Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1+ ~ + CIT Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~~~ . ~ -,.> Kathy Keolker, Mayor ~\'\!,ro":------------------------------ December 4, 2006 State Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for File No. LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on December 1, 2006. The environmental review (SEPA) was completed on October 16, 2006 and appeal period ended on November 6, 2006. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner Enclosures: Copy of Master Application Administrative Decision Project Description Notice of Application Legal Description SEPA Threshold Determination SEPA-Notice of Action Taken cc: Office of Attorney General Applicant/Owner Parties of Record state b6Wf;tr le#ec. rJg; 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98055 @ Thts paper c:ontains 51J% recycled material. 30% post .::on sumer AHF:\O Of THI·: C\JRVf: ( CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERM I W·IA/11.H? t,.u ... APPLICATION NO.: DATE RECEIVED: DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: DATE APPROVED: TYPE OF ACTION(S): LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ERG June 23, 2006 June 23, 2006 December 1, 2006 [ X J Substantial Development Permit [ J Conditional Use Permit [ J Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Port Quendall Company PROJECT: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility 5015 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton Washington DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) in order to develop property located within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State. The property is located in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1 ). The project would be the Seattle Sea hawks Headquarters and Training Facility. BACKGROUND: The proposal is to develop vacant land known as the North and South Baxter properties, which are both located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The properties were used for wood processing until 1981 and, therefore, are known to have contaminated soils present. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT), negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. The long-term industrial activities on the properties also heavily impacted vegetation, wildlife habitat, wetland, shoreline, and views of the property from Renton, Mercer Island, and the Lake. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks are a professional football franchise currently based in Kirkland, Washington. The project would primarily consist of an office building ("Headquarters") and an attached indoor practice facility (enclosed football field), maintenance building, turf practice fields, artificial surface practice field, general and secure parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping. The Headquarters office building would be two to three stories (two stories on the west side and three stories on the south side). The maximum height of the office building on the west side would be 35 feet. The elevation on the south side would be 50 feet. The indoor practice facility would have an interior ceiling height of 95 feet at the center. The overall exterior building height would be 11 O feet above grade. Shoreline Permit. doc APPLICATION NO.: DATE RECEIVED: CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ERC June 23, 2006 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: June 23, 2006 December 1, 2006 DATE APPROVED: TYPE OF ACTION(S): [X] Substantial Development Permit [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This action was taken on the following application: APPLICANT: Port Quendall Company PROJECT: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility 5015 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton Washington DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SM) in order to develop property located within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State. The property is located in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1 ). The project would be the Seattle Sea hawks Headquarters and Training Facility. BACKGROUND: The proposal is to develop vacant land known as the North and South Baxter properties, which are both located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The properties were used for wood processing until 1981 and, therefore, are known to have contaminated soils present. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT), negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. The long-term industrial activities on the properties also heavily impacted vegetation, wildlife habitat, wetland, shoreline, and views of the property from Renton, Mercer Island, and the Lake. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks are a professional football franchise currently based in Kirkland, Washington. The project would primarily consist of an office building ("Headquarters") and an attached indoor practice facility (enclosed football field), maintenance building, turf practice fields, artificial surface practice field, general and secure parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping. The Headquarters office building would be two to three stories (two stories on the west side and three stories on the south side). The maximum height of the office building on the west side would be 35 feet. The elevation on the south side would be 50 feet. The indoor practice facility would have an interior ceiling height of 95 feet at the center. The overall exterior building height would be 110 feet above grade. Shoreline Permit.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility December 1, 2006 ·shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECR Page 2of4 The fagade of the office building would be 115 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Lake at its closest point and 170 feet at its farthest point. The indoor practice facility would be 200 feet from the OHWM at its closest point. At the southwest corner of the property, approximately 115 feet of shoreline is inaccessible because of fencing around the existing Puget Sound Energy Power Station. Restoration of a Class 3 wetland, located coincident with the shoreline of the Lake, was a condition of approval of a previous Model Toxic Control Act cleanup phase. This wetland, and its 50 foot (minimum) buffer comprises approximately 590 feet of the shoreline. A publicly accessible viewpoint, furnished with benches and other outdoor site amenities, has been proposed for 290 feet of shoreline. This area would be within the 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. It would be accessible by a paved walkway, approximately perpendicular to the lakeshore, adjacent to the north property boundary. This public access to Lake Washington would be consistent with RMC 4-3-090J5, "Use Regulations in the Urban [Shoreline] Environment." The Master Program gives priority to planning for public visual and physical access to water in the Urban Environment. Specifically, "To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use ... commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be lined to non-motorized transportation routes such as bicycle and hiking paths." An existing boathouse and dock, located at the northwest corner of the property would remain, but are not a part of the proposed project and would be fenced to prevent public land side access. This fenced area would comprise approximately 60 feet of the shoreline. The remainder of the shoreline, approximately 755 feet, would not be accessible from either the water by boat or land side by sidewalk. This shoreline has been very heavily impacted by the long-term industrial use of the property (Exhibit 5). As part of the development proposal, shoreline restoration would include preservation of significant trees, removal of exotic and/or inappropriate invasive species, and planting of vegetation suitable for riparian habitat. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ANALYSIS: Use allowed within shoreline setback -As a commercial use, based on City of Renton regulations (RMC 4-3-090, "Shoreline Master Program Regulations"), the office building is allowed within the 200 foot shoreline setback, but no closer than 50 feet (RMC 4-3-090L5d, "Setback"). Based on these regulations and policies, the Headquarters building is an allowed use at the proposed location. Regulation of building height within the shoreline setback -The Shoreline Master Program policies state that buildings less than 75 feet in height within the 200 foot shoreline setback are not regulated (Shoreline Master Program 4.04.021 and 9.20). Based on these regulations and policies, the Headquarters building height is within development standards of the shoreline setback area. Intensity of use within the Urban Environment -The western boundary of the site includes approximately 1,810 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline (Exhibit 4). The shoreline of Lake Washington has been designated, by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-090J2, as an "Urban Environment" under the City's Shoreline Master Program (Exhibit 2). The Urban Environment is intended to be an area of high-intensity land use. The proposed project concentrates intensive land use at the north portion of the property, leaving approximately 82 percent of the total site, on the south portion, essentially as open space. Provision of public access to the shoreline -Commercial development is permitted within the Urban Environment designation provided the development provides reasonable public access to and along the water's edge (RMC 4-3-090L5b, "Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities"). For public access to Lake Washington, an easement for a pedestrian walkway (420 feet) would be provided along the north property boundary continuing parallel to the Lake shoreline (290 feet). The public access would be furnished appropriately for passive recreation consisting of lake and wildlife viewing (Exhibit 6). Shoreline Permit.doc City of Renton P/8/PW Department Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility December 1, 2006 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA 06-073, SA-H. SA-M, SM, ECR Page 3 of 4 Consideration of view impacts -The proposed project will result in a large structure being located on a property that has been essentially vacant. There would be, undeniably, impacts associated with constructing a structure where none existed previously. The issue to be considered as part of the Shoreline Master Program review is the impact on view corridors. given the location of the structure. The project would have an impact on views across the property to the Lake from various locations in the area and from Mercer Island across the Lake. In order to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project, a visual assessment was submitted by the project proponent. It studied impacts of the project on views and view corridors from several locations off-site. Based on this assessment, it was determined that there would be minor impacts from properties located east of the project or from Mercer Island. The property abutting on the south is currently vacant. Primary impacts would be from the third floor of the Misty Cove Condominium abutting the property on the north. The most significant impacts were on views from the third floor of the Condominium building. Misty Cove Units 302 and 312 were used to determine a range of impacts. Both units are on the top floor of the Condominium building, with 302 closest to the Lake and 312 farthest to the east. Detailed analysis demonstrated that although the lowest section of the Headquarters portion of the structure was located closest to the shoreline, views from the Condominiums would be significantly improved if the building was moved farther from the shoreline. Therefore, the entire structure was moved 62 feet to the east. This revision significantly improved views of Lake Washington and the view corridor across the property to the Lake. Pollution and ecological disruption -The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation, water life and other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natural 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 (RMC 4-3-090K2, "Environmental Effects"). As mentioned, above, remediation of soil contamination would be on-going through the project construction phase of the proposed project. The shoreline wetland was previous restored during an earlier phase of site cleanup. The project proponent has submitted a plan for shoreline restoration which would include preservation of significant trees, removal of exotic and/or inappropriate invasive species, and planting of vegetation suitable for lakeshore riparian habitat, followed by monitoring (Exhibit 7). Due to the sensitive lake environment, as well as the amount of human contact anticipated as part of the sport of football, turf areas of the project would be managed using Integrated Pest Management (1PM) techniques. 1PM has been shown to reduce the amount of potentially harmful chemicals needed to maintain healthy plant environments. It also reduces the need for fertilizers that could elevate nutrient levels in the lake. The project proponent submitted a "Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan," dated September 20, 2006, that addresses plant selection, seeding, fertilization, pest control, chemical management, and maintenance (Exhibit 8). Surface water would be controlled through the use of sand filters. If it is necessary to use chemicals on turf fields (if fungal outbreaks occur), stormwater would be cleansed of chemicals prior to discharge to Lake Washington. Conclusion -The City of Renton believes public benefits from this project would be significant. It would provide another link to Lake Washington from Renton's developing trail system, at a location where no public access has been available. The environmental conditions of the property, which until recently was heavily impacted by residual effects of long-term industrial use, essentially devoid of significant vegetation, and lacking suitable habitat would be transformed into a campus-like, healthy environment. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEC-TWN-R: WITHIN SHORELINES OF: APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: Shoreline Permit.doc See Exhibit 8 32-24 N-5 E Lake Washington City of Renton City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility December 1, 2006 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECR Page 4 of 4 The following sections of the Renton Municipal Code are applicable to the development: Section 4-3-090 4-3-090J 4-3-090K 4-3-090L5 Description Shoreline Master Program Regulations Urban Environment General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses Specific Use Regulations -Commercial Staff recommends that development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply will all SEPA mitigation measures established by the Environmental Review Committee in their determination of October 16, 2006. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval required by the Hearing Examiner as part of the decision for the Master Plan and Site Plan Reviews. 3. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies. That the permit be granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition herein. 3. A construction permit 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. cc: Attorney General's Office City of Renton, Plan Review (Kayren Kittrick) City of Renton, Surface Water Utility (Ron Straka) City of Renton, Parks (Leslie Bellach) Applicant Project File Shoreline Permit. doc 12-)1 Jot Decembe( 1, 2006 --·-·--'·' .Ft~ i(r ., ., w I\ ~ I>, PROJECT < . . ~fa . LOCATION 1"'4'. ,0 r....-f. i s_ ; _, :ma· ,,;)' ~ I i / ( ?'- SWT1/ l'l)[/(1' LAKE lL--------+----------1------------' SHINGTON ______ _,__ ·--· - 0 1/4 1/2 1 EXHIBIT Scale In Miles l.______1 ----' Reproduced wflh pennlssion granted by THOMAS BROS. MI\PSe. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduca all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP September 2006 21-1-20525-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Oeaeed1lk:al' and Enwtoc•,...,ibtl ~ l I ( I J LAKE f(ASHINCTO/'I ENVIRONMENTS Urban .... --· ••• EXHIBIT 2 cu,~ ExtSTJNG POWER POLE LOCATION---.._; SOlITH PROPERTY F'ENC( LINE -----.... PS£ £ASEMOIT UN( (TSO) ---....._ OC1STING POY(ER POLE LOCATION NEW 1-STO~ ' "'"""""" ! ' 'I " I ! SHED li 1, \ CO\IEREO CAR WASH PM:> EXISTING POWe;i:i POLE LOCATION-----tr-- • ' • • LAKE WASHINGTON , IS'J ',1 NA'IJ,JRAl. ~~ F'ltl.Os f-H·+++Hll~f-'1-""f-H-++++++1 • • • • • • • EXISTING BUILOINC. S'TRUCTURE TO BE REMOVEt> ~, \J , ;~q;,;·c+ I ___ __.. I-··-··-~~-:,wiiw I I --·-·-··-·· ··-··-·--·---~ , __ ::--=-~~:·.--.. --·-=-. ---------------------------- PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING = PARKING C9UNT ----!i1Bfl>IAJ;u.'IS GENERAi. SURF"ACE PARKING 91 STAU.S T c-4 0 5 LAKE -= -CLASS 1 SECURE ITAM PARKING 181 STALLS T ERST A C:.. CYPSY sue BA.SIN DRAINAGE -CLASS 2 (RE: FlGURE._,~.J~)----~==========.,..:~~~:l-----== 1 N TOTAL 2.52 STAI...LS .---· -------·· . --- b ~TIOl>ISITE Pl.AN -ALloRNATIVE • • • • • - EXHIBIT 3 ~ w .... @ iil':5-------. -·-~ • 13 NCl'J8leER • • @! -I ~ -==-~ --~ -¥a-·-= I "Eff- <>1l l5 f t: ~ i ~~ 11 al"-Ji "' °' t :c .!:; ! ~-~ ! ~ f-• .c • ~ (/J ~ ·- File: H:\ !6756\ 16756S009.dwg fayoi,t· ANSL8-LJ /Is.. shall pl,)/lt/d. A<Jg 08, 2006 -l !.J/om Xrel's: ------l~~~~~~~~~~~~--:.,-~ ROCK SEAWALL FIELD INVESTIGATION PLOT PROPERTY BOUNDARY CHAIN LINK FENCE R,IJLROAD TRACKS "'re SOUTH BAXTER WETLAND AREA EXISTING PAVEMENT /ROADWAY SHOREUIIE OlfMI AKI fELD IIVESffi~llON PlOTS Loc.\Tlll F!!(ll,I &/7/0f, TD 6/1G/(le,. VLUN-16756--100 (Mlt,Oll/08/0!! -E.lol./S(A !I .• I ,· I ,. •· I 1 ··J ' EXHIBIT 4 " \ ' 120 1 ·-120' BAXTER PROPERTY WITH ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK AND FIELD INVESTIGATION SAMPLE PLOTS FIGURE5 t-i~.j·:r~· ... I "• ~ . , .r~ . .,, . l -.,.. .. ., ·. ill.,. r· . .A" ~ ·""-. ' ... ~ -..1~~r' .. ~. / -"'· . ' ·. /t' ~<'·•··--)"'- ----Historic Aerial Photo of North and Ba>.t«fr ·operty (date unknown) ,.,,/' •,,1e rH~t~ f1~""Jor RoacJ~ 0\1\~II f/:1),IU l1dt·• .1~1,. '.iL,(11: l"111rnJr ,.,,/ ('!:i tli~JliN~Y Ri:,ads Citle,, ~ ( : f USGS Cu.ad lndu 2.4K La-wer-48 Avaflabte W.t1i'I~ N(ln•DlglLII t'llglt..11 Net 0,1a ~ Sc..n 0 D D NHO Streamm; Countie1 100K Statas 100K South Amt).,rlca No,rth Amerlc,1-!t' EXHIBIT 5 H--t~~l"-cf-"---t·'f-L , c~.f._._ c ct L ~Lt~~,.__J_~~.__f___c._J. , . --'---~-c _, L, ! i I / I ii! !I i ,I i ii II Iii! I • rr1 'Trr1-11·ri-:1:rrr ! 1 r 1_-__ -. __ •, ' J ·1 · ' \'j ' · I ' I ' : .... !'"'·;····!":' .. f·, .• .,_-'.·,r·1·_,_-_._:---_•-_,kt· _·:·_:·_,,:._,_··!'······_'I"_ ' -, , -·----·1 ,---·JI · ! : : .. -. -..J.-1.-,._-: ! I ' . : I L1_---_--·.·l'·'_:_· "·1-· _--:1-__ ,_; __ ,_·-··i---l_._· __ · -_++_---_, I' 1 __ ---'_ ' I I ' ... l ' l., I ' ' ' I; ·, !· ·:-.". •. /·( ,.,.J.·J f · j j l ! ' ; ! ' l • ·.: ,',,. ·:·-. '. "i ! 1, .. i : ) .. ,.JJ , .. L ... ' '"' ..... '.J.J ... LI J, ,I ' ,;, ' .:_~== __ --= __ ~--1 Seahawks Practice Facility I --~---=r:-~-FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC -----·. :--:-_ _t. ---RENTON,WASHlNGTON -. -I ,, . I I ' I I I I [ [ [ [) I r I l I I r -~ l I j ""' CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. Environmental Consulting A.C. Kindig & Co. E.NVIRON}..-\ENT . .\LCONSUU INCi STREAM AND LAKE STUDY SUPPLEMENTAL STREAM AND LAKE STUDY STREAM MITIGATION PLAN SEAHA WKS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Renton, Washington Prepared for: Football Northwest, LLC 505 Fifth Ave South, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98104 Prepared by: Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 19609 244th Avenue NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 and A.C. Kindig & Co. 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98005 September 20, 2006 19609 244" AVENUE NE· WOODINVILLE, WA 98077 · P:425/788-0961 · F:425/788-5562 EXHIBIT 7 r I I I f I l., [ I [ I I I ,, I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Description of Proposed Action .................................................................................... 2 3.2 Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................... 3 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Routing and Flow .............................................................. .4 4.2 Stream Classification .................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Physical Condition ........................................................................................................ 6 4.4 Vegetative Cover .......................................................................................................... 7 4.5 Ecological Functions ..................................................................................................... ? 4.6 Fish Use ...................................................................................................................... J 1 4. 7 Wildlife Use ................................................................................................................ 11 5.0 SHORELINE PLANTING/MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................... 12 5.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Mitigation ......................................................................... 12 5.2 Lake Washington Shoreline Planting .......................................................................... 13 5.3 Maintenance and Monitoring ...................................................................................... 14 6.0 RESOURCE VALUES TO BE RESTORED, CREATED, OR ENHANCED .............. 16 6.1 Habitat Improvement Opportunity .............................................................................. 16 6.2 Function and Value Comparison ................................................................................ 16 6.3 Summary ..................................................................................................................... 19 7.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES ............................................................. 19 8.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ........................................................................................ 21 9.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................. 21 10.0 ENVIRONMENT AL GOALS AND PERFORMANCE ST AND ARDS ...................... 21 11.0 MONITORING .................................................................................................................. 22 I I.I Sampling Methodology ............................................................................................ .22 11.2 Standards Of Success ................................................................................................ 24 12.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN ................................................................................................... 24 13.0 COST ESTIMATE ............................................................................................................. 25 14.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE ..................................... 25 14.1 Planting Location ...................................................................................................... 26 14.2 Planting Type ......................................................................................................... 26 14.3 Contiguous Corridors ............................................................................................... 26 14.4 Non-Indigenous Species ........................................................................................... 26 14.5 Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions ............................................................ 26 September 20. 2006 Sea}wwks/09-20·06 Laker Stream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page i r [ (C I [ ( [ l) I I I I I I ,., l I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Page 14.6 Minimum Planting Plan Perfonnance Standards ...................................................... 26 14.7 Based on Best Available Science ............................................................................. 27 15.0 COMPLIANCE WITH BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ............................................... 