveys water to May Creek and then Lake Washington. As discussed in the SEPA Appeal decision issued with this project, the proposal will not be using infiltration and the stormwater will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington. The applicant will be governed by City, State and Federal regulations regarding discharges from the subject site. 28. Sewer and water are provided to the subject site by the City. CONCLUSIONS: The project is subject to both Master Plan and Site Plan review as well as review under the District C Design Guidelines and the COR special considerations. The fact that only one building is involved in this proposal makes consideration of Master Planning for the subject site mirror the Site Plan review standards. While the building will contain a mix of uses including a restaurant was well as the much larger hotel, these various uses are included in the one facade scheme. It would make more sense to invoke the Master Plan review when the remainder of the 7.8 acre site is developed to make sure it is well coordinated with this current hotel complex. 2. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f_ Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan's designation for this area is for the development of larger scale commercial, office and residential uses befitting what are some of the larger parcels in the City_ Many COR parcels were used for industrial production that dedicated larger swaths of lands for those purposes. As some of those industrial uses have moved away, the land is available for larger projects. The proposed hotel, especially in conjunction with the Seahawk's training complex is such a large scale project. The hotel is a kind of mixed use - temporary residences for patrons while a commercial operation. The hotel will also integrate a restaurant and retail uses into the mix. The proposal is compatible with the goal of transforming old industrial sites into high quality development. 4. The proposal in the main is compatible with the Zoning Code. It meets the height and setback Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA�Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, September 10, 2009 page 22 requirements of the code. It provides the complement °� tparking lie D sgtrictCrDesign Guidelines. meets Lhe STh details q for modulation and articulation found in the Code an floor' does not completely abide by the suggested s abma fov f the op floor's facades. Staff found ds tswas those setbacks and greatly exceeds those setbacks Y and bulk of the facility and it appears staff is correct. an appropriate design. Similarly, staff found �l size a Proposal meets the code requirements for garbage and ecycling and in comparison to the overall ears to conflict with actual This office does have some problems with the fact that the roof required app to review thcse issues' pickup services by garbage/recycle d Fire Code provisions will be vff and the City erified r f ed when appropriate detailed Compliance with actual Building and F F permits are submitted. ect but it inly is more The building will be taller than the former wanes dent rel uses west ohouse uses on the f Lake WaashingtonBoulevard but graciously designed. It will be taller than the shorter than the nearby training center, It will provide buffer Wash Wasom hington n Boulevard.The State has freeway interchange to the residential uses located g asked for mitigation and that is incorporated into he EThesnatuetof the trips wall also be differentt from impacts of traffic along Lake Washington Boal the former industrial use of the site. An appeal of onveirting a large area of impermeable ps'�rfa e to a new directed at minimizing the potential impactbe hotel facility. There was a misunderstanding flirther clarified in the Si emwater would PlanareviewTThe siit w ll still denied but issues raised in that appeal can be conveying its storm waters to May Creek and IakatWashington, d t se or ter i hnogulaz� garden" is with respect and appropriately teased ai whose it to used. The applicant should use best available science Ciig a hoz lkeaWa before eon with pollutants taut he roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. l. The proposal will replace old warehouses with a modern hlbulk substantial the building and wpllaadd he exterior building will use a variety of materials to break up apparent appreciably to the landscaping on the site as levard leas a n tubl as along Lake er of horizontal Boulevard. I nd vertical beaksst facade treatment along Lake Washington Bou providing an interesting appearance. Coupled with the variety of materials,r seta {e pub Staff veneer treatments as well as roof trusses all add to the visual variety the building p this facade to has noted that additional opening in s interesthat coofth the ered blank There will be pe�meteglandscaping comply with code and provide the vapplicant will be providing street trees along added around the hotel and around the general site. The app nt proposal. The applicant should provide Lake Washington Boulevard for ofLake Wa the Boulevard and along the eastern and southern landscaping along the remainder The Master Plan process does include "master planning" for the entire perimeter of the parking areas. subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine itTfootprint, ee spareining acreage eshould be site will detract from what appears to be a quality im g incorporated at least minimally. The Master Pill effect on than cannot e current proposal, This office believes suffers from old, deteriorating buthat there is a much larger site that ildings that w that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping,even the temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees tarking�a . tionally, the applicant background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the p ees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the should plant additional street tr same ratio and species as on the north frontage. 5. 51 Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 23 7. The redevelopment of this now underutilized site will help increase the tax base of the City and the removal of old warehouses should conserve if not increase property values. Obviously, there will be more general hubbub and traffic than a vacant warehousing site produces. These were anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were enacted for this site and this area. Redevelopment of this site is a vital element of the City's objectives for this area. 8. The internal circulation and the pedestrian paths seem generally appropriate. Distinctive marking to provide visual separation of pedestrian routes from vehicular crossings may need better definition. As indicated by staff, this site connects trails in the vicinity and the applicant should make appropriate provisions for trail users as well as general pedestrian traffic. Staffs recommendations on path width are appropriate. 9. While the building and bulk are larger than what is on the site, clearly the proposed 60 foot height is substantially less than permitted in the zone. In addition, the generous setbacks provided as well as the width of I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard will aid in letting air and light penetrate the subject site as well as surrounding properties. 10. As noted, there will be more comings and goings from this site than the community is used to but development has occurred to its west and that has already introduced more urban tumult. There will be the usual but temporary construction noise and I405 already adds to the ambient noise levels in this area. IL There are available urban services including sewer and water. The applicant will be paying a Fire Mitigation fee. 12. The redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents. The project looks very well-designed and should be an asset to the community and City as a whole. 13. The project is also required to comply with the COR Zone special review criteria as well as the District C Design Guidelines. As discussed above, this office has adopted staff s analysis and recommendations regarding compliance with those numerous criteria. Some of the thematic requirements overlap the broad review of the Site Plan criteria. Specific requirements were covered by the Staff review and are incorporated into this report. They are attached to the end of this report. 14. The special criteria for the COR zone include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable. b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office - Residential Comprehensive Plan designation. C. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -14 September 10, 2009 Page 24 f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative .modes of transportation. 15. No Planned action ordinance is involved in this review. The property does not lie along Lake Washington. The height of the building should provide views of the lake and view corridors might exist between the homes on the west side of the boulevard. The project will accommodate the trail as well as retail shops and a restaurant open to the public. The Koi pond, bridge and paths as well as the prominent entry and facade features provide a focal point. Transportation fees as well as accommodations to the State and turning lanes will provide reasonable access to the subject site. At the moment, public transit does not travel this route. The applicant has expressed a willingness to accommodate such access. 16. In conclusion, the proposed use complements activity that has been occurring in this area. It is hoped that the development of the north portion of this site will spur redevelopment of the southern portion. DECISION: The Site Pian is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect registered in the State of Washington, a certified nurseryman, or other similarly qualified professional, and be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan that depicts 7 ADA parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 3. The applicant shall submit an access driveway grade cross section indicating compliance with RMC 4- 4-0$0.1.6.b to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permit. 4. The street vacation, file # VAC -09-001, shall be completed prior to Certificate of Final Occupancy. 5. The applicant shall redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager for review and approval prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit a new site plan that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic Development project manager. 7. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager indicating 12 -foot sidewalk widths and a 10 -foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties to the Current Planning Project Manager for Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-050, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 25 review and approval at the time of building permit review. The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek_ The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. 10. The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage. ORDERED THIS I Oh day of September 2009. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 10' day of September 2009 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transpiration Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter $, Section 100Gof the City's Code, reguest for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., September 242009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title 1V, Chapter S, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before_ 5:00 a.m., September 24, 2009. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -14. September 10, 2009 Page 26 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed. Covenants will here arior to approval by Gtity Coancil or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one -on -ane) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. a. Review of Compliance to District C Design Guidelines; The subject property is located within Design District `C'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. Two categories have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. The following are the categories for compliance: M= Met NM= Not Met PM= Partially Met NA= Not Applicable A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encouraee pedestrian activity throuehout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; pian districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Hawk's I.anding Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: I,UA--09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 27 Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks - (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1OOE7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian - oriented streets is prohibited Minimum Standard: Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. Minimum Standard: Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented fasiade Staff Comment: The majority of the fa§7ade facing Lake Washington Boulevard would be incompliance with this minimum standard with the exception of south half of this facade on the ground floor. Approximately 62 feet of the southern side of the facade is not designed to meet this standard. This 62 feet is designed with stone veneer and vertical siding. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant redesign the west elevation to feature a pedestrian- onented fa§ade. The new elevation drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Community and Economic Development far review and approval by the project manager prior to building permit approval- Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, FCF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 28 Minimum Standard: Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of 10 feet and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC4-3-100E7b) Minimum Standard: if buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades HE] El El they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building_ Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). Guideline: Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent, To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district_ Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Minimum Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Guideline: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent To scrape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's Iong-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. S. Service Element Location and Design: intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 29 receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high- volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize MN El El 11 the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMCA:3-100117e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090. Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 44-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self- closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). StaffComment: The proposed enclosure for the garbage and recycling collection area includes screening on all sides with the exception of a roof. The applicant hos indicated that if a roof was provided then the dumpsters would have to be pushed or maneuvered out of the enclosure for collection because the collection trucks need to lift the dumpster to empty it into the truck. In order for the dumpsters to be directly lifted from the enclosure the exemption of the roof would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 5. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h). Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more ofEl El D the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; e. Ident"ng building form; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 30 f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district_ 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: On Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: El 11 llf!�2_111 (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than 60 feet of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off- street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) on -street parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street_ Minimum Standard: All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC4-4-0800, Parking Lot Design Standards_ Minimum Standard: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the El DO 0 surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). Staff Comment. The proposed surface parking lot does not meet the minimum requirement of 1,500 feet of perimeter area. In addition, preliminary design and discussion with the applicant indicated that this proposed surface parking lot would remain with full guild out of the subject site. Lake Washington Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 31 Boulevard is the only access to the subject site, which results in the requirement to provide internal vehicular circulation for the subject parcel. In order for there to be sufficient internal circulation at a future date, this surface parking lot would be required. As such, staff recommends approval of the surface parking lot as proposed Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended Guideline: If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off .and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. Guideline: When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent. To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible_ Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5b). Staff Comment: See section G. "lighting" below. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC "-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with Other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian - Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100_F5c)_ (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Mon -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 32 (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at feast 6 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can DO El X successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d). Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape_ Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages_ Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings E] El Ell Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 33 or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. Minimum Standard: Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian- ❑ ❑ ❑ oriented streets. Minimum Standard: Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and .parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable' building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). 2, Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.134b). Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking71 modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). Staff Comment. The provided plan sets indicate that portions of the pedestrian pathways within the parking lots would be different material or texture from the adjacent paving materials, although there are some portions that appear to be asphalt with striping. As such, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a new site plant that indicates the entire pedestrian pathways through the parking lot as a different material or texture from the adjacent paving prior to building permit approval. This site plan shall be Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 34 ed and approved by the Department of Community and Economic pment project manager. um Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings e of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. r cally: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail EIN El El buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall .include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-1QD_G4d)_ Staff Comment: The proposed sidewalk width is 10feet and the proposed landscape strip is 9 -feet in width. As mentioned above in the project narrative, the City has received Capital Improvement Funds, which potently would fund the extension of the May Creek Trail, which would end at the south end of the subject parcel. In order for this trial to continue to the existing King County Trial system located north of the subject site, near VMAC, the City's Parks Department requested that the sidewalk in this area have enough width to accommodate a multi -use trial in addition to a traditional sidewalk. Hotel patrons and members of the public would be using this sidewalk, in addition, trail users would be utilizing this sidewalk to connect to the grater King County trial system. Based on the anticipated number of users in this location, 1© feet would not be appropriate sidewalk width to accommodate anticipated pedestrian traffic. As such, staff recommends a condition of approval that the applicant provide an updated site plan to the City of Renton Project Manager indicating a 12 foot sidewalk width and a 10 foot wide landscape strip along the frontage of the 3.07 acres of the development site, Prior to construction permit approval. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree ::Ip P A coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 -12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller S — 6 foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walldng surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 35 Guideline: Through -block connections should be made between buildings, DO El M between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection RINK 4-3-100.G4e) Guideline: Between buildings of up to and including two stories in height, through -block connections should be at least 6 feet in width Guideline: Between buildings three stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least 12 feet in width Guideline: Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum 0.25 mile apart Guideline: As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than 14 feet in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be EE allowed when appropriate to the situation. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than S feet above ground level. Staff Comment. As proposed, canopies along the fa§7ade fronting Lake Washington Boulevard exceed the minimum width standards although do not meet the minimum length standards. Canopies have been proposed to be provided for approximately 35.5 percent of the fa�ade or approximately 60 liner feet. The 60 feet of the fag�ode where canopies are proposed is along the portion of the building that would be the least distance (smallest setback) from Lake Washington Boulevard Although, the proposed hotel design provides modulation along this fa§ode that brings many portions of the structure back from Lake Washington Boulevard where canopies would not be achieving the desired intend of overhead weather protection. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 60 liner feet of canopy coverage. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 36 durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided_ - Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade REJ El mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4 3-100.G4f). D. LANDSCAPINGIRECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.1-13a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets {see RMC 4-4-080P7, Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 37 Landscape Requirements)_ Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as -IT- measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1,13b. Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tail at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Staff Comment: As proposed the shrubs meet the minimum height but the proposed rate of planning is less then one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant has proposed to use raingardens, within these areas ornamental shrubs are not proposed to be planted. The proposed raingardens reflect the applicant's desire to provide a development that minimizes its effects on the environment and/or is "green". The raingardens are calculated into the landscaped area and therefore reduce the ratio of shrubs to landscaped area; as such, staff recommends approval of this modification. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number Minimum Required Landscape Area* of Spates 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking P F71 lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet- Minimum Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal Pile No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 38 height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. ME] El El Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit on irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is P P encouraged. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or PPE neighboring properties. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for Both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments ` '` of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or rrrr recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 39 be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, El El El N required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects DEI required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 413-1OO.1-13c). Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection IMC 4-3- 100.1-13d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must El El El be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right -of --way or a nonvehicular courtyard; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 40 (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot -candies (average) on the ground; and Staff Comment: See comment under G "Lighting" Below. Staff was unable to determine if the applicant complies with the minimum standards at this time. (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian - My EE] El 11 oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry_ (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating - Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented N El El space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences, (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian - oriented space. Minimum Standard: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units - nits_Guideline: Guideline: Developments located at street intersections corners on designated El El El pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100_H3f). Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File Na.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 41 Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. N E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: M Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15x). Minimum Standard: All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the MR E following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; (d) Roof line features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director Minimum Standard: Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15b).- 43-100.15b):(a) (a)The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the buildings exterior) without building modulation shall be 40 feet. (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be 15 feet. (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet or not less than two-tenths multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). Guideline: Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets El EJ EIM should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Guideline: Buildings should be urban in character. I �: %: - u. 1:4 Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 42 Guideline: Buildings greater than 160 feet in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection RMC 4- 3-100.15c). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, El D N El sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See staff comment Section A. 2. "Building Locution and Orientation" above. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls El El E11L:::AJ shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wail; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shalt be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of El El the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50 percent. Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and SEPA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 43 (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.15e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental fighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving, (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, El M El ED grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. Staff Comment: The applicant is highly encouraged to provide any and/or all of the items listed above in order to ornament the ground level of the proposed structure. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long P P building walls are encouraged. E 3. Building Roof cines: Intent To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minimum Standard. Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements toME] El El create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and S1PA Appeal File No.: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 44 (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounter) mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-09SE, Roof -Top Equipment. Minimum Standard. Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Guideline: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parkingNI) El El area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same duality. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an Ail A P1 attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades_ Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with VT more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in-place concrete. Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Guideline: Concrete block wails should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern andlor incorporate other masonry materials. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. F. SIGNAGE: N Hawk's Landing Mixed Use and S1PA Appeal File No.. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H September 10, 2009 Page 46 Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. {see staff comment above] G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lightina shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior Cin -Site. 5taff Comment: Staff recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exemptfrom provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior Un -Site. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See Condition above Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety El M El and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment. See Condition above Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with dawn -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. "i W_ 7•. a -�,-`ti, 14 . 1- 4 ..1,1 f .� �, h a}3Q, -fir s f- '�..T �`, } ��. -''� _ •�.,;.; s AF"i + � t� -14 k i j mKaw 3.'. smovax-s. ' aeo-� +Lr"Ic'+'wsxal +ces+�.r.. .. _ ,. .. .. - ,..s'.:...,n.�._,ai„�y� ,�„ � �'°°'-•�,r.-:-'.�`�"^°=" - 23Y is q'i�L�i c yj.F ' f aL�g��Yf ✓Y, 1�:. F, c x 0 Map Output Ma E Page 1 of 1 Le ge nd Category 5 Sediments Category 5 Waters Category 5 Waters ■ Category 5 Waters 4 Superfund Sites Highways t . �.. � S1a1Q11�gl5way of USINghway . - ,ry� tnlarsSata 1 �+ County Tow ns h i plRa nge lSec tion Estuary Names Water Bodies ORQserross 41, El 4.Uemm Marsh z El Dam El lrr ou 110Qni -".. El Mand ElWater VI' Streams } (7) { 4o 9ol3 f f Cedar !lief Map created by the WA State department of EcnlogQ—1�����! rp http://'apps.ecy.wa.gov/servlet/coi-n.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceNai- e=state ov&CllentVe_.. 7/9/2010 OXO 1" o CITY OF RENTON Receipt NP 1637 C o City Clerk Division + " + 1055 South Grady Way �y,Nxa Renton, WA 98057 j r/�425-430-6510 Date /ito Cash 5(Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service ❑ Check No. ❑ Appeal Fee ❑ Description: kx\i-? . � � n \-� '-, I /.-. ,Y.., Funds Received From: Address city/Zip TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I INTRODUCTION 1 2 PROCEDURES 8 3 SHORELINES OF THE CITY 19 4 GOALS AND POLICIES 24 5 ENVIRONMENTS 33 6 GENERAL USE REGULATIONS 39 7 SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS 43 7.01 Airport - Seaplane Bases 44 7.02 Aquaculture 46 7.03 Boat -launching Ramps 47 7.04 Bulkheads 48 7.05 Commercial Developments 50 7.06 Dredging 51 7.07 Industrial Development 54 7.08 Landfill 55 7.09 Marinas 56 7.10 Mining 57 7.11 Parking 58 7.12 Piers and Docks 59 7.13 Recreation 62 7.14 Residential Development 63 7.15 Roads and Railroads 64 7.16 Signs 6S 7.17 Stream Alteration 66 7.18 Trails 67 7.19 Utilities 68 8 VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES 73 9 DEFINITIONS 77 LIST OF FIGURES MAPS 3-1 City of Renton SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT 22 of 1971 5-1 City of Renton ENVIRONMENTS (URBAN) 38 -1 - INTRODUCTION -2 - SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Background For several years there has been growing concern among citizens, local government and state government about the in- creasing pressures affecting the utilization of the shorelines within the state. In general, shorelines are of limited sup- ply and are faced with rapidly increasing demands for such traditional uses as ports, fishing, swimming and scenic views, as well as new demands for recreational subdivisions, private housing, commercial and industrial uses. More people, higher incomes, more leisure time, and general business growth have combined to create a heavy use of the shorelines. In the Pall of 1970, the Washington Environmental Council circulated an initiative petition known as the Shorelines Protection Act, or Initiative 43, and gathered enough signatures to certify it to the legislature meeting in 1971. Iniative 43 placed the primary responsibility for the planning and imple- mentation of the act with state government. The legislature then had the choice of accepting Initiative 43, passing a sub- stitute measure, or taking no action whatsoever. They chose the second option and enacted engrossed substitute House Bill #584, which was called the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and it subsequently became Initiative 43B. Initiative 43B called for local control of planning and implementation of the act. In November of 1972, both measures were placed on the ballot, and the state's voters selected the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.48). This act is based on the philosophy that the shorelines of our state are among our most "valuable" and "fragile" natural resources and that unrestricted develop - meet of these resources is not in the best public interest. Therefore, planning and management are necessary in order to prevent the harmful effects of uncoordinated and piecemeal development of our state's shorelines. -3- 1.02 Re uirements of the Shoreline Management Act Under the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, local governments have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning program and administering the regulatory requirements of the act, with the Department of Ecology acting in a suppor- tive and review capacity. As set forth in the provisions of the act, local governments must fulfill the following basic requirements: 1. Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development on wetlands of designated water bodies. 2. Compilation of a comprehensive inventory which in- cludes a survey of natural characteristics, present. land uses and patterns of ownership. 3. Development of a master program to provide an objec- tive guide for regulating the use of shorelines. 