28 15.1 Review of the Best Available Science Supporting the Proposed Request... ............. 28 15.2 Report Authors Experience ....................................................................................... 32 15.3 Analysis of the Likelihood of Success of the Compensation Project.. .................... .32 16.0 VEGETATION PROTECTION ....................................................................................... 32 16.1 Design Considerations .............................................................................................. 32 16.2 Significant Tree Protection during Construction .................................................... 33 17.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 34 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Plant species selected for Lake Washington shoreline ................................................... 15 Table 2. Cost Estimate Worksheet. ............................................................................................... .25 Table 3. Riparian Habitat Functions Comparison, Existing versus Proposed Conditions ............. 29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Details from City of Renton Water Class Map ............................................................. 5 Figure 3. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on-site looking upstream at beaver darn ................................ 5 Figure 4. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall at Lake Washington .................................................... 6 Figure 5. Vegetation and woody debris along the Lake Washington shoreline .............................. 8 Figure 6. Upland vegetation looking to the west across the site from the railroad tracks ............... 8 APPENDICES Appendix l Plan Sets Sheet 1 Sheet LJOO Sheets CE301-302 Sheets CE201-202 Sheets CE22 l-224 Sheet CE245 Resumes of Key Personnel Site Map (source: RETEC) Conceptual Landscape Plan (source: EDAW) Gypsy Subbasin Plan and Profile (source: Crawford) TESC Plans (source: Crawford) Grading Plans (source: Cra»ford) Conceptual Utility & Drainage Control Plan (source: Crawford) Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form September 20, 2006 Seafwwks/09-10.06 Lakes Stream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page ii r I I I I [ I L'> I I [ l I I 'i> I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan 1.0 PURPOSE Capping and institutional control remedial actions on the North and South Baxter site will occur under Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees approved by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in April 2000. Remedial activities will be implemented with a goal of achieving enhanced water quality in Lake Washington. Capping of the entire site to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline requires eliminating an about 125-foot open section of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage that is otherwise conveyed by culvert through the site. The aging and degraded culvert carrying the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage under the site will be replaced and upgraded to accommodate capacity requirements of the upstream and offsite contributing basin at buildout. To accommodate placement of the Seahawks Headquarters building (which will serve as part of the remedial cap on the site), the replacement culvert will be realigned around the building foundation. This placement will require lengthening of the pipe from the existing 490 feet to approximately 860 feet. The culvert upgrade and realignment does not include replacement of the existing outfall pipeline to Lake Washington, which will be retained in its current condition. Aside from capping required under the Consent Decrees and Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plans to within 25 feet of the lakeshore, project features proposed under a Master Plan approval for the site and within the Renton Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction include public access, practice fields, a building, parking, sand filters for water quality treatment, and some roadway area (see Appendix 1, Conceptual Landscape and Hardscape Plan, Sheet LI 00). All features are allowed under the Urban Environment designation afforded the project site under Renton's Shoreline Master Program. Shoreline planting will include replacement of exotic plant species with a diverse native shrub and tree riparian zone. The proposed development triggers the need for both a Standard and Supplemental Stream Study under requirements of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) because: • The proposal will alter a waterbody (Gypsy Subbasin Drainage), and • The proposed development site contains a Shoreline of the State and associated management area. Requirements for the studies provided in this report are described in RMC 4-8-! 20(0). 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is located on approximately 19 acres at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard North, adjacent to Lake Washington in the City of Renton, King County (Figure I). The two properties that underlie the project site are formally known as South Baxter and North Baxter. The project is located in the SWV. of Section 29, T24N, ROSE, W.M. The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage crosses the site from east to west before discharging to Lake Washington. May Creek located off-site to the south is unrelated to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and will not be affected. September 20, 2006 Seahawks/09-20-06 Lakes S1ream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C. KJNDIG & CO. Page I [ , .,~\ ~) I f I f r ( l l) I I I I I I r '} '¥# I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Description of Proposed Action Soils across the site to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline will be capped with up to three feet of clean soil as part of the remediation action. As part of that capping, the remaining open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the project site will be placed in a culvert. This action will have a direct benefit of protecting and enhancing water quality in Lake Washington. The existing Gypsy Sub basin Drainage culvert under the site is in poor condition and undersized based on a history of flooding upstream (Entranco 1995, 1997). The culvert will be replaced with a larger pipe prior to capping of the site. Portions of the pipe will be rerouted to accommodate future building and facility locations (see Appendix I, Plan Sheets CE30 I and CE302). The final culvert length will be 370 feet longer than what cun-ently exists (Magnusson Klemencic Associates, 2006). September 20, 2006 Seah.awks/09<!0-06 Lakes Si ream Report doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 2 ( , ' ., "/l I I I I [ l I 1' I I [ I I I 'J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan The Lake Washington shoreline area will be replanted to improve functions and values and mitigate for the lost habitat value adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage (see Appendix I, Conceptual Landscape and Hardscape Plan, Sheet LI 00). Where native plants and large trees currently exist, they will for the most part be preserved. The dense stands of exotic blackberry and Scotch broom will be removed and replaced with native riparian species. Included within this document is the Stream Mitigation Plan. A description is provided in Section 5 and the draft plan is shown in the attached Conceptual Landscape and Hardscape Plan, (Appendix I, Sheet LIOO). Native plantings along the Lake Washington shoreline will increase functions and values of the riparian area over existing conditions and will improve the shoreline role in protecting aquatic habitat values important to Lake Washington. Net improvements in water quality, production of organic matter including insect and vegetative material, large woody debris frequency, bank stability, and wildlife habitat are predicted. More detail on the proposed riparian planting program is provided in Section 5.0. The functions and values comparison analysis is provided in Section 6. The proposed monitoring plan is provided in Section 11. The Site Map required under RMC 4-8-120(D)(l9)(a) and Grading Plan required under RMC 4- 8-120(0)(7) are attached (Appendix I, Site Map Sheet I; and Grading Plan Sheets CE22 l through CE224 ). 3.2 Alternatives Analysis Three alternative project layouts were evaluated to avoid and minimize impacts to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. These included: • Daylighting the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage into an open channel across the site. • Maintaining the existing open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage m an open channel. • Passing all of Gypsy Sub basin Drainage through the site in a culvert The only available alternative to satisfy the capping requirements under the Consent Decrees is also best suited to protect fish and Lake Washington habitat. The selected alternative places all of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage passing through the property into a culvert. This conclusion is based on the following rationale: • The capping requirement under the Consent Decrees is premised on avoidance of direct contact with residual soil contamination on the property. The cap will also serve to protect water quality in the drainage and Lake Washington from potential effects due to erosion of surface soils. The capping and culvert completely isolate Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington from the site soils. • The on-site open section of Gypsy Sub basin Drainage is a manmade ditch well below the grade of the site with steep side slopes. This ditch provides minimal fish habitat. Riparian function is limited by the steep rocked channel banks. Elimination of the open ditch will have water quality benefits and will not adversely affect fish habitat. • The minor loss of riparian function can be mitigated by additional planting adjacent to Lake Washington. Planting at this location will also enhance wildlife habitat by providing September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Seahawb/09-20-06 Lakes S1reom Repor1.doc Page 3 f , I' '" ·\, } I I [: [ r [ [ 1') f I I I I I ,, I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan a larger block of contiguous habitat, particularly along the southern shoreline where it will abut a restored wetland and buffer adjacent to Baxter Cove. • Flow can be diverted out of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel which means all culvert construction can be conducted "in the dry" after the flow is bypassed. This reduces the potential for adverse construction impacts. Because of the low quality of existing onsite habitat ( described further in Section 4.0) and soils subject to required capping and institutional controls under the Consent Decrees, the proposed action will result in a net improvement in fish habitat quality in the Lake Washington Drainage. 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides a description of existing habitat conditions of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel on the property, the associated riparian buffer, and the Lake Washington shoreline area. Known fish and wildlife uses are also described. 4.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Routing and Flow The various waterways known collectively as the Gypsy Sub basin Drainages consist of a series of largely man-made pipes, ditches, ponds, and open water habitat draining an area of approximately 320 acres north of and independent of May Creek ( except by flood overflow east of!-405). The drainage collects at a single point just west of the BNSF railroad tracks west ofI- 405 before discharging to the property (Entranco 1995). The culvert under the tracks is 55 feet long, has a gradient of approximately 2 percent, and is likely a barrier to upstream fish passage. Near the property boundary but still offsite, drainage is discharged to a small (approximately 10 foot diameter), quarry-spall lined pond. From the offsite pond, flow enters a 24-inch, 46-foot long concrete culvert extending on-site and beneath a dirt haul road before daylighting again to the open channel section located on-site. The open channel is a highly confined, steep-walled ditch/trough, with a channel bed approximately IO to 15 feet below the surrounding ground elevation and 3 to IO feet wide at the bottom. Substrate consists primarily of a deep anaerobic mud except where bank sloughing and rocks spilled into the channel have replaced the mud with a firmer bed material. The banks are heavily vegetated with a narrow strip of young hardwoods, Scotch broom, and Himalayan blackberry. Total length of the open channel is approximately 125 feet. An approximately 4-foot high ~~ dam located near the downstream end of the open channel currently backs up water upstream to the railroad tracks (Figure 3). The drainage next enters a 490-foot, 24-inch CMP which discharges directly to Lake Washington. The 490-foot CMP drops approximately 0.5 foot (0. I% gradient) and at low lake elevation is perched about a foot above the lake water surface (Figure 4). During high lake elevations, the culvert is partially backwatered and upstream passage is possible, though not known to occur. September 20. 2006 Seahawfq/09-20-06 lakt!s S1reani Repor! J,:;c CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC. and A.C KJNDIG & CO Page 4 r f' ~; :~ I, I I I I I I l) ( I I I I I ') ... -. ~ . I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washing/on Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Figure 3. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on-site looking upstream at beaver dam. September 20. 2006 Seahawks/09-20-06 Lakes Stream Rep,m.dor CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, fNC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 5 r I r [ I r ( ....... t } l . I l l I I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Figure 4. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall at Lake Washington . 4.2 Stream Classification The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the property is shown on the City of Renton's draft Water Class Map (Figure 2) as a Class 2 water. Class 2 waters are salmonid-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall. Lake Washington is a Class I water. Class I waters are salmonid-bearing perennial waters also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance. 4.3 Physical Condition In general, upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is low due to the disturbed nature of the former industrial areas which currently support only limited vegetation and contain residual contamination. The shoreline areas provide the highest habitat value in the project area, but the habitat value of these areas are limited due to the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as snags. The portion of the Gypsy Sub basin Drainage on the property provides virtually no value to fish with 80 percent of the total length in a small culvert and the rest encompassed in a narrow ditch some IO to 15 feet below ground surface. The short open stretch offers some potential rearing habitat, however, habitat quality is entirely dependent on the existing beaver dam. Without the recently constructed dam, shallow depths, a muddy substrate, no instream structure, and little instream cover limits the overall habitat value. With little protection from high velocities, winter Sep/ember 20. 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KINDIG & CO. SeQ/it11<·b:!09-2!l-06 lak,.,s Sfr~am Repo,·1.doc Page 6 l f ~. 0, ' ,, I I I I I I ( 1) I I I I I I '-> I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Sn·eam and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan storm events would likely flush any fish from the system if they were present. Summer conditions produce extremely low flows which also severely limit habitat quality. 4.4 Vegetative Cover The project site is periodically cleared of vegetation and was last cleared in I 990, Young red alder, black cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom are present on the steep banks of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel. The vegetation provides good shading and a fair source of allocthonous material to the watercourse, However, water quality, bank stabilization, large woody debris input, and other functions are minimal due to the steep eroding banks, young and exotic vegetation, and a narrow functional riparian zone, because the ditch is so far below grade elevation, Lake Washington shoreline vegetation within about 20-feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, red alder, black cottonwood, and various willow species which grow up to water's edge (Figure 5). Beyond this narrow vegetated buffer, on-site vegetation consists mainly of various grasses interspersed with small islands of trees and shrubs (Figure 6). The upland trees and shrubs are similar in character to the immediate shoreline vegetation. 4.5 Ecological Functions Ecological functions for the two areas impacted by the proposed action: the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the property, and the Lake Washington shoreline, are described below along with a description of existing conditions for each function. Water Quality Vegetation adjacent to streams and lakes can improve water quality by filtering pollutants, removing nutrients, and preventing sediment introduction, Native planted areas of approximately I 00 feet in depth are normally required to preserve riparian water quality function where natural routing of water through buffers is preserved and relied upon for water quality protection. However, source control and water quality best management practices are recognized as more important for urban settings where stormwater runoff is not reliant on riparian conditions for treatment before discharge, Because water quality treatment function is provided by the proposed developments in these cases, and not by the riparian areas, riparian depths can be much narrower, Water quality function of the existing on-site riparian areas is poor, The only vegetation adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington is relatively young (10-15 years old) and primarily exotic. There are also steep slopes adjacent to both watercourses so the norrnal water quality treatment process is virtually absent Surface water runs directly across the narrow riparian areas and receives very little natural treatment In addition, residual contamination in soils on the property can degrade water quality so flow running through the riparian buffer over such soils is not a benefit and presents a risk to aquatic species habitat. September 20, 2006 Seaha..,ks/09-20·06 Lakes Stream Reporr.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, !NC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 7 r r '\ '°jf I [ ( f [ I r l "" J l l L ( I I r .> I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facilio-, Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Figure 5. Vegetation and woody debris along the Lake Washington shoreline. Figure 6. Upland vegetation looking to the west across the site from the railroad tracks. September 20. 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. TNC and A.C KINDIG & CO. Seahawks/09-10-06 Lal.:e.r Srremn Repo,r dor Page 8 r I I I I r ( l ) l I I I I I I r ) J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Organic Material Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Overhanging vegetation contributes leaves, vegetative litter, and small woody debris directly to the channel. This material forms the source of food for aquatic invertebrates, which are in turn eaten by fish. Terrestrial insects, another food source, also utilize riparian vegetation as habitat. The majority of material comes from directly over the stream. Function diminishes rapidly after about 25 feet from channels edge though some benefit is still realized up to about 50 feet away. Vegetation overhanging the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage provides a small amount of organic material to the watercourse. The material is carried downstream and deposited in Lake Washington where it provides some benefit to aquatic species located there as well. The young, sparse, and partially exotic composition of the buffer significantly reduces the overall value. Vegetation adjacent to Lake Washington consists predominately of exotic shrub species which overhang the water in some locations. The volume of leaf litter is minor as is the contribution of woody debris. Because many of the species are non-native and the overall shoreline area lacks diversity, the nutrient contribution and value as insect habitat is poor. Overall, the value of the existing riparian vegetation is low relative to its ability to contribute food and nutrients. Microclimate Riparian vegetation protects streams from climate changes caused by widespread development away from the stream, including soil and air temperature, humidity, and wind. There is no direct link between microclimate and the condition of salmonid habitat, however, it has been suggested that microclimate needs protection to maintain desirable assemblages of plants and animal species, including insects, beneficial to fish. It is estimated that a riparian zone between approximately 58 and 345 feet in the Renton area is necessary to entirely preserve natural mature forest riparian microclimates. The lack of any significant vegetation adjacent to either the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage or Lake Washington provides almost no microclimate function under existing conditions. Temperature & Shade Overhanging vegetation shades streams, until the channels become so broad that, like Lake Washington, most of the water surface is exposed to the sun. By intercepting solar radiation, vegetation prevents heat energy from reaching streams, maintaining cooler water. Vegetation also ·shades soil, cooling water introduced to streams through the hyporheic zone. Cool water is an essential habitat feature for salmon ids, and increases the amount of atmospheric oxygen that will dissolve into the water, which also improves salmon habitat conditions and is essential for salmon spawning. Under existing conditions, 80 percent of the Gypsy Sub basin Drainage channel across the site is contained within a culvert where riparian shade has no effect on stream temperature. The open portion of the channel has a narrow riparian corridor that combined with the slope aspect of the entrenched channel, provides fair shading of the small channel. September 20, 2006 Seohawks/09-20-06 Lakes S1reu111 Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 9 r , ~-,. ; I I I [ r ( I ,, I l ( l I I 'J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigalion Plan Riparian shading of Lake Washington has no effect on water temperature due to the large size of the lake. Human Access Control One function of protected riparian zones in populated watersheds can be reducing the direct encroachment of humans including refuse dumping, trampling of vegetation, bank erosion, and noise. These function most effectively when the adjacent land use consists of low intensity development; when the riparian areas are greater than 50 feet wide and planted with high quality mixed species of native vegetation that discourages entry; and where there was a high degree of resident education on the value of the protected riparian zones. The blackberry covered slopes adjacent to the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and position of the channel on fenced and signed private property prohibits human access. The steep, densely vegetated Lake Washington shoreline is not conducive to human use under existing conditions. The property is currently fenced with locked gates so vegetation has no role in access control. Large Woody Debris Large woody debris (L WD) consists of downed tree stems and branches and is a functionally important structural component of stream channels in the Pacific Northwest. In non-fish-bearing stream channels such as on this project property, L WD acts as a surface for biological activity which contributes to the productivity of a stream system. In a mature coniferous forest, the majority (70 to 90 percent) ofLWD in a stream comes from within 50 feet of the stream. The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel contains no L WD either on-or off-site. The channel is located in a relatively urban environment and intercepted repeatedly by culverts, including passage through the drainage system of the adjacent I-405 interchange to the east of the site. Any large woody debris entering the system is removed once it works downstream and blocks a culvert. So L WD recruitment has no practical potential in this drainage. The Lake Washington shoreline contains an abundant supply of LWD that has washed up over the years. The logs come mainly from old timber log booms and escapement from milling operations rather than recruitment from along the shoreline. However, the existing shoreline on the property contains no trees large enough to provide L WD recruitment for scores of years. Channel Migration The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel is highly confined by culverts upstream and downstream of the property, and within a steeply sloped below-grade channel on-site. Channel migration is not possible at this location. Bank Stability Roots from vegetation growing along the streambank help stabilize soils and reduce erosion. Root strength benefits are normally low beyond 40 feet from the channel. September 20, 2006 SeahawlcrlfJ9-:!0-06 Lakel S~eam Reporrdoc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, !NC and A.C KJNDJG & CO Page 10 I r [ ( 1) I I I I I I ,' ·::-, J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Su,dy!Mitigation Plan The existing steep banks adjacent to both sides of the Gypsy Sub basin Drainage channel on the property have poor bank stability because the channel is so far below grade, and are constantly eroding. An old road near the top of bank along the channel contributes additional sediment. The Lake Washington shoreline is slowly eroding due in part to the lack of stabilizing vegetation. Other factors such as the changing lake levels (winter and summer) managed by the Army Corps, boat wakes, and the relatively young shoreline (due to lowering of the Lake Washington waterlevel in 1917) also influence erosion rates. Wildlife Habitat The cleared and graded property provides little wildlife habitat though the area immediately adjacent to Lake Washington has moderate value due in part to the proximity of the lake (see Section 4.7). The lack of a mature native canopy limits nesting and foraging habitat for most species. 