1.03 Compliance in Renton The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 directs all local governments to develop a master program for the management of all shorelines lying within its corporate limits. This master program has been prepared to comply with the requirements of that act and to formulate guidelines which will regulate the future utilization and development of the shorelines lying within the corporate limits of the City of Renton. Specifically, this master program affects the shore- lines of hake Washington, Cedar River, Green River, Black River, Springbrook Creek and May..Creek, and any other shoreline later coming under the jurisdiction of the act. In compliance with the first requirement of the state act, and as part of this masterprogram, the City of Renton is estab- lishing a permit system, under which a permit would have to be obtained for any substantial development proposed within afore- mentioned shorelines, within the city limits of Renton. Sub- stantial development, according to the law, means any develop- ment on which the fair market value exceeds $1,000.o0, or any development which would interfere with the normal public use -4 - of the water or shorelines. As part of that permit system, the following are considered general exceptions to the per- mit requirement; 1. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures. 2. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences. 3. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements. 4. Construction of barns or similar agricultural buildings. 5. Construction or modification of navigational aids. 6. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or con- tract purchaser of a single family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence, does not exceed a height of thirty-five (3S) feet above average grade level. 7. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the non-commercial use of the owner of a single family residence, the.cost of which does not exceed..$2,500.00. However, any development which occurs within the city's shore- line, as defined by the act., whether it requires a permit or not, must be consistent with the intent of the state law. Under the shoreline permit system herein established, administrative responsibility lies with the Planning Depart- ment, but the permits are reviewed in the event of dispute by the Planning Commission which has the authority to approve or deny permit applications. Liberal provisions for appeal of permit decisions are also provided.. In compliance with the second req,uirement.of the act, the Renton Planning Department conducted a comprehensive inventory of the natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of ownership along the city's shoreline. The inventory was completed -in October, 1972, and provided a substantial basis for the development of this master program. The environments and specific use regulations reflect the local conditions that are documented in that inventory. _S_ In compliance with the third requirement of the act, the City of Renton, with the help of its local citizens, has developed a shoreline master program to serve as a guide for regulating use of the city's shorelines. Included therein is a description of the goals, objectives, policies, environments, use regulations, and provisions.£or variances and conditional uses, that were enacted as part of an overall plan which will regulate the future utilization and development of the shore- lines lying within the corporate limits of the City of Renton. 1.04 Development of the Master Program The Shoreline Management Act requires that Renton's Shoreline Management Program serve as an objective guide for regulating use of the city's shorelines. As defined by the act, the master program is to be general, comprehensive, and long- range in order to be applicable to all of Renton's shorelines for a reasonable length of time under changing conditions. "General" means that the policies, proposals and guidelines are not directed towards any specific sites. "Comprehensive" means that the program is directed toward all land and water uses, their impact on the environment and logical estimates of future growth, and it also means that the program shall recognize the plans and programs of other governmental units, and adjacent jurisdictions. "Long range" means that the program is to be directed at least twenty (20) to thirty (30) years into the future, look beyond immediate uses, and follow creative objec- tives rather than a simple projection of current trends and conditions. The basic intent of this master program is to provide for the management of our city's shorelines by planning for and fos- tering all reasonable and appropriate uses and to ensure, if development takes place, that it is done in a manner which will promote and enhance the best interests of the general public. This master program has further been formulated to protect the public interest in the city's shorelines and, at the same time, to recognize and protect private property rights consistent with that public interest. The goals and policies of this M master .program are formulated so as to enhance the public use and enjoyment of the shorelines so long as that public use is consistent with,and does not impair, private property rights. It is recognized that the shorelines of the City of Renton are located within a major urbanized area and that they are subject to ever increasing pressures of additional uses necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines. An attempt has, therefore, been made to present a planned, rational and concerted. effort to increase coordinated an.d optimum utilization of the shore- lines of the City of Renton. Additionally, this master program has also been formulated so as -to provide for uses of our shorelines in the following order of preference: 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest on shorelines of state-wide significance; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines; 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits; 4. Protect the -resources and ecology of the shorelines; S. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines; 7. Provide for any other element deemed appropriate or necessary. It should also be noted that the Department of Ecology has designated Lake Washington as a "region" for the purpose of shoreline planning, and has appointed a Regional Citizens Advi- sory Committee to formulate goals and policies affecting Lake Washington's shorelines. The goals and policies adopted by the Regional Citizens Advisory Committee have been considered in the formulation of this master program. This master program should be read in its entirety and be considered as a whole. The goals and policies and specific uses of this master program were developed in an attempt to pro- vide long-range planning which would govern the future -7 - utilization and development of our shorelines. Although it is anticipated that this master program will need to be revised from time to time as additional shorelines are annexed and become subject to the provisions of this act, as planned unit developments are established and as additional experience is gained working with this act during its initial implementation period, it is felt that the general goals and policies of this master program provide the general guidelines under which future utilization and development might occur. We feel con- fident that these final guidelines are expressive of the con- cerns of the citizens of the City of Renton for the management of their shorelines. This master program has been written with the spirit of optimism, with the hope that our legacy of natural grandeur in the City of Renton will be more wisely used in the brief period of time it is entrusted to us, so that succeeding generations might have it to enjoy. -S - PROCEDURES SECTION 2. PROCEDURES 2.01 Information Prior to Submitting Ap2lication Prior to submitting an application for a substantial development permit or an exemption from a substantial development permit, the applicant should informally discuss a pro- posed development with the Planning Department. This will enable the applicant to become familiar with the requirements of this Master Program, Planning Department procedures, and enforcement procedures. 2.02 Substantial Development Permits 2.02.01 Application Forms and Fees No substantial develop- ment shall be undertaken on shorelines of the City without first obtaining a "substantial development permit" from the Planning Department. Applications for such permits shall be made on forms and in a procedure prescribed by the Planning Department. Application forms may be revised from time to time by the Planning Depart- ment without prejudice to any existing applications. Such forms should be designed to obtain for the Planning Department such information as is necessary to determine whether such a permit is justified. Applications shall be made by the property owner, or his authorized agent, lessee, contract purchaser, or other person entitled to possession of the property, and except for applications filed by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agencies, shall be accompanied by.a receipt issued by the Finance Department showing payment of the applicable fees which are hereby imposed as follows: FEE VALUE OF DEVELOPMENT .$50 Less than $10,000 $75 $10,000 but less than $50,000 $100 $50,000 to $100,000 $150 More than $100,000 2.02.02 Publishing and Posting The applicant shall cause to be published notices thereof once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation -10 - in the area where said development is proposed; provided, however, that the Planning Department shall have the right to require additional publications by the applicant in a newspaper.of general circulation in a neighboring jurisdiction i£ it appears that the proposed project may affect the environment of such neighboring jurisdiction. Three (3) copies of the notice shall be posted prominently on the property concerned and in conspicuous public places. within three hundred (300) feet thereof. Each said notice shall include a statement that any person desiring to pre- sent his views to the Planning Department with regard to said application may do so in writing to said Department and any person interested in the Planning Department's action on an application for a permit may submit his views in writing or notify the Planning Department in writing of his interest within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of such notice. Such notification or submission Of views .to the Planning Department shall entitle said per- sons to a copy of the action taken on the application. The applicant shall submit proof of publication to the Planning Department within ten (10) days after the last date of publication. An affidavit of publication by the newspaper shall be sufficient. 2.02.03 Review Guidelines Unless exempted or authorized through the variance or conditional use permit provisions of this master program, no substantial development permit and no other permit shall be granted unless the proposed develop- ment is consistent with the provisions of this Master Pro- gram, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Department of Ecology thereunder. 2.02 .04 Burden of Proof on ApLLI,cant The burden of proving that the proposed substantial development is consistent with the criteria which must be met before a permit is granted shall be on the applicant. 2.02.05:Conditional Approval Should the Planning Director find that any application does not substantially comply with criteria imposed by the Master Program and the Shore- --II- line Management Act of 1971, he may deny such applica.- tion or attach any terms or condition which he deems suitable and reasonable to effect the purpose and ob- jective of this master program. 2.02.06 Administrative Appeals Where an application is denied. or changed, per 2.02.05, an applicant may appeal the decision denying or changing a "substantial development permit" to the Planning Commision. The Planning Com- mission shall have the final authority to interpret this Master Program for the City of Renton. See Section 2.10 for appeal procedures to the Shoreline Hearings Board. 2.02,07 Notification of City Departments It shall be the duty of the Planning Department to timely furnish copies of all applications and actions taken by said department unto the Public Works Department and City Clerk, and such other officials or departments whose jurisdiction may extend to all or any part of the proposed develop- ment. 2.02.08 Bonds The Planning Department may require the applicant to post a bond in favor of the City of Renton to assure full compliance with any terms and conditions imposed by said department on any substantial development permit. Said bond shall b.e in an amount to reasonably assure the City that any deferred improvement will be carried out within the time stipulated. 21.03 Exemptions 2.03.01 Exemptions from Permit System The following shall.not be considered substantial developments for the purpose of this Master Program: A. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW; B. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value does not exceed $1,000, if such devel- opment does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. C. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements. -12- D. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single -family residences. E. Emergency construction necessary to protect pro- perty from damage by the elements. F. Construction of a barn or similar agricultural structure on wetlands. G. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys. H. Construction on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for his own use or for the use of his family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter. I. Construction of a dock designed for pleasure craft only, for the non-commercial use of the owner of a single-family residence, the cost of which does not exceed $2,500. (Senate Bill 2833) J. Any development on Shorelines of the City included within a preliminary or final plat approved by the City prior to April 1, 1971, if: (1) The final plat was approved after April 13, 1961, or the preliminary plat was approved after April 30, 1969; or (2) Sales of lots to purchasers with reference to the plat, or substantial development in- cident to platting or required by the plat, occurred prior to April 1, 1971; and (3) The development to be made without a permit meets all requirements of the City, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this Master Program; and (4) The development does not involve construction of buildings, or involves construction on wet- lands of buildings to serve only as community, -13 - social, or recreational facilities for the use of owners of platted lots and the buildings do not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level; and (5) The development is completed by June 1, 1973. 2.03.02 Exemption Certificate Procedures Any person claiming exemption from the permit requirements of this Master Program as a result of the exemptions specified in this Section may make application for a no fee exemption certificate to the Planning Department in the manner prescribed by said department. 2.04 Review of Application 2.04.01 Review Criteria The Planning Department shall review an application for a permit based on the following: A. The application; B. The environmental impact statement, if one is re-. quired; C. Written comments from interested persons; D. Information and comments from other City departments affected; E. Independent study by the Planning Department. F. Evidence presented at a public hearing, should the Planning Department decide that it would be in the public interest to hold a public hearing. The Planning Department shall have powers to prescribe rules and regulations for such hearings. 2.04.02 Additional Information The Planning Department may re- quire an applicant to furnish information and data in addition to that contained or required in the applica- tion forms prescribed. Unless an adequate environmental statement has previously been prepared for the proposed development by another agency, the Planning Department shall cause to be prepared such a statement, prior to granting a permit, when the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 would require such a statement. lit[e 2.04.03 Administrative Standards In addition to the criteria 4_ hereinabove set forth in this section, the Planning Department may from time to time promulgate additional procedures or criteria and such shall become effective; when reduced to writing, and filed with the City Clerk and as approved by the City Council and the Department of Ecology. 2.03 Application to the Permit System to Development Undertaken Prior to June 1, 1971 2.05.01 Permit Required Substantial development undertaken on the shorelines of the City, prior to June 1, 1971, shall not require a permit except under the following circum- stances: A. Where the activity was unlawful prior to June 1, 1971; B. Where there has been an unreasonable period of dormancy in the project between its inception and June 1, 1971; C. Where the development is not completed prior to June 1, 1973; D. Where development occurred prior to June 1, 1971, on a shoreline and continued on to a different lake, river or tributary after June 1, 1971, a permit shall be required for the substantial devel- opment undertaken after June 1, 1971. 2.05.02 Phasing Substantial development undertaken prior to June 1, 1971, shall not continue without a permit until other phases that were not an integral part of the development being followed at the time construction commenced. 2.06 Time Reauirements for Substantial Develonment Permits 2.06.01 Construction Commencement Construction of a project for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years after the approval of the permit by the City, or the permit shall terminate, if such progress has not been made, a new permit shall be necessary. -15- 2.06.02 Construction Completion A permit authorizing construc- tion shall extend for a term of no more than five (5) years; provided however that a project for which a permit has been granted has not been completed within five (5) years after the approval of the permit, the Planning Department shall, upon such expiration, review the permit and upon a showing of good cause may extend the permit for a period up to one (1) year, otherwise said permit shall terminate; provided, however, that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension prior to the expiration date of said permit. 2.06.03 Review Period No construction pursuant to such permit shall begin or be authorized and no building, grading or other construction permits or use permits shall be issued by the City until forty-five (45) days from the date of final approval and grant of the permit, or until all review proceedins are terminated is such were initiated within forty-five (45) days of the date of final approval by the Planning Department. 2.06.04 Transferability of Permit If a parcel which has a valid substantial development permit is sold to another person or firm, such permit may be transferred t`o the new owner upon proper application to the Planning Department. The Planning Department may transfer said permit provided there will be no change in the proposed development. 2.07 Rulin s to State Any ruling on an application for a substantial development permit under authority of this Master Program, whether it be an approval or denial, shall concurrently with the transmittal of the ruling to the applicant,.be filed with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General by the Planning Department. 2.08 Enforcement All provisions of this Master Program shall be enforce by the Public Works Department. For such purposes the Public Works Director or his duly authorized representative shall have the power of a police officer. 2.09 Rescission of Permits 2.09.01 Non-compliance with Permit Any substantial development permit issued by the City under the terms of this -16 - Master Program may be rescinded or suspended by the Public Works Department of the City upon a finding that a permittee has not complied with conditions of the per- mit. If the holder of the permit chooses, he shall be entitled to a hearing before the Planning Commission, 2.09.02 Notice of Non -Compliance Such rescission and/or modi- fication of an issued permit shall be initiated by serv- ing written notice of non-compliance on the permittee which notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to the address listed on the application, or to such other address as the appli- cant or permittee may have advised the City; or such notice may be served on the applicant or permittee in person or his agent in the same manner as service of summons as provided by law. 2.09.03 Posting In addition to such notice, the Public Works Department shall cause -to have notice posted in three (3) public places of which one (1) posting shall be at or within the area described in the permit. 2.09.04 Public Hearing Before any such permit can be rescind- ed or modified, a public hearing may be held at the permittee's written request by the Planning Commission. Such written request must be made by said permittee not later than 14 calendar days following service of notice upon permittee. 2.09.05 Final Decision The decision of the Planning Commission shall be the final decision of the City on all applica- tions. A written decision shall be transmitted to the Department of Ecology, the Attorney General's office, the applicant, and such other departments or boards of the City as are affected thereby and the legislative body of the City. 2.10 Appeals Any person aggrieved by the granting or denying of a substantial development permit on shorelines of the City, or by the rescinding of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this Master Program, may seek review from the Shorelines -17 - Heating Board by filing a request for the same within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final order, and by concurrently filing copies of his request with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office as provided in Section 18 (1) of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. A copy of any such appeal notice shall like, - wise be filed with the Planning Department and the City Clerk of the City of Menton. 2.11 Penalties 2.11.01 Prosecution Every person violating any of the provisions of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding five hundred ($500) dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment, and each days' violation shall constitute a separate punishable offense. 2.11.02 Injunction The City Attorney may bring such injunctive, declaratory or other actions, as are necessary to insure that no uses are made of the shorelines within the City in conflict with the provisions and programs of this Master Program or the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and to otherwise enforce provisions of this Ordinance and the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. 2.11.03 Public and Private Redress Any person subject to the regulatory program of this Master Program who violates any provision of this Master Program or the provisions of a permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damages to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to such violation. The City Attorney may bring suit for damages under this subsection on behalf of the City. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this subsection on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. If -liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected -18- by violation, the Court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reason- able time at the expense of •the violator. In addition to such relief, including monetary damages, the Court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party. ;12 Amendments The City initially shall review this Master Program within three (3) years from its effective date and thereafter as necessary. Any amendments to this Master Program shall be reviewed first by the Planning Commission, which shall conduct at least one (1) public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council, which shall hold at least one (1) public hearing before making a determination. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology for approval in accordance with Section.19 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. -19- S H 0 R E L I N E S 19 -- SHORELINES 0F THE CITY -20 - SECTION 3 SHORELINES OF THE CITY 3.01 Approximately 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. By state standards, the Green River and Lake Washington are classified as Shorelines of State -Wide Significance and comprise approximately 5.8 miles of the shorelines of the City of Renton. In addition, the shorelines of the Cedar River, Black River, Springbrook Creek, and May Creek are shorelines within the City. Each of these 18 miles of shoreline in the City of Renton are considered an extremely valuable resource not only to the City of Renton but also to the Seattle Metropolitan Area of which Renton is an integral part. 3.02 Each shoreline has its own unique qualities which make it valuable and preference is, therefore, given to the following uses in descending order of priority (as es- tablished by Chapter 90.5.020 RCW): 1. Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest for shorelines of state-wide significance; 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines; 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits; 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shore- lines; 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; and 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. 3.03:. In the City of Renton, the following bodies of water are regulated by the Act: 1. Cedar River, 2. Green River, 3. Lake Washington, 4. May Creek from the intersection of May Creek and N.E. 31 Street in the southeast quarter of the -21 - southeast quarter of Section 32 -24N -5F WM down- stream in a northeasterly direction to its mouth at Lake Washington, S. 5pringbrook Creek north from S.W. Grady Way to the Black River, 6. Black River. The above information is illustrated in Figure 3-1. 3.04 The jurisdiction of this Master Program includes shorelines and wetlands as defined in Section 9. -22 - FIGURE 3-1 { r _ CITY Y OF RENTOR u SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT O F 1971 i I ;.._. LAKE WASHINGTON t _ LAKE YOUNG5 f _24_ GOALS & POLICIES -25 - SECTION 4. GOALS AND POLICIES 4.01 Shoreline Uses and Activities Element 4.01.01 Goals: A. Shorelines of the City are to be planned and coordinated to afford best use of the limited water resource. B. Shorelines of the City are to provide natural amenities within an urban environment. 4.01.02 Policies: A. Reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses and .activities should be planned for. (1) Short-term economic gain or convenience in development should be evaluated in relation- ship to potential long-term effects on the shoreline. (2) Preference should be given to those uses or activities which enhance the natural ameni- ties of the shorelines and which depend on a shorelines location or provide public access to the shorelines. (3) Planning, zoning, capital improvements and other policy and regulatory standards should not increase the density or intensity of shoreline uses or activities except on a dem- onstrated need considering the shorelines and then only in accordance with the policies con- tained herein. (4) Plans should be developed for shorelines par- ticularly suited for water -dependent uses or activities. (5) Multiple use of shorelines should be planned where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. (6) Aesthetic considerations should be encouraged when contemplating new development, extensive redevelopment of existing facilities or for general enhancement of shoreline areas. -25- B. Those shoreline uses or activities which are not water related should be encouraged to relocate away from the shoreline. C. All shoreline developments shall be designed and constructed to protect the rights and privacy of adjacent property owners. 4.02 Conservation Element 4.02.01 4 . 0 2 . 0 2 Goal: The resou2:,es and amenities of all shorelines situated in the City of Renton are to be protected and preserved for use and enjoyment by present and future generations. Dr'I i ri Pr, A. Existing natural resources should be conserved. (1) Water quality and water flow should be main- tained at a level to permit recreational use, provide a suitable habitat for desirable forms of aquatic life and to satisfy other required human needs. (2) Aquatic habitats and spawning grounds should be protected, improved and, if feasible, in- creased. (3) Wildlife habitats should be protected, im- proved and, if feasible, increased. (4) Unique natural areas should be designated and maintained as open space for passive forms of recreation. Access and use should be restric- ted if necessary for the conservation of these areas .. B. Existing and future activities on all shorelines within the City of Renton should be designed to minimize adverse effects on the environment. C. The City of Renton should take aggressive action with responsible governmental agencies to assure that the discharges from all drainage basins are considered an integral, part of shoreline planning. -27- (1) Soil erosion and i�dimentation which adversely affect any shorelintL;,within the City of Renton should be prevented or_%,controlled whenever possible. (2) The contamination of existing watercourses should be discouraged. D. Shoreline areas having historical, cultural, educa- tional or scientific value should be identified and protected. (1) Public and private cooperation should be en- couraged in site preservation and protection. (2) Suspected or newly discovered sites should be kept free from intrusions for a reasonable time until their value is determined. E. Festivals and temporary uses involving public in- terest and not substantially or permanently impair- ing water quality, water flow or unique and fragile areas may be permitted. F. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI 405 should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. (1) Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would per- mit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline. (2) The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI 405 should be left in an undeveloped natural state as much as possible. 4.03 Economic Element 4.03.01 Goal: Existing economic uses and activities on the shorelines are to be recognized and economic uses or activities that are water related are to be encouraged. 4.03.02 Policies: A. Economic uses and activities which are not water related should be discouraged. In those instances where such uses or activities are permitted -23 - reasonable public access to and along the water's edge should be provided. B. Future economic uses and activities should utilize the shoreline in an efficient manner. (1) Economic uses and activities should minimize and cluster that water -related portion of their development along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not re- quire a water's edge location. (2) The length, width, and height of over -water structures should be limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions. (3) Shoreline developments should be designed to enhance the scenic view. C. Multiple use of economic developments on the shore- line should be encouraged to provide public recrea- tional opportunities wherever feasible. D. Shoreline facilities for the moorage and servicing of boats and other vessels should be prohibited in single family zoned areas wherever feasible. (1) 'Commercial dockings and marinas shall meet all health standards. (2) Marinas and other economic activities shall be required to contain and clean up spills or dis- charges of pollutants associated with boating activities. E. The expansion of log raft storage on Lake Washington should be discouraged. F. Containment and clean-up of pollutants shall be re- quired of all economic activities on the shorelines. 4.04 Public Access Element 4.04.01 Goal: Increase public accessibility to shorelines while preserving or improving the natural amenities. 4.04.02 Policies: A. Public access should recognize and be consistent -29 - with private property rights. B. Just compensation shall be provided to property owners for land acquired for public use. . C. Public access to and along the water's edge should be consistent with public safety and preservation/ conservation of the natural amenities. B. Regulated public access to and along the water's edge should be available throughout publicly owned shoreline areas. E. Public access from public streets shall be made available over public property or sought by ease- ment. F, Future multifamily, planned unit developments, subdivisions, commercial and industrial developments shall be required to provide regulated public access along the water's edge. G. Private access to the publicly owned shoreline corridor shall not be denied to owners of property contiguous to said corridor. H. When making extensive modifications or extensions to existing structures, multifamily, planned unit development, subdivision, commercial and indus- trial developers should be encouraged to provide for public access to and along the water's edge if physically feasible. I. Views of the shoreline and water from shoreline and upland areas should be preserved and enhanced. Enhancement of views shall not be construed to mean excessive removal of vegetation. J. Both passive and active public areas shall be de- signed and provided. K. In order to encourage public use of the shoreline corridor, public parking shall be provided at fre- quent locations. L. Preservation or improvement of the natural amenities shall be a basic consideration in the design of -30 - shoreline areas to which public access is pro- vided, including the trail system, 4.05 Recreation Element 4,05.01 Goal: eater -related recreational activities avail- able to the public are to be encouraged. 4.05.02 Policinc- A. Water -related recreational activities should be encouraged. (1) Accessibility to the water's edge should be improved. (2) Shoreline park areas should be increased in size and number. (3) Areas for recreation of special interest should be developed. (4) Both passive and active recreational areas shall be provided. B. Recreational fishing should be supported, main- tained .and increased. C. The public should be encouraged to buy shoreland as it becomes available for sale based upon an established plan declaring public intent. D. Local jurisdictions should join in a cooperative effort to expand recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development and mainten- ance of waterfront areas. E. Subject to state and federal regulations, the water's depth may be changed to foster recreational aspects. 4.06 Circulation Element 4.06.01 Goal: Minimize future motor vehicular traffic and en- courage pedestrian traffic within the shorelines. 4.06.02 Policies: A. Shoreline roadways should be scenic boulevards where possible and should be restricted to exist- ing rights-of-way. B. Public transportation should be encouraged to -31 - facilitate access to shoreline recreation areas. C. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways, including pro- visions for maintenance, operation and security, should be developed. (1) Access points to and along the shoreline should be linked by pedestrian and bicycle pathways. (2) Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in new or expanded bridges or scenic boulevards within the shorelines. (3) Separate pedestrian and bicycle pathways should be included in publicly financed trans- portation systems or rights-of-way, consistent with public interest and safety. D. Commercial boating operations, other than marinas, should be discouraged, but if permitted, should be limited to commercial and industrial areas. 4.07 Residential Element 4.07.01 4.07.02 Goal: Existing residential uses are to be recognized but future residential development should optimize regulated public access to and along the shorelines, consistent with private property rights. Policies: A. Residential uses over water shall not be permitted. B. Residential development should be discouraged in unique and fragile areas. C. New residential developments along or impinging upon the shoreline should be permitted only where sanitary sewer facilities are available. D. Multi -family structures near the shoreline should be reasonably set back fxom.the water's edge. E. Future shoreline sub -division and planned unit developments (P.U.D.) should permit regulated public access to and along the water's edge. F. Low density development should be encouraged in future residential developments along the shoreline. -32- G. New residential developments should optimize utilization of open space areas. H. All further development of the shorelines of May Creek east of FAI 405 should be compatible with the existing natural state of the shoreline. (1) Low density development should be encouraged to the extent that such development would permit and provide for the continuation of the existing natural character of the shoreline, (2) The existing waterway of May Creek east of FAI 405 should be left in an undeveloped state as much as possible. -33 - ENVIRONMENTS -34 - SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTS 5.01 Two Environments Two environments, Conservancy and Urban, shall be designated to provide a uniform basis to apply policies and use regulations within distinctively different shoreline areas. The environmental designation to be given any specific area shall be based on the existing development pattern, the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the area being considered for development and the goals and aspi- rations of local citizenry. Shorelines have been categorized according to the natural characteristics and use regulations have been designated herein. 5,02 Conservancy Environment 5.02.01 Designation of the ConservancZ Environment A. Ob}ective The objective in designating a conservancy environment is to protect, conserve, and manage exist- ing areas with irreplacable natural or aesthetic fea- tures in essentially their native state while providing for limited use of the area. The conservancy environ- ment is intended to provide a pleasant break in the sur- rounding urban community. This environment shall seek to satisfy a portion of the present and future needs of Renton.. B. Areas to be Designated as a Conservancy Environment (1) Areas of high scenic value. (2) Valuable areas for wildlife habitat. (3) Hazardous slope areas. (4) Floodprone areas. (5) Areas which cannot provide adequate utilities for intense development. (6) Areas with unique or fragile features. C. Acceptable Activities and Uses Activities and uses considered to be acceptable in a conservancy environ- ment are those of a nonconsumptive nature which do not degrade the existing character of the area. Uses that are to be predominant in a conservancy environment are low density residential, passive agricultural uses _3S_ such as pasture or range lands, and passive outdoor recreation. ).02.02 Use Regulations in the Conservancy Environment A. Commercial Uses Commercial uses shall be limited to home occupations, which shall be contained wholly within the dwelling unit. B. Fish and Game Reserve and Breeding Operations Any such activity shall be allowed only by the Planning Commission. C. Industrial Uses All industrial activities are prohibited in a conservancy environment. D. Recreation Uses In the conservancy environment recreation uses shall be limited to passive recreation. (1) Permitted Uses (a) Public hiking and bicycle trails. (b) Quiet public fishing. (c) Public wading and swimming spots. (d) Public areas for nature study. (e) Public picnic areas. (2) Uses Allowed by Planning Commission (a) Public overnight camping areas. (b) Eating/drinking establishments. E. Residential Uses (1) Permitted Uses Low-density single family residences. (2) Uses Allowed by_Plannin_g Commission Multi -family residences of two (2) to four (4) units. (3) Prohibited Use Multi -family residences of five (5) units or more. F. Utilities (1) Local Service Utilities The necessary local service utilities shall be permitted for approved activities and uses within the conservancy environment. (2) Major Utilities Major Utilities may be allowed only by approval of the Planning Commission and only if they cross the conservancy area in the shortest feasible route. 5.02.03 Jurisdiction That portion of May Creek east of FAI-405 and that portion of the south bank of the Cedar River 2,500 feet east of FAI-405 shall be designated conservancy -36- (see figure 5-1), 5.03 Urban Environment 5.03.01 Designation of the Urban Environment A. Objective The objective of the urban environment is,to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use, especially access to and along the water's edge and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of viable and necessary urban uses. B. Hiah-intensity Land Use The urban environment is an area of high-intensity land-use including residential, commercial, and industrial development. The environment does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city, but is particularly suitable to those areas presently subjected to extremely intensive use pressure, as well as areas planned to accommodate intensive urban expansion. Shorelines planned for future urban expansion should present few biophysical limitations for urban activities. C. Water-Dependent Activities Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are a limited resource, emphasis shall be given to development within already developed areas and particularly to water-dependent .. industrial and commercial uses requiring frontage on shorelines. D. Public Access In this master.program, priority is also given to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the urban environment. Identifying needs and planning for the acquisition of urban land for per- manent public access to the water in the urban environ- ment shall be accomplished through the master program. To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities. Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to nonmotorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths. -37- 5.03.02 Use Regulations in the Urban Environment All uses shall be allowed as indicated by Section 7 of the Master Program. 5.03.03 Jurisdiction All shorelines of the City not designated as conservancy are designated as urban (see figure 5-1). -38— -39 - GENERAL USE REGULATIONS -40 - SECTION 6 GENERAL USE REGULATIONS 6.01 A licabilit : This section shall apply to all Shore- line uses whenever applicable. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in Section 7, Specific Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all permits. 6.02 Environmental Effects 6.02.01 Pollution and Ecological Disruption: The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation, water life and other wild life (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natu- ral habitats, and feeding ) soil quality and all other environmental aspects must be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility which may have detrimental effects on the environment. 6.02.02 Burden on Applicant Applicants for permits must explain the methods that will be used to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects. 6.02.03 Erosion: Erosion is to be controlled through the use of vegetation rather than structural means where feasible. 6.02.04 Geology: Important geological factors - such as possible slide areas - on a site must be considered. Whatever activity is planned under the application for the devel- opment permit must be safe and appropriate in view of the geological factors prevailing. 6.03 Use Compatibility and Aesthetic Effects 6.03.01 The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects: A. View obstruction: buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights and other structures; -41- B. Community disturbances: noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic and other structures and activities; C. Desi_gn theme: architectural styles, exterior designs, landscaping patterns and other aspects of the overall design of a site shall be a uni- form or coordinated design, planned for the pur- pose of visual enhancement as well as for serving a useful purpose; D. Visually unpleasant areas: landscaped screening shall be used to hide from public view any area that may impinge upon the visual quality of a site, for example, disposal bins, storage yards and out- door work areas; E. Outdoor Activities Work areas, storage and other activities on a site in a residential area shall be in enclosed buildings, as is reasonable possible to reduce distractions and other effects on surround- ing areas. Outdoor activities of commercial and in- dustrial operations shall be limited to those neces- sary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor areas shall not be used for storage of,rmore than minimal amounts of equipment, parts, materials, products or other objects. 6.04 Public Access 6.04.01 Where possible, space and right-of-way shall be left available on the .immediate shoreline so that trails, bike paths, and/or other means of public use may be developed providing greater shoreline utilization. 6.04.02 Any trail system shall be designed to avoid conflict with private residential property rights. 6.04.03 `No `pro' e'rty 'shall be acquired for public use without just compensation to the `owner. 6.05 Facility Arrangement - Shoreline Orientation 6.05.01 Where feasible, shoreline developments shall minimize and cluster the water -dependent portion of their -42- developments along the shoreline and place inland all facilities which do not require a water's edge. loca.tip-A, 6.07 Landscaping 6.07.01 General The natural and proposed landscaping should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific types of waterway (stream, lake edge, marshland) and shall be compatible with the Northwest image. The scenic, aesthetic, and ecological qualities of natural and developed shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. 6.08 Unique and Fragile Areas Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from development and encroachment. -43 - SPECIFIC USE REGULATIONS -44 - SECTION 7 SPECIFIC. st RI GI ATM 7.01 Air ort - Seaplane Bases 7.01.01 Location: A. Airports A new airport shall not be allowed to locate within the shoreline. However, an air- port already located within a shoreline shall be permitted to upgrade and expand its facilities provided such upgrading and expansion would not have a substantial detrimental effect on a shoreline. B. Seaplane Bases 1. Private Seaplanes may be permitted in residen- tial areas. 2. Commercial New commercial seaplane bases may be allowed in public and industrial areas pro- vided such bases are not contiguous to resi- dential areas. 7.01.02 Facilities A. Airports 1. Future hangers shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet to the water's edge and shall be designed and spaced to allow viewing of airport activities from the area along the water's edge: 2. Tie down areas shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet to the water's edge, for landbased aircraft. B. Seaplane Bases 1. Docks for the mooring of seaplanes are permitted. Seaplanes may be stored on the dock, or ramps. 2. Tie down areas may be provided on seaplane ramps. 7.01.03 Landscaping A. Landscaping shall be required around parking atlt�A in accord with city ordinances. B. The landscaping shall be compatible with th-o activities and characteristics of aircraft ri tit -at it -45 - should be wind resistent, low profile and able to survive under adverse conditions. 7.01.04 Services Services of aircraft shall conform to FAA standards which includes full, oil spill, clean-up, safety and fire fighting equipment, and vehicle and pedestrian separation. -46- 7.02 Aquaculture 7.02.01 Location A. Aquaculture operations may be located on streams and rivers. 7.02.02 Time Facilities shall be allowed on a temporary basis only. 7,02.03 Design and Construction A. All structures over or in the water shall meet the following restrictions: 1. They shall be securely fastened to the shore. 2. They shall be designed for a minimum of inter- ference with the natural systems of the water- way, including for example, water flow and quality, fish circulation, and aquatic plant life. 3. They should not prohibit or restrict other human uses of the water, such as swimming and/or boating. 4. They shall be set back appropriate distances from other shoreline uses if potential conflicts exist. -47- 7.03 Boat--Launchin _Ramps 7.03.01 Site Appropriateness and Characteristics A. dater and Shore Characteristics (1) Water depth should be deep enough off the shore to allow use by boats. (2) Water currents and movement and normal wave action shall be suitable for ramp activity. B. Topography: The proposed area should not present major geological or topographical obstacles to construction or operation of the ramp. Severe methods should not be necessary to adapt the site. 7.03.02 Dimensions and Location The ramp should be designed so as to allow for ease of access to the water with minimal impact on the shoreline and water surface. 7.03.03 Surface and Construction A. Surface Materials: The surface of the ramp may be concrete, precast concrete, or other hard permanent substance. Loose materials, such as gravel or cinders should not be used. The material chosen shall be appropriate considering the following conditions: (1) Soil characteristics, (2) Erosion, (3) Water currents, (4) Waterfront conditions, (5) Usage of the ramp, (6) Any other pertinent factor or local condition. B. The material shall be permanent and non -contaminating to the water, 7.03.04 'Review: Engineering design and site location approval shall be obtained from the appropriate city department. -48- 7.04 Bulkheads 7.04.01 General; All bulkheads are subject to the regulations set forth in this master program, except that bulk- heads common to a single-family residence are exempted from the permit system set forth in this Master Program, 7.04.02 Bulkhead Permitted A bulkhead may be permitted only 7.04. 03 7. 04.04 when; A. Required to protect upland areas or facilities; and B. Riprap cannot provide the necessary protection; and C. The bulkhead design has been approved by a licensed engineer, and the design has been approved by the Renton Department of Public Works. Bulkhead and Fill A bulkhead for the purpose of creat- ing land by filling'behind the bulkhead shall be per- mitted only when the landfill has been approved. The application for a bulkhead shall be included in the application for the landfill in this case. General Design Requirements_ A. The burden rests upon the applicant for the permit to propose a specific type of bulkhead design which has been approved by a licensed engineer. B. All approved bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize damage to fish and shell fish habitat. In evaluating the application for a proposed bulkhead, the Planning Department is to consider the effect of the bulkheads on pub- lic access to publicly owned shorelines. Where possible, bulkheads are to be designed so as not to detract from the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. C. Bulkheads are to be constructed in such a manner as to minimize alterations of the natural shore- line and to minimize adverse effects on nearby beaches. -49- D. In cases where bulkheading is permitted, scienti- fic information suggests a rock riprap design should be preferred. The cracks and openings in such a structure afford suitable habitats for certain forms of aquatic life. However, consid- eration must be given to the fact that such cracks and openings above the grater line may pro- vide resting sites for rat populations. -50- 7.05 Commercial Developments 7.05.01 Location of developments A. New commercial developments are to be encouraged to locate in those areas where current commercial uses exist. - B. New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water dependent nor water related will not be permitted upon the shoreline in the absence of a showing of strict economic necessity by the applicant. C. Where possible, commercial developments are to in- corporate recreational opportunities on the shore- line for the general public. D. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed com- mercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. 7.05.02 Setback A commercial building shall be located no closer than twenty-five (25) feet to the water's edge, however, the Planning Commission may reduce this requirement for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the water's edge. -51- 7.06 Dredging 7.06.01 Definition The removal of earth or sediment from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 7.06.02 Permitted Dredging Dredging is to be permitted only when: A. Dredging is necessary for flood control purposes if a definite flood hazard would exist unless dredging were permitted. B. Dredging is necessary to correct problems of materi- al distribution and water quality when such problems are adversely affecting aquatic life or recreational areas. C. Dredging is necessary to obtain additional water area so as to decrease the intrusion into the lake of a public, private or marina dock. This type of dredging may only be allowed if the following con- ditions are met: (1) The water of the dredged area shall not be stagnant or polluted, (2) The water of the dredged area shall be capable of supporting aquatic life. D. Dredging may be permitted where necessary for the development and maintenance of public shoreline parks and of private shoreline to which the public is provided access. Dredging may be permitted where additional public access is provided, and/or where there is anticipated to be a significant im- provement to fish or wild life habitat; provided there is no net reduction upon the surface waters of the lake. E. Dredging may be permitted to maintain water depth and navigability. 7.06.03 Prohibited Dredging A. Dredging is prohibited in unique or fragile areas. B. Dredging solely for the purpose of obtaining fill -52 - or construction material, which dredging is not directly related to those purposes permitted in Subparagraph .02 above, is prohibited. 7.06.04 Regulations on Permitted Dredging A. All proposed dredging operations shall be planned by a licensed engineer. An approved engineering report shall be submitted to the Renton Planning Department as part of the application for a shore- lines permit. B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposed dredg- ing operation. C. The responsibility further rests with the applicant to demonstrate that there will be a minimal adverse effect on aquatic life and/or on recreational areas . D, The timing of any dredging operation shall be planned so that it has minimal impact or interfer- ence with fish migration. E. Adjacent bank protection: (1) When dredging bottom material of a body of water, the banks shall not be disturbed unless absolutely necessary. The responsibility rests with the applicant to propose and carry out practices to protect the banks. (2) If it is absolutely necessary to disturb the adjacent banks for access to the dredging area, the responsibility rests with the appli- cant to propose and carry out a method of res- toration of the disturbed area to a condition minimizing erosian and siltation. F. Adjacent properties: (1) The responsibility rests with the applicant to demonstrate a method of eliminating or prevent- ing conditions that may: (a) create a nuisance to the public or nearby activity; G. 0 -53- (b) damage property in or near the area; (c) cause substantial adverse effect to plant, animal, aquatic or human life in or near the area; or (d) endanger public safety in or near the area. The applicant shall demonstrate a method to con- trol contamination and pollution to water, air and ground. Disposal of dredged material: (1) The applicant shall demonstrate a method of disposing of all dredged material. (2) In no instance shall dredged material be deposited in a lake or stream. (3) In no instance shall dredged material be stockpiled in a wetland area. (4) If the dredged material is contaminant or pollutant in nature, the applicant shall pro- pose and carry out a method of disposal that does not contaminate or pollute water, air or ground. -54- 7.07 Industrial Development 7.07.01 Industrial developments are to be permitted only when: A. They are water related or they provide reasonable public access to and along the water's edge; and, B. They minimize and cluster those water -related portions of their development along the shoreline acid place inland all facilities which are not water dependent; and, C. Any over water portion is water dependent, is .limited to the smallest reasonable dimensions, and is approved by the Planning Commission; and, D. They are designed in such manner as to enhance the scenic view;'and, E. It has been demonstrated in the permit application that a capability exists to contain and clean up spills or discharges of pollutants associated with the industrial development. 7.07.02 Industrial structures are to be permitted only when they are located on land parcels where industrial uses currently exist or where they are set back more than twenty-five (25) feet from the water's edge. _55- 7.08 Landfill 7.08.01 Landfills shall be permitted only in the following cases: A. For detached single-family residential uses when the property is located between two (2) existing bulkheads the property may be filled to the line of conformity provided the fill does not -exceed one hundred twenty-five (125) feet in length along the water's edge and thirty-five (35) feet into the water and provided the provisions of Section 8.02.01 through 8.02.05 are satisfac- torily met; or, B. When a bulkhead is built to protect the existing perimeter land, a landfill shall be approved to bring the contour up to the desired grade; or C. When in a public use area, landfill would be advantageous to the general public; or, D. When repairs or modifications are required for existing bulkheads and fills; or, E. When landfill is required for flood control pur- poses; or, F. Justification for landfill for any other purpose than those listed in subsections A through E above will be allowed only with prior approval of the Renton Planning Commission. -56- 7.09 Marinas 7.09.01 Definition: The term "marina" shall be a use pro- viding moorages for pleasure craft which also may include boat -launching facilities, storage, sales and other related services, 7.09.02 Marinas shall be permitted only when: A. Adequate onsite parking is available commensurate with the moorage facilities provided. B. Adequate water area is available commensurate with the actual moorage facilities provided. C. The location of the moorage facilities is conve- nient to public roads. 7.09.03 Design requirements A. Marinas are to be designed in the manner that will minimize adverse effects on fish and shell fish re- sources and be aesthetically compatible with adjacent areas. B. Marinas utilized for overnight and long-term moorage are not to be located in shallow -water embayments with poor flushing a.ction. C. Applications for permits for marina construction are to be avaluated for compliance with standards promulgated by Federal, State and Local agencies. D. Marinas and other commercial boating activities are to be equipped with receptacles to receive and adequately dispose of sewage, waste, rubbish, and. litter from patrons' boats. E. Applications for development permits for the con- struction of marinas must affirmatively indicate that the marina will be equipped to contain and clean up any spills or discharges of pollutants associated with boating activities. 7.09.04 Location of Marinas A. Marinas shall be permitted only upon Lake Washington and on the Cedar River between its mouth and the Logan Street Bridge. Marinas must provide . adequate access, parking, and surface water area in relation to the number of moorage spaces provided. -57- 7.10 Mining 7.x.0,01 All mining, including surface mining, shall be pro- hibited. 7.10.02 Surface mining shall mean all or any part of the process involved in extraction of minerals by re- moving the overburden and mining directly from the mineral deposits thereby exposed, including open pit mining of minerals naturally exposed at the surface of the earth, mining by the auger method, and production of surface mining refuse. The sur- face mining shall not include reasonable excavation or.grading conducted for farming, onsite road construction, or onsite building construction. -58- 7.11 Parking 7.11.01 Public Parkin A. In order to encourage public use of the shore- line, public parking is to be provided at fre- quent locations. B. Public parking facilities should be discouraged along the water's edge. G. Public parking facilities are to be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impact upon the shoreline and adjacent -lands and upon the water view. 7.11.02 Private Parkin A. Where possible, private parking facilities are to be located away -from the water's edge. -S9- 7.12 Piers and Docks 7.12.01 Purpose A. A pier or dock is a structure built over or float- ing upon the water, used as a landing or moorage place for marine transport or for residential purposes. B. The use of floating docks in lieu of other types of docks is to be encouraged in those areas where scen- ic values are high and where substantial conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen will not be created. 7.12.02 Allowable Construction A. The following permits for construction of piers or docks will be allowed: (1) Piers and docks which provide for public use or marinas. (2) Community piers and docks in new major water- front subdivisions. (3) Piers and docks which are constructed for private joint use by two or more waterfront propexty owners. (4) Private single family residence piers and docks. (5) Water -dependent commercial and industrial uses. B. The responsibility rests upon the applicant to affirmatively demonstrate in his application for a permit the need for the proposed pier or dock. C. The design of all piers and docks shall he approved by a licensed engineer or licensed architect. 7.12.03 Design _Criteria for Single -Family Docks A. Pier ty2e (1) All piers and docks shall be built of open pile construction, except that floating docks - may be permitted where there is no danger of significant damage to an ecosystem, where scenic values are high, and where one or more of the following conditions exist: -60- a. Extreme water depth, beyond the range of normal length piling. b. A soft bottom condition, providing little support for piling. C. Ledge rock bottom that renders it not feas- ible to install piling. B. Covered moorage, both permanent and temporary, shall consist of no more than a roof. C. Dock Size Specifications (1) The following dock specifications shall be allowed: a. The dock may extend thirty (30) feet into the water or until a depth of eight (8) feet is reached provided the dock length does not exceed one hundred (100) feet. b. The maximum width of a dock shall be eight (8) feet. (2) Any greater dimension than those listed above may be allowed by the Planning Commission for good reason, which shall include, but is not limited to conditions requiring greater dock length and construction. D. Dock Location and Spacing (1) No portion of a pier or dock for the sole use of private, single-family residence may lie closer than five (5) feet to an adjacent property line. (2) Two (2) contiguous waterfront properties may locate a joint dock facility on either such property provided there are appropriate restrictive covenants filed for record run- ning with the land. 7.12.04 Multifamily Residence Docks A. Resident Moorage (1) Moorage at the docks shall be limited to resi- dents of the subdivision, apartments, condo- miniums, or similar developments for which the dock was built. -61- B. Maximum Number of Berthing Spaces (1) The ratio of moorage berths to residential units shall be a fraction less than one. 7.12.05 Use of Buoys and Floats A. Where feasible, the use of buoys and floats for moorage should be encouraged as an alternative to the construction of piers and docks. Such buoys and floats are to be placed as close to shore as possible in order to minimize hazards to navigation. 7.12.06 Commercial and Industrial Docks A. The following dock specifications shall be allowed: (1) Unless otherwise determined or directed by any State agency having jurisdiction there- over, the dock may extend into the water one hundred fifty (150) feet if the depth of thirty (30) feet is not reached; the dock may be extended until a depth of thirty (30) feet is reached provided the dock does not exceed two hundred fifty (250) feet. (2) The maximum width shall be twelve (12) feet. (3) If feasible the dock is to be parallel to the waters edge. B. Docks shall be placed no closer than thirty (30) feet to a side property line. -62- 7.13 Recreation 7.13.01 Definition: The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreation- al experience may be active, such as boating, fishing, and swimming, or may be passive such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 7.13.02 Public Recreation Public recreation uses shall be permitted within the shoreline only when the following criteria are considered: A. Accessibility to the water's edge is provided; and B. Recreational development shall be of such variety as to satisfy the diversity of demands of the locale community; and C. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property acquired for the public use; and D. It is designed to avoid conflicts with private pro- perty rights and create minimum detrimental impact on the adjoining property; and E. It provides parking spaces to handle the designed public use and it will be designed to have a mini- mum impact on the environment. 7.13.03 Private Recreation Private recreational uses open to the public shall be permitted only when the following• standards are met: A. There is reasonable public access to and along the water's edge if necessary to have access to such uses; and B. The primary proposed facility is water dependent; and C. The secondary proposed facilities are water oriented; and D. The proposed facility will have no significant detrimental effects on adjacent parcels; and E. Adequate, screened and landscaped parking.facilities that are separated from pedestrian paths are pro- vided. -63- 7.14 Residential DeveloDment 7.14.01 Residential developments shall be allowed only when: A. Adequate public utilities are available; and B. Residential structures are set back inland from the water's edge a minimum of 20 feet; and C. Density shall not increase beyond the zoning density outlined in the Renton urban Area Com- prehensive Plan. 7.14.02 No floating residences are to be allowed. -b4- 7.15 Roads and Railroads 7.15.01 Location A. Major highways, freeways and railways are to be located away from shorelands, except in indus- trial areas, in order that shoreland roads may be reserved for slow-moving, recreational traffic. 7.15.02 Design requirements A. Where possible, shoreline roadways are to be scenic boulevards and are to be restricted to existing rights-of-way. B. Roadways located in wetland areas are to be designed and maintained to prevent soil erosion and to permit natural movement of ground water. C. All debris and other waste materials from con- struction are to be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion into any water body. D. Road locations are to be planned to fit the topography where possible in order that minimum alteration of existing natural conditions will be necessary. 1=9 7.16 Signs 7. 16.01 Design requirements A. Visual access to water and shoreline from vistas and viewpoints is not to be impaired by the placement of signs. Where feasible, signs are to be constructed against existing buildings or structures to minimize visual obstruction of the water and shoreline. B. Outdoor advertising signs are to be limined to areas of high intensity industrial and commercial use, are to be stationary, non -blinking, and of a size commensurate with the structure to which they are fixed. C. Off -premises and non -appurtenant signs are pro- hibited on the shoreline. D. Illum.inat.ed or free-standing signs, or any signs extending above rooflines, are prohibited on the shoreline except.for required navigational aids. 7. 16.02 Design standards A. Sign restrictions are to conform with the standards set forth on the Renton City Sign Code, which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Master Program except as provided in 7.16.01. -6b- 7.17 Stream Alteration 7.17.01 Definition: Stream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a river, stream or creek. A river, stream or creek are surface water runoff flowing in a natural or modified channel. 7.17.02 Prohibited Stream Alteration A. Stream alteration is prohibited in unique and fra- . gi.le areas. B. Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarg- ing the developable portion of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of land is prohibited. C. Stream alteration is prohibited if it would be significantly detrimental to adjacent parcels. 7.17.03 Re u.lations on Stream Alteration A. All proposed stream alteration shall be designed by a licensed engineer. The design shall be submitted to the Planning Department as part of the application.. B. The responsibility rests solely with the applicant to demonstrate the necessity of the proposal. C. The timing and the methods employed will have minimal adverse effects on acquatic life. D. Pollution is minimized, including during construction. E. The project must be designed so that the low flow is maintained and the escapement of fish at low water is possible. F. No permanent overwater cover or structure shall be allowed unless they are in the public interest. -67- 7'.18 Tsai is •l`. Definition: For the purposes of the Shoreline Faster Program, trails are a non -motorized trans- portation route designed primarily for pedestrians and bicyclists. Permitted uses Trail uses shall be permitted within the Shoreline when the following standards are met: A. Provision..; for maintenance operation and security have been provided. B. They link water access points along the shore -- line or they link water access points along the shoreline with upland community facilities. C. They are designed to avoid conflict with private 4 property rights and to create the minimum objec- tionable impact on adjacent property owners. D. Just compensation is provided to the owner for property to be acquired by the public. E. They insure the rights and privacy of the adjoin- ing property owners are protected. F. Overwater structures required by the trails are determined to be in the public interest. G. They are designed with a surface material which will carry the actual user loads and will have a minimum impact on the environment. -68 - Utilities 7.19.01 Landscaping A. Native Vegetation 1. The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible. 2. When utility projects are complete in the water or wetland, the disturbed area shall be restored -and landscaped as nearly as possible to the original condition, unless new land- scaping is determined to be more desirable. B. All vegetation and screening shall be hardy enough •to withstand the travel of service trucks and similar traffic in areas where such activity occurs. C. Site Screenin of Public Utilities When a public utility building, telephone exchange, sewage pump- ing operation of a public utility is built in the shoreline area, the requirements of this Master Program shall be met and the following screening requirements shall be met. If the requirements of section 7.19.01A Native Vegetation and the require- ments of this section are in disagreement, the requirements of this section shall take precedence. 