4.6 Fish Use Fish use of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage by resident salmonids is assumed. There is anecdotal evidence of fish sightings by a City of Renton street maintenance crew (Larry Fisher, personal communication, March 17, 1997). No use of the basin by anadromous salmonids is known to occur and presumed use is unlikely because of the Jack of suitable habitat on the property and poor upstream passage conditions beneath the BNSF tracks and through the 1-405 interchange and roadway stormwater systems to the east. Lake Washington supports a variety of anadromous salmonids, including Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (0. kisutch), and sockeye salmon (0. nerka), and steelhead (0. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (0. clarki). Runs ofnon-anadromous kokanee (0. nerka) salmon are also present (King County, 1993). Lake Washington contains a wide variety ofnon-salmonid species, some of which are considered "warm water" species. These include both native and non- native species such as speckled dace (Rhinichthys oscu/us), three-spine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus), northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), yellow perch (Perea jlavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus sa/moides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), mountain whitefish (Prosopium wil/iamsoni), largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), and prickly sculpin (Coitus asper) among other species (Pfeifer and Weinheimer 1992, King County 1993, Wydoski and Whitney, 1979). 4.7 Wildlife Use Canada geese (Bran/a canadensis) were observed in both the vegetated and hardscape shoreline areas. The geese were observed nesting along the vegetated shoreline and in the osprey (Pandion ha/iaetus) nest located near the PSE substation nesting platform. Puget Sound Energy moved an osprey nest from a retired distribution pole on the Baxter site to a new nest pole platform erected on the south side of the substation in 1993. Puget Sound Energy also placed a crossbar on top of the first transmission pole leading away from the station to provide a safe place for the birds to perch. The osprey successfully nested on the new platform from 1993 until 1997 when the September 20, 2006 Seo!rawks/09-20-06 Lakes Stream Repon.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C. KJNDJG & CO Page 11 I ' ~ S' ' I I ' I r I I 1) ( ( l l I I '-> I • Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Swdy/Mitigation Plan osprey built a new nest at the top of the wood chip elevator located on the Barbee Mill site to the south of the property. This nest was eliminated when the mill was torn down. Osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August. Osprey have been observed hunting small mammals (likely mice) on the North Baxter site as well as fishing the lake. Canada geese and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucophalus) have occasionally been observed perching on the nest platform during the winter months. It is assumed the bald eagles used the perch site to forage for fish and waterfowl along the lake shoreline. Three bald eagle nest sites have been historically reported between 0.8 and 0.9 miles west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island (WDFW 2006). Two of the nest sites are not known to have been used for the last several years. The third nest was reported active in 2006. Beaver (Castor canadensis) have been observed in wetland habitat along the lake shoreline and in Gypsy Subbasin Drainage east of the site. Pond sliders (Pseudemys scripta) have been observed on floating logs. Red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) were observed using cattail habitat in the project vicinity. Snipe (Capella ga/linago) were observed in the cottonwood sapling-dominated areas. Other species of passerine birds and amphibians could be supported along the shoreline and the narrow red alder-dominated upland shoreline area. Numerous duck species also use the offshore area adjacent to the site. 5.0 SHORELINE PLANTING/MITIGATION PLAN Project actions that will affect aquatic features and adjacent shoreline vegetation include: 1) Filling of the on-site portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and elimination of existing riparian vegetation on the open channel portion, 2) Lengthening of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert under the site, 3) Removal of structures and roadways on the site. 4) Capping of the site to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline pursuant to Consent Decree requirements, 5) Alterations to vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline area, and 6) Construction of stormwater sand filters, five stormwater outfalls to Lake Washington, parking, fire lane, building, practice fields, and public access within the shoreline. 5.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Mitigation Consent Decree requirements that include capping of the site and filling of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage are mitigation designed specifically to avoid human and habitat contact with surface contaminants and will improve water quality by eliminating ground/water contact in this area. This action will directly improve fish habitat in Lake Washington. No additional mitigation for the loss of 125-feet of stream channel for water quality function is warranted or proposed. Lost riparian functions from removal of vegetation adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel will be mitigated by new plantings near Lake Washington contiguous with the Baxter Cove wetland protected riparian buffer. It is estimated that vegetation within approximately 15- feet of the steep ditch in which the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is located currently provides some functional value to the watercourse in terms of leaf litter and other organic material. To mitigate September 20, 2006 Se<lhawks/09-20-06 lakes Stream Repondor: CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO Page 12 r I ( [ r r r I I I I I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarrers and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and lake Study/Mitigation_ Plan for the loss of function of 0.09 acres of primarily exotic vegetation, approximately 0.21 acres of area adjacent to the Baxter Cover wetland mitigation site located within the 200-foot Lake Washington shoreline area will be planted with a high density tree and shrub cover. This area is currently dominated by lower-value grasses and exotic vegetation. While the culvert carrying Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is being lengthened, much of it is also being enlarged (see Magnusson Klemencic Associates 2006 for details). Because there is a fish passage barrier immediately upstream of the project site, the culvert does not currently function as an upstream fish passage conduit. If the off-site barrier is removed in the future, the longer but larger culvert under the project site is expected to provide the same or better fish passage conditions as currently found on the property. 5.2 Lake Washington Shoreline Planting The Lake Washington shoreline planting plan (see Appendix I, Sheet LIOO) is being developed to enhance functions and values along the shoreline. Under existing conditions, approximately 1.23 acres of the area within @feet of the Lake Washington shoreline is vegetated with exotics, upland shrubs and trees (this excludes the 0.36 acres of Baxter Cove wetland and its regulatory buffer). ThiJ_area of co_ve~~ge "1ilLJ2LOEint~in~<\.Qr .extended under the planting plan. In addition, virtually all exEITiig shrubs are non-native and will be removed and replaced with native species. The area of tree canopy coverage, (0.82 acres under existing conditions) will also be matched or exceeded under the planting plan. The planting plan contains the following features important to improving habitat quality on the site: • Existing non-native and invasive vegetation will be removed from the entire site. • Existing large trees 10 inches or larger in diameter at breast height (dbh) within 100-feet of Lake Washington have been mapped (see Appendix I, Site Map, Sheet 1) and will be preserved wherever possible consistent with site remediation and the land-use plan. • An area located within JOO-feet of Lake Washington will be replanted as needed to meet or exceed existing vegetation coverage (approximately 1.23 acres) along the shoreline. • Tree canopy coverage within !00-feet of Lake Washington (approximately 0.82 acres) will be matched or exceeded. • Planting soils will be amended if necessary to provide suitable growing conditions for new plantings. • Plantings along the shoreline will consist of a multi-layered approach consisting of groundcovers, forbs, shrubs, and tree canopy layers. • Shoreline plantings will consist entirely of native species typically found adjacent to lakes and streams within the Pacific Northwest. All plants will be selected to provide a combination of moderate to high shoreline protection and wildlife function. • Landscaping plantings selected for the project will be dominated by native species that provide moderate to high wildlife function. • All plantings will be established at a density that can reasonably be expected to thrive under the growing conditions present on the site and achieve the cover objectives within 5 to IO years. Sep/ember 20, 2006 Seafiawkr/09-20-06 Lakes S1renm Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C. KINDIG & CO Page 13 r f t " ) 1· I I I I I I l) I [ l l I I 'J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan • Supplemental watering will be provided along the shoreline until plantings are well established and can survive on their own. • Because of the high visibility of the project, all planting, both shoreline and landscaping, will be maintained indefinitely. On-going maintenance will occur throughout the year. Dead and dying plants will be replaced as needed. Non-native species will be removed by hand. Some pruning of larger hardwood trees (rather than plant removal), particularly lower branches, may occur to facilitate shrub and groundcover growth and provide lake views from some portions of the Headquarters Building, while retaining tree canopy. The shoreline zone planting will take place on a declining slope, some of which will be graded to accommodate capping of the site, training fields, and building development upslope (see Appendix 1, Sheet LI 00). A typical topsoil profile (whether existing in the non-graded area or imported in the graded fill area) will be between 12 and 18 inches. Vegetation in shoreline area will consist of native riparian species that will be selected from the list provided in Table 1. Landscaping for the planting beds, parking lots, and perimeter screening will also be based almost entirely on the use of high value native vegetation and will include many of the species noted above. 5.3 Maintenance and Monitoring Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the Lake Washington shoreline area is provided in Section 9 of this document. Monitoring is described in Section 11. September 20. 2006 S1!11howksl09-J0-06 Lake5 Stream Repon.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C. KJNDIG & CO Page 14 r ' "' L ;Ji I f I r r ( I 1) I I l I I I , J . I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Faciliry Renton, Washington Table 1 Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Plant species selected for Lake Washington shoreline. Dry Zone (upland) Herbaceous Species -hydroseeded a. Deer Fem b. Pearly Everlasting c. Trailing Snowberry d. Dewey's Sedge e. Thick-headed Sedge Blechnum spicant Anaphalis margaritacea Symphoricarpos mollis Carex deweyana Carex pachystachya Woody Shrubs-5' O.C. in groups of 3 to 9 a. Bald Hip Rose Rosa gymnocarpa b. Evergreen Huckleberry Vaccinium ova/um c. Low Oregon Grape Mahonia nevinii d. Mock Orange Philadelphus /ewisii e. Red-Flowering Currant Ribes sanguineum f. Snowberry Symphoricarpos a/bus Trees -12' O.C. a. b. c. d. Pacific Dogwood Douglas Fir Madrona Big-leaf Maple Camus nutta//ii Pseudotsuga menziesii Arbutus menziesii Acer macrophyllum Wet Zone (adjacent to the shoreline) Herbaceous Species -hydroseeded a. Shortawn Foxtail b. Water Foxtail c. Slough Sedge d. Sawbreak Sedge e. Hardstem Bulrush f. Small-fruited Bulrush g. h. Slender Rush Spike Bent Grass Alopecurus aequalis A lopecurus geniculatus Carex obnupta Carex stipata Scirpus acutus Scirpus microcarpus Juncus tenuis Agrostis exarata Woody Shrubs-5' O.C. in groups of3 to 9 a. Black Gooseberry Ribes lacustre b. Bog Laurel Kalmia microphylla c. Bog Rosemary Andromeda po/ifolia d. Hardhack Spirea Spiraea douglosii e. Red Osier Dogwood Cornus stolonifera Trees-12' O.C. a. Red Alder b. Black Cottonwood c. Sitka Willow A/nus rubra Populus trichocarpa Salix sitchensis (adapted from the l(jng County Native Plant Guide and the King County, Washington -Surface Water Design Manual). September 20, 2006 Seahawk.r/09.:!a-06 Lakes Slream Report doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 15 I f I I I I I l l I I , ~ J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washingion Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan 6.0 RESOURCE AND FUNCTIONAL VALUES TO BE RESTORED, CREATED,ORENHANCED Aquatic and wildlife habitat on the site consist of a Class I lake, a Class 2 stream, and associated riparian zones. All three features have been heavily impacted by the long history of industrial land use and associated contamination at the site. To avoid direct contact to humans and preserve and protect water quality in the lake and stream, the approximately 125-foot remaining open portion of the watercourse will be culverted so that the entire Class 2 watercourse will be culverted through the site. No further enhancements are proposed to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. No stormwater from the developed site after capping will discharge to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. The Lake Washington shoreline riparian planting plan focuses on restoring habitat function to a degraded area. Aquatic functions described in Section 4.5 are targeted for enhancement with the primary purpose of improving nutrient contribution to fisheries resources in Lake Washington and providing a higher quality wildlife habitat corridor along the shoreline. This will benefit small wildlife species including birds, amphibians, rodents, and mammals. 6.1 Habitat Improvement Opportunity Key to the restoration value of the riparian planting plan is the existing degraded condition of the Lake Washington shoreline (see description in Section 4.4). The project will not disturb or remove any significant functional benefit of the shoreline as the existing condition provides minimal value. The net change provided by the project along the shoreline will increase habitat value for both fish and wildlife. The City of Renton has designated the shoreline an Urban Environment. Urban Environments have the objective of providing for water dependent uses, including human access, along water's edge. Under the new City Shoreline Ordinance, protected riparian zones in Urban Environments are a function of how the shoreline is used and can range from O to 100 feet in width. The proposed action will match or exceed the total area of existing trees and shrubs within I 00- feet of water's edge and will create much higher habitat quality by removing exotic species and replacing them with native plants. Because much of the shoreline area currently consists of asphalt, bare dirt, and patches of exotic grass, development of various project features that will occur within the shoreline area (practice fields, building, pavement) can be completed without adversely affecting existing habitat quality. 6.2 Function and Value Comparison This section provides a description of riparian functions and values to be provided under the proposed project action and compares each function to the existing condition described in Section 4.5. Function and value determinations are based on best available science as described in A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. (2003 ). September 20, 2006 Seahawks/09-]0.G6 laker S!ream Report doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A C. KINDIG & CO. Page 16 r f i "' ', ,,{ I f f [ I I f 1) l I l l I I ,J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Water Quality Stream and Lake Studv!Mitigalion Plan The Consent Decree remediation requirements will benefit water quality because capping and development of the site will protect rainfall from conveying soil into Gypsy Subbasin Drainage or Lake Washington. The project stormwater management approach is based on the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Enhanced water quality treatment is proposed for site stormwater runoff (Magnusson Klemancic Associates 2006). Six stormwater management treatments are proposed to serve different developed portions of the site. The six treatment areas and systems consist of the following: Synthetic Turf Field and Building/Roof Areas (one system) -These areas are non-pollution generating surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the synthetic turf field and building roofs will be drained to Lake Washington as direct discharge. Precipitation landing on the field will drain vertically through sand and gravel to subdrains that will convey the stormwater to a site storm drain system discharging to Lake Washington, Natural Turf Fields ( one system) -Similar to the synthetic turf field, precipitation that lands on the natural turf fields will drain vertically through sand to subdrains. The natural turf fields, with an 18-inch layer of sand, will function as a large sand filter. An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan will be prepared that describes turf management practices for these practice fields. One-hundred percent of storm runoff from these fields will pass through the underlying sand, which exceeds the 2005 King County Manual enhanced treatment requirement for treatment of 95 percent of storm runoff. Paved Parking and Driveways (four systems) -Stormwater runoff from paved parking and driveway areas will be treated in four large sand filters. Three of the sand filters will be covered with grass, which will intercept fines and provide pre-treatment and to help maintain the surface permeability of the filter as shown by research data (A.C Kindig 1999). Pretreatment in the fourth large sand filter will be provided by an additional six inch top layer of sand, which will lie removed and replaced once or twice annually. The large sand filters have been designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Overall, the net effect of remediation and development on the property will be improvement of water quality in Lake Washington. Food The enhanced Lake Washington shoreline area is expected to provide significantly better nutrient contribution than under existing conditions due primarily to the increased presence of native species along the shoreline and the more diverse source of leaf litter and insect habitat this provides. The existing 20-foot wide swath of Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom interspersed with a relatively sparse native tree canopy layer provides little of the normal year- round organic nutrient contribution or supply of small woody debris contributed by a native species buffer. The insect population and benthic invertebrate community is different than native fish evolved to require._ Because most organic material falls vertically or is carried a short distance by wind, the region providing the greatest nutrient benefit to the aquatic environment is September 20, 2006 Seahawks/09-20-06 Lakes S1ream Repor1.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 17 f ,, ~':' I ( I I ( ( I l) I I I I I I r "~ J I I Seahmvks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and lake Study/Mitigation Plan directly over and within 50-feet of a waterbody. Therefore, the enhanced shoreline area ranging from between 20-feet to about 200-feet and averaging about 50-feet will provide an important new nutrient source and will improve habitat quality along the lakeshore. The loss of the narrow riparian buffer adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage will slightly reduce the amount of nutrients contributed by this drainage to Lake Washington. However, the primarily exotic and relatively sparse nature of the buffer is not a significant source of material and the Joss will more than be made up by proposed planting adjacent to Lake Washington. Microclimate Microclimate is a big picture climate control issue extending for up to many hundreds of feet from the lake. Neither the existing buffer nor the proposed buffer will have much effect on this habitat variable. Temperature and Shade With large lakes such as Lake Washington, shade is not a significant variable influencing water temperature. The proposed shoreline enhancements with some overhanging vegetation will provide localized shading along the shoreline and should benefit temperatures in shallow areas immediately adjacent to the shore, but the overall effect will be negligible. Placing the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage into the culvert essentially provides 100 percent shading for this creek though the difference in water temperature being delivered to Lake Washington will be negligible. Human Access Control Urban Environment designated shoreline areas are intended to encourage human access to water's edge, though in this case access will be controlled by walkways, fencing, and perhaps some thorny native vegetation, rather than solely reliant on vegetation. The proposed shoreline area will have little function in limiting human access control in this situation. This is comparable to the existing condition where fencing rather than vegetation is used to limit access along the shoreline. Large Woody Debris Large woody debris contribution is not a significant function of riparian buffers in the urban environment due to the liability of allowing large old trees to fall randomly near densely populated areas. However, smaller woody debris can function as substrate for macroinvertebrates and as an organic nutrient source. Under the proposed enhanced shoreline area, both coniferous and deciduous trees will be planted as future sources of organic debris. Neither of these benefits would occur under the existing condition where the site is periodically graded. Channel Migration Channel migration zones are not associated with managed ditches and large managed lakes as are found on or adjacent to the property. The proposal will have no effect on channel migration. September 20. 2006 Seah,11,1ksi09-]0-06 lukes S/ream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A C K.IND!G & CO. Page 18 I ' ~ ··:- "' I f' 1: .r i I ( l) I I. ( l I I 'J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Bank Stability Stream and Lake Studyl}4itigation Plan The inunediate shoreline will remain relatively unchanged. With the types of plants proposed for the enhanced shoreline area arrangement, and the relatively low energy lakeshore environment (relative to flowing channels), root strength in the enhanced area is expected to provide good protection of the shoreline from wind-induced waves and boat wakes. The proposal will have little effect on bank stability. Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat for most species will improve significantly under the proposed condition as the relatively sparse and exotic shoreline vegetation is replaced with a diverse native planting regime. Native plantings in a multi-story canopy provide a much higher wildlife habitat value especially when they are planted in large contiguous_ groupings and are associated with aquatic habitat as is proposed in the southwest comer of the site. Native species provide superior feeding, roosting, and nesting opportunities for birds. The resultant woody debris and herbivorous ground cover is better for amphibians, reptiles, and small rodents. The loss of riverine habitat associated with filling the 125-foot stretch of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage will result in less habitat opportunity for species preferring moving water. But other than the beaver that has established a small dam in this system, the rip-rap lined banks and exotic species dominated shoreline does not provide good quality habitat. The proposed shoreline enhancement area along Lake Washington will improve the overall quality of habitat for most wildlife. Wetland The only wetland on the project site is in the Baxter Cove area which will remain untouched under the proposed development action. The buffer of the wetland will be altered to no less than a 40 foot width, and averaging will be used to maintain an average buffer width of 50 feet as allowed under the J.H. Baxter Property Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2000). Uplands contiguous with the protected wetland buffer will be planted with high density tree and shrub habitat (see Appendix 1, Sheet LlOO). 6.3 Summary Value for all habitat functions under the proposed development is expected to be equal to or greater than under existing conditions. This is primarily due to the relatively sparse and non- native dominated vegetation along the shoreline, and the low value of the remaining portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage currently existing on the property. The quality of vegetation will increase greatly as native groundcovers, shrubs, and trees are planted and maintained. 7.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES Ecology is the lead agency under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) for all cleanup actions under the Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees between the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Port Quendall Company dated April 2000. The SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 2000 for the capping and institutional control remedial actions to be perforrned under the April 2000 Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plan for the J.H. Baxter North Property and the April 2000 Cleanup September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. !NC and A.C. KJNDfG & CO. Se<1hawks!09-20-06 lakes SI ream Reporl doc Page 19 r ! -~ Y( ·.._,,j I. ( I ' r r ( () I I l I I I f ': Ji l I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and lake Study/Mitigation Plan Action Plan for the J.H. Baxter South Property as required by the Consent Decrees. The Consent Decrees and Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plans require capping of the entire site to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline. An Engineering Design Report (EDR) for the North Baxter property and an amended EDR for the South Baxter property are under preparation for Ecology review and approval to implement the Feasibility Studies/Cleanup Action Plans. Ecology's approval of the EDR will include its determination that substantive requirements of state and local permits and approvals are met under the Consent Decrees, although implementation of Consent Decree requirements procedurally exempts these permits and approvals. These include a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and site grading, filling, utility trenching, and building approvals from the City of Renton. A Notice ofintent to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharge of construction runoff and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for construction will be submitted to Ecology, however all stormwater runoff during site construction will discharge to the sanitary sewer under a Sanitary Discharge Permit from King County Industrial Waste as required by the Consent Decrees. Discussions with the Army Corps began with a pre-application meeting on January 15, 1997 for remediation of the combined Quendall and North and South Baxter properties. During subsequent consultation, the Army Corps indicated they would decline jurisdiction over filling of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. Consultation to confirm the Army Corps continues to decline jurisdiction over Gypsy Subbasin Drainage alterations is being sought by the proponent. No other actions require federal approval. Ecology's approval of the EDR documents will procedurally exempt WDFW requirements for an HPA. However, the applicant met with WDFW, Ecology, and the City of Renton on August 9, 2006 to discuss preliminary plans for fill of a 125 foot section of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage pursuant to capping requirements of the Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plan, realigning the culvert and providing for conveyance of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage flows through the property at full buildout of the basin upstream of the North Baxter property, construction of new stormwater outfalls to Lake Washington, and substantive mitigation requirements for the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage fill. It was agreed for the purposes of complying with WDFW's substantive requirements that a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (]ARPA) for the various improvements will be submitted as part of this Lakes and Streams Report for the City of Renton. This Lakes and Streams Report is a requirement of the City of Renton under its Critical Areas Ordinance for the development planned for the North and South Baxter properties. Renton must issue a Shoreline Substantial Development permit, perform SEPA review, issue a Master Plan approval, and issue other building permits for construction elements of the proposed Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility that are not requirements of the Consent Decrees with Ecology. This Lakes and Streams Report is required to assess impacts and riparian functions and values for alterations to the Lake Washington Shoreline, and includes functional impacts and mitigation for the alteration to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage required by capping under the Consent Decrees. September 20. 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C KINDIG & CO. Seahawks/09-10-06 Lalu?s S1rea111 Reporr.doc Page 20 f ' "'· I I I f ( I I 1' ( I l l I I 'J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washingion Stream and Lake S/udy/Mitigation Plan 8.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction is expected to begin in November of 2006 with demolition of existing structures, clearing and grubbing. Capping and grading will begin soon thereafter and be complete by June 2007. The new Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert will be constructed and placed into operation during the fall/early winter of 2006 and the existing open portion of channel will be filled once the new culvert is active. Building construction will begin in January 2007 and be complete by July 2008. 9.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE Riparian plantings in the shoreline enhancement area and throughout the site will be monitored and maintained continuously after construction under a landscaping contract the project owner will maintain. Maintenance will proceed consistent with Ecology restrictive covenants in place after completion of cleanup activities under the Consent Decrees and will include replacement of dead and dying plants, removal of exotic plant species, watering as necessary, and trash collection. Riparian planting maintenance and monitoring will occur for 5 years after construction, but on-going maintenance will continue indefinitely as the site is maintained for the new Seahawks headquarters. 10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The overall environmental goal for the Stream Mitigation/Riparian Planting Plan will be to provide a viable riparian plant community adjacent to Lake Washington that increases habitat functions and values for regional fish and wildlife. Specific functions are described in Section 4.0. More specific objectives include: • Create 53,453 square feet of vegetated shoreline area consisting almost exclusively of native plants. • Remove and control invasive and exotic plants from the site. • Eliminate water contact with surface soils. • Additional important features for the riparian planting plan are listed in Section 5.2 Monitoring will be conducted for the purpose of ensuring the plant community as designed and planted complies with these objectives. Monitoring and performance standards are described in Section 11. September 20, 2006 Seahawh/09-20-06 Lakes Stream Reparr.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 21 I ' ,, ... I I I I r ( I L' I I I I I I f "~ :J~ l I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan 11.0 MONITORING The purposes of the habitat monitoring program are: (I) to ensure that design goals and objectives along with applicable permit specifications are met; (2) to document physical and biological characteristics of the newly planted riparian shoreline area, and (3) to ensure consistency with Ecology restrictive covenants in place after the completion of cleanup activities under the Consent Decrees. The monitoring process will consist of three distinct phases: (I) construction monitoring; (2) compliance monitoring; and (3) long-term monitoring. The following sections describe elements of the monitoring program. 11.1 Sampling Methodology Monitoring of shoreline vegetation will be conducted using the techniques and procedures described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as the successful creation of an area meeting goals described in Section 10. An annual monitoring report submitted following each year of monitoring will describe and quantify the status of the riparian planting at that time. Construction Monitoring Compliance success is increased with early and frequent coordination and communication between the appropriate parties. Coordination meetings could include the fisheries biologist, landscape architect, project engineers, regulatory agency representatives, and contractors. A pre-construction meeting of personnel responsible for the design and those responsible for establishment of the riparian planting and construction along the shoreline is recommended. The purpose of the meeting will be to review the intent of the riparian planting plan, establish a pathway of communication during construction, agree upon the construction sequence, and address and resolve any questions. The landscape architect and project biologists should be present on-site as necessary to review project implementation. Duties will include: (1) assist in identifying and marking the limits of clearing and grading, where applicable; (2) inspect the plant materials and recommend their final placement before planting; (3) determine the correct type and application rate of amendments to the soil, if needed; ( 4) make adjustments in planting plans, as needed, in response to field conditions; (5) ensure that aquatic related construction activities are conducted per the approved plan and permits; and (6) resolve problems that arise during restoration, thus lessening problems that might occur later during the long-term monitoring phase. Compliance Monitoring Compliance monitoring consists of evaluating work areas immediately after planting and restoration work is completed along the shoreline. Objectives are to verify all design features September 20, 2006 Seahowlcr/09-20-06 lakes Stream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 22 J I ( I 1· I I l' [ [ L l l I , ' J l I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan have been correctly and fully implemented, and that any changes made in the field are consistent with the intent of the design. Evaluation of the planting areas will be done by the landscape architect using evaluation standards and criteria discussed below. After grading and planting of the shoreline area is complete, a walk-through survey will be completed to ensure species selection, plant location, and planting methods met all requirements of the landscape plan and any additional permitting conditions. A quantitative assessment of the plants established in the shoreline area (including plant counts and cover-abundance, as appropriate) will be recorded in representative sample plots for baseline data. This information will be used to document "time-zero" conditions from which the long- term monitoring period will begin. At each point, fixed-point photos will be taken during monitoring visits to provide physical documentation of the condition of the riparian planting areas. Photographs will be taken from all sample plot locations established during the first monitoring site visit (compliance) and thereafter each visit of the monitoring period from the established location points. The compliance monitoring phase will conclude with preparation of a compliance report from the landscape architect and project biologists. The report will verify that all design features have been correctly, fully, and successfully incorporated. Substantive changes made in the planting plans will be noted in the compliance report and on the drawings for use during the long-term monitoring phase. Information on changes should include details describing what was done, where, why, at whose request, and the result of the change. Locations of monitoring stations established for the compliance monitoring will be identified on the as-built plans. The planting plans, with the compliance report, will document "as-built" conditions at the time of construction compliance. The compliance report and as-built drawings will be submitted to the City of Renton and Ecology. Long-term Monitoring Long-term monitoring will begin after acceptance of the compliance report by the City of Renton and will be conducted for five growing seasons. Monitoring will evaluate establishment and maintenance of plants in the shoreline area to determine if goals and objectives of the mitigation/riparian planting plan have been met. Monitoring will be conducted annually each year during the five-year monitoring period. A final site check and summary report will be prepared in the fifth year of monitoring. At each sample station, plant species will be identified, individual shrubs and trees counted (where appropriate) to document survival, and an estimate of cover and abundance made using commonly accepted methods. The plantings will be examined to document survival rate of each species planted, signs of stress, damage, or disease as well as signs of vigor, and rates of colonization by other plants. Special attention will be paid to species considered to be exotic or invasive (e.g., reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom). September 20, 2006 Seahawks/09-20-06 l.oki!s SJream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KINDIG & CO. Page 23 ' r 1 I. I ( ( '.•,} [ l) I I I I l I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and lake Study/Mitigation Plan All wildlife observed during the monitoring will be recorded, with notes made regarding habitat use patterns and activities. Any evidence of breeding or nesting activities will be noted. Monitoring reports will be prepared for submittal to the City of Renton and Ecology at the end of each monitoring year. The monitoring report will document the changes occurring within the mitigation/riparian planting areas and make recommendations for improving the degree of success or correcting any problems noted during monitoring. Monitoring reports will document how the riparian planting is meeting the goals and objectives of the plan. 11.2 Standards Of Success Success standards for the Lake Washington riparian shoreline area are relatively simple and straightforward due to the absence of complicated hydrologic regimes. Of primary concern is ensuring the establishment and viability of a functional plant community dominated by native species. As such, mitigation/riparian planting success will be determined if the following goals are met: • A total of 53,453 square feet of mitigation/riparian planting is present within 100-feet of the Lake Washington shoreline and 9,005 square feet of mitigation planting is present between I 00 and 200 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline. • Within the mitigation/riparian planting area there is ninety-five (95) percent survival after Year I, ninety (90) percent survival after Year 3, and eighty (80) percent survival for all planted woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) at the end of Year 5. • Within the mitigation/riparian area there is not more than 2 percent cover of non-native invasive species at the end of each year. • No significant areas of erosion ( defined as shoreline material loss of greater than one cubic yard) will occur along the Lake Washington shoreline. Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the mitigation if they are thriving at the end of Year 5. 12.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN If monitoring results indicate any performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary to implement all or part of a contingency plan. Such plans are prepared on a case-by-case basis to reflect failed mitigation characteristics. A contingency plan would be developed based on a specific failure to meet success standards described in Section 11.2 of this plan. The contingency plan could include recommendations for additional plant installation, erosion control, modifications to the watering regime, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location, consistent with Ecology restrictive covenants in place after the completion of cleanup activities under the Consent Decrees. City and Ecology approval would be requested before implementation of the plan. September 20, 2006 Seahawks/09-20-06 lakes StretJm Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A C KINDIG & CO Page 24 r I .•. . fl l, I I . [ I I l' ( ( l l I I I ' Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Contingency/maintenance activities may include: • Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary. • Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with a similar species approved by the City. • Irrigating certain areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too dry, with a minimal quantity of water. • Reseeding the shoreline riparian planting area with an approved grass mixture as necessary if erosion/sedimentation occurs. • Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and planting areas as necessary. 13.0 MITIGATION/RIPARIAN PLANTING COST ESTIMATE Table 2 Cost Estimate Worksheet 1 Items L'nits L'nit Cost I otal Trees 134 $50 ea $6,700 Large shrubs 1,274 $30 ea $38,211 Small shrubs 1,330 $17.50ea $23,275 Native grass 26,144 $1.25 sq.ft. $32,680 Irrigation 52,289 $1 foot $52,289 Fine grading 52,289 $0.25 sq.ft. $13,072 Topsoil 1,292 $26 cu.yd $33,592 Mobilization I $24,768 ea $24,768 Landscape architect oversight 100 $100/hr $10,000 Maintenance 5 $3,000 year $15,000 Monitoring 5 $2,000 year $10,000 Base Cost -. $259,587 30% Contingency -$77,876 Total Cost -$337,463 ' Based on September 8, 2006 planting plan prepared by EDAW. September 20, 2006 Sl!ahawks/09-20-06 Lakes S1ream Repori.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 25 ( r I r I I I I I ' [ I l I I I I I ·?,, .:;_~·,/i ' Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Faciliry Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan 14.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE RMC 4-3-050 L(J)(c)(ii) provides criteria for approval ofa Stream and Lake Mitigation/Riparian Planting Plan. This section discusses how the conceptual plan meets those requirements. 14.1 Mitigation Location Mitigation for all proposed environmental impacts will take place on-site as recommended as the preferred mitigation location under the RMC. 14.2 Mitigation Type Proposed mitigation/riparin planting consists of several of the preferred options under subsection L3c(ii)(b). These include a net reduction in impervious surface from the Lake Washington shoreline area, improving biological functions of the shoreline, increasing native planting along the shoreline (which is a recommended watershed improvement), and improving water quality in Lake Washington. There are no options to daylight streams or remove manmade salmonid migration barriers within the project site, however, the larger culvert being provided under the site may improve fish migration characteristics somewhat. As demonstrated in Section 6.2 of this report, the riparian planting provides for equivalent or greater biological functions of the Lake Washington shoreline. 14.3 Contiguous Corridors All riparian planting has been located to preserve or achieve contiguous riparian and wildlife corridors to the greatest extent practicable along the Lake Washington shoreline. All proposed riparian planting consists of one contiguous habitat corridor along the shoreline. 14.4 Non-Indigenous Species No non-indigenous plant, wildlife, or fish species shall be introduced. All species to be utilized for riparian planting are native species selected to provide a combination of moderate to high aquatic protection and wildlife function. 14.5 Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions Existing and proposed ecological functions of on-sire riparian habitat is discussed in Section 6.2 of this report. Compliance with best available science is discussed in Section 15.0. The evaluation of functions and values found a net gain in riparian habitat quality. 14.6 Minimum Mitigation/Riparian Planting Plan Performance Standards RMC 4-3-050 F(S) contains additional mitigation requirements which the applicant must meet. The applicant shall: • Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory capability, and the financial resources to carry out the mitigation project. To this end the applicant has contracted with EDA W Seattle to provide the riparian planting landscape design. The plan was reviewed for functional benefit to the aquatic environment by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Both firms have September 20. 2006 Seahawlcr/09·20-06 lake5 Stream Report doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KJNDJG & CO. Page 26 r ' ·' -_, )'. ,\ l [ I I I I I I L' ( [ I I I , J I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan extensive experience designing, supervising construction, and monitoring results of riparian planting projects. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix 4. The applicant, Football Northwest, LLC, is a large established company with substantial financial resources. • Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals. Monitoring for this project is relatively simple. No complicated wetland, hydrologic, or fish surveys are required. All corrections will consist of replacement of dead and dying plants as necessary and possible minor repairs to infrastructure (fences, signs, etc.) and the shoreline along Lake Washington. • Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management, of the mitigation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the mitigation area. The applicant is developing the project as their future headquarters and will be located on-site. They have a vested interest in maintaining the vegetation in excellent condition as it will be visible from the headquarters building and practice facilities. • Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections. The applicant will contract with a consultant to monitor all the shoreline planted areas. City inspections will be allowed. • Avoid mitigation proposals that would result in additional future mitigation or regulatory requirements for adjacent properties, unless it is a result of a code requirement, or no other option is feasible or practical. The proposed riparian planting does not move the location of any natural feature towards adjacent properties. Thus no off-site property owners will be affected. • For on-site or off-site mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent property owners shall be notified when wetland creation or restoration, stream relocation, critical area buffer increases. flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have the potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent properties. For example, if a created wetland on a property would now result in a wetland buffer intruding onto a neighboring property, the neighboring property owner would be notified. The development potential of abutting or adjacent property owners will not be affected in any way by the proposed shoreline planting plan for this project. 14.7 Based on Best Available Science Compliance with best available science is described in Section 15.0. September 20, 2006 Se.ahawks/09-20-06 La/res Slream Report.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, !NC and A.C. KINDIG & CO Page 27 f IJ r r ,,.,. I r f r I [ I ') l ( ( I I I I {1 I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and lake Study/Mitigation Plan 15.0 COMPLIANCE WITH BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE 15.1 Review of the Best Available Science Supporting the Proposed Request Mitigation plantings proposed for the Lake Washington shoreline are both wider and better vegetated than under existing conditions. Functions and values of both aquatic and upland riparian habitat will be improved over existing conditions based on wider buffers, native species plantings, and water quality improvements. A summary of proposed riparian functions in comparison to existing riparian functions is provided in Table 3. Riparian areas are generally recognized as having four major elements necessary to protect the aquatic environment: • Maintenance of stream baseflows; • Maintenance of water quality; • Contribution to in-stream structural diversity; and • Contribution of biotic input including insects and organic matter. Best Available Science (BAS) is unanimous in its recognition that wider riparian areas provide increasing value to aquatic habitat (Pollock and Kennard 1998). Since the relationship between riparian width and riparian function is exponential, the incremental functional benefits of increasing riparian width decreases as buffers become wider. Under proposed conditions for Lake Washington, the riparian planting area will range from a minimum of about 20 feet to a maximum of about 200 feet (horizontal distance). Because the planted area will be wider than under current conditions, and because species quality, quantity, and diversity along the shoreline will be improved over existing conditions, the proposal is consistent with the RMC requirement to utilize BAS to improve water quality, fish, and wildlife habitat. As described below using BAS, the proposal will create a functional riparian corridor fully capable of protecting the major habitat elements. Baseflow The proposed shoreline area will have no effect on baseflow because of the size of Lake Washington and its position at the downstream end of the watershed. Water levels in Lake Washington are not controlled within the immediate riparian zone of the lake. September 20, 2006 Sealwwks/09-20-06 Lakes Stre<Jm Repor/ doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 28 I I. I I ( l I I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Table 3 Stream and lake Study/Mitigation Plan Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions --.. -. ----------------. ------------. . - Fu1H.'tion llalntat Pott..'ntial rx1,ting Shorelini:-Proposed Shorl'1111t• llahit,H \ ,,111,• Function for Cl.iss Con<lition:i, Conditions Comp;i I ison I 1.al,es Water Quality Low to Existing condition lacks Future development is not Eguivalent Moderate width, plant density, and plant dependant on riparian function under diversity. Lack of native function for water quality both conditions vegetation also a minus. because it employs the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, so width for water quality treatment is not required. Native vegetation is a plus. Food Low Sparse non-native vegetation Vegetation optimized with Prol!osed action provides little beneficial leaf a diverse mix of native will have higher litter and small organic species. High habitat value value debris. near lake. Microclimate Low to Existing shoreline area has Proposed shoreline area Eguivalent Moderate little effect on microclimate. will have little effect on function under microclimate. both conditions Temperature Low to Not a significant issue for Not a significant issue for Eguivalent & Shade none large Class 1 waterbodies. large Class I waterbodies. function under both conditions Human Low Lake Washington is a public Lake Washington is a Eguivalent Access access area so access control public access area so access function under not a habitat function issue control not a habitat both conditions function issue Large Woody Low Site periodically cleared so Planting that will contribute ProlJosed action Debris unlikely to have any some minor woody debris will have higher significant future LWD in the future. value contribution. Channel Low Controlled lake level and no Controlled Jake level and Eguivalent Migration surface channels on-site. No no surface channels on-site. function under potential for channel No potential for channel both conditions migration migration Bank Stability Low to Exotic species dominated Root strength increased Pro(!osed action Moderate shoreline. Banks partially with native shrubs. and will have higher protected by large logs. trees. Banks partially value protected by large logs. Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species Native plantings in a dense Pro(!oSed action Habitat dominated riparian vegetation multi-story contiguous will have highest of relatively low value as canopy will provide high value bird, amphibian, reptile, and wildlife habitat value. rodent habitat. Adapted from: A.C. Kmd1g & Co-and Cedarock Consultants, lnc. 2003. September 20, 2006 SeahrrwJ.s/09-20-06 Lok£s Stream Repor1.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C. KINDIG & CO Page 29 1 1 I r [ ( ( [ I [ I I I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Water Ouali ty Stream and Lake Study/Mingation Plan Water quality as it relates to aquatic habitat consists of various components including chemistry (pH, D.O., metals, etc.) and temperature (the beneficial dissolved and particulate organic nutrients that are also a component of water quality are discussed in the Biotic Input section). Water Chemistry Riparian widths ranging from 30 to I 00 feet are described in the literature as satisfactory for removing the majority of sediment and pollutants from surface water (summarized in Knutson and Naef 1997). However, under the current conditions, on-site natural pathways to the stream are largely absent due to the flat nature of the site and the isolated steely banked below-grade channel. Under the proposal, the site will continue to avoid discharge to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage because the hydrologic flow path through the site will be a piped drainage systems that will bypass the riparian area and convey offsite discharge directly to Lake Washington. For Lake Washington, sheet flow drainage that occurred in the past will be intercepted and treated as required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual before discharge at outfalls constructed to Lake Washington. Much of the natural riparian functions for hydrologic and water quality functions (peak flow attenuation, base flow releases, and water quality treatment) will be removed from riparian area control by the storm drain system. Storm water detention and water quality treatment requirements are regulated for new development and redevelopment within the City without reliance on riparian buffer function. The proposed riparian zones will provide equivalent water chemistry protection as existing riparian areas, and remediation including site capping and fill of the remaining portion of the Gypsy Sub basin Drainage will result in overall water quality improvements. Temperature and Shade Stream riparian zones provide shade and absorb solar radiation that would otherwise reach streams and increase water temperatures. For these reasons, shade provided by riparian zones can be important to maintaining water temperatures that are favorable for salmonids. However, research on the effects of shade on stream water temperatures shows a considerable amount of variability based on topographic elevation, adjacent land uses, vegetation type, and numerous other factors (Pollack and Kennard 1998). Sullivan et al. (1990) concluded that once streams traveled 25 miles from their watershed divides, they were generally too wide for trees to shade their surfaces or exercise control over water temperature. This is particularly true in large, deep lakes like Lake Washington. The proposed shoreline area will provide equivalent water temperature protection as the existing riparian zone. lnstream Structural Diversity In-stream structural diversity is provided by large pieces of wood falling into the waterbody. Large woody debris (L WD) consists of downed tree stems and branches and is a functionally important structural component of stream channels and lakes in the Pacific Northwest (Bisson et al. 1987, Beschta et al. 1987, Sullivan et al. 1987, Bilby and Ward 1991, Fetherston et al. 1995, Naiman and Beechie 1992). September 20. 2006 Seilho.wkr/09-20-0~ Lakes Stream RepDrl.dac CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 30 If I If " -~\ _:, f I: f I r I' [ ' l) I I ( I l I f '\, .,,; I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan The existing riparian zone contains no trees that would potentially contribute L WD to the lake, in part because the site is periodically cleared. Under the proposed shoreline area, conifers capable of reaching the size necessary to function as L WD will eventually grow to maturity and senesce. Some of these trees will fall into Lake Washington and increase structural diversity. To help protect the shoreline from erosion, the applicant has proposed adding a few pieces of L WD to the shoreline. This will contribute to L WD accumulation in the area and provide some immediate benefit. The proposed shoreline area will improve habitat quality provided by LWD over existing conditions. Biotic Input Vegetation and insects falling into the creek form an important component of the aquatic ecosystem food chain, especially in smaller stream channels. The majority of material comes from directly over, or within a very short distance of the stream. FEMAT (1993) suggests most leaf material is contributed by trees located within approximately 50 feet of the channel edge. Under existing conditions there is very little biotic input to the creek. Vegetation is generally sparse and non-native. With the proposed future riparian shoreline area being wider, more diverse, and consisting almost entirely of native species, the contribution of vegetative litter and insect population abundance should increase significantly. The proposed shoreline area will increase biotic input over existing conditions. Noise and Visual Disturbance Riparian zones protect sensitive areas from direct human impact by limiting easy access to the stream and by blocking the transmittal of human and mechanical noise. Riparian zones provide visual separation between streams and the developed environment, blocking glare and human movement from fish species (Young l 989). Riparian zones function most effectively when the adjacent land use consists of low intensity development; when riparian areas were greater than 50 feet wide, and planted with high quality mixed species of native vegetation that discourage intrusion (Cooke 1992). Other authors recommend controlled human activity within riparian zones, such as restricting human disturbance to footpaths, or roadway crossings within 25 feet of the stream, and allowing active recreation and bike paths within 25 to 50 feet of the stream (Schueler 1995). However, the City ofRenton has designated the portion of Lake Washington in which the project is located as an Urban Environment under its Shoreline Master Program where human recreational activities are to be encouraged. Therefore, the shoreline area is not being designed to function as a division between the lake environment and controlled human use. The proposed shoreline area will provide equivalent disturbance protection as existing riparian areas. September 20, 2006 Sealu~wh/09-20-06 Lukes Stream Repon.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 31 r ' " I f [ ( I. ( I l~ 'I ,; r l. l l I I f.) I I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington 15.2 Report Authors Experience Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan The applicant has contracted with EDA W to provide riparian planting design and with A.C. Kindig & Co., which included Cedarock Consultants in the biological analysis for the project These firms have extensive experience with riparian planting design, construction supervision, and long term project success monitoring. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix 4. 15.3 Analysis of the Likelihood of Success of the Compensation Project The proposed mitigation/riparian planting project is relatively straightforward and will benefit from having the applicant situate their headquarters on the site. The development is a high profile project expected to receive extensive and ongoing media coverage. With the Seahawk's headquarters on-site and the playing fields and players lounge immediately adjacent to the mitigation/riparian planting area, it is in the applicant's best interest to provide long term maintenance of the riparian plantings beyond what might normally be provided for a similar project where the site is sold and the developer leaves. There are no fish habitat or high quality wetlands involved in the riparian planting project. Riparian planting consists primarily of planting native species in good quality riparian soils. The area is watered naturally throughout most of the year and supplemental watering will be provided as necessary. Upland plants will be selected that have adapted to the normal Pacific Northwest wet winter and dry summer seasons. The mitigation/riparian planting site will be monitored for five years to ensure plant species selected and utilized for the project are thriving. Those that are not in satisfactory condition during this period will be replaced. After five years, all healthy plants are expected to continue growing without additional maintenance. However, maintenance will continue as needed to remove debris and replace dead specimens, and manage understory branches of selected hardwood trees. Overall, the likelihood of success for the riparian planting project is considered to be high. 16.0 VEGETATION PROTECTION 16.1 Design Considerations The Consent Decrees and Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plans require capping of the North and South Baxter properties to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline. This will necessitate removal of all existing vegetation under the capped area. The site was last cleared in 1990, so existing vegetation consists predominately of grass, shrubs, and young trees. The largest existing trees consist of 8 to 10-inch diameter cottonwood which are found within 25-feet of the shoreline. These trees will for the most part be preserved except where slopes necessary for grading will bury the rootballs. September 20, 2006 Secihuwks/09.J0-06 lakes Stream Repor/.dfJC CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 32 r ,. r I ( L) I I I l I l ' ' ..;: l I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and lake Study/Mitigation Plan 16.2 Significant Tree Protection during Construction As noted previously, all existing trees will be removed from the site as necessary for capping except those found within approximately 15 to 25-feet of the shoreline. Within this area, Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom form dense thickets which have to be removed to accommodate conversion to a native landscape under the shoreline riparian planting plan. The following measures will be implemented during construction to protect significant trees found along the shoreline while all other vegetation is removed: • All significant trees on the project site within JOO feet of the shoreline will be identified and located (see Appendix I, Site Map (Sheet!), for 10 inch and larger trees). • Prior to clearing, all trees to be retained shall be flagged. • Prior to grading and throughout construction, a temporary plastic net fence shall be used to identify the protected area of any significant tree designed for retention. The height of such fencing shall be adjusted according to the topographic and vegetative conditions of the site to provide clear visual delineation of the protected area. The size of the protected area around the tree shall be equal to one foot diameter for each inch of tree trunk diameter measured four feet above the ground. • At no time during construction shall the following be permitted within the significant tree protection area: (a) impervious surfaces, fill, excavation, or storage of construction materials; (b) grade level changes, except in limited circumstances where proposed improvements are determined by an arborist to be non-detrimental to the tree root systems. September 20, 2006 Seaha.,.,Jr.s/09-20-06 Lukes Srream Repar/.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO Page 33 f ,, ,. I. [ I I ,, [ ( l l l I , I I ··~. ii Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan 17.0 REFERENCES A.C. Kindig 1999. Sand Filter Turf Cover Testing, in Chapter 5, MountainStar Master Planned Resort EIS Water Quality and Fisheries (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), June 30, 1999. A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. Best available science literature review and stream buffer recommendations. Consultant report prepared for the City of Renton. February 27, 2003. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2000. An Addendum to the Quendall and Baxter Properties Mitigation Analysis Memorandum dated February 17, 2000. J.H. Baxter Propety Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. October 2, 2000. Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B., and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In Salo, E.O and T.W. Cundy [eds.] Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 47lp. Bilby, R.E. and J. W. Ward. 1991. Characteristics and function oflarge woody debris in streams draining old growth, clear-cut, and second growth forests of southwestern Washington. Can. J. of Fish. Aquat. Sci., 48: 1-10. Bisson, P.A. Bilby, R.E. Bryant, M.D. Dolloff, C.A., Grette, G.B., House, R.A. Murphy, M.L., Koski, K.V. and J.R Sedell. 1987, p. 87-94. In Salo, E.O and T.W. Cundy [eds.] Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 471p. Cooke, S.S I 992. Wetland buffers-a field evaluation of buffer effectiveness in Puget Sound. Pentec Environmental, Inc. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Olympia Washington. Entranco. 1995. Gypsy Subbasin Analysis. Technical Memorandum No. 2. City of Renton. April 1995. Entranco. 1997. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Improvements Design Memorandum. City of Renton, September 1997. Federal Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993. Aquatic ecosystem assessment, Volume 5. Fetherston, KL., R.J. Naiman, and R.E. Bilby. 1995. Large woody debris, physical process, and riparian forest development in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology 13:133-144. King County. 1993. Sammamish River corridor conditions and enhancement opportunities. King County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA. 54 p. plus appendices. Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 18lp. September 20, 2006 Sealmwks/09-20-06 Lakes Si-ream Rtpori.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C KINDIG & CO Page 34 r ,, ).• -~, •. ' ._/ I r I I ( I I l I I I rj l I Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Faciliry Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan Magnusson Klemancic Associates, 2006. Storrnwater Technical Information. Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington. August 24, 2006. Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, et al. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. Pages 127-188 In R,J. Naiman, editor. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp. 127-188, Pfeifer, B. and J. Weinheimer. 1992. Fisheries investigations of Lakes Washington and Sammamish, 1980-1990. VI Warmwater fish in Lakes Washington and Sammamish (draft report), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA Pollock, M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State: Version I. I. 10,000 Years Institute: Bainbridge Island, Washington. Schueler, Y. 1995. Site planning for urban stream protection, Washington D.C., Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Center for Watershed Protection. Sullivan, K. J, Tooley, K, Doughty, J.E. Caldwell, P. Knudsen. 1990, Evaluation of prediction models and characterization of stream temperature regimes in Washington. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Report TFW-WQ3-90'006, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. Sullivan, K., Lisle, T.E., Dolloff, C.A, Grant, G.E. and L.M. Reid. 1987. Stream channels: The link between forests and fishes, p. 143-190, In Salo, E.O and T.W. Cundy [eds.] Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 47lp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006. Priority habitats and species database search (T24N, ROSE, S29). August 18, 2006. Olympia, Washington. Wydoski, RS. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA 220 p. Young, M.J. 1989. Buffer delineation method for urban palustrine wetlands in the Puget Sound Region. M.S. Thesis, University ofWashington, Seattle. September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. !NC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 35 SeahawKs Corporate Headquarters & Training F'aCilily Preliminary Shoreline & Gypsy Creek Vegetation Zone (100') Calcutalions EDAW, Inc. August 29, 2006 SHORELINE ZONE COVER Approximately 142,000 sf in 100' zone (Including existing wetland and wetland buffer'. Existing Conditions SQ. FT Currently Proposed Conditions Wetland 21,638 Wetland Wetland Buffer {existing restoration planting) 6,555 Wetland Buffer (existing restoration planting) Riparian Tree+ Shrub Cover 35,664 High Density Riparian Planting (native tree & shrub} Riparian Shrub Cover Only (pnmarily invasive) 21,177 Low Density Riparian Planting (native shrubs & grasses) Grass (native and non-native) 35,364 Field Turf & Grasspave Landsca;::ie Planter (native plants) 0 Landscape Planter {native plants) Building 2,129 Building Pavement 26,148 Pavement Sand Filter 0 Sand Filter TOTAL 148.675 TOTAL Notes: 1. Overlap of tree canopy and pavement or water cause total to equal more than the approx. 142,000sf buffer area. 2. 