1. If the installation is housed in a building, the building shall conform architecturally with the surrounding buildings and area or with the type of building that will develop due to the zoning district. 2. An unhoused installation on the ground or a housed installation that does not conform with (1) above, shall be sight screened with ever- green trees, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to forman effective and actual sight barrier within five (5) years. 3. An unhoused installation of a dangerous nature, such as an electrical distribution substation shall be enclosed within an eight (8) foot high opera wire fence. Such installations shall be sight screened with evergreen trues, shrubs, and landscaping planted in sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier except at entrance gate(s), within five (S) years. 7.19.02 Special Considerations for Pipelines A. Pi alines Installation and operation of pipe - lives shall protect the natural conditions of adjacent water courses and shorelines. 1. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of marine life nor shall water quality standards be violated. 2. Native soils shalt, be protected from erosion and natural conditions restored. Wetter course banns and bottoms shall be protected, where necessary, with suitable surface treatment. 3. Petro -chemical or toxic material pipelines shall have automatically controlled shutoff valve at each side of the water crossing. 4. All petro -chemical or 'toxic material pipelines Shall be constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Washington State Transpor- tation Commission and subject to review by the City Engineering Department. 7.19.03 Major Utilities -- Specifications A. Electrical Installations 1. Overhead High Voltage Power Lines a. New overhead power lines are prohibited in scenic arias, recreational areas, public roadways and right-of-ways. Overhead power lines may be permitted in sensitive wetlands, when undergrounding is not possible. b. Structure of overhead power lines shall be single pole type or other esthetically compatible design. -70- 2. Electrical Distribution Substations Electric- al distributions shall be at a wetland location only when there exists no feasible site out of the wetland area and when the screening re- quirements of section 7.19.010 are met, B. Communications This section applies to telephone exchanges including radar transmission installa- tions, receiving antennas for cable television and/or radio, and any other facility for the trans- mission of communication systems. Communication in-stallations may be permitted in the shoreline area only when there exists no feasible site out of the shoreline and water area and when the screening re- quirements of section 7.19.01C are met. In an aesthetic interest, such installations shall be located as far as possible from residential, recrea- tional and commercial activities. C. Pipeline Utilities All pipeline utilities shall be underground. When underground projects are com- pleted on the bank of a water body or in the wet- land of a shoreline, the disturbed area shall be restored to the original configuration. Under- ground utility installations shall be permitted only when the finished installation shall not im- pair the appearance of such areas. D. Public Access All utility companies shall be encouraged to provide public access to utility owned shorelines when such areas are not potentially hazardous to the public. Where utility rights -of way are located near recreational or public use areas, utility companies shall be encouraged to provide said rights-of-way as parking or other public use areas for the adjacent public use area. E. All -Inclusive Utilitz Corridor When it is neces- sary for more than one (1) major utility to go along the same general route, the common use of a -71 - single utility right-of-way is strongly encouraged., When feasible, it would be desirable to include railroad lines within this right-of-way also. 7.19.04. Local Service Utilities, Specifications A. Waterlines Sizes and specifications shall be de- termined by the Public Works Department in -accor- dance with American Water Works Association (AWWA) guidelines. B. Sanitary Seger The existence or use o47 outhouses or privies is prohibited. All uses shall hook to the municipal sewer system. There shall be no sep-: tic tanks or other onsite sewage disposal systems. Storm drainage and pollutant drainage shall not enter the sanitary sewer system. During construc- tion phases, commercial sanitary chemical toilets may be allowed only until proper plumbing facilities are completed. All sanitary sewer pipe sizes and materials shall be approved by the Renton Public Works Department and Metro. C. Storm Sewers A storm sewer drainage system shall be required. Pre-treatment of storm run-off or diversion to sanitary sewers may be required to keep deleterious substances out of neighboring watercourses. Storm serer sizes and specifi<-ations shall be determined by the Public Works Department in accordance with A.P.W.A. guidelines. D. Discharges of Pollutants and Petroleum Products 1. Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environ- mental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge. 2. Oil Separations - these units shall be required at sites that have oil waste disposal into sanitary or storm sewer. These units shall be. built to Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle -72 - (METRO) or State of Washington Department of Public Health specifications. 3. Petroleum Bulk Storage and Distribution Petroleum facilities shall receive special design to reduce their impact on shoreline management areas. Petroleum facilities shall install equipment and employ handling tech- niques that will eliminate oil and petroleum pollutants. These facilities must obtain per- mits and are subject to review by the State De- partment of Ecology, the Federal Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency, the local Puget Sound Air'Pollution Control Agency and City of Renton Planning and Engineer- ing Departments. 7.19.45 All -Inclusive Utility Tunnels For the distribution of local utilities, utility tunnels under the street right-of-way are recommended to carry all local utility services. For new development, the tunnel could be built at the time of road construction. The tunnel would include all utility services, both public and private, necessary for use in the public right- of-way, such as wiring for street lighting and water lines for fire hydrants, and all utility services necessary for the private uses of the area. -73 -- VARIANCES & CONDITIONAL USES -74 - SECTION 8 VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USES 8.01 Variances and Conditional Use Permits The Renton Plan- ning Commission shall have authority to grant conditional use permits and variances in the administration of the Renton Master Program. The power to grant variances and conditional use permits should be utilized in a manner which, while protecting the environment, will assure that a person will be able to utilize his property in a fair and equitable manner. It shall be recognized that a lawful use at the time the Master Program is adopted is to be considered a permitted use and maintenance and restoration shall not require a variance or a conditional use permit. Both variances and conditional use permits are forwarded to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office for approval or denial. 8.02 Variances Upon proper application, a substantial devel- opment permit may be.granted which is at variance with the criteria established in the Renton Master Program where, owing to special conditions pertaining to the specific piece of property, the literal interpretation and strict application of the criteria established in the Renton Master Program would cause undue and unneces- sary hardship or practical difficulties. The fact that the applicant might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the Master Program is not, by itself, sufficient reason for a vari- ance. The Planning Commission must find each of the following: 8.02.01 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applying to the subject property or to the in- tended use thereof that do not -apply generally to other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.02 The variance permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by the owners of other properties on shorelines in the same vicinity. d5- 8.02.03 The variance permit will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property on the shorelines in the same vicinity. 8.02.04 The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Master Program. 8.02.05 The public welfare and interest will be pre- served; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied, but each p-roperty owner shall be entitled to the reasonable use and development of his land& as long as such use and development is in harmony with the general purpose and intent with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the provisions of this Master Program. 8.03 Conditional Use Upon proper application, a con- ditional use permit may be granted. The objective of a conditional use provision is to provide more control and flexibility for implementing the regulations of the Master Program. With provisions to control undesirable effects, the scopeof uses can be expanded to include many uses. Uses classi- fied as conditional uses can be permitted only after consideration and by meeting such performance standards that make the use compatible with other permitted uses within that area. A conditional use permit will be granted subject to each of the follow- ing conditions: 8.03.01 The use must be compatible with other permitted uses within that area. -76- 8.03.02 The use will not interfere with the public use of public shorelines. 8.03.03 Design of the site will be compatible with the surroundings and the City's Master Program. 8.03.04 The use shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's Master Program. 8.04 Time Limit Conditional Permits and Variances shall be deemed to be approved within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of mailing to the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office unless written communication is received by the applicant and the•City indicating other- wise. -77- D E F I N I T 10 N S 77_ DEFINITIONS --78- SECTION 9 DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this Master Program, certain terms and their derivations shall be construed as specified in this section. Words in the singular include the plural,and the plural, the singular. The words "shall" and "will" are mandatory; the word "may" is permissive. 9.01 Act The Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW. 9.02 Activity A happening associated with a use; the use of energy toward a specific action or pursuit. Examples of shoreline activities include but are not limited to fish- ing, swimming, boating, dredging, fish spawning, wildlife nesting, or discharging of materials. Not all activities necessarily require a shoreline location. 9.03 Aquaculture The culture or farming of aquatic animals and plants. 9.04 Boat Launching Ramp A facility with an inclined surface extending into the water which allows launching of boats directly into the water from trailers. 9.05 Breakwater A protective structure, usually built off- shore for the purpose of protecting the shoreline or harbor areas from wave action. 9.06 Building Any structure having a roof intended to be used for the shelter or enclosure or persons, plants, animals or property. 9.07 Bulkhead A wall or embankment used for holding back earth. 9.08 Buoy A floating object anchored in a lake, river, etc.. to warn of rocks, shoals, etc. or used for boat moorage. 9.09 Circulation Those means of transportation which carry passengers or goods to, from, over, or along a corridor. 9.10 Corridor A strip of land forming a passageway between two otherwise separate parts. 9.11 Development 'A use consisting of the construction of exterior alteration of structures; dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel or minerals; -79- bulkheading, driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any other project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the act at any state of water level. 9.12 Dock A fixed -or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. 9.13 Dredging The removal of earth from the bottom or banks of a body of water. 9.14 Economic Development A development which provides a service, produces a good, retails a commodity, or engages in any other use or activity for the purpose of making financial gain. 9.15 Flood Control Any undertaking for the conveyance, con- trol, and dispersal of flood waters. 9.16 Floodplain The area subject to a 100 -year flood. 9.17 Hearings Board The shorelines hearings board established by the act. 9.18 Landfill Creation or maintenance of beach or creation of dry upland area by the deposit of sand, soil, gravel or other materials into shoreline areas. 9.19 Licensed 'Engineer A professional engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Washington. 9.20 Marina A use providing moorages for pleasure craft which also may include boat launching facilities, storage, sales and other related services. 9.21 Master.Pro ram The comprehensive shoreline use plan for the City of Renton, and the use regulations, together with maps, diagrams, charts or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in Section 2 of the act. 9.22 Moorage Any device or structure used to secure a vessel for temporary anchorage, but which is not attached to the vessels. Examples of moorage are docks or buoys. IF:= 9.23 Multiple -Use The combining of compatible uses within one development, of which the major use or activity is water dependent. All uses or activities other than the major one are directly related and necessary to the major use or activity. 9.24 One -hundred Year Flood The maximum flood expected to occur during a one -hundred (100) year period. 9.25 Open Space A land area allowing view, use or passage which is almost entirely unobstructed by buildings, paved areas, or other man-made structures. 9.26 Pier A general term including docks and similar structures consisting of a fixed or floating platform extending from the shore over the water. 9.27 Planned Unit Development Special contractual agreement between the developer and a governmental body governing development of land. 9.28 Public Access A means of physical approach to and along the shoreline available to the general public. This may also include visual approach. 9.29 Recreation The refreshment of body and mind through forms of play, amusement or relaxation. The recreational experi- ence may be active, such as boating, fishing,.and swimming, or may be passive .such as enjoying the natural beauty of the shoreline or its wildlife. 9.30 Residential Uses Developments where persons reside in- cluding but not limited to single-family dwellings, apart- ments, and condominiums. 9.31 Shorelines All of the water areas of the City of Renton, including reservoirs, and their associated wetlands, togeth- er with the lands underlying them, except: A. Shorelines of state-wide significance; B. Shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty (20) cubic feet per second or less, and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and C. Shorelines on lakes less than twenty (20) acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. -81- 9.32 Shorelines of State-wide Significance Those shorelines described in Section 3 of the act. 9.33 Shorelines of the City The total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide significance" within the City of Renton. 9.34 Structure A combination of materials constructed or erected on the ground or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground or water. 9,35 Subdivision A parcel of land divided into two or more parcels, 9.36 Substantial Development Any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds one thousand (1,000) dollars or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the shoreline. 9,37 Substantial Develo ment Permit The Shoreline Management substantial development permit provided for in Section 14 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (RCW 90.58.140), 9.38 Unique and Fragile Areas Those portions of the shoreline which (1) contain or substantially contribute to the main- tenance of endangered or valuable forms of life; and (2) have unstable or potentially hazardous topographic, geologic or hydrologic features (such as steep slopes, marshes). 9,39 Water -Dependent Referring to uses or activities which necessarily rewire a shoreline location as a major and integral part of that use or activity, 9.40 Water -Oriented or Water -Related Referring to uses; activi- ties or facilities which are not necessarily water -dependent, but still incorporate in their design some kind of advan- tageous use of the water, for example walkways or view windows. 9.41 Wetlands or Wetland Areas Those lands extending landward for two hundred (200) feet in all directions, as measured on a horizontal plane from the mean high-water line and all marshes, bogs, swamps, fioodways, river deltas, and floodplains associated with streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of the act, �� U60 I have reviewed the following documents related to the proposed project at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N.: Environmental Review Committee Report, City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development, dated June 29, 2009. Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09- 060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H, City of Renton, dated June 30, 2009. Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated February 6, 1991. Geotechnical Investigation -Draft Report prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc., dated .lune 4, 2009. Fact Sheet, Quendall Terminals, Renton, prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program dated August 4, 2005. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quendall Terminals/J. H. Baxter Site, Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 91-e39, May 1991. Well logs for Sections 29 and 32, Township 24N, Range 4E compiled from the Department of Ecology database latt :/,�a� s_ecv.wa.�ov/wclllo. Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of these documents include the following: I. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 2. Under the proposed project, 3.07 acres would be developed with a hotel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site except for the deconstruction of existing warehouse buildings and site cleanup work. A total of 75,214 square feet of buildings (1.73 acres) will be deconstructed and removed from the site. 3. Approximately 4 acres of impervious surface may be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. This estimate is derived assuming 6.6 acres of impervious surface under existing conditions and 2.6 acres under the proposed development scenario. The estimate of 2.6 acres under the proposed development scenario is derived assuming 85% impervious surface and 3.07 total acres. 4. Udder current conditions, stonnwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the 7.8 -acre site may be in the rairge of 10 to 20 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 9,000 to 15,000 gallons per day. Stonnwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater to an existing 24 -inch culvert which discharges to May Creek. G. The project site is relatively flat and near -surface soils at the site are comprised of sands and silty sands. Depths to groundwater at the site have been observed in the range of 1.3 feet to 9.5 feet. 7. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 9. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 10. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 11, Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater -flow direction from the project site. I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: 1. I am a consulting civil engineer and formerly Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Enviromnen(al Engineering at the University of Washington. I received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the Ohio State University and a Ph.D. degree from the University of British Columbia. 2. I have worked extensively on problems associated with hydrology, surface water and groundwater interactions, and surface water and groundwater water quality. I have taught courses in civil engineering at the University of Washington, the University of Illinois, and Michigan Technological University. These courses include graduate and undergraduate courses in hydrology, environmental modeling, contaminant transport, and hydraulic engineering. 3. I have extensive consulting experience on water issues. This experience includes work for the U.S. Department of Energy, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, the LOTT Alliance, Elf Atochem Company, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and the Portland Oregon Water Bureau. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 17th day of July 2009, ;�.9_ivl��vvl Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. %7 J. Massmann Resume, page 1 of 4 JOEL MASSMANN, Ph.D, P.E. Principal Engineer and Manager Keta Waters LLC, Mercer Island, WA 98040 J'oea_KetaWaters.com; (206) 236-6225 Dr. Massmann has over twenty years of experience as an engineering consultant and works with a wide spectrum of public- and private -sector clients, including industry, government agencies, tribes, and environmental groups. Dr. Massmann received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the Ohio State University and the Ph.D. degree in from the University of British Columbia. He has taught courses in civil engineering and groundwater hydrology at the University of Washington, the University of Illinois, and Michigan Technological University. Dr. Massmann's work on environmental and water resources issues has received national recognition, including the Rudolf Hering Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineering in 1990 and the Presidential Young Investigator Award from the National Science Foundation in 1988. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board and has served as a consultant to the Finnish. Ministry of the Environment. He was appointed to the Fate and Transport Subcommittee of the Washington Department of Ecology Science Advisory Board (1996-2000) and assisted them in developing risk-based clean-up standards at contaminated sites. He also served on the Washington Department of Ecology Technical Advisory Group charged with establishing the standards for review of applications for aquifer storage and recovery projects (2000-2002) and is currently a member of the Mercer Island Utility Board. Academic background Ph.D. Hydrology University of British Columbia 1987 M.S., Civil Engineering The Ohio State University 1981 B.S., Civil Engineering The Ohio State University 1980 Professional history Principal Engineer and Owner, Keta Waters LLC, Mercer Island, Washington, 2002 -current. Associate Professor- with Tenure, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1993-2002. Visiting Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1997-98 (sabbatical leave). Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1992-93. Assistant Professor, Departments of Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign -Urbana, Illinois, 1990-92. Assistant Professor, Department of Geological Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, 1987-90. Senior Project Engineer, Hart Crowser, Seattle, Washington, 1985-87. J. Massmarn Resume, page 2 of 4 Selected Professional Society and Other Service Appointed to U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, Consultant, 1992-1997. Appointed to Environmental Restoration Priority System Panel, National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 1992-1994 Appointed to Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment Peer Review Committee, 1995-1997 Appointed to Washington Dept. of Ecology, Science Advisory Board, Fate and Transport 5ubcornmittee, 1996-2000. Appointed to Washington Dept. of Ecology, Technical Advisory Group on Aquifer Storage and Recovery, 2000-2002 Associatc Editor, Water Resources Research, published by American Geophysical Union, 2000-2002. Appointed to Mercer Island Utility Board, 2004.2008; 2008-2012. Professional licenses Professional Engineer #36101, State of Michigan Professional Engineer #74912, State of Oregon Professional Engineer #40749, State of Washington, Water System Distribution Manager #9819, State of Washington Water Treatment Plant Operator, 49819, State of Washington Professional Society Membership American Geophysical Union American Society of Civil Engineers Environmental and Water Resources Institute American Water Works Association Selected Refereed Journal Publications and Book Chapters Sixteen articles published in refereed journals and five book chapters related to groundwater hydrology. List provided upon request. J. ,Massmann Resume, page 3 of 4 Table 1 - Summary of selected projects and services. Client Years Location Brief description of project and services provided by Dr. Massmann Washington 2009 - Provide technical analysis and advice regarding remediation of Departrncnt of Tacoma, WA groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Occidental Ecologyongoing Chemical Company site near the H lebos waterway, Water for 2007- Malawi, Evaluate water supply systems in rural areas along the shores of People ongoing Africa Lake Malawi and advise on activities to improve theses stems. LOTT Perform hydrogeological investigations necessary to evaluate the Alliarnc.elBrown 2006- Olympia, groundwater recharge potential of sites that may be considered for and Caldwell g on oin g WA groundwater recharge facilities for reclaimed water. Squaxin Island 2006- Shelton. WA Provide hydrogeologic conditions and water rights evaluation Tribes on n oi services 2005 Assist the Tribes in developing, negotiating, and implementing Tulalip Tribes Tulalip, WA strategies to protect and develop water rights. Includes testing and ongoing evaluation of existing groundwater wells, Suquarrush 2005- Suquainish, Provide hydrogeologic conditions and water rights evaluation _ Tribes ongoing WA services. Muckleshoot 1995- Provide technical analysis and advice related to groundwater Indian Tribe Auburn, WA resource development and interactions between groundwater and ongoing surface water. City of Camas, 2007- Camas, WA Assist in obtaining new groundwater rights. WA 2008 Friends of the 2007 Friday Review and evaluate groundwater pumping tests and groundwater San Juans 2008 Harbor, WA model developed to assess impacts of a proposed development on San Juan Island. 2007- Bremerton, Development of the Illahee Creek aquifer protection plan_ The Port of I11ahee objective of this project was to identify specific measures to protect 2008 WA and enhance groundwater resources in the Illahee Creek watershed. This study was aimed at identifying the types of hydrogeological Cascade Water 2007- Bellevue, conditions or scenarios that may result in significant improvements Alliance 2008 WA to in -stream flow and temperature conditions through seasonal ausin of roundwater extraction from wells. Muckleshoot 2000- Auburn, WA Provide technical analysis and related potential impacts of the Lake Indian Tribe 2008 Reservoir Water Right. University of 2007 —Tapps Seattle WA Provide technical assistance to estimate nitrate loadings to Hood Washington Canal via groundwater discharge. Squaxin Island 2006- Shelton WA Develop 3-dimensional MODFLOW model for simulating flow in Tribe 2007 the Woodland Creek watershed. Muckleshoot 2006 Assess feasibility of water supply from Coal Creek Springs. Indian Tribe 2007 Auburn, WA Involved evaluating existing spring collection facilities and U.S. EPA rovidin recommendations for locating new wells to increase yield. Washington Provide peer review of a groundwater flow model for the Spokane Department of 2006- Olympia, Valley Rathdrum Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer. The SVRP Aquifer Ecology 2007 WA Study is a cooperative effort between the State of Idaho, Washin ton and the United States Geological Survey. Work with Tribal personnel and Indian Health Service to improve Tulalip Tribes 2005- Tulalip WA the water supply system for the reservation. This project involved 2007 evaluating existing supplies, recommending modifications to the existing system, and designing new water supply wells. J. Massmann Resume, page 4 of 4 Client Years Location Brief description of project and services provided by Dr. Massmann Squaxli) Island _ Develop a groundwater flow model and derive opinions about the Tribes 2006 Shelton, WA relationship between surface water, groundwater, and water withdrawals in the Woodland Creek watershed Provide technical support to help plan strategic and operational Gila River 2004- Gila Riverdelivery of water to meet agricultural, municipal, and industrial Indian 2006 , AZ uses. Assist in developing a groundwater model to simulate both Corrnnunity quantity and quality of groundwater resources, including potential _ effects of salt build-up due to irrigation practices. Shared Strategy Olympic instream Flow Assessment Pilot Project aimed at assessing human for Puget Sound 2005 Peninsula, impacts on stream flow and salmon populations within subbasinis of WA the Stilla uamish Watershed. 2004- Seattle- Provide peer review of the groundwater flow and transport models Port of Seattle 2005 Tacoma, WA developed for the Port of Seattle to assess contaminant migration at the SeaTac airport Swinomish 2004- La Conner, Evaluate groundwater -surface interactions in the Lower Skagit River Indian Tribe 2005 WA basin, with particular focus on effects of exempt wells on flow in tributaries to the Skagit River. City of 2003- Milwaukie Provide technical analysis, advice, and expert testimony related to Milwaukie, 2005 Oregon g groundwater contamination which has affected the City's municipal Oregon water sup ly system. State of Provide technical analysis, advice, and expert testimony related to a Washington 2003- Olympia, groundwater and surface water contamination site in Spokane, WA. Attorney 2004 WA General Public Utility Evaluated projects related to groundwater storage and District 41 of 2003 Bellingham, groundwater/surface water interactions, including converting surface Whatcom WA water diversions to groundwater withdrawals and augmenting flow County. with roundwater. Evaluate the risk of water shortages in the Lower Peninsula, Virginia, including a review of future water use in the service area U.S. Army Corp 2000- Norfolk VA of a consortium of water utilities representing Newport News, of Engineers 2001 Hampton, Poquoson, Williamsburg, York County, and James City County, Virginia. It was my responsibility to review and evaluate studies aimed at estimating the groundwater yield for these utilities Nestle Waters of San Evaluate the hydrogeology and groundwater flow systems at several North America 2000 Francisco, sites that provide spring water. Assessed compliance with (Perrier Water) 2001 CA regulations established by the Food and Drug Administration for spring waters Portland Water 1998- Portland, Provide technical advice related to assessing the vulnerability of Bureau 1999 Oregon their South Columbia Wellfield to surface contamination. This is a 100 MGD system that is located beneath an industrialized area. I have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton dated September 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009 hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall, These minutes include the following information that was not previously provided to me: 1. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area related to the hotel development. 2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the stormwater plan for the site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water. 3. The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces, Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration dated July 176, 2009 include the following: Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality treatment BMP or option. 2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 4. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 5. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at the site may be in the range of 20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. 6, Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on-site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for Hawk's Landing Crown Plaza Hotel," The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. 7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. 8. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington, 10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. 11. Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. 12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. 1 2 311 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER 9 CITY OF RENTON 10 In the Matter of the Appeal of PP ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -M, 11 } SA -H SEGB, a Washington non-profit ) 12 Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } 13 individual and citizen of Renton, ) DECLARATION OF KEITH P, } SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF 14 Petitioners, ) FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 15 } 16 1, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows: 17 1. I am an attorney with the Iaw firm of Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for 18 petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above -captioned action. I make 19 this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of OR 17(a)(2). 20 21 2. The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman. 22 3. I have examined the document, deterinined that it consists of five (5) pages, 2.3 including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the 25 foregoing is true and correct. 26 27 28 GENDLER & MANN, RLP DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING 9424 Seattle, wa 90101@ 1o1s FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 1 Phone: 12061 621.6868 Fax: (2061 621-0592 I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: I • I am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back to assist in addressing stormwater and other site development issues related to the proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. 2. 1 provided a previous declaration related to this project dated July 17, 2009. 3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items I through 3 in my First Declaration, dated July I7, 2009. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 22" d day of September 2009, 11��' 01-1;�� Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. C SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMENTS 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8: WATER QUALITY All proposed projects, including redevelopmentprojects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to R treat the runoff from those new and replaced pollution -generating impervious surfaces and new E pollution -generating pervious surfaces targeted for treatment as specified in the following sections. These facilities shall be selected from a menu of treatment facility options specified by the area -specific facility requirements in Section 1.2.8.1 (p. 1-67) and implemented according to the applicable WQ implementation requirements in Section 1.2.8.2 (p. 1-75). Intent: To require an efficient, cost-effective level of water quality treatment tailored to the sensitivities and resource protection needs of the downstream receiving water to which the project site drains, or, in the case of infiltration, protection of the receiving groundwater system. Other Important Information about Core Requirement #8 Core Requirement 48 is the primary component of an overall water quality protection strategy required by this manual. Other requirements include the following: • Core Requirement 44: Conveyance System, Spill Control Provisions, Section 1.2.4 (p_ 1 -55) ----This provision generally applies whenever a project constructs or replaces onsite conveyance system elements that receive runoff from pallution generating impervious surfaces. The provision requires that runoff from such impervious surfaces be routed through a spill control device prior to discharge from the project site or into a natural onsite drainage feature. 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-64 1.2.8 CURE REQUIREMENT 49: WATER QUALITY • Core Requirement #4: Conveyance System, Groundwater Protection, Section 1.2.4 (p. 1-55) — This provision requires that ditches/channels be lined as needed to reduce the risk of groundwater contamination when they convey runoff from pollution generating impervious surfaces that comes into direct contact with an outwash soil. • Spec]a] Requirement 44: Source Control, Section 1.3.4 (p. 1-81�--This requirement applies water quality source controls from the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual to commercial, industrial, and multifamily projects. • Special Requirement 45: Oil Control, Section 1.3.5 (p. 1-82)—This requirement applies special oil controls to those projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high -use site. ❑ EXEMPTIONS FROM GORE REQUIREMENT#8 There are five possible exemptions from the requirement to provide a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement 48: 1. Surface Area Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be created as part of a redevelopment project, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed transportation redevelopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria.- a) riteria:a) The total new impervious surface within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redevelopmentproject on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) The total valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements, AND b) Less than 5,000 square feet of new PGIS that is not fully dispersed will be added, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new PGPS that is not fully dispersed will be added. 4. Soil Treatment Exemption A proposed project or any drainage area within a project is exempt if the runoff from pollution - generating impervious surfaces is infiltrated in soils that meet the "groundwater protection criteria" outlined below, except areas within one -quarter -mile of a sensitive lake. 13 43 Sensitive take is a designation applied by the County to lakes that are particularly prone to outrophication from development - induced increases in phosphorus loading. Such lakes are identified on the Water Quality Applications Map adopted with this manual (see map pocket on inside of back cover). 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 1-65 SECTION 1.2 CORE REQUIREMEN`T'S Groundwater Protection Criteria: The first 2 feet or more of the soil beneath an infiltration facility must have a cation exchange capacity44 greater than 5 and an organic content" greater than 0.5%, AND must meet one of the following specifications for general protection of groundwater: a) The soil must have a measured infiltration rate46 of less than or equal to 9 inches per hour, except in groundwater protection areas where the measured rate must be less than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour, OR b) The soil must be composed of less than 25% gravel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve, and the portion passing the #4 sieve must meet one of the following gradations: • At least 50% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 2% must pass the #100 sieve, OR • At least 25% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 5% must pass the 4200 sieve. 44 Cation exchange capacityshall be tested using EPA Laboratory Method 9081. 45 organic contenfshall be measured an a dry weight basis using ASTM 02974, 46 Measured infiltration rate shall be as measured by the EPA method or the Double Ring Infiltrometer Method (ASTM D3385). For some soils, an infiltration rate of less than 9 inches per hour may be assumed based on a soil texture determination rather than a rate measurement. For more details, see the "Groundwater Protection" requirements in Section 5.4.1, 119/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-66 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT #8; WATER QUALITY 1.2,8.1. AREA -SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY FACILITY REQUIREMENT Projects subject to Core Requirement 48 must provide a water quality treatment facility selected from a menu of treatment facility options identified in the area -specific facility requirements and exceptions for E the WQ treatment area in which the proposed project or threshold discharge area of the proposed project Q is located. These WQ treatment areas are listed below and their requirements and exceptions are detailed U i in the following subsections: R rt A. Basic WQ Treatment Areas E N B. Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas T. C. Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas. Intent: To apply an appropriate level of water quality treatment based on the sensitivities of receiving waters for the drainage area in which the project lies. These drainage areas are identified as WQ treatment areas on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual, In addition to a minimum basic standard, which applies broadly to most geographic areas, special menus are provided for land uses that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater and for sites within the watersheds of sensitive lakes, and sphagnum bog wetlands. A. BASIC WQ TREATMENT AREAS Basic WQ Treatment Areas are designated by King County where a general, cost-effective level of treatment is sufficient for most land uses. Some land uses, however, will need an increased level of treatment because they generate high concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff and acute concentrations of metals in streams are toxic to fish. The treatment facility requirements for Basic WQ Treatment Areas provide for this increase in treatment. Basic WQ Treatment Areas are delineated on the WQ Applications Map adopted with this manual (sec the map pocket inside the back cover). Any unincorporated areas of King County not shown on this map shall be assumed to be Basic WQ Treatment Areas. A more detailed delineation is available on the County's Geographic Information System. Note: For projects located at or near the delineated boundary of the Basic WQ Treatment Area, site- specific topography or drainage information may be needed to verify that the project or any threshold discharge area of the project is within the WQ treatment area. Any threshold discharge area is considered to be within the Basic WQ Treatment Area if the threshold discharge area drains to a waterbody or drainage system that is clearly within the mapped Basic WQ Treatment Area. The only exception to this is if the threshold discharge area also drains to a sphagnum bog wetland larger than 0.25 acres in sire as described in Subsection C, "Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Areas" (p. 1-73). In this case, the threshold discharge area is considered to he located within a Sphagnum Bog WQ Treatment Area and is subject to the facility requirement of that area only (i.e., required treatment menu, target surfaces, and exceptions). Required Treatment Menu Within Basic WQ Treatment Areas, a treatment facility option from the Basic WQ menu shall be used to treat runoff from the surfaces listed under "Target Surfaces" below, except where such treatment is waived R. or reduced by the area -specific exceptions at the end of this subsection and except where the Enhanced Q Basic WQ menu is applicable as follows. If 50% or more of the runoff that drains to any proposed U treatment facility is from one or more of the following land uses, then the Enhanced Basic WQ menu R shall be used in place of the Basic WQ menu for the design of this facility, except if such treatment is M waived or reduced by the area -specific exceptions at the end of this subsection: e 1. Residential subdivision development in which the actual density of single family units is equal to or greater than 8 units per acre of developed area. 2. Commercial, industrial, or multifamily land use. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1!912009 1-67 SECTION 1.2 CORE RF,QUiRrMENTS 3. A read with an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of .2,000 or more vehicles or expected to Eserve 200 or more homes. Note: those roads defined in the King County Road Standards as urban subaccess streets, rural subaccess streets, urban minor access streets — residential, rural minor J access streets -- residential, urban subcollectors, and rural subcollectors all serve less than 100 homes by definition. Treatment Goal and Options The treatment goal for facility options in the Basic WQ menu is 80% removal of total suspended solids (TSS) for a typical rainfall year, assuming typical pollutant concentrations in urban runoff.' TSS is the general performance indicator for basic water quality protection because it is the most obvious pollutant of concern. The Basic WQ menu includes facilities such as wetponds, combined detention/wetponds, biofiltration swales, filter strips, and sand filters. See Chapter 6 for specific facility choices and design details. The treatment goal for facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu is 50% reduction of total zinc. Zinc is an indicator of a wider range of metals typically found in urban runoff that are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic life. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu includes options for use of a basic -sized stormwater wetland, a large sand filter, or a combination of two facilities in series, one of which is either a sand filter or a Stormfilter7m (leaf compost filter). See Chapter 6 for specific facility options and designs. Intent The Basic WQ menu is intended to be applied to both stormwater discharges draining to surface waters and those infiltrating into soils that do not provide adequate groundwater protection (see Exemptions 4 and 5 from Core Requirement 48). Overall, the 80% TSS removal objective, in conjunction with special requirements for source control and high -use site controls, should result in good stormwater quality for all but the most sensitive water bodies. Increased water quality treatment is necessary for developments that generate the highest concentrations of metals and for developments that drain to sensitive lakes and sphagnum bog wetlands, Facility options in the Enhanced Basic WQ menu are intended to remove more metals than expected from those in the Basic WQ menu. Lower metal concentrations reduce the risk to fish of exposure to both chronic and acutely toxic concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc. As the toxicity of metals depends on their concentration, this standard is most effective for project sites with a larger proportion of pollution generating impervious surface like roadways and medium to high density subdivisions. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is intended to apply to all such project sites that drain by surface flows to a fish -bearing stream. However, projects that drain entirely by pipe to the major receiving waters listed on page 1-37 are excused from the increased treatment and may revert to the Basic WQ menu because concentration effects are of less concern as the overall flow volume increases. Target Surfaces Facilities in Basic WQ Treatment Areas must treat (either directly or in effect) the runoff from the following target surfaces within the threshold discharge area for which the facility is required: I. New PGIS that is not fully dispersed per the criteria on Page 1-46. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new PGIS shall be assumed based on expected driveway size as approved by DDES. 2. New PGPS that is not fully dispersed and from which there will be a concentrated surface discharge in a natural channel or man-made conveyance system from the site. For individual lots within residential subdivision projects, the extent of new pervious surface shall be assumed to be the entire 47 For evaluation purposes, typical concentrations of TSS in Seattle area runoff are between 30 and 100 mg1L (Table 1, "Water Quality Thresholds Decision Paper," King County Surface Water Management Division, April 1994). 1/9/2049 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1-68 1.2.8 CORE REQUIREMENT 99: WATER QUALITY lot area, except the assumed impervious portion as specified in Chapter 3 and any portion in which native conditions are preserved by covenant, tract, or easement. 3. Existing impervious surface added since January 8, 2001 that is not fully dispersed and not yet mitigated with a County -approved water quality facility or flow control BMP. Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESTI 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinooksalmon. 4. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a transportation redevelopment project in which new impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and totals 50% or more of the existing impervious surface within the project limits. 5. Replaced PGIS that is not fully dispersed on a parcel redevelopment project in which the total of new plus replaced impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. Exceptions The following exceptions apply only in Basic WQ Treatment Areas: 1_ The facility requirement in Basic WQ Treatment Areas as applied to target PGPS may be waived altogether if there is a good faith agreement with the King Conservation District to implement a farm management plan for agricultural uses, or DDES approves a landscape management plan 48 that controls solids, pesticides, and fertilizers leaving the site. 2. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is infiltrated according to the standards in Section 5.4. 3. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for certain land uses may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu for treatment of any runoff that is discharged directly, via a non -fish -bearing conveyance system, all the way to the ordinary high water mark of a stream with a mean annual flow of 1,000 efs or more (at the discharge point of the conveyance system) or a lake that is 300 acres or larger. 4. The Enhanced Basic WQ menu as specified above for treating runoff from a commercial land use may be reduced to the Basic WQ menu if all of the following criteria are met: a) No leachable metals (e.g., galvanized metals) are currently used or proposed to be used in areas of the site exposed to the weather, AND b) A covenant is recorded that prohibits future such use of leachable metals on the site (use the covenant in Reference Section 8-Q), AND c) Less than 50% of the runoff draining to the proposed treatment facility is from any area of the site comprised of one or both of the following land uses: Commercial land use with an expected ADT of 100 or more vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross building area. • Commercial land use involved with vehicle repair, maintenance, or sales. 5. The facility requirement as applied to replaced PGIS maybe waived if the County has adopted a plan and implementation schedule for fulfilling this requirement using regional facilities. 48 Landscape management plan means a ling County approved plan for defining the layout and long-term maintenance of landscaping features to minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and to reduce the discharge of suspended solids and other pollutants. Guidelines for preparing landscape management plans can be found in Reference Section 4-A. Submittal requirements are detailed in Section 2.3.1 .5, 2009 S urface Water Design Manual 1-69 1/9/2009 DEFINITIONS SECTION Leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals means those substances which, when exposed to rainfall, measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff, examples include erodible soil, uncovered process wastes; manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, garbage du ripstcr leakage, etc. Leaf compost filter (a.k.a. StormFilter"") means a patented treatment device that uses a specially prepared and patented compost product to remove pollutants from stormwater. Level pool routing means the basic technique of storage routing used in King County for sizing and analyzing detention storage and determining water levels for ponding water bodies. The level pool routing technique is based on the continuity equation: Inflow - Outflow = Change in storage. Local drainage system means any natural or constructed drainage feature that collects and concentrates runoff from the site and discharges it downstream. Lowest floor means the lowest enclosed area (including basement) of a structure. An area other than a basement area that is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that the enclosed area meets all of the structural requirements of the flood hazard standards. Maintenance means those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of currently serviceable structures, facilities, equipment, or systems if there is no expansion of the structure, facilities, equipment, or system and there are no significant hydrologic impacts. Maintenance includes the repair or replacement of non-functional facilities and the replacement of existing structures with different types of structures, if the repair or replacement is required to meet current engineering standards or is required by one or more environmental permits and the functioning characteristics of the original facility or structure are not changed. For the purposes of applying this definition to the thresholds and requirements of this manual, DDES will determine whether the functioning characteristics of the original facility or structure will remain sufficiently unchanged to consider replacement as maintenance. Major receiving water means a large receiving water that has been determined by King County to be safe for the direct discharge of increased runoff from a proposed project without a flow control facility, subject to the restrictions on such discharges set forth in Core Requirement #3, Section 1.2.3. A list of major receiving waters is provided in Section 1.2.3.1. Major receiving waters are also considcrcd safe for application of Basic WQ treatment in place of otherwise required Enhanced Basic WQ treatment (see Section 12.8.1). Mass wasting means the movement of large volumes of earth material downslope. Master Drainage Plan (NIDP) means a comprehensive drainage control plan intended to prevent significant adverse impacts to the natural and man-made drainage system, both on and offsite. Maximum extent practicable means the use of best management practices that are available and capable of being designed, constructed and implemented in a reliable and effective manner including, but not limited to, consideration of site conditions and cost. MDNS means a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance per SEPA (see "DNS" and "mitigation"). Mean annual storm means a statistically derived rainfall event derived by dividing the annual rainfall in an area by the number of storm events per year, as defined by the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program studies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program," 1986). Metals means elements, such as mercury, ]cad, nickel, zinc and cadmium, that are of environmental concern because they do not degrade over time. Although many are necessary nutrients, they are sometimes magnified in the food chain, and they can be toxic to life in high enough concentrations. Metals problem means a stream reach, lake, or other waterbody of the state that is either (1) currently designated by the state as a Category 5, 4, or 2 Water due to exceedance or concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper, zinc, lead. mercury, etc.) as documented in the state's latest published Clean Water Act Section 3O3d list (an electronic map of these waterbodies is posted at htt :lla s.ec .wa. ov/w awa/viewer_htni , or (2) is currently designated by the County as a metals problem based on credible data indicating exceedance or concern for exceedance of the state's numeric water quality standards for metals (e.g., copper, zinc, lead, mercury, etc.) as documented in the latest published list of King County -Identified 2009 Surface Water Design Manual - Definitions 1!9/2009 13 DEFfNITIONS SF.CTION WQ Problems (Reference Section 10) posted at htt ://Nvww.kin count . gov/environment/waterandIand/storinwateri'documents/stirfiico-water-lcsit;n-nianilal.a5p, Mitigation means an action taken to compensate for adverse impacts to the environment resulting from a development activity or alteration. Modified site improvement plan means a limited or simplified "site improvement plan" used for some projects in Targeted Drainage Review and/or where major improvements are not proposed. Monitor means to systematically and repeatedly measure something in order to track changes. Monitoring means the collection and analysis of data by various methods for the purposes of understanding natural systems and features, evaluating the impacts of development proposals on the biological, hydrologic, and geologic elements of such systems, and assessing the performance of mitigation measures imposed as conditions of development. Multifamily project (or land use) means any project or land use that requires or would require a commercial building permit or commercial site development permit for development of residential dwelling units that are not detached single family dwelling units. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the part of the federal Clean Water Act which requires point source discharges to obtain permits. These permits, referred to as NPDES pennits, are administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Native Growth Protection Easements (NGPE) means an easement granted to the County for the protection of native vegetation within a sensitive area or its associated buffer_ This term was used prior to December 1990 when it was replaced with "sensitive area." As of January 2005, the term "sensitive" is replaced with "critical area;" thus, all references to critical areas in this manual also apply to sensitive areas and native growth protection easements. Native growth retention area means the area of native vegetated surface set aside by a covenant, easement, or tract for purposes of implementing a flow control BMP. Native vegetated surface means a surface in which the soil conditions, ground cover, and species of vegetation are like those of the original native condition for the site. More specifically, this means (1) the soil is either undisturbed or has been treated according to the "native vegetated landscape" specifications in Appendix C, Section C.2.1.8; (2) the ground is either naturally covered with vegetation litter or has been top -dressed with 4 inches of hog fuel consistent with the native vegetated landscape specifications in Appendix C; and (3) the vegetation is either (a) comprised predominantly of plant species, other than noxious weeds, that are indigenous to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest and that reasonably could have been expected to occur naturally on the site or (b) comprised of plant species specified for a native vegetated landscape in Appendix C. Examples of these plant species include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple and vine maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, sahmonberry and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed. Natural channel (see "channel, natural") Natural discharge area means an onsite area tributary to a single natural discharge location (see "natural discharge location"). Natural discharge location means the location where surface and storm water runoff leaves (or would leave if not infiltrated or retained) the site or project site under existing site conditions. Natural onsite drainage feature means a natural swale, channel, stream, closed depression, wetland, or lake. New conveyance system elements means those that are proposed to be constructed where there are no existing constructed conveyance elements. New impervious surface means the addition of a hard or compacted surface like roofs, pavement, gravel, or dirt; or the addition of a more compacted surface, like paving over pre-existing dirt or gravel. New pervious surface means the conversion of a native vegetated surface or other native surface to a non-native pervious surface (e.g., conversion of forest or meadow to pasture land, grass land, cultivated land, lawn, 1/9/2009 2009 Surface Water Design Manual - Definitions 14 6.1.2 ENHANCED BASIC WATER QUALITY MENIJ 6.1.2 ENHANCED BASIC WATER QUALITY MENU Where applied: The Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu' is applied where an enhanced level of treatment is required for those development sites or portions thereof that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff and drain by surface flows to a fish -bearing stream. Acute concentrations of metals such as copper and zinc in streams are toxic to fish. For precise details on the application of this and other water quality menus, refer to Section 1.2.8, "Core Requirement 48: Water Quality." Note: The Enhanced Basic menu is a stand-alone menu. It integrates the Basic menu level ofprotection and the additional measures needed to achieve a higher level of metals removal. When this menu is required in Basic WQ Treatment Areas per Section 1.2.8.1 A of Core Requirement #8, it is intended to replace the Basic WQ menu on development sites orportions of development sites that generate the highest concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff When this menu is required in Sensitive Lake WQ Treatment Areas per Section 1.2.8.1-B, it is intended to be combined with the Sensitive Lake Protection Menu such that a facility design option common to both menus must be used. Treatment goal: The Enhanced Basic WQ menu is designed to achieve 50 percent total zinc removal for flows up to and including the WQ design flow or volume (defined in Section 6.2.1, p. 6-17).4 Basis: The treatment goal is expressed in terms of total zinc removal. Although zinc is not the most toxic metal in stormwater, it is usually present in significant amounts, making it a practical and reliable indicator of overall performance, Many metals are readily adsorbed onto particulates in the runoff, usually the finer fraction of the particulates. Facility combinations that remove more of the particulate load than the Basic menu, including the finer fraction, are specified by the Enhanced Basic menu. Facilities providing organic binding sites that enhance metal adsorption are also specified. ❑ ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 1- LARGE SAND FILTER This option includes use of a large sand falter, large sand filter vault, or large linear sand filter. Sizing specifications for these facilities can be found in Sections 6.5.2 (p. 6-104), 6.5.3 (p, 6-123), and 6.5.4 (p. 6-129), respectively. Note: A presettling cell is required if the sand filter is not preceded by a detention facility. ❑ ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 2--STORMWATER WETLAND Provision of a stormwater wetland (see Section 6.4.3, p. 6-89) or combined detention and stormwater wetland (see Section 6.4.4, p. 6-95) satisfies the 50 percent zinc removal goal without additional facilities. The large amount of organic material in the stormwater wetland provides organic binding sites and is considered very effective in removing metals. ❑ ENHANCED BASIC OPTION 3 -TWO -FACILITY TREATMENT TRAIN This option uses one of the basic water quality treatment options listed in Table 6.1.2.A (p. 6-8) followed by a basic sand filter (see Section 6,5.2, p. 6-104), sand filter vault (see Section 6.5.3, p. 6-123), linear sand filter (see Section 6.5.4, p. 6-129), or StormFilter with CSF T14 leaf compost media (see Section 6.5.5, p. 6-134). The Enhanced Basic VVQ menu targets different pollutants than the lake or bog protection menus. It does not necessarily provide a higher level of treatment except for the target pollutant, metal contaminants. This goal assumes total zinc concentrations for untreated runoff are between 0.10 and 0.25 milligrams per liter (m/Q. For projects that are expected to generate higher levels of metals, such as a mining operation, a higher treatment goal may be appropriate. 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/912009 6-7 SECTION 6, I WATER QUALITY MENUS 1/9/2004 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6-8 �b i�AII,II�St)tfCUAIG�4E�1'i Tt7; E)Q)Y� First Basic WQ Facility: Second WQ Facility: Biofiltration swale (Sections 6.3.1, 6.3,2, and Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 6.3.3) or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Filter strip (Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5) Linear sand filter (Section 6.5.4) with no presettling cell needed Linear sand filter (Section 6.5.4) Fitter strip (Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5) Basic wetpond (Section 6.4. 1) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Wetvault (Section 6.4.2) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Basic combined detention and wetpool facility Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 (Section 6.4.4) or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) (Sections 6.5.2 or 6.5.3). A presettling cell is required if the sand filter is not preceded by a detention facility. StormFilter with ZPG (Section 6.5.5) Basic sand filter or sand filter vault (Section 6.5.2 or 6.5.3) or StormFilter with CSF (Section 6.5.5) 1/9/2004 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 6-8 �� o �;titi n F �s http:// ,vvw.epa.yov/superfund/sites/npi/nar1745.iitm Last updated on Monday, Play 10, 2010 iys National Priorities List (NPL) Z You are hese: EPA Home Sunerfund Sites National Priorities List (NPL) NPL Site Narrative for Quendall Terminals QUENDALL TERMINALS Renton, WA King County Sth Congressional District 1) Site Location/Size: Quendall Terminals is the site of a former creosote manufacturing operation. The site is located on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington. It is about 23 acres in size and is relatively flat. ,a Site History: The facility began operating in 1917 as the Republic Creosoting Company, which became Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation in 1956. Creosote was manufactured onsite for about 53 years until 1969. This creosote manufacturing facility refined and processed coal tar and oil - gas tar residues. The tars were purchased from the Seattle Gas Company on Lake Union and were shipped or barged to the site. The tars consisted of polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, phenolic compounds, light aromatic compounds (including benzene, toluene, and xylenes) and other organic compounds. At the facility, tar distillates were refined to creosote and other chemical products. Releases of tars and creosote products to the environment occurred in portions of the site where the transport, production and/or storage of the products were performed. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. I Site Contamination/Contaminants: The primary contaminants of concern are carcinogenic PAHs and benzene. These contaminants are found in the soil and ground water throughout the site. These compounds are found at concentrations well above State cleanup levels for residential and industrial sites. At some locations on the site, creosote product has been found under the surface. In some areas the product is four to six feet thick. Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington are of particular concern. IM Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: Lake Washington is used for a variety of recreational purposes including fishing. The southern end of Lake Washington, including the area where the site is located, is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook, which is a Federal Threatened Species, and other salmon stocks. The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington approximately two miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. Lake Washington also supports several sensitive environments including habitat for bull trout and the bald eagle. In addition, there are two swimming beaches located within one half mile of the site. A Response Activities (to date): http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/narl 745.htm 7/7/2010 1VYL, OILc 1V alILL[1 VU IUl YUCItUalI i C1111111als I.national rriurl Lies LISI �INrL1 I U� LrE1 rage L oI /- The The Washington Department of Ecology initially was the lead regulatory agency for overseeing the cleanup, but in May 2005 the Department of Ecology requested EPA take the lead for overseeing the cleanup at the site. EPA assumed the role as the lead regulatory agency at that time. No removal actions have taken place to date. Quendall Terminals has completed a Remedial Investigation report and a draft Risk Assessment/Focused Feasibility Study. [The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5606, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.] For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaQ.htmi or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422- 8737. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/narl745.htm 7/7/2010 Aft EPA Quendall Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 June 2007 Study Will Guide Cleanup Plans AItino Properties and J. H. Baxter & Company, two of the Responsible Parties of the Quendall. Terminals Superfund site, have begun a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to better understand the site contamination and to develop a cleanup plan. The study will look at soils, groundwater, and lake sediment along the shoreline of the site. EPA expects to complete the RI/FS and select a cleanup plan in about three years. Earlier studies showed that contamination at Quendall Terminals could pose a risk to people and the environment. How You Can Be Involved EPA is developing a community involvement plan to involve the public in the Quendall Terminals cleanup, and we want to hear from you. If you would like to provide suggestions for this plan, please contact Suzanne Skadowski, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, at 206-553- 6689. We will be conducting community interviews this summer, and the resulting plan will be available for public review. An EPA technical assistance grant (TAG) is available to eligible groups whose members may be affected by this Superfund site. Most of the grant funds must be used to pay an independent technical advisor to help people in the community understand site -related technical information and participate in cleanup decisions. To receive more detailed information about TAGs and qualifications, please call Sally Hanft, EPA Region 10 TAG Coordinator, at (206) 553-1207. Site Background Quendall Terminals is located on the south- eastern shore of Lake Washington at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton, Washington. The former creosote manufacturing facility has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other Lake Washington Lenand CWrli�$hIXNl16 -- — Fwmcr May Geek Channel Property Lina (Former Baxter Site) 4 Quendall Terminals � a5r\a9`o� Canner Homes (Former Barbee Mill) (continued on back page) CEPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, ETPA-081 Seattle, Washington 98101-1128 Quendall Terminals Superfund Site Renton, Washington June 2007 Site Background continued hazardous chemicals.In 2006, the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) added Quendall Terminals to its National Priorities List of contaminated sites targeted for cleanup. The Quendall Terminals site was used for over 50 years for manufacturing creosote and other coal tar products. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used to store crude oil, waste oil and diesel. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. For More Information, Contact Suzanne Skadowski EPA Community Involvement Coordinator 206-553-6689 skadowski. suzanneQW.a. aav Lynda Priddy EPA Project Manager 206-553-1987 priddylvnda eoa.aov Quendall Terminals website: h ttp: //www. a pa. go v/r 10e arthl Click on lndexA-Z, then on Qfor Quendall Terminals. 8 Printed on 100% post -consumer recycled paper Pre -Sorted Standard Postage and Fees Paid U.S. EPA Permit No. G-35 Seattle, WA Public access to the Quendall Terminals site and to the lake from the site is currently prohibited, due to health concerns. If you did not receive this fact sheet at home and would like to be added to EPA's mailing list for the Quendall Terminals site, please contact Suzanne Skadowski (see below). Information about the Quendall Terminals cleanup is also available at the following locations. EPA Region 10 Superfund Records Center 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattie, WA Please call 206-553-4494 for an appointment. Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057 Call 425-430-6610 or visit the webpage: http.1/renton wa. gov1Hving/defau1t.aspx?1d=842 If you need materials in an alternative format, please contact Suzanne Skadowski. TTY users please call the Federal Relay Service: 800-877-8339 Region 10: the Pacific Northwest Serving the people of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Native Tribes Recent Additions I Contact Us Search: C All EPA E Region 10 J S° • You are here: EPA Horne • Region. 1.0 • Environmental Assessment Page • Investigations • Dive Investigations Investigations Quendall Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, WA What; The EPA Region 10 Dive Team conducted a hydrogeologic and habitat survey of the site in April and May of 2009. Why: A survey was needed to determine if shallow groundwater with known, significant PAH contamination, had the potential to discharge into Lake Washington, where contaminant loading may need to be assessed. Typical habitat was also reported with observations, photos, and video. Where: Quendall Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, WA. When: Dive surveys took place in April and May 2009. How: Diver investigations included video transects and seepage meter installations. See figures below. Seepage meters were later checked to determine if substantial groundwater flux was recorded. Results: It was shown that shallow groundwater does indeed discharge into Lake Washington at the Quendall Terminals site. Further study is recommended to determine the flux rate at which contaminants may be migrating into Lake Washington to help design cleanup options. More Details: Quendall Terminals Superfund Site website. Video. See a e meters on the bottom (1 minute, Total file size: 41 MB, Quicktime format) Contact: Bruce Duncan (206) 553-0218, Duncan.bruce@epa.gov Photo of seepage meter bucket If f G4�11f Fx A11M 5uPn14nd Yh - ..._..__ •--. ,- • Diver transects and photo :locations from May 2009 survey !off of former Quendall facility. EX 9 CQ c) CL �J 0-4 (D c z T c m U) LO m n m (1) 0 70 m 0 �v 20 0 CL O N U) 71 :0 Cl) iC) CD w W .Q DJ 5- (T) o �O 0- x- D C) c- 73 0- CD 0 m c M'm M Ufl EA 0 rut, 1<11 0 0 LZ � c3(D rt lA US t1. 41 (D rty cr Q) Di r_ CD cr rD 0 77 CQ c) CL �J 0-4 (D c z T c m U) LO m n m (1) 0 70 m 0 �v 20 0 9 0 Discharge (cfs) N N N N r.+ w w W w w a 4h. a 4- sx u, M M Cn M rn M M M N CA 0} O N P Oi OD O N S OM M O N4�- M M 0 h7 � O W O N A M 70 O N� M 0 0 6 Cr O O O O G 0 0 0 O O O Q O O 0 0 O 0 O O O b O CD 0 CD 0 0 0 Wk r - C4 c 6 b O 0 Q r (p N 0 a o m C 7 X. C CY N N N m o- 0 o C C1 00 X 7 (D _ N (. N .,C O W=1 Q m o (D (D N o m 3 6 (D a� o CL C 0 � 4 ur � w ;K CL W C) C � N- Q _. o (� N � o in' W �E (D n N Q m3 m n r- Ck 0 E� 0 C) �rnVM -� �� 'c3333$±c 2 ±4 -0 co e /'3i3�� m:m„ EE E . _. E�/�©m, \za=]i%°/'&�&� `7 §f {/ A//; \ //to: J-000 ,c, pay cFD =3:3 _ =;cn - /x; ox:2� /. e[ 02 \ ; 0 , ; \:};§ & 0 A 6a �/ / CD / 0 \ m ; n / �_ £ 3 \ / &\ CL ® q \ kn 0 - a / 7 \ / m F+7 / ®§ 0 / c �_ r $9 m � k � m cr 2 / C / 3 / = e §} f M CL � / j(D2 \ $ / \ �_ ƒ m , 2 \ 2 n f q § ID F< f \ 7 f \ / g \ § E f o ® \ � � ] E A , — < ° w \ \ o e m ƒ / / / ® 0 C \ � / � 0 2. § � \ B } \ rL ] w § CL S _ _ \ ƒ \ § 0 6 SO n3 cam, CD 0 w Arsenic C3 N +� a, as .r> rn ao Pi PI) O N A ti?.. m O _ �.:.. r ' 4 , �„V r D``M ,*: > s. Al M, 5. O o a QiQto o to w Q� p 07 a sn C7 th s CTl IJ Lh W M IS 0 M 0 M 0 N CA CO (A -0 ..0 CD i 7 i , CD Y 0 QD Q i CL d CD { CL m N 0 A? i4 1* 1 SD [D iD N CD hJ CD O O L} N CD O O Lh N CD 4 4 cadmium (pgA-) 0 0 0 o nr n0 r ns w w ca w C) iJ 4b. w W — iJ :Oh, in ao fJ is i. Q as ca iia oO oD a 4—i IF{ 3f< i i e t� f 4—i chromium (ugA-) 0 C] a o p 0 nj w w w w b fJ A U} C76 tU O} Od h3 1J 1p� 0o Oo w [U A �n s 0 0 ED o m vat% LN ED S7 '"� may' ✓-,T \�'* ,`_'/�: \-�i,'� V i � Co' CD �..%*.'•1,�,?y,.,�<�, ' 'S � ��> .; f.3y�✓ jib ;� � � � � yCD `'� O !} of w 'h,, i i ` ✓ �� ?Lr� ._ tj- i . ,�5� i Q w? n}1 CD 4 4 1 �1 �/ if � -•/ �•��a 1 \.rl� tR�' -`.C:. CD Q �a Q C6 U 13 w LJ CD CD g: N � m 3 a � rn 0 CO Ln Q QD N 3 kA copper (1jg�L) .� s s N N h7 'OD W W W Cd La A .4 4 - O N A m m O N .P 43 O] d 111j," I iO N? M OQ O N -P, - D N n M 4 r r w ' h S.v � K"IIA D N n C) N W N Ln r� a 21 4 mercury Cp9/-7 b O CD CD O- h} Q (.0 O A C7 Ch s CR h.) fn to 0 J. CA N f� C7 ♦ `.1i 1 ►3l O nickel (ugll-) h N N w w -p a ch cn. rn CJ Ch O U% o cn o r p a V1 O LN - -:o - 00 O \ : \-- 0 `, \r` -- `- 4 4 00 O M O s h.} Cr71 F�. C} W ZZ hJ n O O Ul n3 C CQ, Lead (u9A-) ra w 4�- cn o a o o v a 't7 ul4 0 O C > y,F s? I � 1 1� ;•:> 3> >,. ,'�'r :til r f ,' t �.Nf , •f 't7 ul4 0 O r 7 N C7 0 P CD � x CD s� m n ul O o C: n CD O X 7 U V1 CD @ - 3 6 � CG CDa CD o m (D w CD 4 CD 3 0w0Cr � O CL ;K 0- ci 3 O N :1 PC Z) W CJ P C. 7 (� n -• o� � 3 O Co C6 n in a m3 m O O T ►m 19 N 0 0 0 a C C} KD W N n dJ h 0 CD Ch zinc (ugA-) -� h] W -41Cn 0) -J CO CO a -i" W � {.h Cr) f Co CO a a a 0 0 a 0 CD a a a a a a 0 CQ CJ 0 C7 0' a 0 l7v UQ O '-h O �x n �le - 471 V4V Y� ma Y 4 F kv- ir 45- f.- , h k�° a IE � (3 ERC City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE. June 29, 2009 Project Name: Hawk's Landing Owner: Port Quendall Company Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Applicant/Contoct: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. NW Seattle, WA 98177 File !Number: LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and SEPA Environmental Review for a 5 -story, 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel, The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N, the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing, 75,214 square feet, of warehouse structures on the subject site. The proposed development would be accessed from Lake Washington Boulevard worth at two locations. In addition to structured parking below the hotel, 124 surface parking spaces are proposed including five spaces for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. The subject site is located north of May Creek and its associated 100 -year floodplain and has been identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The applicant estimated 4,450 cubic yards of cut and 15,000 cubic yards of fill material for development construction. The 32 existing trees on the subject site would be replaced with 83 new trees. The applicant would provide drainage and street frontage improvements as a part of this project. Project Location: 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. North Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 75,214 SF (to be Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 29,336 SF demolished) Proposed New Bldg. Area (grass): 122,000 SF Site Area: Total Site: 7.8 acres Total Building Area GSF: 122,000 SF Portion to be developed: 3.07 acres STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Comp ity & Economic Development E, onmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of k ne 29, 2009 - - Page 2 of 16 ERC REPORT 09-060 Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Comi ity & Economic Development E, inmentol Review Committee Report HAINK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 3 of 16 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting Environmental Review (SEPA), Master Site Plan Review, and Site Plan Review for the development of a 60 -foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 -room hotel. The hotel would include retail space, fitness center, spa, conference space, banquet facilities, and a restaurant. The subject site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N (Parcel #3224059049), the former site of Pan Abode Cedar Homes that is approximately 7.8 acres in size, of which 3.07 acres would be developed with the proposed hotel. The 3.07 acre hotel site is located on the northerly portion of the subject parcel. The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan focus on 3.07 acres of the subject parcel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site for the exception of the deconstruction of the existing warehouse buildings and site clean up work. The subject site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to the west, the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. There are a total of 12 structures on the subject site, including storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. All the existing buildings on the subject site are proposed to be removed, which would result in a total of 75,214 square feet of buildings to be deconstructed and removed from the site for recycling or disposal. The site is surrounded to the north and east by existing Washington State Department of Transportation right-of-way for 1-405, to the south an undeveloped parcel that contains May Creek and at least two associated wetlands, and to the east the partially completed Barbee Mill residential development, the site of the former Port Quendall Terminals, and the new Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be 5 -stories in height with an underground garage. The first floor would contain the main lobby, meeting/banquet rooms, retail space, fitness center, spa, and restaurant area, the remaining four floors would be developed as 173 hotel rooms. The building has been designed to complement the architecture of the existing Barbee Mill development across Lake Washington Boulevard. The applicant has proposed to use stone veneer, hardie shingles, lap siding, and metal roofs in addition, to Northwest style overhangs and trusses. Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the parking garage and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. The applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition to utilizing the 4,450 cubic yards of cut materials from the subject site, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project, As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the subject site contains regulated slopes, seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water, and two Category 2 wetlands. The drainage ditch that runs along the west property line immediately adjacent to Lake Washington ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Com, ity & Economic Development E. onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 4 of 16 Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non-regulated wetland. Currently the site is developed with warehouses associated with Pan Abode Cedar Homes; as such, minimal vegetation exists on the subject site, of which approximately 85 percent is comprised of impervious surfaces. Although 32 significant trees are located on the subject site, all are proposed to be removed. The applicant has proposed to replace the removed trees with approximately 73 new trees. In addition to the proposed new trees, the provided landscape plan indicated that approximately 35,866 square feet of new landscaped area would be provided as a part of the hotel development. PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc_ dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study— Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. 2. The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009. 3. This project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager. 5. If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. 6. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Sea hawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comp ity & Economic Development E. onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 5 of 16 existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval, 7. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construing permit approval. 9. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Abode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 10. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Existing Conditions Exhibit 3 Overall Site Plan Exhibit 4 Master Site Plan Exhibit 5 Site Dimension Pian Exhibit 6 Landscape Plan L-1.0 Exhibit 7 Site Utility Plan Exhibit 8 Grading Plan Exhibit 9 Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit 10 East and South Exterior Elevations Exhibit 11 West and North Exterior Elevations Exhibit 12 East and South Elevations Graphic Exhibit 13 West and North Elevations Graphic Exhibit 14 Lot Coverage Landscape & Parking Analysis Exhibit 15 First Floor Plan Exhibit 16 Wetland/Stream Study Attachment A Exhibit 17 Wetland/Stream Study Attachment B C. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: With the project application the applicant submitted two Geotechnical Reports; "Geotechnical Engineering Study" (1991 Report) prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February f, 1991 and "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" (2009 Report) prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009, The 2009 Report references two historic Geotechnical Reports, the previously mentioned, 1991 Report and the "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study— Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared for the Rainer Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., Dated October 8, 1985 (1985 Report). The 2009 Report indicated that the subject site is relatively level, increasing in elevation from 30 to 38 feet from north to south. Steeper slopes occur along road embankment fills along the periphery of the site adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and adjacent to I-405. Pursuant to the 1991 Report the subsurface conditions on site comprised mainly of loose ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com) ity & Economic Development E, )nmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -hl Report of June 29, 2009 Page 6 of 16 to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt surface and fill, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt was encountered to depths of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. This report also indicated that the soils on-site do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The 2009 Report concluded that the recommendations contained in the 1985 Report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project, The 2009 Report concludes that the loads for the proposed hotel structure would be between those contained in the 1985 Report and the 1991 Report. The 2009 Report concludes that the applicants proposed aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations may be a viable solution for this site. The 2009 Report indicated that ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during their investigation. The report indicated that ground water infiltration would affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. The 2009 Report approved of a proposed dewatering trench as an appropriate means to mitigate for the dewatering problems that may be encountered during and after construction. Furthermore, the 2009 Report references the 1991 Report and the 1985 Report for recommendations and information about the site. Based on the potential for seismic and geological impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant complies with the recommendations within all three geotechnical reports, the 2009, 1991, and 1985 Reports. In the SEPA checklist the applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction of the proposed hotel would result in approximately 4,450 cubic yards of cut material. The applicant has proposed to use these materials for fill and grading on the site. In addition, the applicant anticipates that an additional 15,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the following geotechnical reports: "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated February 6, 1991; "Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report" prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. dated June 4, 2009; and "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study— Proposed May Creek Office Building", prepared by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 1985. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicants submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. The submitted study identified two streams, and two wetlands within the vicinity of the project site. The first stream is May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). May Creek is located on the parcel to the south of the subject site; from there it flows into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The provided Wetland/Stream Study identified that no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during their site investigation, although May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Furthermore, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout are also known to utilize the creek. The setback for a commercial building from May Creek, as established under the SMP, is 50 -feet. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends 200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel would be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM; as such, the subject project would not be subject to SMA or SMP regulations at this time. In addition, the proposed development is compliant with the required minimum 50 -foot setback as identified by the SMP. Although, if/or when future development occurs on the subject site within ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr ity & Economic Development Er. onmental Review Committee Report HAWKS LANDING L UA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 7 of 16 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek, additional SEPA review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit May be required. The second stream, which is also a drainage ditch located along Lake Washington Boulevard, was identified to be a Class 5 stream. This drainage ditch is located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Pursuant to the provided Study, flows for this stream are maintained by stormwater runoff from the north and the subject site. The City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations identify Class 5 waters as "non-regulated non salmonid -bearing waters...". GBA also met with the Area Habitat Biologist from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 to provide guidance and further observations of this ditch. WDFW concluded that the ditch was a man-made feature, and that work within the trench would not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Work on the outfall of the ditch to May Creek would require an HPA, and proposed improvements to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch. Based on the consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist and observations gathered during the site investigation GBA determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmonid bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicated that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and the existing Pan Abode facility. As such GBA concluded that Criterion (a) of RMC 4-3-050.L.1.a.v. Streams and Lakes Class 5 waters is satisfied and therefore the subject Class 5 water would not be regulated. Within the drainage ditch, GBA also identified wetland characteristics. Based on the City's definition of Regulated and Non-regulated Wetlands GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a non -wetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a non- regulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. It should be noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. No comments were received from DOE indicating an interest in taking jurisdiction over this wetland. The provided study also investigated wetland it two locations; 1) The subject property and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. GBA identified two wetlands during their investigation, identified as Wetland A and Wetland B herein. Both Wetland A and B are small wetland located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. These wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. GBA categorized both Wetland A and B as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands require a standard buffer of 50 -feet. These wetlands are located off the subject site by 117.4 feet (Wetland A) and 63.8 feet (Wetland B). Based on these distances the subject development would be outside of the required buffer area. Overall the provided study concludes that the subject project proposal would avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and the Shoreline Master Program. Based on the potential for indirect impacts to the steams and wetlands within the vicinity of the subject site, as a result of the project, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to complies with the recommendations within the provided "Wetland/Stream Study". Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to comply with the recommendations included in the "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates, dated May 12, 2009, Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations b. Storm Water Impacts: A Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Sound Development Group, LLC, dated April 28, 2009 was submitted with the application materials. Pursuant to the provided TIR the project is located in the May Creek watershed basin. Under current conditions stormwater ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comi .ity & Economic Development E,. onmenta! Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 8 of 16 from the project site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or within an existing on-site storm system and then discharged into the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24 -inch culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site is proposed at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch and then through the existing culvert to May Creek. The existing Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) drainage system onsite would be relocated to the public Right-of-way of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems would be demolished and/or removed. The provided TIR has indicated that flow control would not be required because the project site within the work limits is currently, almost completely impervious surfaces; approximately 85 percent impervious. The TIR contends that the developed project would provide a maximum of 85 percent impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed conditions would be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that there was not enough information within the provided TIR to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. The applicant shall be required to provide and complete the TIR with the submittal of the civil engineering plans that includes all the information required by the 2005 Icing County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Rain gardens have been proposed as a part of the site development plan to treat stormwater runoff. The TER has indicated that the rain gardens would meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Although, comments received from the City's Surface Water Utility Division indicated that Rain Gardens cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. Furthermore, comments from the City's Development Services Division indicate that flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system improvements would be required. Storm water impacts are anticipated for the proposed development as such, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The provided TIR indicated that an erosion/sedimentation control plan would be provided to prevent sediment -laden runoff. In addition, to an erosion control plan the applicant has indicated that maintaining the existing surfaces on the site, where construction would allow, would help to reduce erosion during construction. Based on the potential for erosion and sediment runoff during construction, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. Pursuant to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) a small portion of the overall parcel, the 7.8 acres site is located within the 100 -year floodplain. Although, the proposed development located on the northern edge of the 7.8 -acre site is not located within the 100 -year floodplain. Pursuant to the FIRM the 3.07 acres proposed for development is located in zone X, which is associated with areas know to be outside of the 500 -year floodplain. Mitigation Measures: 1. The project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the Stormwater Management Manual prior to issuance of Construction Permits. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Plan Review Project Manager, E'RC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr, Jty & Economic Development Er. anmental Review Committee Report HA WKS LANDING LU_A49-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 9 of 16 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, DOE Stormwater Management Manual Wildlife Impacts: The applicant submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009. This report also evaluated wildlife within are vicinity of the subject site in addition to wetlands and streams. Minimal wildlife exists on the 3.07 acres site to be developed with the Hawk's Landing Hotel, although located south of the project site within the riparian area of May Creek, small mammals and birds were observed. The submitted report indicated that such wildlife as voles, blacktail deer, short tailed weasel, and a pair of Osprey were observed within this area. In addition to common species such as song sparrow, house finch, American crow and gull species were also observed within the riparian area. As mentioned above under Wetlands, Streams, and Lakes, the proposed development would be no closer then 248 feet to edge of this area as such, impacts to the habitat for the above mention species is not anticipated as a part of this development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: NIA 4. Aesthetics Impacts: The highest point on the 5 -story, 60 -foot high proposed hotel would be approximately at an elevation of 98.833 Mean Sea Level (MSL). 1-405 is built at the approximate elevation of 44 feet MLS and the nearest single-family neighborhood, east of the project site, within the view corridor of the proposed hotel starts at an approximate elevation of 160 feet MLS. As such, staff does not anticipate aesthetic impacts as a result of the proposed hotel. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed Nexus: N/A 5. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historically the Lake Washington and May Creek areas are more likely to be sites where significant historic and/or cultural resources would be found, and the subject development has indicated that site grading would be conducted. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant and/or developer to stop work and immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation if any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found. Mitigation Measures: If any Native American grave(s) or archaeological/cultural resources (Indian artifacts) are found, all construction activity shall stop and the owner/developer shall immediately notify the City of Renton planning department, concerned Tribes' cultural committees, and the Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Transportation Impacts: Access to the proposed development would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The first is from the existing Pan Abode access at the northerly property line. Currently this access is owned by the City of Renton; at this time, the applicant has applied for a street vocation to acquire this land for the subject project. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. Parking for the project would be provided in an underground parking garage and surface parking lot. The applicant has proposed 231 parking stalls, 107 located in the ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Com1 ity & Economic Development E,. onmental Review Committee Report HA WKS LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 10 of 16 structured parking lot and 124 surface stalls. Within the surface parking lot, 6 ADA stalls would be provided in addition to 5 Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) stalls. A Traffic impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the Hawk's Landing project by Geralyn Reinart, P.E., dated May 2009. The provided TIA assumed 2011 for the completion year for the proposed Hotel. This year was utilized throughout the study in order to evaluate traffic impacts resulting from the hotel's development. The TIA concluded that build -out of the Hawk's Landing could potentially generate just over 1,400 daily trips, 97 AM peak hour trips, and 102 PM peak hour trips. The intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard and Seahawks Way are currently operating at a level of service (LOS) "D" or better during the peak hours, although the southbound movement could drop to level of service "E" during the AM peak hour over the next few years, with or without the proposed hotel. The I-405 ramps at NE 44th Street currently operate at a LOS "F" during the AM peak hour, and the delay on these ramps may increase over the next couple of years, with or without the hotel project. The provided TIA recommends six mitigation measures for traffic impacts, which are as follows: 1. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. 2. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. 3. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. 4. Installation of 100 -foot southbound left -turn storage lane (or two way left -turn lane) on Lake Washington Boulevard at the main hotel access. 5. Construction of frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. 6. Right-in/right-out only access at the northerly proposed site access point (the existing Pan Abode access). The TIA concludes that the above measures mitigate not only impacts associated with the hotel, but also pre-existing conditions. Comments received from the City's Transportation Division indicated that the provided study is acceptable. In addition, comments were received from WSDOT that indicated that the mitigation measure proposed by the TIA are acceptable. Although, it should be noted that the recommended mitigation measures "1.-3." (above) are not within the City of Renton'sjurisdiction, but are within WSDOT's jurisdiction. The recommended mitigation measures "1.-3." not only mitigates for the proposed development but also existing conditions. The anticipated existing LOS "F" condition for the development completion year of 2011 should be resolved by WSDOT not the applicant, as such the terms "participation and share" shall be defined in a quantitative manner to determine what percentage of the impacts the proposed development shall be mitigating for. As such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant coordinate with WSDOT and the City of Renton to determine the applicants contribution for the recommended mitigation measures "1. — 3." By means of a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, that can quantify the applicant's impacts to the existing LOS "F" condition. Proposed mitigation measure number "5." (above) is required by Renton Municipal Code, for commercial developments within the City of Renton. The applicant would be required to provide street frontage improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. With regard to the recommended mitigation measure number "4." (above), the City's Transportation Division would prefer the two-way left -turn lane over the left -turn storage lane. The proposed hotel is anticipated to increases traffic volumes on Lake Washington Boulevard, as such, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that the applicant provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. The last proposed mitigation measure (number "6_" above) to permit only right-in/right-out access at the northerly site access point shall be a mitigation measure for the subject project; because of this access points' spacing from the 1-405 southbound ramps. A right-in/right-out restriction for the northerly access point would increases safety along Lake Washington Boulevard_ .ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Deportment of Comi ity & Economic Development E, onmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING _ LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 11 of 16 Comments received from the City's Parks Department, indicated that bike lanes would be required along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard. Currently there is an existing bike lane located on the west side of Lake Washington Boulevard. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to issuing the building permit, which is estimated to be $105,975.00. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Renton and WSDOT to determine the applicant's contribution for the following recommended mitigation measures: a. Participation in the construction of additional lanes at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Northbound Ramps. b. Construction of a center merge/refuge lane on Lake Washington Boulevard between Seahawks Way and the southbound ramps. c. Shared cost of the traffic signal installation at the NE 44th Street/1-405 Southbound Ramp. The contribution shall be determine by a supplemental traffic impact analysis, prepared by the applicant and approved by the City, which can quantify the applicant's impacts to the anticipated existing 2011 LOS "F" condition. The impact analysis and agreement shall be completed prior to building permit approval. 2. The applicant shall provide a left -turn lane along Lake Washington Boulevard, which shall be designed in accordance with the City of Renton Development Services Division and final design shall be approved by the City's Development Services project manager, prior to construction permit approval. 3. The northerly site access point (the existing Pan Anode access) shall be limited to right -in right -out traffic movements. 4. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip or any new Transportation Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 3100 7. Fire & Police Impacts. The proposal would add new commercial square footage to the City that would potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $0.52 per commercial building square foot (excluding the square footage of the parking garage) prior to building permit issuance. The fire mitigation fee is estimated to be $63,440.00 (122,000 sq. ft. x $0.52 = $63,440.00 Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based $0.52 per new commercial building square foot or any new Fire Impact Fee the City has adopted at the time of building permit issuance. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, Resolution 2913 D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr. . ty & Economic Development Ei., anmental Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 12 of 16 Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, July 17, 2009. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with a $75.00 application fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p,m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. Plan Review —Water" 1. Additional water main improvements will be required to provide the required fireflow demand for the development. 2. Installation of a 12 -inch water along Lake Washington Blvd N along entire property fronting the roadway and extending to and connecting to an existing 12 -inch water line about 620 feet south of south property line. 3. New fire hydrants along lake Washington Blvd about 300 feet apart. 4. Installation of a portion of 12 -inch water line inside an existing steel casing within the May Creek bridge structure. 5. Installation of on-site looped water main (10 -inch to 12 -inch), with fire hydrants around the proposed hotel. The size and location of water main within the site will be determined based on the fire flow demand of the development. 6. Civil plans for water main extension will be required and must be prepared by a registered professional engineer in the State of Washington. 7. Backflow prevention assembly (DDCVA) required for fire sprinkler system (refer to City Standard Details for external DDCVA in vault or for special requirements for DDCVA inside building), ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comr ity & Economic Development E-mmentol Review Committee Report HAWK'S LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 13 of 16 8. Domestic water meter required for each building (meter sizing per Uniform Plumbing Code). 9. Pressure reducing valve required downstream of each domestic water meter since static pressure is above 80 psi. 10. Reduce Pressure Backflaw Prevention Assembly (RPBA) will be required behind each domestic water meter for each building. RPBA shall be installed in an aboveground "Hot -Box'. 11. Reduce Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly (RPBA) required for landscape irrigation meter due to proposed use of recycled stormwater for irrigation. 12. A portion of the existing 12" watermain thought the site will need to be abandoned. The abandonment can only occur after the completion of the new water lines. A partial release of the existing easement will be required. 13. System Development Charges are based on the size of any and all water meters. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. 14. Per the City of Renton Fire Marshall, the submittal did not include sufficient information to determine a preliminary fire flow for the proposed development. 15. An automatic fire sprinkler system will be required for the development. 16. The maximum available capacity (in GPM) at 20 -psi residual pressure from the existing City's water systems in vicinity of development site is 4,000 GPM, Plan Review—Sanitary Sewer: 1. A commercial building permit will trigger a separate review. The applicant needs to show how this site will be served with commercial sidesewer. 2. Any use in the building subject to oils or grease shall require the installation of a grease interceptor or oil/water separator per the current UPC as determined at the time of plan review. 3. The Parking garage will require an oil water separator. 4. System Development Charges based on the size of the domestic water meter are required. The Development Charges are collected at the time the construction permit is issued. Plan Review —Storm Drainage: 1. The project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements. Any offsite runoff will need to be accounted for in the drainage analysis. Direct discharge is not allowed from this site. The site drains to May Creek, which is not designated as a major receiving water body where direct discharge is allowed. The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalk, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions_ The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than 0.1 cfs between the sum of the developed 100 -year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100 -year peak flows using the KCRTS hydrologic model. This information is needed in order to determine if the project is exempt from having to provide flow control. Since the project is a redevelopment project proposing more than 5,000 square feet of new and replace impervious surface, the project is not exempt from core requirement 93 of the 2005 KC SWDM. The project ,EI?C REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comi ity & Economic Development E, mmental Review Committee Report HAWKS LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 14 of 16 falls under Conservation Now Control Area, the flow control requirement is waived if there is no more than 0.1 cfs difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow for the same project site area. For the purpose of this calculation, target surfaces served by flow control BMPs per Appendix C may be modeled in accordance with the flow control BMP facility sizing credits in table 1.2.3.0 of the 2005 KCSWDM. If after applying the sizing credits, the difference between the sum of developed 100 -year peak flow and the sum of existing conditions 100 -year pick flow is less than 0.1 cfs, the LID alternative will mitigate for flow control. If the difference is greater than 0.1 cfs, a flow control facility per chapter 5 of the 2005 KCSWDM such as a bioswale, detention pond, etc; will need to be provided in combination to mitigate runoff control. The proposed roadway improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard shall be taken under consideration to calculate the post development site condition and, to size the water quality and flow control facilities. 4, The Hawks Landing Hotel is the first phase of a of a larger common development plan that will eventually occur on the rest of the total area associated with the Pan Abode site. The Phase 11 NPDES permit prohibits the phasing of projects in a manner that allows for the granting of exemptions and avoidance of the need to provide flow control or water quality treatment that would be required if the project is looked at as a total project (all phases). The Hawks Landing Hotel phase of development on the site could be granted the exemption from flow control, if the difference between the developed 100 -year peak flow and the pre - developed (existing) 100 -year peak flow is less than 0.1 cfs (following City review and approval of the analysis), but the remaining phases of development on remaining area on the Pan Abode parcel will not be able to utilize this the 0.1 cfs exemption. It is recommended that the full development plan be analyzed for the total site, including any off-site improvements to demonstrate that the project is exempt from flow control. Otherwise, future phases of the project will be required to provide flow control, since the 0.1 cfs exemption can only be applied once to a phase of development that is part of a larger common plan of development. 5. Appendix C of the 2005 KCSWDM only applies to small projects, the Rain Garden cannot be used as a water quality facility for a project that triggers full drainage review. A water quality facility as specified under chapter 6 of the 2005 KCSWDM shall be provided. 6. Does the project has an expected average daily traffic (ADT) count of 100 or more vehicles per square feet of gross building area per section 1.2.8.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM? If yes, the enhanced water quality menu shall be used. 7. A compete TiR for the project site will be required with submittal of the civil engineering plans for the site that includes all information required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This includes information related to satisfying all core requirements and applicable special requirements in the 2005 KCSWDM. S. It appears that a portion of this site is located within the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. The applicant will need to show on the site plan the location of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Any buildings constructed in the 100 -year floodplain will need to have their finished floor elevation place at 1 -foot above the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. FEMA Elevation Certificates will be required for any building constructed in the floodplain prior to any occupancy being granted (Ideally immediately following completion of construction of the finished floor and before additional building construction to verify that the finished floor has been constructed to the correct elevation). 9. The phase of the site development or later phases of development will need to document how the project satisfies the requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion regarding the National Flood Insurance Program. 10, The Surface Water SDC fees are $0.405 (but not less than $1012) per square foot of new impervious area. These fees are collected at the time a construction permit is issued. ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comi ity & Economic Development E )nmental Review Committee Report HA WKS LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, SA -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 15 of 16 Plan Review—Street Improvements: 1. Construction of a commercial building will trigger a separate review. 2. Projects that are more than 10,000 square feet in size are required to provide full pavement width per standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on the project side. A minimum 20' pavement and pedestrian walkway to the arterial will be required to be installed by the applicant. 3. Street lighting is required to be installed on the project side. All street lighting shall be per City of Renton standards and specifications. Private street lighting (including PSE) is not allowed. Plan Review—General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two horizontal and vertical controls per the City's current horizontal and vertical control network. 3. Additional information regarding detailed plan review will be provided at the time of formal application. 4. Permit application must include an itemized cost estimate for these improvements. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There will be additional fees for water service related expenses. See Drafting Standards. Buildi_n&Department: 1. The soils report should be brought up to date for consistency with IBC Parks Department: 1. 5 -foot bike lanes along both sides of Lake Washington Boulevard would be required, Fire Department: 1. The preliminary fire flow cannot be determined at this point. Additional information is needed such as total ground floor square footage, number of stories, and type of construction. An additional question I have is the 58,000 square feet for the restaurants part of the 180,000 square feet or is it separate square footage amount. The minimum fire flow for structures in excess of 3,000 square feet is 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. 2. The number of required hydrants is based on the size of the structure and the size of the required fire flow. At this time, the Fire Department cannot determine the required number of hydrants as additional information is needed. The minimum number of hydrants for structures in excess of 3600 square feet is 2. However, additional hydrants may be required based on spacing, which is based on sound engineering practices. All hydrants for this project shall be required to be equipped with a 5 -inch Storz fitting. 3. The primary hydrant shall be located within 150 feet to the front of the structure. All other hydrants shall be located within 300 feet to the front of the structure. A Hydrant shall be required to be within 50 feet of the Fire Department connection. Hydrant spacing shall also be in accordance with Appendix C, Table C105.1 or the 2006 International Fire Code. 4. Fire apparatus access roadways are required to be within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide on a surface capable of sustaining the weight of a fire apparatus. The turning radius shall be 45 feet to the outside and 25 feet to the inside. 5. Fire Sprinklers are applicable to this project. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Sprinkler system. 6. The fire Sprinkler Riser Room shall be accessible through a dedicated exterior door. The Sprinkler Riser Room shall be located with heat and lighting. ,ERC REPORT 09-060 City of Renton Department of Comp ity & Economic Development F, .onmental Review Committee Report HA WKS LANDING LUA09-060, ECF, 5A -M, SA -H Report of June 29, 2009 Page 16 of 16 7. A Class III Standpipe with a valve and a single 2Y2 inch fitting located on each floor landing may be required should the building exceed 3 stories. 8. A total coverage Addressable Fire Alarm system shall be required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of a Fire Alarm system. 9. Building exceeding 30 feet in height shall be provided with approved fire access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the fire department aerial apparatus access roadway. 10. High rise requirements as set forth in the 2006 International Building, Fire Code and Local Fire Code amendments shall be applicable tot his building if 7 stories or greater. 11. In buildings where a required accessible floor is four or more stories above a level of exit discharge, at least one required accessible means of egress shall be an elevator complying with Section 1007.4 of the 2006 International Fire code. It is requested that this elevation have an interior dimension tapable of accommodating a standard size emergency medical services patient stretcher in the laid flat configuration. ERC REPORT 09-060 2 U) 7 \ f / ) LU \)\ � ® \ / uj > Lij c / .w� F- ai EE x LU - I uj i w a- •a, �. I o Q � as 3 I c' z z �� - � Qi� e �� C�$e �BQ� ��S ^!R 96 2C��`�Y� 'sJ �b �i e� • V � Vp1 LLJLL J }s � RgYs �e4 y(• ga �Bc �Y�Y_�nc B �� "' N ���j�R pa �� X0 991110111 CJ� � �, xlcc w § 4 E X, § 3 7=3! @ yy 9e 9®iia�Y" 1 � Y 1 IDEF � ��� YgiE�Y Jaz iL-ia ia7' �� 1'RR 47Y R as-y�t Lip- y==E��'?�I 37�Itqq�i�wgg;�y���jgg`�6F8Tp7�rrR�� a8C @88i� % $ �Y�AIagMOR; I Yi 99 Yk4 c 4j - I uj i w a- •a, �. I o Q � as 3 I - � --= _adaa�iba nia3raiHo�v n��i7�.�rt -� - -- _ —�.-- —,� � _ _� I� `�=�-- -- I -.\,•=-� 4 r �, L Z C-4 LU W, LL 50t, ),V/AHF)IH RIVIS mw HT a11, 1 zo o �E s ate' zo ILI iU Z 0. s a 4 ri r, E _ SO; U Eli c �+ C w� / "rot M _. C7b02171F 2i N3H12fQN ----------- I —__— .j — _ xON LUO Z W a r m jog ! a i aff 4` os x gh Lu a F Ione r�qS HIM 15 ELI - :.n N Z o Ie go n i R z r g Ili � J 0 a �� -- 2i f I i Z r SIIi - 5W DIM xp'xl�-1(�s LL�erpZ\ v,uuel P)µnlll�i�s\/el6w'goy,\'1 M� W 2 W M 8,. P Ns7 .a:;e .P; Ili � J 0 a �� -- 2i f I i Z r SIIi - 5W DIM xp'xl�-1(�s LL�erpZ\ v,uuel P)µnlll�i�s\/el6w'goy,\'1 M� W 2 W x LL I c� o Z a 6j!'n 4'U w CF. z LU I 'Nii rS C5 g Lu u� I rS C5 Lu u� LL; CD m cg F S_.� yYyR L7Ld 1 1 1 1 1 1 1■ ■ m cg T T W S_.� T T W 0 z z CL.Z. ri CN4 U.] fl) M: &L- x LU NO® .1-44 m 'EMP W9 xy� I F r Ar- " IN 1 --�--- _�_�-_� SQ4 A'dAiW91N 31b15?131Nf INN E�a �. _. x.....5.1 s11 a WgII hJ1 Hip 21 o iTpip- �_ cti Lj LL .yy r W NA q :S� ;fs< W � x �dl I, l G i 1 LO x LU {.. ..� \ rN` � \ \ CD 'Z- / � ] ] ] � } \/ 2 \ . �\. § �� ] ` \ LO x LU {.. ..� \ LO x LU � \ \ CD cz, zz c -,j Ll. LO x LU I I ! gals son, - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . son, m a vu� F L c Q o Q z d � � o = d C rye V N N V � O °1 3 Z �zz F— m_ W Wetland/Stream Study: Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel Prepared for: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 f l f J "•, syr ":3 [f h� �r IL Prepared by: Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Roaa4 Bow, WA 98232 Ph. 360, 766, 4441 Fx. 360, 766.4443 May 12, 2009 'Table of Contents Section/Subsection page Project Summary --------------------------------------------------------- ii I.0 Introduction 2.0 Existing Conditions 3.4 Project Description -----------------__-- ----- _---------------------- 3 4.0 Existing Information 3 4.1 National Wetland Inventory ------_______-------___-__- 3 4.2 Soil Survey of King County --------------_------_ 4 4.3 May Creek Basin Action Plan ----------------------- — --- ,_ - 4.4 Barbee Mill (BA) ----__—...._— --------- ----- ------- ------- 5 4.5 Fawcett Property Wetland Delineation ------ ----- ------- 5 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map5 5.0 Stream Study -------5 5.1 Riparian Functions ------ ----- ------------------ ----------- --- 5 5.2 Ordinary Fligh Water Mark -------------------------------- 7 5.3 Stream Classification and Regulations ------- ---------- 8 6.0 Wetland Study -----____ ----_--________—__-------------- 9 6.1 Methodology -------- 9 6.2 Findings10 6.3 Data Summary Table _----___�—____-------------___ 11 6.4 Data Digest ---- ------- -------_—__—_..--- — ----------- --- 11 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations ---------------- 12 7.0 Regulatory Summary and Mitigation Measures ------- --------- 13 7. I May Creek ------------ ------- -- --------- ------ 13 72 Drainage Ditch (Class 5 Water) --- ----- ------------------- 14 7.3 Wetlands A and B ------ ------- 14 7.4 Drainage Ditch (nonregulated wetland) --------------- 14 7.5 Water Quality ----- ----------------------- ------------------ I4 8.0 Closure _---__-- 14 9.0 References ---- ------------ -------_---------_-__------------------ 15 Attachments Wetland Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan ---- Attachment A Proposed Conditions Wetland Field Data Forms Graham -Bunting : associates flawky Landing f11av 009 Attachment B Attachment C Environmental &Land I.se.Servicea PROJECT SUMMARY Proiect: c iraham-BurrtinQ .Associates Construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel including underground parking and ground level parking. Froject Site: The project site is a 3.06 -acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. Project Location, The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44h Street e-uit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W -M., King County, WA- King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Project Proponent: Dan Mitael Hawk's Landing LLC I l 11 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Methods: Wetland - Routine On -Site Methodology, 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-97- 1) - Corps Interim Regional Supplement, April 2008 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, Ecology Publication 496-94 City of Renton Critical Area Regulation: RMC 4-3-050 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program: RMC 4-3_090 Field Dates: March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009 Streams & Wetlands: May Creek - Class i Water, Shoreline of the State Drainage ditch - Class 5 Water/Nonregulated Wetland Wetland A - 433 square foot Category 2 Wetland Wetland B - 481 square foot Category 2 Wetland Proposed Mitigation- Subject proposal will avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setbackibuffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Project Staff: Patricia Bunting, Wetland Ecologist PWS Oscar Graham, Wetland Ecologist ii F,nviromnenta! & Land Use Senyces Jlmvks Landing A -fay 2009 May 12, 2009 Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 982332 Dau Ktzel Ph. 360.766 4441 Fx. 360.766.4443 Hawk's Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Stream/Wetiand Study (Portions of Section 29 & 32 Township 24 north, Range 5 East, W.M., Renton, WA) 1.0 Introduction At the request of Hawks Landing LLC, Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the foilowing report addressing streams and wetlands within and adjacent to the site of the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel. The report addresses the stream and wetland study requirements established under the City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, summary of existing information sources and a narrative description of our investigative procedures and findings. The report includes plan sheets prepared by Sound Development Group depicting existing and proposed site conditions. 2,0 Existing Conditions The subject prope is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44�Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range S East, W.M., King County, WA, King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Of P `rug" ✓, rri 'fi, . '.. ,. .. VA ..� .. Figure Z-Terraserver: USGS {1983) Figure 2 - Mcwsoft Corp.: Whig Earth The project site is a 3.06 -acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. An administrative office is also located on the site. The buildings are constructed on a fill pad surfaced with crushed rock and asphalt. The site has been fully developed for industrial purposes. Graham- Bunting A swciares Hawks Landing Assessment 5112149 Environmental & Land Use Services Little native vegetation exists within the subject property itself. The eastern and western Perimeters, predominantly within the right of ways of I-405 and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibit a mix of native and invasive plant species. Trees consist of red alder (Alnus rubra), paper birch (Betula papyrifera), black cottonwood (Populus balsimifera) and Western red cedar (Thuja plicata), Shrubs are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Indian plum (pemleria cerasiformis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and sword fern (Polystichum munitum). An open drainage ditch located between the project site and Lake Washington Boulevard exlnbits. a small community of cattail (Typha latifolia) and a thick mat of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The parcel located south of the subject property includes lower May Creek and its associated riparian corridor. The distance from the subject property to May Creek varies from 235 feet in the east (adjacent to the on-ramp to 1-405) to 58 feet in the west (adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard). A mature deciduous forest consisting of large black cottonwood (16"- 36" dbh), alder and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) dominates the riparian corridor. The understory includes vigorous colonies of invasive blackberry and Japanese knotweed, salmonberry (Rubus spectabills), reed canarygrass and sword fern. A small community of slough sedge (Carex obnupta) was observed in conjunction with a wetland identified along the right bank of May Creels. Photo 1: View north along eastern right of way of Lace Washington. Blvd. showing perimeter vegetation adjacent to drainage ditch. The subject property is predominantly flat, however, the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the entrance of the existing Pan Abode facility, resembles a bowl shaped depression designed to receive stormwater runoff from multiple catch basins located along the southbound on-ramp to 1- 405 and Lako Washington Boulevard. Stormwater runoff from the catch basins is transmitted to the northern portion of the subject property and discharged to the northern end of the open drainage ditch, located along the eastern right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Stormwater from the subject property is also collected and discharged to the ditch at this location. The open ditch extends approximately 500 feet to the south where it enters a buried 24 -inch corrugated plastic pipe that flows an additional 60 feet south before discharging to May Creek. Additional drainage enters the ditch from the subject property near the entrance to the buried pipe. May creek flows into Lake Washington approximately .25 miles southwest of the subject property. (Attachment A: Existing Conditions Site Map) Graharn-BunLng Associates 2 Environmental & Lgld Use Services Hawks Landi Assessment 51i2/o9 Photo 4: View west showing outfall of buried pipe at May Creek (right of figure). 3.0 Project Description The proposal is to demolish the existing structures associated with the Pan Abode facility and utilize approximately 3.06 acres of the subject property for construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel. The proposed Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will consist of: • One level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls • Ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square feet, 2,152 square feet, and 3,360 square feet for retail, spa and restaurant facilities respectively + Four levels of guestrooms • A total of approximately 126 surface level parking stalls, including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)) • Two access points along Lake Washington Boulevard • Storm water facilities including rain gardens • Sanitary sewer, water and other utilities Preliminary designs indicate that the hotel will maintain a maximum height of 60 feet. Required land use permits include site plan review, environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), building permits and a street vacation. All development including required infrastructure will be located a minimum of 277 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creels. (Attachment B: Proposed Conditions) 4.0 Existing Information The subject property has been addressed under a number of existing studies. These information sources have been reviewed and synthesized to assist GBA in characterizing the subject property, The sources are summarized as follow: 4.1 National Wetland_%yen�y The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) is compiled by the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. NWI relies upon visual aerial photo interpretation of wetland indicators including hydrologic, vegetation and topographic signatures. NWI does not identify wetlands within the vicinity of the subject property. It should be recognized however; that the forest canopy associated with the riparian corridor of May Creek would likely obscure the indicators upon which NWI relies. GBA utilize NW] only as a generalized map indication of the possible Gra - uniin Associates 3 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landin Asses nr 1-1-M9 presence and extent of wetlands. Reconnaissance and delineation procedures are always based on an on-site assessment. 4.2 SoilSurve of Kin CQ4ptL Area. Washmgton The Soil Survey is compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and includes mapped soil units registered to detailed descriptions of soil characteristics. The survey identifies one soil unit within the subject property boundaries. The map unit appears to include the entire floodplain associated with lower May Creek. No -Norma sandy loam is a poorly drained soil typically found on floodplain with slopes between 0 and 2 percent. The parent material is alluvium. Minor components include Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils. Norma sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil under criteria 1., 2. b) (3) and 3 , 1. All %stosols except folists 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are: b) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (3) water table equal to 1.0 feet from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches. 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. Figure 3 - National Wetland Inventory http--//wetiandsfvvs,er.usgs.gov/ No — Korma: sandy Lom i N r/ff Figure 4 - Soil Survey htt :l/websoilsury .nres. ov/a _ yy - 4.3 M—ay Creek Basin Action Plan A rii 2001 The May Creek Basin Action Plan was funded by King County and the City of Renton outlines a set of actions addressing the threat of flooding, facilitation of stormwater conveyance to stabilize streams banks and reduce erosion, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The plan is intended to prevent existing problems within the basin from becoming worse in the Graham-BuntingAssociates 4 Enviromnental & Land Use Services Hawks Lan On iz A ssessment S/l2/09 Future. The plan provides baseline information relating to conditions in the basin including a map sheet reflecting the approximate location and extent of wetlands. It is noteworthy that the wetland map identifies a small wetland in the vicinity of the drainage ditch described under existing conditions. 4.4 Pid—ogical Assessment: Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat (August 2002) Racdke Associates, Inc. prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to evaluate potential effects of the proposed subdivision on federal and state listed species. The BA includes a characterization of May Creek and Lake Washington, documents species use, and identifies mitigating conditions to ameliorate project generated impacts to listed species. The Barbee Mill development is located just west of Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the subject property. 4.5 Weiland Delineation Renorr Fawcett Property (December 2000) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prepared a Wetland Delineation Report addressing a portion of the area located south of the subject property. While the contiguous area south of the subject property is under the ownership of Dr. Greg Fawcett, the delineation focused only on the area south of May Creek. The report includes observations relating to May Creek and hydrology, soil and vegetation within the riparian corridor. 4.6 For Practice Activity Ma The Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps and classifies waters of the state pursuant to WAC 222-16-031 on the Forest Practice Stream Type Maps. The maps were reviewed to assist in characterizing the project area. May Creek is identified as an S (Shoreline) Water of the State. Type S waters are defined as; "All waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as `shorelines of the state' under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. No additional Waters of the State were identified on the Stream Type Maps. 5.0 Stream Study May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly approximately 8,6 utiles to Lake Washington, The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agricultural, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure development including runoff from 1-405. The stream reach located south of the subject property lies between the f-405 bridge crossing in the east and the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge crossing in the west. This reach of May Creek is identified as Reach B and characterized in the City of Renton Draft Shoreline inventory and Analysis as relatively unaltered (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008) 5.1 Ripgrian Functions Observations gathered during our site investigation, conducted during the early spring of 2009, indicate a high level of in stream and riparian corridor functions. The stream is low gradient (< 8%) and displays a complex of low velocity pools mined with swifter moving riffles and runs. In stream structure is provided by naturally recruited large woody debris (LWD) consisting of native deciduous species and installed habitat features including anchored root wads and cabled logs. Riparian functions are closely linked to vegetation along the stream bank and adjacent floodplain. Graham:Bunrrn .Associates 5 hnvfronmentaf & Land (Ise.Services flawks Landigz Assessment 5.•"12!09 LWD Recruitment - While large conifers are generally the preferred source of LWD, the presence of mature deciduous species throughout the stream reach provides an ongoing source for recruitment of woody material into the stream. LWD promotes complexity within the stream and provides holding areas for salmonids and resident fish species. Bank Stability — The three strata vegetation community along the riparian corridor promotes bank stability through establishment of deep root systems. The anchored roots help hold the sandy loam of the floodplain intact and minimize the forces of erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity. Reed canarygrass, often viewed as an undesirable species, is very effective in promoting bank stabilization. Unfortunately it also may colonize aggressively reducing the diversity of native plant species, Shade -The deciduous tree canopy provides shade during low flow summer months and helps to maintain cool temperatures and maintain dissolved oxygen levels required by salmonids and resident fish species, Water Quality - Emergent vegetation including vigorous communities of reed canarygrass contiguous to the OHWM provide for the filtering of sediments and pollutants. Reed canarygrass is viewed as an invasive species; however, its dense mat tike quality provides an excellent filtering function that helps prevent delivery of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters. Photo 5 — View upstream (east) showing LWD and riparian vegetation south of subject property. Photo 6 — View of installed habitat feature consisting of root wad (right) anchored to rock (lett) with chain located near I405 bridge. Fish and Wildlife Habitat — While no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during our site investigation, May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytseha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon_ Winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) are also known to utilize the creels. (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008). Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon are listed as a candidate species under ESA. May Creek does not have a self sustaining Chinook run, Chinook observed in May Creek are likely strays from the Cedar River (Lucchette 2002). Coho are known to utilize Lake Washington and May Creek. Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production (Raedeke 2002). Puget Sound Steelhead have utilized May Creek on a historic basis and may remain present in depressed numbers (Salmonscape 2009). A Graham BundnizAssociates 6 Environmental &Lad Use Services Hawks Landfn Assessment Slimq review of pertinent literature relating to Lake Washington salmonid stocks indicates a high degree of uncertainty as to the genetic origins of salmonids utilizing May Creek. It is possible that individuals from the Puget Sound and Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUS) utilize the habitat provided by the creek. The riparian area provides excellent feeding and cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species. Small marnmais such as voles utilize uplands within the riparian area for burrowing. GBA observed blacktad deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) droppings and hoof prints within the riparian corridor. Common snipe (Capella gallinago) were flushed during several site inspections at a location near the bridge crossing at Lake Washington Boulevard. A short tailed weasel (Mustela erminea) was also observed burrowing in the rip rap near the bridge abutment. A pair of Osprey (Pandion haliahls) was observed perched on a nest platform near the mouth of May Creek. Additional species were observed during our site investigation including: song sparrow (Melosplza melodia) house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla) hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) spotted towhee (Pipilo maculates) winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) mallard hen and drake (Arras platyrhynchos) unidentified buteo (Buteo sp.) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) gull species (Larus sp.) 