10.074 sf of high density riparian plan11ng is proposed at SW comer of site adjacent to wetland buffer (within 200' of shoreline). GYPSY CREEK COVER Approximately 24,000 sf in 100' zone {on either side of 120' Jong stream segment Existing Conditions SQ. FT Currently Proposed Conditions Riparian Tree+ Shrub Cover 14,403 High Density Riparian Planting (native tree & shrub) Riparian Shrub Cover Only {primarily invasive) 2,156 Low Density Riparian Planting (native shrubs & grasses) Grass (native and non-native} 6.831 Field Turf & Grasspave Landscape Planter {native plants) 0 Landscc1pe Planter (native plants) Building 0 Building Pavement/gravel 6\0 Pavement TOTAL 24,000 TOTAL FIGURE 9.2 SQ. FT. Diff. 21,638 0 6,555 0 42,919 7,255 10,534 -10,643 30,984 -4,380 4,211 4,211 6,159 4,030 18,188 -7,960 7,612 7,612 148,800 SQ. FT. Dlff. 0 -14,403 0 -2,156 0 -6,831 6,796 6,796 963 963 16,241 15,631 24,000 (/) ::, 0 Ill u < m 0:: Ill :c >- Q 0 0 ~ RIPARIAN ZONE· WET . Hardhack Spirea -Spirea douglasil, ; Ht 3-4' PLANT PALETTE Sawbreak Sedge -Carex stipata, Ht 1-2' ·"t. • _·, ·-· . .1--• Bog Laurel -Kalmia microphy//a, Ht 3' Small-fruited Bulrush -Scripus microcarpus, Ht 3' Bog Rosemary -Andromeda polifolia, Ht 2' Ul ::, 0 Iii u ,( ID II: Iii :c • 0 0 3: Ul Iii Iii II: I- RIPARIAN ZONE· DRY Madrona -Arbutus menziesii, Ht 25-80' X W 15-45' PLANT PALETTE Low Oregon Grape -Mahonia nervosa, Ht 2' Snowberry -Symphoricarpos a/bus, Ht3-5' Pacific Dogwood -Camus nuttallii, Ht 7-45' X W 6-36' Mock Orange -Philadelphus lewis/I, Ht 5-10' X W 3-5' :.;:;;g~~~~~~;§-i~~, ..,,,.., ,...,,,.._ " ' ~ •.. ,,,, "~ ""' ~ ~.l'f "C'I>-, ¥:C~' ~.';i ~. ,~ ,,.,. -... ~ '! __ I I I I ' I __J • .. ~ .. ;_,_ I~ I ; f . ' I. l : ,i : ,'I . ,.i.,1ti·11 !~ti I ii, I '. -_ .-_-__ ·,,,::,··=-_·::=~~_•"=l:-_-_• :,I Seahawks Practice Facililyl -·--------·----------~--FOOTW.LNOR'Jff#ESTLLC ··-··-·-·-··--·----------·-- I .. :--··_· --~ __ ---__ ---~~-":~ RENTON, WA!HNGTON i f~ "l'l ""' i 11 Jl((_>', 'I q \~!(/ I ' . T [ ' t ( ' • t ( I t l f L l A.C. Kindig & Co. LNVlRO!\r-..·iLNT AL CONSULTING SEAHAWKS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS and TRAINING FACILITY TURF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN (1PM) Prepared for: Football Northwest LLC 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Prepared by. A.C. Kindig & Co. 12501 Bellevue-Redmond Road, Suite 110 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425-638-0358 Fax: 425-455-8365 September 20, 2006 Project No. 283 EXHIBIT 8 :~--- !/ I t I I l l I l I l I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (!PM) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 2 2.1 Components and Strategy ................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Turf Seeding Species and Varieties ................................................................................. .3 2.3 Turf Fertilization ............................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Turfgrass Pest Control Under IPM ................................................................................... 6 3.0 PRACTICEFIELDSTAFF .................................................................................................... 15 4.0 MAINTENANCE/OPERATIONS CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT ..................................... 15 4.1 State Requirements for On-Site Chemical Storage and Chemical Handling .................. 15 4.2 State Requirements for Maintenance Area Drainage Control ........................................ 19 5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 20 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Typical maintenance fertilization program ....................................................................... 4 Table 2 Summary of pest control measures ................................................................................... 7 Table 3 Pest Tolerance Thresholds ................................................................................................ 8 Table 4 Pesticide application rates and intervals ......................................................................... 10 Table 5 Pesticide chemical characteristics summary ................................................................... 12 Pesticide Assessments Chipco 26GT Heritage PrimoMaxx Prograss September 20. 2006 APPENDIX A A.C KINDIG & CO. Page i ,-.·. i" f' '~ rJ I t l I I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM} SEATTLE SEAHAWKS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY TURF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN (1PM) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This IPM addresses management techniques and anticipated chemical uses on the Seahawks Headquarters turf practice fields. While the management of the practice fields is described according to current plans, modification of the management techniques described in this IPM should be anticipated to address site-specific turf needs that develop, new and perhaps superior turf management chemicals that may be developed and approved for turf use in Washington State, or new IPM approaches as they develop. Seahawks turf management will allow for the use of new or alternative products that are shown to be more effective, exhibit greater target specificity, are less mobile, and/or can otherwise reduce environmental risk in the future. Management techniques covered by this IPM include the following practices: • Turf Practice Field Management Techniques • IPM Strategy and Chemicals • Maintenance Chemical Use, Storage, and Disposal • Accidental Spill and Response An IPM program is key to modern turf sports field durability and maintenance and for achieving environmental objectives. IPM focuses on the use of best management practices (BMPs) to create healthy and disease-resistant sports field turf by use of durable and disease resistant turf species and varieties, physical control of drainage and light, adaptive fertilization and watering regimes, and cultural control of soils. Healthy turf minimizes disease which reduces the use of fungicides and herbicides when proper application methods, judicious chemical selection, and proper irrigation methods are employed (Petrovic 1995). In addition, pest damage threshold levels are established under IPM, and chemical treatment occurs on an as-needed basis, if at all, for weed or insect pests as a backup control treatment only cultural controls fail to prevent their outbreaks. Fungus diseases are more ubiquitous and form the exception, requiring routine seasonal prevention treatment to prevent outbreaks that would increase need for higher curative fungicide doses and could render the sports fields unsuitable for the stress of Seahawks practice requirements. Pest damage levels and comparison to response thresholds will be determined through on-site monitoring of the turf by the practice field manager and staff. September 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO. Page 1 I r l I l I I I I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) 2.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 2.1 Components and Strategy Chapter 17.15.010 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) defines IPM as "a coordinated action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategy in an environmentally and economically sound manner to meet ... programmatic pest management objectives." IPM is achieved through the use of combined and balanced strategies of cultural, biological, physical or mechanical, chemical, and other control technologies (King County 1993; King County 1999). IPM turf management strategies stress turf disease resistance, turf health, pest tolerance limits, and alternatives to pesticides to minimize their use. For example, the Seahawks IPM seeks to control all insect pests by cultural methods; no insecticides are expected to be necessary. Likewise, IPM is designed to be flexible by including adaptive modifications to optimize turf health and disease resistance while reducing impacts to the surrounding environment. Healthy turf is less susceptible to disease and pests, and in the long-term, requires less fertilizer and pesticide treatment. By its nature, IPM avoids and/or minimizes off-site transport of pesticides and fertilizers. The following approach and steps define the 1PM process that will be employed at the Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Fields (Washington State University [WSU] 1980; Berndt 1992; King County 1999; Chapter 17.15.10 RCW): (I) Information Gathering: Regional pests expected to require management on the practice fields have been, to the extent possible, identified and anticipated in this IPM. Pests include insects, plants, and plant pathogens, including fungi, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes. (2) Monitoring: The practice field manager will assess the type, timing, and extent of any observed pest problems on a near-daily basis. These observations will indicate when and what pest control measures are required given pre-defined pest tolerance levels. (3) Deteouine Economic Injury and Action Thresholds: The relationship between pest populations, the amount of damage, and the cost effectiveness of various pest control options have been assessed by the practice field manager to establish pest tolerance thresholds below which treatment is not initiated. Cultural, physical or mechanical practices will be employed in preference to chemical control measures to the extent practicable. Chemical controls will be used when they are determined by the practice field manager to be the most environmentally responsible control method, the safest method to address the pest problem, and where other control tactics cannot be relied upon to meet pest tolerance levels. September 20, 2006 A.C. KJNDJG & CO. Page 2 ' ' ' ~- [ l I l , I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) (4) Record Keeping: Records describing the process and methods employed to address pest problems are kept by the practice field manager. (5) Treatment Evaluation: Evaluations of the strategies employed and their effectiveness in controlling pest problems are part of adaptive management by the practice field manager. 2.2 Turf Seeding Species and Varieties Turf varieties were selected based on their growth habit, vigor, disease resistance, and resistance to weed encroachment. The practice fields will be comprised on three varieties (80%) Kentucky Bluegrass and three varieties (20%) of Perennial Rye. All the varieties selected have been shown to be resistant to fungus diseases (primarily using Leaf Spot as an indicator for resistance), and for superior shear strength to be durable to the turf stresses from Seahawks practice. Use of this turf blend will give resilient turf; reducing weeds and turf diseases needing treatment, and minimizing fertilizer losses from the actively growing root zone. 2.3 Turf Fertilization OveIYiew During fertilizer applications, field maintenance personnel will adhere to all applicable Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. The three main nutrients in turf fertilizer are phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen. The potential for adverse impacts to water quality from the delivery of phosphorus and nitrogen to Lake Washington has been considered by the practice field manager. This concern is mitigated by IPM as a source control measure, and by increasing sand depth under the practice fields to 18 inches to equal sand filter treatment for water quality for I 00% of the turf drainage. This level of water quality treatment will be superior to that usually employed for phosphorus-sensitive lakes (Lake Washington is not determined to be phosphorus sensitive) and for sensitive fish habitat under the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology as ensuring compliance with state surface water quality standards under WAC l 73-201A. The fertilization program includes nutrients and trace minerals (Table I) to maximize turf health and vigor to minimize pesticide need. Off-site nutrient transport will be avoided through reliance on granular slow release fertilizer for most applications, application rates and application frequencies, and through course irrigation and drainage control. Trace minerals and organics will be used to ensure the turf have all requirements necessary to make use of the fertilizer nutrients during the growing season, which minimizes nutrient loss from the turf rooted zone. From time to time, soil chemistry analysis may be conducted by the practice field manager to determine turf growth requirements if warranted. September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 3 --.... ... 1111'1!(11111 ~ pi:M_ ~ ~ wm~ ~~~ i'?"~.-,--.~~ ~---"""'~ ~'-'':"~~ ~;:~ ~-~;::;;.~ ~ Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Tu,flr,tegrated Pest Management Plan (!PM) Table 1 Typical Maintenance Fertilization Program Product Soluble% or Application Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) % Liauid % Granular Slow Release % Month lbs11.000 ft 21vear lbs11.000 ft 21vear lbs11 000 ft21vear March 1.0 0.25 1.0 Aoril 1.0 0.25 1.0 Mav 1.0 0.25 1.0 Fertilizer Slow-100% June 1.0 0.25 1.0 100% Julv 1.0 0.25 1.0 Auaust 1.0 0.25 1.0 Seotember 1.0 0.25 1.0 October 1.0 0.25 1.0 Roots 1-2-3 Soluble -100% Every 28 days Trace minerals and organics' at 5.87 oz/1,000 ft2 100% Speedy Green March through Soluble nitrogen (15%), iron (6%), and magnesium (0.5%) in Soluble -100% December 100% natural oroanic acid chelate solution at 5.87 oz/1,000 ft 1 liquid humics, seaweed extracts, iron, manganese, zinc, magnesium phosphate-citrate, organic surfactant September 20. 2006 A. C. KINDIG & CO. Page4 --------------------' - .,.-,.;:.~_: ~ r I I I I I I l ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) Nitrogen (N) Turf grass requires nitrogen in the largest amount in terms of physiological functioning relative to other essential nutrients with the exception of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (Beard 1973). Nitrogen is required for plant tissue growth, enzyme production, and carbohydrate utilization, and is also an essential component of chlorophyll, amino acids, proteins, and protoplasm (Brady 1984). Nitrogen occurs naturally in soils in four major forms: organic nitrogen, ammonium nitrate CIB-f4N0 3), soluble inorganic ammonium, and nitrate compounds (N0-3 ). Surface soils are mostly comprised of nitrogen sources associated with the decomposition of organic matter. Some clays have the ability to fix nitrogen between their layers. There are many types of synthetic inorganic and organic nitrogen fertilizers that have slow release forms. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become completely liberated and available for turf utilization. Several types of slow release nitrogen include: urea formaldehyde, isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), sulfur-coated urea, and mixtures using natural organic sources. Nitrate-nitrogen added to soils, either naturally by plants and animals or by fertilizers, may follow four pathways (Brady 1984): (1) incorporation into microorganisms; (2) assimilation into higher plants; (3) loss to subsurface drainage (ground water); or (4) escape to the atmosphere in gaseous form. The rate and frequency of fertilizer application and the type of applied fertilizer are significant factors that affect the potential for applied nitrogen losses from turf and are therefore adjusted to minimize water quality impact (Cohen et al. 1990). Fertilization guidelines will be followed as described in this 1PM, thereby allowing for the proper allocation in the amount, distribution, and timing of nitrogen fertilizers to maximize nitrogen utilization by the course turf and, therefore, minimizing the potential for runoff into the drainage system. Phosphorus (P) Phosphorus is an essential macronutrient found in all living cells (Beard 1973). Phosphorus is involved in many physiological functions within turfgrass including: (1) energy transformations in the form ofadenosine triphosphate (ATP); (2) incorporation into the genetic material of the cell nucleus; and (3) carbohydrate transformations, such as the conversion of starch to sugar. The probability of phosphorus escaping from the practice field soils and environs is low because of the chemical characteristics of phosphorus and the irrigation system controls to prevent overwatering. Phosphorus is readily mineralized and immobilized (attracted and adsorbed by ionic reactions with cations) by iron, aluminum, and calcium which naturally exist in sand that September 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO. Page 5 I >. I I I l I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) will be placed to 18-inch depth under the practice fields. Plant available phosphorus will only be applied in amounts necessary to provide adequate nutrient levels for optimal turf growth. Overfertilization and overwatering are contributing factors to phosphorus leaching and will be avoided through IPM. Potassium CK) Potassium is essential for normal turfgrass growth and development processes (Beard 1973). Physiological functions of potassium within turf grass include: (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) carbohydrate synthesis and translocation; amino acid and protein synthesis; regulating transpiration; controlling the uptake of certain nutrients; and regulating transpiration. A common form of potassium in fertilizers is potash (K2C03), which is soluble and readily available to turf. Different forms of potassium fertilizer include: potassium chloride (KC!); potassium sulfate (K2S04); potassium magnesium sulfate; manure salts (mainly KC!); kainit (mainly KC!); and potassium nitrate (KNOi). The application of potassium fertilizers has little probability of locally altering water quality. In its available form, potassium is not prone to leach from soils. Most potassium fertilizers do not alter soil pH and are held in the soil by cation exchange processes. Once in the soil, potassium (K) replaces other soil elements such as calcium (Ca) and hydrogen (H). There are abundant anion binding sites in soils for the single charge cations such as Ca+, K+, and H+. While K+ additions would compete with Ca+ and H' for binding sites, there is no reasonable expectation that this displacement would alter soil chemistry away from the immediate point of application. 2.4 Turfgrass Pest Control Under 1PM Overview Turfgrass pests and diseases requiring control on the Seahawks practice fields are identified in Table 2, as are the management methods (i.e. cultural, physical/mechanical, biological, etc.) that will be employed to minimize chemical control methods. Turfgrass pests and diseases not listed in Table 2 are either not expected to occur, or not expected to require chemical control measures on the practice fields. September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 6 l r I I I I l ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Tur/Integrated Pest Management Plan (!NJ) Table2 Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields Physical/ Disease or Pest Cultural Control Mechanical Chemical Control Control Turfgrass Control Primo Maxx Turf growth suppressant Overseeding with (Trinexapac-ethyl) and Annual Bluegrass desirable during growing (Poa annua) control turf grass; season Promote vigorous Prograss turf root growth to ( ethofumesate) for with soil nutrient curative post- Weeds and irrigation emergence control . Annual Bluegrass control, to out-of annual compete Poa bluegrass in fall annua. and in spring if warranted. Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia so/ani; R. blight) Corticum Red Thread (Laetisaria fuciformis) Dollar Spot (Lanzia spp. And Moellerodiscus spp.) Fusarium Blight Chipco 26GT (Fusarium spp.) (lprodione) Fusarium Patch Good air as preventative (Microduchium niva/e) Gray Snow Mold circulation; method of control Promote vigorous Good drainage; fall and spring (Typhula spp.) turf root growth to Helminthosporium with soil nutrient Avoid shading; (Dresch/era spp.) and irrigation Avoid irrigating in Necrotic Ring Spot late afternoon; (Leptosphaeria korrae) control, to out-Limit thatch; Pink Snow Mold compete weeds. Maintain soil pH (Fusairum nivale) <7 Rust IPuccinia corona/a 1 Fungus Diseases Brown Patch Heritage (Rhizoctonia so/ani; R. blight) Fusarium Patch (azoxystrobin) (Microduchium nivale) as preventative Rust method of control (Puccinia coronata). in fall and winter Take-all Patch tGaeumannomVf"es araminisJ September 20, 2006 A. C KJNDJG & CO. Page 7 ( l l I l I I I Seal/le Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPAf) Table 3 Pest Tolerance Thresholds Pest Tolerance Threshold Funaus Diseases Zero tolerance Broadie at Weeds Five weeds per 1,000 ft 2 No pesticide manaaement nronosed Annual Bluearass One cnuare foot natches Insects No oesticide manaaement orooosed Pest and Disease Tolerance Thresholds Turf pest or disease tolerance thresholds are established by this IPM plan to determine when curative action is warranted, which may require chemical management (Table 3). With the exception of fungus diseases, pests are not managed for total eradication at all times. C11JtmaJ Control ofTurfgrass Pests Under IPM, cultural control methods (Table 2), in combination with disease and pest tolerance thresholds (Table 3), take priority over chemical control methods to minimize the use of chemicals to manage turfgrass weeds. No chemical control is proposed for insects or broadleaf weeds. Cultural methods include all management activities that prevent pests from developing due to the enhancement of desirable vegetation which out-competes or otherwise resists pests and disease, including but not limited to irrigation, seeding, and fertilizing. Periodic soil testing as warranted, addition of soil amendments (i.e., trace minerals) as indicated, and fertilization at rates that match turf growth requirements are cultural methods whereby the practice field manager will provide for vigorous turf root growth and disease resistance. Vigorous root growth allows turf to crowd out broadleaf weeds and self-repair damage from common turf pests such as European cranefly (Tipula paludosa). Avoidance of phosphorus and potassium deficiencies can prevent or minimize the occurrence of take-all patch (Gaeumannomyces graminis) fungus disease. Irrigation control and avoidance of overwatering, as well as control of the irrigation timing, are other means used by the practice field manager to prevent excessive soil and grass moisture conditions that can otherwise lead to fungus diseases, leaching of nutrients from the rooted zone, and invasion of annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Pbysical/MechanjcaJ Control ofTnrfgrass Diseases, Weeds and Insects Physical, mechanical, or management methods are also used to control pests. For example, avoiding aerifier holes during the annual period of egg laying by armyworm (Pseudaletia unipuncta) or black cutworm (Agrotis ipsi/on) moths prevents the females from depositing their eggs in the turf rooted zone. Taking this precaution eliminates any need for further control of September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 8 I r L .4 I [ l I I l I 1 I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (!PM) these pests to prevent turf damage that would interfere with practice field resilience and use. Even allowance for good air circulation through surrounding plantings can help minimize conditions leading to fungus disease, which is one reason some understory trimming (but not of the canopy) of native trees along the Lake Washington shoreline is proposed. Chemical Control ofTurfgrass Diseases and Weeds Despite the emphasis on cultural and physical/mechanical control practices and pest tolerance thresholds, annual bluegrass that cannot be hand eradicated and diseases are expected to occur on the practice fields, which will require the use of pesticides. A list of pesticides that will be used on the practice fields is provided in Table '4, indicating application rates and preventative or curative strategies employed for each. Preventative applications are those made over the entire practice fields to prevent a disease from occurring. Curative applications are spot-applied only with hand pressure sprayers to diseased areas (fungus) or to broadleafweeds that cannot be hand pulled because they re-sprout from roots left behind or are too high in number to otherwise control due to invasion by offsite seed stock. This pesticide list may change over time as new chemical products with lower toxicity, greater specificity, less persistence, or less mobility become available. Pesticide Selection Process The pesticides that will be used were selected using the following hierarchy: 1. Can cultural controls or alternative control methods be expected to adequately control any diseases or pests without pesticides? a. YES for insects; No insecticides proposed. b. YES for rodents and burrowing animals; No rodenticides proposed. c. YES for most weeds; No broadleaf pesticides proposed. d. NO for annual bluegrass (Poa annua). e. NO for fungus diseases. 