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark GBA reviewed the location of the OHWM as identified and flagged in the field by David Evans Associates (DEA) in 2006 and Sound Development Group (SDG) in 2009. The guidance contained in the statutory definition was utilized in confirming the location of the OHWM, "The Ordinary high water mark on all lakes, streams and tidal water is that mark that will be found by exarnining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continues in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water marls cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water." In addition, the definition contained in the Renton Municipal. Code under 4-11-010 was also considered. Review was aided by a series of high water events occurring during the late winter and early spring of 2009. These one to two year flows generally correlated with the physical evidence observed along the bank of the creek. The OHWM was identified based on scour and drift lines, sediment deposits, topographic features and vegetation transitions located at or near the top of the right bank. It was riot deemed necessary to adjust any of the flags placed previously by DEA and SDG. The OHWM as flagged was surveyed and is depicted on the reap sheets accompanying this report. Graham-Bunring lssocjales 7 F,nvironinental dc Land Use Services Hawks Landin As.wrsment t5112,,09 "VAVV t r X_ { t• n �, - { "' - - �'` !,�'."art 1 Yt •Ykf N Photo 7 — View upstream (east) showing the Photo 8 — View upstream showing the location OHWM located at the landward extent of a of the OHWM at the top of a cut bank along sandbar and transition to persistent vegetation, the line of vegetation. 5.3 Stream Classification and R.egulatWlW The City's Critical Area Regulations RMC 4-3-050 classify May Creek as a Class 1 water. Class I Waters are perennial salmon bearing waters classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State, Subsection L. Streams and Lakes: 1. Applicabilit3Aands to Which These Regulations Apply stipulates that the City's critical area regulations do not apply to Class i waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, Subsection 4-3-090, 5, d. establishes the standard setback for commercial development as follows: "A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50) to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the waters edge." All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM of May Creek_ The subject proposal is located outside of the 200 -foot jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and is therefore compliant with the required 50 -foot setback requirement. The drainage ditch located predominantly withm the right of way of fake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in light of the City's Critical Area Regulations and identified as a class 5 water. RMC 4-3-050 L. Streams and Lakes; 1, a. v. (a) (b) establishes the criteria for Class 5 waters as follows: "v, Class 5, Class 5 waters are non-regulated non salmonid -bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially consfteted channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and or (b) Ara a surftcWly isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M. of this section." Graham -Bun tinzAssoclates S Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LanAssessment S/12f09 GBA conEcrrcd on site with the Area Habitat Biologist from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 �6o provided the follo%Ning observations and .uidance: • The ditch is a man made feature • Work within the ditch itself will not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW * Work on the outfall to May Creek would require an HPA • Any proposed improvement to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch Based on observations gathered during our site investigation and consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist, GBA have determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmon bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicate that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from I-405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility, GBA have determined that the drainange ditch satisfies Criteria (a) as a Class 5 Water and is therefore not regulated under the City's Critical Area Regulations. The ditch will be discussed further under the following Wetland Study. 6.0 Wetland Study The following discussion addresses the procedures and methods utilized in our wetland investigation and provides a summary of our findings. 6.1 MethodeloEv GBA utilized the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is a revised version of the 1987 Corps of En&eers Wet(aW Delineation any. (Technical Report Y-87-1) in the preparation of this report. The Ecology Manual (along with the recent Corps of Engineers regional supplement, April 2008) represents the accepted standard for identifying and delineating wetlands for jurisdictional purposes under the Clean Water Act. GBA considered the new interim regional supplement in the assessment of field data. The Ecology manual has been adopted for use by the City of Renton for use in conjunction with the Growth Management Act mandated Critical Areas Ordinance. Both the Ecology and Corps manuals incorporate the Clean Water Act Definition of Wetlands as follows: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, Dogs and similar areas." The City's Critical Areas Ordinance stipulates additional defining elements as follows: "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wettands intentionally created from non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands." Graham-Bunti2g:lssoeiates 9 Environmental &Land Use Services Hawks Landirrg.lssessment 6,12.09) The definition requires that three interrelated defining elements or parameters be established when identifi-ing wetlands. These parameters are wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland Hydrology Water is the driving force, which creates and sustains wetlands. The 1987 Manual and subsequent Corps guidance identifies wetlands as areas where soils are inundated or continuously saturated for a minimum of 5% of the growing season (approximately 12.5 days for Western Washington), Whcn direct observation of the water table cannot be made, hydrology is determined by relying upon hydrologic indicators such as hydric soil characteristics, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns, Hydric Soils Wetlands exhibit hydric soils. These are soils which are saturated, flooded or porxled long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions_ These are conditions where no free oxygen is present in the upper soil horizons, Typical field indicators of hydric soils are the presence of thick organic layer, or in predominantly mineral soils such as found on this site, a low chroma matrix (gray color) and/or bright mottling, Soil chroman are determined by comparing soil samples with color chips in the Munsell Color Charts. Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has classified wetland vegetation according to its frequency of occurrence in wetlands_ Obligate wetland species (OBL) occur in wetlands greater than 99% of the time. Facultative wetland species (FACW) occur in wetlands greater than 67% of the time. Facultative species (FAC) occur in wetlands 34%-661/o of the time_ Facultative upland species (FACU) occur in wetlands less than 34% of the time. Upland species (UPL) occur in wetlands less than 1% of the time. Generally the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is satisfied when greater than 50% of the species present at a data collection point have an indicator status of OBL, FACW and/or FAC; when two or more dominant species have observed morphological or known physiological adaptations for" occurrence in wetlands; or when other indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are present. 6.2 Findings GBA conducted the site investigation on March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009. Observations were collected over a period of a month during weather conditions that transitioned from cold and wet to sunny and seasonable. Little plant growth was noted during our initial site visit, however, by mid April plants were exhibiting active growth. Indian plum, salmonberry and elderberry were rapidly leafing out and Japanese knotweed colonies along the bank of May Creek was emerging from dormant rhizomes. GBA consider the timing and weather conditions of our investigation to be optimal for the identification of wetlands. Two areas were investigated: 1) The subject property (Pan Abode facility) and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. and, 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. Both areas were traversed and visually inspected for indications of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The ordinary high water mark of the drainage ditch was identified and flagged on site. A single data point (DP - 7) was established along the top of the bank. A second data point (DP -2) was assessed just cast of the ditch along the southern boundary of the subject property. Three rough transects were established in an castAvest aspect between May Creek and the subject property_ Six data points Graham-Bundng.9ssociotes 10 Environmental & Land Use Services Ifawks Landirr elssessment Sr'12;'D4 (ICI's 1,3,4,5,6,8) were assessed in the floodplain or riparian corridor of May Creek. Soil evaluation pits were excavated to a uniform depth of 21 inches. Hydrology, soil and vegetation were assessed at each data point. Data collected on site was recorded on data forms and field notes. Photographs documented appropriate visual images. Data collected is summarized in the following table. (Attachment C: Wetland Field Data Forms) 6.3 Data Swnmaf'v Table DP HydroI2R Soil Dominant Vegetation Status *oxidized *sandy loam 2.5Y *Populus balsamifera FAC (200/6) rhizospheres - 4/2 - rhizospheres - Alnus rubra FAC (201%) I fac neutral - sandy redox Cornus stolonifera FACW (501%) Wet geomorphic Carex obnupta aBL (M) 5ltlon no indicators gravelly loam - *Alnus rubra FAC (2%) 2 1 OYR 4/3 Rubus discolor FACU (25%) Up Phalaris arundinacea FACW (951/o) no indicators silt loam -- IOYR Populus balsamifera FAC (30%) 3 3/3 Rubus discolor FACU (100%) U no indicators silt loam 10YR 313 Vopulus balsamifera FAC (I0%) 4 Alnus rubra FAC (I0%) Up Phalaris arundinacea FACW (100%) Tno indicators silty clay loam Alnus rubra FAC (60%) 5 IOYR 212 Rubus discolor FACU1000/a) U *water table @ 8" *silty clay loam *Alnus rubra FAC (60%) 6 - saturated to 2.5Y 311 - 10% Rubus discolor FACU (60%) Wet surface mottles 7.5YR 4/6 Rubus specrabilis FAC (309/a) Saturation @ 15" gravelly silt Ioarn *Populus balsamifera FAC (80%) 7 IOYR 212 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Rununculus rens FACW (511o) saturation below sandy loam 2.5 Y *Alnus rubra FAC (209'0) 8 20" 4/4 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Cornus stolons era FACW (20%) 'Wetland parameter satisfied 6.4 Data D,_gest Based on the above data summarized above, two regulated wetlands were identified: Wetlands A and B are small depressiotW wetlands located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. The wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. The wetlands are distinguished from the surrounding uplands because they are distinct topographic features, exhibit saturated soils and are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland A is a deep depression with observable hydrology at the soil surface. Soil displays a very dark matrix chrome accompanied by mottles. Vegetation is dominated by a rnix of facultative plant species. Wetland B is a gentler depression which exhibits only secondary indicators of wetland hydrology with saturation present well below the soil surface. Soil is sandier and lighter by comparison and vegetation includes a vigorous comrnurfty of slough sedge (OBL). In addition to Wetlands A and B, the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in accordance with the wetland identification/delineation methodology. Although a data Graham-Buntin Associates 11 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment /511.7:09) point was not assessed within the ditch itself, the area within the flagged OHWM was determined to satisfy wetland parameters. Standing water was present in much of the 500 linear foot ditch. Soil was silty and likely consists of stormwater sediment from surrounding development. Vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass. Data point 7, established at the top of bank approximately 20 feet west of the existing Pan Abode facility was assessed to characterize the area lying between the ditch and subject property. No surface water was observed although saturation was present at a depth of approximately 15 inches from the soil surface. Soil consisted of a gravely silt loan-, possibly fill from the development of the Pan Abode facility. The soil exhibited a dark matrix chroma (IOYR 212) but was not accompanied by redoximorphic features. The subsoil was a very light silty sand (2.5Y 616). Vegetation was dominated by a mix of facultative trees, shrubs and herbs. Because the hydrology and soil parameters were not satisfied the data point was determined to be upland. 6.5 Wetland Classification and Re Mations Wetlands A and B were classified in accordance with the criteria contained under Subsection 4-3- 050 M- 1. a, ii. of the City's Critical Area Regulations as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands that meet one of the criteria listed under (a) through (d). Wetlands A and B were found to satisfy criteria (d) below: "(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such a dildng ditching or channelization... " The majority of the floodplain, including Wetlands A and B, located landward of the right bank of May Creek and south of the subject property has not been subject to human related alteration. The wetlands contribute to the riparian functions discussed under the stream study earlier in this report including LWD recruitment, bank stability, shade, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. The wetlands functional value, however are limited by their small size which represents a combined area of only 914 square feet in a floodplain parcel totaling over 110,000 square feet. RMC 4-3-050 M. 6. c. establishes the standard buffer width required for Category 2 Wetlands at 50 feet. Required buffers are to be maintained in their natural condition. Buffers are required to be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Wetland A and B are located offsite 117.4 and 63.8 feet south of the subject property respectively. The area between the G sham Burro Associates 12 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment (5112/09) wetlands and the property line remains in a natural condition and is vegetated primarily with native species. RMC 4-3-050 M. I . e. i. establishes the basis for regulated and non regulated wetlands as follows: "i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands — General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after duly 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. The department administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements or other evidence." GBA followed the guidance provided above in assessing the regulatory status of the drainage ditch. The fallowing findings were considered: • The Pan Abode facility was constructed on a fill pad during the mid 1950s • The fill pad appears to extend to a point near the road right of way at the top of ditch • The soil profile assessed at data point 7 displays rock typical of pit run commonly utilized as a 611 base • The 2:1 bank profile of the ditch is typical of an excavated stormwater conveyance facility • The hydrology that charges the ditch is composed primarily of stormwater runoff from I- 405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility • Unaltered areas within the floodplain south of the subject property do not include natural linear features similar to the ditch • National Wetland Inventory does not identify the ditch as a wetland Based on the above findings GBA deterrnined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a nonregulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. While the wetland may not be regulated by the City, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. 7.0 Regeilatory Summary/Mitigation Measures The following buffers and setback requirements are registered to proposed project actions: 7_ .1 May Creek May Creek is a shoreline of the state regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends two hundred feet landward of the OHWM. The closest point of proposed project actions to the OHWM is 277 feet. The setback for commercial buildings from May Creek is currently established under the SMP at 50 feet. The subject property itself is located entirely outside of the required shoreline setback area. The mature deciduous forest located on the parcel south of the subject property varies in width from 64 feet in the west to 235 feet in the east and provides a full range of protective functions (see subsection 5.1 Riparian Functions). Because the riparian corridor is outside of the Gitaham-BuntingAssociates 13 Environmental & Land Use 5'ervices 11awks Landiag.1gessmentX5.%1 2,,091 subject property boundaries and is not OWTIed by the applicant, GBA have refrained from characterizing the arca as a buffer. 7.2 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is classified as a Class 5 water. It is a non regulated non salmon bearing water within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel Previously existed. 7.3 Wetlands A and B Wetlands A and B are Category 2 Wetlands which require 50 foot buffers_ Both wetlands are located offsite south of the subject property. Wetland A is 117.4 feet south of the subject property boundary and Wetland B is 63.8 feet south of the subject property. The area between the wetlands and the subject property consists of a mature deciduous forest, Although the uplands surrounding the wetlands are not characterized as buffers, the deciduous forest provides a high level of buffer hmetions_ 7.4 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is a nonregulated wetland created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of conveying stormwater. 7.5 Water ualit In addition to the distance of project actions from the regulated stream and wetlands, rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with the project's drainage plan. The site w-11 be designed consistent with the King County Storm Water Design Manual guidelines for stormwater management. It is anticipated that the water quality of drainage leaving tate site will represent an improvement over the existing conditions associated with the aging Pan Abode facility_ S.0 Closure GBA employed currently accepted methods of delineating wetlands and characterizing aquatic features on the site. In addition we utilized the guidance provided in the City of Renton's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program in identifying appropriate regulatory requirements. Consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducted to determine fish use of May Creek and the drainage ditch and to determine potential hydraulic project approval requirements. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report, however, represent our best professional opinion. Concurrence should be obtained from agencies of jurisdiction prior to initiating land use actions or construction. The report will also provide a sufficient source of information in the event that a jurisdictional determination is- requested from the Corps of Engineers. Please call either Patricia. Bunting or myself with any questions relating to this report. Sincerely; Oscar Graham Principal Ecologist/Project Lead Oraham-Buntin : I ssociates 14 Itmvks f andinz; lssessmew (5.%12•'09) Patricia Bunting Wetland Ecologist/PWS Environmental & Land U.se Services 9.0 References Associated ,Earth Sciences, Inc., December 7, 2000, Wetland Delineation Report Fawcett Property; Renton, WA. Cowardin L_, V. Carter, F. Golet, E_ LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hitchcock C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of'the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 730 pp. King County, April 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Munsell Color. 1994 revised. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Pojar J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington. Oregon, British Columbia & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver B. C., 528 pp. Raedke Associates, Inc., August 26, 2002. Biological Assessment, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Reed, PB, Jr. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Northwest (Region 9) National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (269) 89 pp. Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2408. Sound Development Group, LLC. April 28, 2009. Technical Information Report; Hawks Landing — Crowne Plaza Hotel. U.S. Array Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wcstem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. I.S. Wakeley, R.W.. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vepraskas, Mike. Technical Bulletin 301, 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions: North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences33 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96 -94 - Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Activity Map, iitt��_/}i+�«_ clitr.ti�;t,�t.:l3tictn�Ssi'�ri32its/'I'c��?icti.+:Fs�e�.StPr;lct,icc:srll��tli�.��ttc»�5 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, IEttp i,'«.dfxti a."0„:'ina1)pinLV"t.tlinc,r isCapl Personal Communications Fisher, Larry. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries. On site discussion relating to drainage ditch along Lake Washington Blvd. April 24, 2009. Severin, Pat P.E. Project Engineer, Sound Development Group, Project Meetings March through May 12, 2009, Graham -Bunting Associates 15 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks 6;wdingjssessment (5112109J Wetland Field Data Forms Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 9987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual aumrnrF%T Vr ri"LA Uti —AtlaCh Site map showing sampling int locations, transects, important Features, etc. FWeUand etation Present? Yes I] No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes No ent? Yes " No gy present? Yes p No S �' ;.'1-4�...' /`;✓ly�C'f- •�'���i++.'7 l!:' 1,�r1 �i.��'�� � �f%''!`f �;°; i;E.'�`'`! �`I;"�•:, , r %& vC11'r�¢Ir1, f�Ci'�r� ' . d!•r%rte 'y !�' 1 Irt.l ..'yr"/'t'1 : [! ll%DlfPfz r" ' 1 J ! 1 s Ile L. % V GEFATION —Else scientific names of Iants_ Tree Stratum (Plot size 2p R Absolute % Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worke hee t Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1a ft R__j mm tratum (Plot ave 5 R R t }, 4 2, 3, 4. 5, S. 7. e. 8. 10. Wood Vine Stratum Piot size 1. Status Number of Dominant Species that are OBL• FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Sp d.. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �f� (A!B) lav Prevalence Index Worksheet Total 95 C ver of Multiply tri - OSl_ species x 1 = FACW species X2= FAC species X3= FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column lotals L Prevalence index = 8 / A = Dominance testis > 5o% Prevalence teat is 5 3.o " Morphological Adaptations data in remarks or on a seas ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland Pn3sent7 hydrophytic Vegetation Yes % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarirs: fi // ( f�rlT �FiJ✓�! I. £�.1 ��,�1: :r: �'. _- ,aro � /._ i. `- �. must be No 0 US A—y harps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, ancr Coast - lntertrn Vemion SOIL samlins Point Dp-i Profile Descrl Ion: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indir"ator8' Depth Matrix Redox Features check ❑ ❑ inches Color moist % Calor moist°10 T Loc Texture Remarks It 'Type: C --Concentration, p=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, GS=Covered or Costed Sand Grains 'Loc: PL=fore Lining, M=Matrix FIC Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all I.)RCRe "rasa othenvise rrobed.) tridicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' Hisicsol (Al) ❑ Hisflc Epoedon lue Sandy Redox (SS) [] 2cm Muck (A10) (A2) ❑ Brack Stripped Matrix (SB) Red Parent Material (TF2) Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (except MLRA 1) EIOther (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matnx (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All) ❑ Depleted Mabix (F3) ❑ Thick Darts Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Greyed Metthc (S4) Redox Depressions (F9) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Laver (if oresentl: Type, Yes Na Depth (inches): Hydric soli present? Remarks: L f rrr.t. ,�.E " f� t¢��:, rY)i����yya �l� � � �• r'"'J1fJ�f. N 73�� x r,r;,' e cj /c. Ic F U �.:kAfJ. /f �: ! r 'r7 CJ G. /J-}•i@�'I r Wattand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum or one required: EM Surface water (A1) Higtt Water Table (A2) setrration(A Water Milrks (B1) Ell Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (84) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Sail Cracks (Bs) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (57) check ❑ ❑ all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Be) Water -Stained l..eaves (except MLRA 1, 2,4A 8 48) (69) UtCrust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrugen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presents of Reduced hart (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Secondary Indicators (2 ormore requ*W): Water -Stained Leaves (fib) MLRA 1, 2, 4A i4 48) Dralnage Patters (B10) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) FIRr Geomorphic Poettlon (1)2) Shallow Aquitafd (123) NJ'FAC-N Test (DS) RRaised Ant Mounds (D8) (I -RR A) ❑ Frwt-Heave Hummocks Surface Water Present? Yes PK No Depth (in): r Water Table Present? Yea Pio Depth (In): ) Wetland Hydroogy Pnmetrt7 Yss No ❑ Saturation Present? ❑ Yes No Depth (in): 7Z-6 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, cedar Thts, previous inspeudlons), if avellabie: ) 1 �C.1a� c� �l11• �C'e:t/1�f2l�r It7G .l. C'_tf G�� US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western mountains, Valleys, and Coast supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project site: Hawks Landin , Crowne Plaza Hotel ApplicantJgwner. Sampling Date: 418109 Hawks Landing, LLC Investigator: Pat/Oscar/Jerom Sampling Point: DP -2 Section, Township, Range: S29 T24N R5E City/County: Renton King _ State: WA Landform {hillslopa, terrace, etc) , ,. Slope t y (%) Local relief (concave, convex, nonelt:Y , / Subregion (LRR) A Lai 47.5338 _f Long --122.19487 Datum Soil MBP Emit Marne No, Norma Are chmatidhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of yearl NWI Classification: None }4 Yes ❑ No (if no, explain in remarks.) Are'Normal Circumstances' present on the site? X Yes 1 ❑ 1 No Are Vegetation ❑, Soa, ❑, or HydroEogy l❑ significantly disturbed? No Arc Vegetation 11 - Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? Na (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF: -FINDINGS — Attach site nag showin sampling int locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes EM No Hydric Soils Present? FE -11 Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wedand7 0 Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? FM Yes = No iemarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - larelim Version SOIL Sampling Point rm,� 'Type', C --Concentration, D=Repletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS -Covered or Coated Sand Grains 7Loc: PL -Pore Lining, M=Mathx 'ic Soil indicators: (Appiicabfe to all LRRs unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) Histic Fpipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) 1 11 1 Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick park Surface (Ai2) M1 Redox Dark Surface (176) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) F01 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soifs' ❑ 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Red ParentMale-dal(TF2) Other (explain in remarks) ❑ a Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Type: Hydric Soil present? Yes ❑ No Depth {inches): Remarks 16 ,4I L'-' Wettand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum ofone mqulred' check afl that apply): Surface water (Al) ❑ Sparsely vegetated Concave Surface (B9) Hlgh Water Table (A2) FM Water-5Wned Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2,4A & 48) (89) Saturation (A3) ❑ 5altCrust(B11) ❑ WaterMartcs (Bt) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Sediment Deposb (82) 1 1 1 1 Hydrogen Sufte Odor (C1) Drift Deposits (63) Oxidized RhW*pheres along Living Roots (03) Algal Mat or Crust ($4) Presence of Reduced Iron (04) Iron Deposits (135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (CB) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) inundation Vislble on Aerial ❑ Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (B7) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) ❑ Drainage Patterns (810) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C5) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aqultard (03) FAC -Neutral test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (DB) (LRR A) Frost -heave Hummocks Surface Water Present! Yes No Depth (in): Water Table Present? ❑ Yes No Depth (in): 7 Zd Yea ❑ No YYetlarrdro Saturation Presertl7 ❑ Yes No Depth (fn): 7 Z,0Presern7 (Includes eapigary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Dw d X j + wc-C-4-3 US Army Corps ott:ngineers Wesfem Mountains, vaJfeys, and Coast -Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COP Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site; Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Applicant/Owner: Hawks Landin I LG Sampling Dale: 4!8lQ9 , Investigator: Pat/oscadjerom Sampling Point: DP -3 Section, Township, Range; 529 T24N R 5 City/County: Rentonlitin Cover f. ' eS7 r { Ire ! �, ; k State: VVA Landform (hiilslope, terrace, etc) a , ` Slope (-0/) Local relief (concave, convex, none) Subregion (LRR) A Lat 47.5338 Soil Map unit Name No, Norma Lang -122.19487 Datum re GimatirlhydrologiC conditions on the site typical for this time of year? "Normal NWl c+assificativn: None X Yes El No Are Circumstances' present on the site? / (if no, explain in remarks.} Are Vegetation ❑, $oil, ❑, or Hydro) � ❑ eignitirangy disturbed? No K Yes El No Are Vegetation [3,Soil, ❑, or Hydro}ogy ❑ naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showingseMipling 00int locations, transects, Important features, etc. rophytic Vegetation Present? To Yea ic Solis Present? Yes [Rem No No Is this Sampling Point w4hin a Wetland? ®yes Q No and Hydrology Present? Yes No arks: z VeOLTATION - Ilse scientific names of Plants. Tres Stratum {Plot size oC R_I Absolute !a Dominant Indicator Dominance Test WorksheetS Cover f. ' eS7 r { Ire ! �, ; k Status 2 Number of Dominant Species 3. that are DBL, FACN, or FAC: 1 / (A) 4. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 0} = Tatar Carer (B) Percent of Dominant Species c� ,! Saptlner5hrub 5lratnm (plot size QftR___) that aro OBL, FACVV, or FAC: — (A/B) G li 7 %t `�• s± _ d r z Pmvalance Index Worksheet s. I % over WltiPJY b 4. OBL species x t = s- FACW speaea x2= FAC species x 3 = = Total Cove FACU epeciea I X4= Herb Stratum (Pfo(size 5 R R UPL STeci1 i 1 X5= Prevalence Index = B / A = 4, g, uaminance test is y M ?, Prevalence test is s 3.t]' g, Morphological Adaptations * (provide support g. data in remarks or on a separate sheet) i0L Wetland Non -Vascular Plants t t _ Problematic Nydrnphydc Vegetation ` (explaii - Tofai Cover ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetiand hydrology must be Vine Stratum ?lot size resent unless disturbed or roblematic t. HydYes rophytic Vegetation / = Talal Cover Present? © No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: L1S, /. 11:_ ,tis r I ,� r:a,tom.'}3i. ,'.a4.i. �L',+i.� s. r/. �f. �•/ US Arty Corps of Engineer, LYestem Mountains, Valleys, acrd Coast - interim Version SUIL Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (ndnbnum of one repuMod: Surface water (Al) ❑ Hlgh Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (62) Drift Deposits (63) Aral Mat or Crust (134) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Sail Cracks (86) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) SaFnplina Point DP -3 all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A 8 48) (139) Sall Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reductlon In Tllred Sacs (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plante (D1) (LftR A) Other (explain in rernar ks) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (BB) (MLRA 1, 2,4A d 48) Drainage Patterns (BM Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible of Aerial Imagery (CO) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquilard (D3) FAC -Neutral Test (115) Raised Ant Mounds (1136) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Humatocks Profile Descrl on_ joescribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of lndlcators. Depth Matrix Redox Features €ncnes Color moist °% Golor moist % ue Texture Remarks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? © Saturation Present? (includes capillary tringg) ❑ --7TjR, Wettand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ I No g i `— — �� Descrilse RecoMWd Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), If available: Remarks:- � �7�• �7'LC� v 'Type; C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated 5and Grains 2LoC: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils' ❑ Histoscl (A1) ❑ Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muck (A10) ❑ Histic £pipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (SO ❑ Red Parent Material (T Z Black Hlstic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Clark Surface (At2) El Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Sandy cieyed Matrix (S4) Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (Fs) s Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and we(land hydrology must be present, unless disturbed er problematic Restriclive Laver (if oresentt: Type: Yes No Hydrtc Soil prevent? Depth (inches): Remarks: /1jr��.rr�(-�;�,f X97;fGi r✓):,�!tr.iri,' /i � .f HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (ndnbnum of one repuMod: Surface water (Al) ❑ Hlgh Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1) Sediment Deposits (62) Drift Deposits (63) Aral Mat or Crust (134) Iron Deposits (B5) Surface Sail Cracks (86) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) Ghetk ❑ all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A 8 48) (139) Sall Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (1313) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reductlon In Tllred Sacs (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plante (D1) (LftR A) Other (explain in rernar ks) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): Water -Stained Leaves (BB) (MLRA 1, 2,4A d 48) Drainage Patterns (BM Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible of Aerial Imagery (CO) ❑ Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquilard (D3) FAC -Neutral Test (115) Raised Ant Mounds (1136) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Humatocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? © Saturation Present? (includes capillary tringg) ❑ YesNo Depth (in): r f Yes No Depth (n);;>al rI Yes No Depth pn): Wettand Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ I No g i `— — �� Descrilse RecoMWd Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections), If available: Remarks:- � �7�• �7'LC� v US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — lnledtn Version