2. What are the fungus diseases and weed pests expected for the practice fields? a. These are identified in Table 2. b. Tolerance thresholds are identified in Table 3. September 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO. Page 9 ... ... ..._ ..,. -~ ~-- Sea/lie Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility forf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) ~ ~ ~ ~v-a,;•:>'11 lli"•'-'·-<:""l ,n:-,·.,~ } Table4 Pesticide Application Rates and Intervals Product Category Application Rate Application Season & Curative' or Freauencv Preventative' 4.0 fl. oz./1,000 ft" Fall through Spring; Chipco 26GT Fungicide Not more than 35 fl. oz.11000 ft 2 I yr Once per 2 to 3 weeks for Preventative or 6 annlications oer vear preventative control Spring and fall; Two Heritage Fungicide 0.4 fl. oz./1,000 tt2 applications 28 days apart (4 Preventative annlications total\ Herbicide Through the growing season Primo Maxx (growth 0.25 fl. oz./1,000 ft 2 (March to October); about Curative inhibitor) once every 4 weeks Fall; 2-3 applications at 21- Prograss Herbicide 1.5 fl. oz./1,000 tt2 28 day intervals; Curative One spring application if needed 2 Curative use means spot applicatons (hand sprayers) after disease or weed problem is detected. 3 Preventative use means application to practice fields to prevent diseases when conditions are prone to their occurrence. September 20. 2006 •,:,,:,·~>N'>, ,:;.:·;<;>,··::;~ J.":,:;,c··~-·;<:J Comments Preventative applications when conditions favor disease development Used in rotation with other fungicides to prevent disease resistance Enhances establishment of desirable grasses by suppression of Paa annua mowth. Post-emergence control of Poa annua (annual bluegrass) A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 10 ···~ -~ I I f l I I l ' l I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) 3. c. The need to treat in advance of a disease known to readily occur, or the ability to only respond with curative treatments to diseased areas after the disease occurs is identified in Table 4. For those pests expected to occur and requiring pesticides to adequately control, what are the appropriate pesticides? a. Only Washington State and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved management chemicals for specific diseases or weeds on turf are legal to use. b. Among the products legal for a specific disease or weed and for turf application, products with the lowest persistence, lowest mobility, and lowest toxicity to non-target, off-site species such as fish, other aquatic species, birds, and bees were preferred for any specific disease or weed problem (Table 5). i. Lowest mobility is generally ranked with the most importance if all other factors are near equal between choices, because if the product stays where applied, longer persistence is not a problem and toxicity is not a problem. Indeed, longer persistence plus low mobility would mean that a small amount of product will have a lasting intended effect on the turf disease. 11. In some cases, depending on season of expected use (low rainfall periods), low persistence can similarly offset higher mobility, particularly if the aquatic toxicity is very low. iii. For preventative chemicals with broadscale application, low mobility, and/or very low aquatic toxicity were always important criteria. 1v. For curative chemicals with spot application only to diseased areas or weeds, moderate to low toxicity was sought in combination with either low to moderate persistence or low to moderate mobility, to the extent possible. See also the discussions and references provided for each proposed product in Appendix A. v. For fungus diseases, rotational use of two or more fungicides is usually required to prevent or respond to disease resistance to any one treatment. Sep/ember 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO Page 11 --._ .... "'"'811 ---~ ~ IIJlllii!II! -~~:,·7~ =lllil """""' ,,~;~~;;~ ;,;;,,.:;:.,. \,_ Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Twf Integrated Pest Manaie_ment __ P_l_a_n~(~IP_M~? ______ _ Table 6 Pesticide Chemical Characteristics Summary Product/Active EPA Registration Pesticide Category Mobility• Persistence• Movement Toxicity Ingredient No. Ratinn6 Chioco 26GT Funoicide 432-888 Low Short-lived Low Slinht Heritage Fungicide 10182-408 Low Short-lived Low 6 High (azoxvstrobinl Primo Maxx Turf Growth 100--937 High Very short to short-n/a Slight (Trinexaoac-ethv/J Sunnressant lived Prograss Herbicide for Poa annua 4563!,-00062 High Moderately short-lived Moderate Slight (ethofumesate) control 'Ranking criteria from King County (1993) 5 Ranking criteria from Vogue et al. (1994); derived from Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) relating pesticide persistence (half-life) and soil sorption coefficients (K,,,). GUS -log 1o(half-life) x (4-log10 Kocl· 6 Koc data not available for GUS computation, however EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet reports " ... field dissipation studies indicate ... moderately immobile and relatively non'-persistent under actual use conditions. " September 20, 2006 ·"'---______ =---'-----·--=·="===·-====·----.--------=-----=-="-'-'~-~=a. A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 12 ··_1.,:-~, ·- r ~- l I I I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Tur/Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) Fungus Diseases The diseases listed in Table 2 are common fungi on Pacific Northwest turf that are expected to require chemical control. There are no effective alternatives to fungicide control for these diseases once they take hold, although careful turf culture will increase turf resistance. If allowed to occur, small patches of fungus disease on the practice fields would be spread by the heavy practice foot traffic and by mowers to all areas of the fields. Because of the intense use of these fields and the need for the turf to stand up to considerable stress from football practice, fungus disease that weakens the turf must; be avoided and there is zero tolerance for their occurrence. On the rare occasions when furigus infestations are not readily identifiable by the practice field manager, samples will be sent to Washington State University's Puyallup turf extension service for analysis. Laboratory results are usually available within 48 to 72 hours to guide control measures on the fields. The fungus disease chemicals proposed for preventative use on the practice fields are listed and evaluated in Appendix A. The list of fungicides may change over time as new products become available that meet the environmental objectives of the Lake Washington setting and the practice fields. Cultural controls or manual removal are expected to be sufficient to control broadleaf weeds. If threshold levels for broadleaf weeds are exceeded and cultural/hand control measures are not effective, use of broadleaf pesticides may need to be considered; however experience with the practice fields in Kirkland indicates this is very unlikely. Over time, annual bluegrass is expected to invade the practice fields from off-site seed stock sources. Because this annual turfgrass species lacks the resistance characteristics necessary for practice field durability but would tend to dominate the turf over time, it will be controlled by curative treatments to kill new seedlings in the fall and if warranted spring, and by use of a turf growth suppressant to impede the ability of annual bluegrass that does establish each year to dominate the desirable turf species and varieties. Insects The European cranefly is the most common Pacific Northwest turf pest (OSU 2006b). The European cranefly larvae feed on grass roots during warmer periods from fall to spring, causing the turf to brown and die. Cultural control measures (Table 2) are expected to control insects below tolerance thresholds (Table 3), and consequently no insecticide use is proposed. Application Guidelines .Manufacturer application guidelines and directions will be adhered to during all pesticide applications, and all pesticides will be applied by Washington State licensed applicators. See Table 4 for summaries of the pesticides that would be used See Appendix A for detailed September 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO. Page 13 I I I I ' I I Sea/Ile Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) environmental assessments based on the best available science for each pesticide. Weather forecasts will be used when undertaking any pesticide applications. Ap_pl ication EqJJipment Sprayers and spreaders would be used according to application rates, intervals, and seasonal applications guidelines noted in Table 4 and Appendix A. Sprayers Two common forms of sprayers exist, tractor-drawn or mounted, and hand sprayers. Tractor- drawn sprayers are only used for large area applications. 1-faintenance personnel will adhere to all applicable WISHA and OSHA regulations during all management chemical applications. Tractor-drawn or mounted sprayers have a series of down-aimed nozzles that spray directly onto the turf. Tractor-drawn or mounted spray equipment use will only occur on non-windy days to prevent wind-throw off of the turf. Hand Pressured Sprayers Two types of hand pressure sprayers may be used: backpack or hand carried. Hand sprayers are used for curative spot treatments. Due to their target site specificity, application of management chemicals via hand sprayers allow for controlled pesticide applications regardless of wind conditions. Spreaders Spreaders are generally used for application of fertilizers and seed. Tractor units and/or smaller walking spreaders or truckster-mounted spreaders may be used. Identification of Chemical Hazards to Staff and Public Pesticide and fertilizer container labeling will be in accordance with Chapter 16-201-170 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Chapter 16-229-180 WAC. Persons applying management chemicals will comply with use regulations described in Chapter 16-228-185 WAC. The practice field manager will keep appropriate chemical information on file for inspection (Chapter 16-228-190 WAC). Cleanup Cleanup of all spraying equipment will adhere to Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) regulations. Tanks of spray equipment and spreaders will be filled with water three times and sprayed over the turf after pesticide application (Chapter 16-201-190 WAC; Chapter 16-229-400 WAC), before being returned to the wash drain pad. Only as much pesticide as will September 20. 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO Page 14 ,, I I ( I I I I l ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) be used in a single application would be placed in the application equipment. Should excess mixed pesticide occur, the surplus will be immediately collected for reuse (Chapter 16-201-230 WAC; Chapter 16-229-250 WAC), or if not reusable, will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW), and King County Code 9.12 (see also the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual BMP discussion in Section 6.3). 3.0 PRACTICE FIELD STAFF A qualified turf manager selected by the Seahawks will be responsible for implementation of this IPM. The manager's background may include education or experience in turf grass management current with industry standards and science, certification(s) in pesticide application, and awareness of pertinent environmental issues and concerns related to turf management. The practice field manager will be responsible for training permanent and/or seasonal assistants in the pest management strategies and specific maintenance standards implemented under the IPM program. All persons who apply pesticides will be licensed per requirements of the Washington Pesticide Control Act (RCW 15.58), Washington Pesticide Application Action (RCW 17.21) and regulations in 16.201 WAC and 16.228 WAC. Such licensing does not apply to grounds maintenance staff using only general use pesticides on an occasional basis not amounting to a regular occupation. Pesticide applicators must undergo 40 hours of continuing education every 5 years to maintain licensing. Applications of products in Appendix A would be the job of licensed applicators. 4.0 MAINTENANCE/OPERATIONS CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT A permanent operations structure for storage of course equipment and management chemicals will be constructed in accordance with all applicable state and local requirements. 4.1 State Requirements for On-Site Chemical Storage and Chemical Handling; Secondary Containment of Management Chemicals Spill Prevention Turfgrass management chemicals will be stored in a maintenance building in accordance with WSDA's Rules Relating to Secondary and Operational Area Containment for Bulk Pesticide (Chapter 16-229 WAC) and Fertilizer Bulk Storage and Operation Area Containment (Chapter 16-20 I WAC). A separate area roofed will be used for the mixing and loading of management chemicals. The area used for such operations, at a minimum, will be a roofed area adjoining the September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 15 r I I. I l ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (!Pk[) chemical storage facility. Spill prevention measures will be employed to prevent environmental and human health risks through inappropriate use of management chemicals or accidental spills. Key elements in spill prevention for the maintenance building include the following: • • • • • Fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers will be stored in a maintenance building designed to prevent the release of chemicals (Chapter 16-201-020 WAC; Chapter 16-229-020 WAC). The floor of the building will be lined to prevent leakage and sloped to a liquid-tight collection point or sump that allows easy removal of spilled or deposited material (Chapter 16-201-030 WAC; Chapter 16- 229-040 WAC). The facility will also be constructed with a watertight ceiling and walls that prevent chemicals leaking from the building (Chapter 16-201-028 WAC; Chapter 16-229-030 WAC). Within the secondary storage facility, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers will be secured in storage containers resistant to corrosion, puncture, or cracking (Chapter 16-201-100 WAC; Chapter 16-229-100 WAC). The storage containers will be labeled (Chapter 16-201-170 WAC; Chapter 16-229-180 WAC) and ventilated (Chapter 16-229-160 WAC) in accordance with state regulations. Within the storage facility, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers will be stored in their original containers with labels intact. Copies of the product labels and MSDS will be inserted in a logbook. The maintenance building will not have discharge outlets or valves (Chapter 16- 201-050 WAC; Chapter 16-229-060 WAC). Fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, and fertilizer mixing will be completed in a site constructed to contain 125 percent the capacity of the largest storage container. The mixing/loading site will use concrete curbs or other means for spill containment (Chapter 16-201-190 WAC; Chapter 16-229-210 WAC). The floor of the mixing/loading site will be constructed of concrete or other material with similar permeability. The floor will be sloped to a liquid-tight collection point or sump that allows spilled or deposited material to be easily recovered (Chapter 16-201-190 WAC; Chapter 16-229-210 WAC). Discharges of fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers occurring within the maintenance building will be immediately recovered (Chapter 16-201-080 WAC; Chapter 16-229-090 WAC) and reused per product label if possible, or otherwise disposed in an approved off-site location consistent with the Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 16 l l ( I l l I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (!PM) • • • • • • No other commodity except pesticides (including fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides), pesticide .rinsate, or recovered pesticide discharges will be stored within the pesticide secondary containment facility (Chapter 16-229-070 WAC). The pesticide secondary containment facility may share an impermeable wall or portion of a wall with the fertilizer secondary containment facility. Fertilizer rinsate will be stored in the fertilizer secondary containment facility. All management chemical storage areas will be secured by a locked door to provide reasonable protection against vandalism or unauthorized access (Chapter 16-201-160 WAC; Chapter 16-229-170 WAC). Precise records of chemical applications will be maintained on Form AGR 4253 as required by the WSDA. Pesticides will be applied according to regulations specified in Chapter 17.21 RCW, Washington Pesticide Application Act and Rules Relating to General Pesticide Use (Chapter 16-228-190 WAC). Fungicide, herbicide, and insecticide mixing and application will be performed according to the manufacturer's instructions and under the direct supervision of a licensed applicator. Cleaning and maintenance of chemical application equipment that comes in direct contact with any pesticide or fertilizer will be performed in a site constructed to contain 125 percent the capacity of the largest storage container. The site will use concrete curbs for rinsate containment (Chapter 16-201-190 WAC; Chapter 16- 229-210 WAC). The equipment wash pad located adjacent to the maintenance building will be roofed and drain to the sanitary sewer, not the stormwater system. Accidental Spjjj Response Plan A spill response plan will be activated for spills or leaks of management chemicals that occur despite prevention measures listed above. This plan would comply with applicable federal, state (Chapter 16-201-260 WAC; Chapter 16-229-280 WAC), and city laws. Major provisions of the proposed accidental spill response plan are the following: Accidental Spill Response Procedure The following items must be in place and an inventory of these items posted in the chemical storage area: (1) September 20, 2006 Telephone numbers for emergency assistance, including the City of Renton law enforcement and fire departments. A.C KINDIG & CO Page 17 r ·~· i I I r I .·· I [ I I I l I l I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) (2) Sturdy gloves, footwear, and apron that are chemical resistant to most pesticides, such as foil-laminate gear and protective eyewear. (3) An appropriate respirator, if any of the spilled materials require such during handling activities or for spill cleanup (reference MSDS on file for each product used). (4) Containment "snakes", or booms, to confine the leak or spill to a small area. (5) Absorbent materials, such a spill pillows, absorbent clay, dry peat moss, or sawdust to soak up liquid spills. (6) Seeping compound to keep dry spills from drifting or wafting during cleanup. (7) A shovel, broom, and dustpan made from nonsparking and nonreactive material. (8) Heavy-duty detergent. (9) A fire extinguisher rated for all fire types. (I 0) Any other spill cleanup items specified on the labels of any products used. (11) A sturdy plastic container with a tightly closing lid that will hold the quantity of spilled material from the largest pesticide container being handled. Spill Responding Employees will be required to have proficiency in spill response procedures. (I) Reporting the Spill September 20, 2006 As soon as possible after a spill has been identified, the practice field manager will be notified and have responsibility for reporting all spills to the list of responsible parties, the city Emergency Agency responsible for rapid response, and Ecology's Hazardous Substance Information Office. The following will be reported: (a) Name and phone number of reporting party A. C KJNDJG & CO. Page 18 f; ,. f i I l I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Pian (1PM) (2) (3) . (4) (b) (c) (d) Time and location of spill Identity and quantity of material released Status of cleanup and containment. Controlling the Spill On-site responders will: (a) protect themselves with appropriate protective clothing and eyewear; (b) stop the source of the spill; (c) protect others by warning them of the spill; and ( d) stay at the site until the spill is cleaned up. Containing the Spill On-site responders shall: (a) confine the spill as quickly as possible; (b) protect water sources and water resources; (c) absorb liquids with absorbent material; and (d) cover dry materials to prevent them from becoming airborne or solubilized. Cleaning up the Spill On-site responders shall: (a) cleanup the spill; (b) decontaminate the spill site; (c) neutralize the spill site; (d) decontaminate equipment; and (e) decontaminate themselves. 4.2 State Requirements for Maintenance Area Drainage Control A large capacity, curbed concrete basin will be used for pesticide and fertilizer mixing and be sloped to drain to a sump system to prevent management chemicals and rinsate from escaping the area if a spill occurs. Spill response measures and supplies will be defined and available (Chapter 16-201-260 WAC; Chapter 16-229-450 WAC). Any sump contents will be recovered by manually activated pumps (Chapter 16-229-400 WAC) and properly reused, or if reuse is not possible, disposed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW). Fueling and equipment maintenance areas will be constructed so that outside drainage will be excluded from entering such areas. Fuel storage tank(s) will meet all design, maintenance, and inspection provisions required by Ecology (Chapter 173-360 WAC). An approximately 250- gallon tank ofbiodiesel with an electric pump for field tractors and vehicles will be located in the maintenance area, along with an approximately 100-gallon gasoline tank and pump for equipment field vehicles. Activities in the equipment garage will include routine equipment maintenance, which may include the changing of oil, brake fluid, batteries, and antifreeze/coolant, and motor or undercarriage cleaning. Closed sump drainage will be provided September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO Page 19 r l I [ [ I. I l ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) and any sump contents will be pumped out manually and disposed in an approved off-site location. Washing the exteriors of sprayers, mowers, and paint machines will occur in a roofed bay with a concrete floor, draining to the sanitary sewer. Sprayers will undergo three rinses over the turf before washing in the roofed bay. This equipment will not be washed outside of the wash bay. Wastewater from the wash-down bay will not discharge into stormwater drainage facilities. 5.0 REFERENCES Personal Communications Heintzelman, D. 1998. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. Personal communication with Jennifer Goldsmith (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), July l, 1998. Ortego, L. 1998. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. Personal communication with Jennifer Goldsmith (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), July 7, 1998. Shultz, M. 1998. Zeneca Ag Company. Personal communication with Jennifer Goldsmith (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), August 18, 1998. References Cited Abrams, R. 1991. Toxic fairways: risking ground water contamination from pesticides on Long Island golf courses. New York Environmental Protection Bureau, New York State Department of Law, July 1991. Balogh, J.C. and W.J. Walker. 1992. Golf course management and construction: environmental issues. Lewis Publishers, 951 pp. Beard, J.B. 1973. Turfgrass: science and culture. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Berndt, W.W. 1992. A best management practices development manual, turfgrass maintenance section. Prepared for Beak Consultants Incorporated, September 16, 1992. Brady, N.C. 1984. The nature and property of soils, 7th edition. MacMillan Press, New York, New York. September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page 20 I I I ,~ l ,, l l I. I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Tur/Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) Cohen, S.Z., S. Nickerson, R. Maxey, A. Dupay, and J.A. Senita. 1990. A groundwater monitoring study for pesticides and nitrates associated with golf courses on Cape Cod. Groundwater Monitoring Review 10: 160-173. Federal Register. July 10, 2000A. 65(132): 42472. Gustafson, D.l. 1989. Groundwater ubiquity score: a simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8:339-357. Horsley, S. and J.A. Moser. l 990. Monitoring ground water for pesticides at a golf course -a case study on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Groundwater Management Research, Winter 1990. King County. 1993. Best management practices for golf course development and operation. Prepared by the King County Environmental Division. Bellevue, Washington. King County. 1999. Tri-County integrated pest and vegetation management: Guidelines. http://www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/ipm/ipmguide.htm. Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET Extension toxicology network pesticide information pro files. Oregon State University QSU). 2006a. Pacific Northwest plant disease management handbook. Extension Service. Oregon State University (OSU). 2006b. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook. Extension Service. Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 15.58 RCW. Washington pesticide control act. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 17.15 RCW. Integrated pest management. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 17.21 RCW. Washington pesticide application act. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 70.105 RCW. Hazardous waste management. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 90.48 RCW. Water pollution control. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. September 20, 2006 A. C KINDIG & CO. Page 21 I [ I [ [ I I I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan ([PM) Sygenta. 2000. Material Safety Data Sheet and Label for Primo Maxx. EPA Reg. No. 100-937. Sygenta. 2006. Material Safety Data Sheet and Label for Heritage Fungicide. EPA Reg. No. 100-1093. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Pesticide fact sheet for Heritage fungicide. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs. Vogue, P.A., E.A. Kerle, and J.J. Jenkins. 1994. Extension properties database. Oregon State University. Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 16-201 WAC. Fertilizer bulk storage and operational areas containment rules. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 16-228 WAC. Pesticide Regulations. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 16-229 WAC. Secondary and operational area containment for bulk pesticide. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington. Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 173-360 WAC. Underground storage tank regulations. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Washington State University (WSU). 1980. Revised 1991. Concepts of integrated pest management: Extension Bulletin 0753. Cooperative Extension. College of Agriculture. Watershed Company, The. 1993. Fish habitat assessment and anticipated fisheries-related impacts of the proposed Blakely Ridge master plan development. Prepared for Blackhawk/Port Blakely Communities. Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.W.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992. The SCSI ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision-making. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-171. September 20. 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO Page 22 i I t I I I ' I I ?, Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Tur/Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) APPENDIX A PESTICIDE ASSESSMENTS September 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO. 1 ~ I, r [ r t L [ [ l I l l I I I ' I I ; f Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT -Chipco 26GT Category: Fungicide. Active ingredient is Iprodione (23.3%) Application Target Preventative foliar treatment fungicide recommended for the control of a large number of fungus diseases on turf. Label Recommended Application Frequency: Chipco 26GT should be applied when conditions favor disease development, or when the disease is first noted. Applications are recommended at label instructed rates as long as required. Label Recommended Application Rate: Application rate is dependent on the fungus disease. The application rate varies between 3 and 8 fl. oz per 1,000 ft:2. See the label application rates for the fungus disease to be targeted. Do not apply more than 35 fl. oz per 1,000 ft2 per year or more than 6 applications per year. Mobility. Using the ground water ubiquity score (GUS) method of Gustafson (1989), iprodione has a "low" pesticide movement rating (Vogue et al. 1994). The GUS score includes soil half life, water solubility, and sorption coefficients as factors, and has correlated well with monitoring data once point sources of contamination are ruled out. Other investigators, the U.S. EPA and the USDA Soil Conservation Service have also attributed low mobility potential ot lprodione (Horsley and Moser 1990, Abrams 1991 ). A ground water monitoring study for pesticides from golf courses over sandy deposits on Cape Cod included iprodione, but it was never detected in any of the monitoring wells (Cohen et al. 1990). Persistence: Iprodione has a soil half-life of 14 to 30 days and an aquatic half life of 3 to 7 days (Heintzelman, D., personal communication, July I, 1998). These range from "very short lived" to "moderately short lived" in classification (King County 1993). Vogue et al. (1994) and Wauchope et al. (1992) both list a soil half-life of 14 days for iprodione. Toxicity: The LC5096 for rainbow trout is 92.2 mg/L (Ortego, L. personal communication, July 7, 1998), which is classified as only "slightly toxic" by King County (1993) and Balogh and Walker (1992). Evaluation Summary: Based on (I) low mobility and movement ratings, (2) short-lived persistence, and (3) slight toxicity to rainbow trout, Chipco 26GT is an excellent fungicide for preventative and curative control of some of the most ubiquitous turf fungus diseases without risk of unintended environmental impact. September 20. 2006 A. C. KINDIG & CO. Page A-1 I I . I I l I l I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPA4) PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT -Heritage Category: Fungicide. Active Ingredient: azoxystrobin (50%). Application Target Preventative treatment fungicide with systemic and curative properties on turf. Label Recommended Application Frequency: Heritage should be applied prior to disease development. Applications are recommended at label instructed rates as long as required. T ,abel Recommended Application Rate: Application rate is d~endent on the fungus disease. The application rate varies between 0.2 and 0. 7 fl. oz per 1,000 ft'. See the label application rates for the fungus disease to be targeted. Do not apply more than 3.7 fl. oz per 1,000 fr' per year. Mobi)ity: The chemical structure of azoxystrobin would suggest moderate mobility in sand and loamy sand soils. The potential mobility and persistence of some of its degradates, based on laboratory and some field studies, are similar to pesticides with known potential to leach into ground water under some conditions. For this reason the EPA placed a ground water advisory on the label. However, the EPA (1998) also notes that "upgradable, supplemental field dissipation studies indicate that Azoxystrobin was moderately immobile and relatively non-persistent under actual use conditions." Azoxystrobin has relatively low binding affinities on coarse, textured soils (loamy sand and sand), but approximately five times higher binding affinity on finer- textured soils (EPA 1998). Data supplied by the manufacturer lists the Koc as 1,690 (Schultz, M., personal communication, 1998), which ranks as low mobility using the King County (1993) system. Using the GUS index method of Gustafson (1989), azoxystrobin has a low pesticide movement rating. The GUS score is an empirically derived value that relates sorption in soil based on the sorption coefficient (Koc) and pesticide persistence (half-life). Persistence: Azoxystrobin is stable to hydrolysis, but does photo-degrade with a half-life of 11 to 17 days in aquatic environments (EPA 1998). Photo-degradation on soil results in a half-life of 11 days. Both of these degradation rates in the presence of sunlight are characterized as short lived (King County 1993). The dissipation of azoxystrobin is mainly dependent on sunlight (photo-degradation), and secondarily dependent on microbial metabolism. In the absence of light, degradates, but not the azoxystrobin itself, could be more persistent and mobile. However, these degradates prove to be nearly nontoxic. Toxicity: Azoxystrobin is considered highly toxic to rainbow trout (LC5096 of0.47 mg/L) (EPA 1998; Syngenta (2006). The EPA (1998) notes that azoxystrobin is of low acute and chronic toxicity to humans, birds, mammals, and bees, but is highly toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates. However, its degradate products are practically nontoxic to only slightly toxic to rainbow trout and daphnids. Degradate R234886 has an LC50 96 of greater than 150 ppm for rainbow trout and greater than 190 ppm for daphnids. Degradates R401553 and R402173 have LC5096 values of greater than 50 ppm to daphnids. September 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO Page A-2 !' ~ t l. I. I I ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) Evaluation Summary: Based on the relative immobility of the parent compound azoxystrobin, and the relative non-toxicity of its degradates, Heritage is environmentally safe for use on the practice fields. Restrictions to Use: • The label recommends Heritage be restricted to two applications, 28 days apart in the spring and fall for curative/preventative treatment on turf. • The label recommends that application be restricted to a 48-hour forecast of dry weather. September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO. Page A-3 I. I I I I. I I t l I l ' ,· I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT -Primo Maxx Category: Turf grov.th suppressant. Active ingredient is Trinexapac-ethyl (Cyclopropyl) (11.3%). Application Target: Slow the rate of turf growth and aid suppression of invasive Poa annua. Label Recommended Application Frequency: Multiple applications can be made as needed by local conditions of grass growth rates, but should not exceed the maximum described below. I ahe) Recommended Application Rates· Approximately 50% growth suppression is likely to occur without grass yellowing for 4 weeks at rates of about 0.25 to 0.50 fl. oz. I 1,000 ft2 per 4 weeks. Applications at half these rates are recommended where Paa annual control is a primary objective in order to prevent yellowing, and can be made at higher rates for brief periods durin~ periods of very rapid grass growth. Multiple applications should not exceed 7.0 fl. oz. I 1,000 ft per year. Mobility: Cyclopropyl mobility is rated as "high" with Koc values that range from 59 (sandy loam) to 629 (clay) based on data supplied by the manufacturer, Syngenta (2000). Persistence: The soil half-life for cyclopropyl at between pH 5 and 7 is 8 days in the dark and about 4 days in the light These half-lives rate as "very short-lived" to "short-lived" persistence (King County 1993). Toxicity: The manufacturer reports an LC5096 for rainbow trout as 68 mg/L and greater than 142.5 mg/L for water fleas (Daphnia magna) (Syngenta 2000) . This toxicity rates as "slightly toxic" to "practically nontoxic'', respectively (King County 1993). Evaluation Summary: Although highly mobile, the use of Primo MAXX for routine treatment as a growth inhibitor is an environmentally safe product for use on the practice fields due to its low persistence and slight-to non-toxicity. September 20. 2006 A.C KINDIG & CU Page A-4 r t l t [ ' I I Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (1PM) PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT: Prograss Category: Herbicide. Active ingredient ethofumesate (19%). Application Target Curative post-emergence control of annual bluegrass. Label Recommended Application Frequency: Maximum of four applications per year; two to three in the fall at 2 I to 28 day intervals, and one subsequent application in the spring if needed. Label Recommended Application Rate: I .5 fl. oz per 1,000 ft2 per application, to a maximum of four applications per treated area. Mobility: Ethofumesate has Koc values ranging from 210 for sand up to 160 for silt clay loam (U.S. EPA 1995). These would be classified as "high mobility" (King County 1993). Ethofumesate has a "moderate" pesticide movement rating using the GUS index method of Gustafson (1989) reported by Vogue el al. (1994). Persistence: Ethofumesate has a reported field dissipation half life of 21 days (Balogh and Walker 1992). Microbial and chemical degradation accounts for 66 percent of the dissipation, and leaching accounts for 31.2 percent. Half life in sandy load soils is reported to range from 122 days to 285 days, which is highly persistent. However, Vogue et al. (1994) report a soil half life of 30 days for this product, which is more consistent with the moderately short-lived ranking from field dissipation studies. Toxicity: Ethofumesate has a rainbow trout LC5096 of 17.5 mg/L, which is classified as "slightly toxic" (King County 1993). Evaluation Summary: Although highly to moderately mobile, and moderately persistent, the slight toxicity of this product combined with the proposal to limit applications to greens on a curative basis combines to make it an environmentally safe element of the IPM. Seprember 20, 2006 A.C KINDIG & CO Page A-5 = = =, -·~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINN!NG AT THE NORTIJ:EAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, WHICH POINT IS MARKED BY AN IRON PIPE AND IS 920 FEET, MORE OR LESS, NORTII OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT, THENCE sourn ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF, 156 FEET, THENCE EAST 62 FEET TO TIIE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAJD RIGHT OF WAY LINE 156 FEET TO IBE BEGINNING POINT OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED, 11-ff.NCE NORTH 58°20' WEST 460 FEET, TIIENCE NORTH 67'40' WEST 210 FEET TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON AS NOW ESTABLISHED AND 11J:E TERMINUS OF THE LINE, ALSO THAT PORTION or GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH. RANGE 5 EAST, WM, fN KfNG COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND ADJACENT SHORE LANDS OF THE SECOND CLASS IN FRONT THEREOF LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACmc RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEG!NNfNG AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29, THENCE NORTH 89°58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 1113 01 FEET TO TIIE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT OF WAY, THENCE NORTH 29°44'54" EAST, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 949.63 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE WHICH POINT IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 29°44'54" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, JOO OJ FEET, THENCE NORTH 59°24'36" WEST 1039 16 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON, ' THENCE NORTH 44°20'00" EAST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 102 95 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 59•24'J6" EAST, THENCE SOUTH 59°24'36" EAST I 013 23 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT PORTJON THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEG[NN!NG AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY THENCE SOUTH 29'44'54" WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S RlGHT-OF-WAY JOO.OJ FEET, THENCE NORTH 59'24'36" WEST 100.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 56'28'50" EAST 11 l 16 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 59°24'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET, EXHIBIT 9 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 7111 day of December 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature: SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11/r day of ~Cf'1tfY//, 2006. ·_; ;. --. .• Application, Petition or Case No.: N ary Public in and for . e State of Washington siding at &· ld /-z-. V'-.._ , therein. Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. "' ! I Fl' . Ii 11 I: ',, : i: 11! I' I Ii Ii 11 11 I jt ' i :: 11 1 Ii: ,: I! : j! ' i . . ! i I 1 J '1: j' L : i i j: Ii " ' ' i l! 'f -• '· j ./.' "l :1 i .; I .:- ic 1H ,, ,'"" i. I' 'j' I I, ii 1 • .. ! : : . . i ' I ' HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT I . I Minutes APPLICANT: OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 December 7, 2006 Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility File No.: LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N ( also addressed as 5015, 4801, and 4635 Ripley Lane) Applicant requested Master Plan and Site Plan Review for the development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The project would be a single building consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels and 89,423 sf indoor practice facility. There would be up to four outdoor practice fields. The zoning designation is Commercial-Office-Residential. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on November 14, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the November 21, 2006 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 2 The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation oertinent to this reauest. Exhibit No. 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Prooerties Exhibit No. 5: Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 7: North and South Building Elevations Exhibit No. 9: Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 11: Green Screen Wall A Exhibit No. 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 Exhibit No. 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Miti!!ated Site Plan Exhibit No. 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 Exhibit No. 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Miti!!ated Site Plan Exhibit No. 21: Daily Shadow Studies -Base Plan Exhibit No. 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Existing Conditions Exhibit No. 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 27: Foster Pepper Appeal Settlement Letter Exhibit No. 29: Anneal File bv Reference Exhibit No. 31: Geotech Summarv Exhibit No. 33: Draft Enmneerin!! Desi= Plan Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 4: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 6: Plan Diagrams Exhibit No. 8: South View Transverse Section Exhibit No. 10: Buildin!! Location Ootions Exhibit No. 12: Green Screen Wall B Exhibit No. 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan Exhibit No 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Camnarison Exhibit No. 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan Exhibit No. 20: View from Misty Cave Unit 312, Comoarison Exhibit No. 22: Daily shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan Exhibit No. 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Base Plan Exhibit No. 26: List of 25 Exhibits from Staff Report Exhibit No. 28: Petersen Appeal Settlement Letter Exhibit No. 30: Shoreline Exhibit No. 32: Power Point Presentation Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra .... ._g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 3 The Examiner stated there were two appeals, which had been filed by the Misty Cove Association of Apartments Owners and Steve Jensen, who filed on his own behalf as a separate individual. Letters have been received stating that the parties had reached a settlement in those two appeals. Zanella Fontes stated that that was correct. She had been notified and she would let the parties go over the conditions to which they have agreed. It was noted that Mr. Jensen was not in the hearing room. Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper stated that they had reached a formal settlement agreement with Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners who are represented by Mr. Peterson. The settlement letter did include 7 permit conditions that should be placed on the project. With respect to Mr. Jensen's appeal, he indicated the he was withdrawing and would fax a formal withdrawal to the Hearing Examiner's Office. He did ask that Mr. Jensen's appeal be dismissed ifa letter were not forthcoming from Mr. Jensen. Tom Peterson stated that he represents Misty Cove, they have filed a dismissal of their appeal along with a letter identifying permit conditions, which are identical to the ones that Mr. Pearce submitted. The Examiner stated that Mr. Jensen's appeal is dismissed. The settlement is acceptable and the appeal is dismissed for both Misty Cove and Mr. Jensen. The Land Use Hearing began at 9: I 1 am with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services. The applicant is requesting both Master Plan and Site Plan review of currently vacant 19.6-acre property in the Kennydale area of northeast Renton. The project consists of one building at approximately 135,534 square feet, outdoor and indoor practice fields and an accessory building that would be used for maintenance. The project is located in the area known as Port Quendall in northeast Renton, just west of 1-405. To the south is the Quendall terminals property, south of that the Barbee Mill property, the entire area is zoned Commercial-Office-Residential (COR). North of the project site is the Misty Cove Condominium and north of that the Ripley Lane neighborhood. To the east of the property is the Pan Abode property and the interchange to 1-405. The site was considered to be in the distant country early on, and was used for wood processing after it was logged off. It has remained vacant since wood processing ended in I 98 I. It has been used for storage since then. The site has been subject to clean up by consent decree with the Department of Ecology. A cap will be required to be placed over soil that still has residual contamination. Currently, the site is largely vacant, there is one building that will be removed. The indoor practice facility would be the farthest away from the lake and the office building would be a 2-story with a mezzanine level between the two stories and closest to the lake. This is part of the settlement between Misty Cove owners and the Seahawks, the fields were shifted around but remain on the south side of the property. The public access to the lake was extended to approximately 250 feet along the lake. The public access will be handled as a county park, open only during the daylight hours. The Shoreline Management Act allows uses that are water related, this is not water related, however the access to the lake for the public allows this property to meet the requirements. Access to the property currently is at the northeast comer and the southeast comer of the property. There are ongoing negotiations with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to have an additional private crossing at about the mid-point of the property. This would be the primary entrance for the site. This project went to the Environmental Review Committee, the decision was appealed and has been settled. There were seven mitigation measures. Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page4 The redevelopment of COR sites is intended to provide economic development and remediation of formerly impacted industrial sites. This site certainly provides that criteria. The Seahawks' building has been designed to be an architecturally significant state of the art facility for a professional football team. The community design element is met through the design of the project. The north fa~ade of the indoor practice facility will be softened by use of a "green-screen wall". The project meets the development standards by being lower than the maximum building height, by covering only I 7% of the property with buildings and by moving the project the applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts of this building on the neighboring property. Visual assessment studies were done as well as shadow studies in order to study impacts to the Misty Cove condominiums. The outside practice fields will not be lit and not used at night so there will be no lighting that would interfere with the Misty Cove condominiums. There are no regulations on the types of fencing provided in this area, they will be replacing the fence along the border of Misty Cove Apartment Condominiums. The general parking consists of91 stalls would be along the east side of the building, the secured team parking would be along the north and northwest comer of the building. The field is open to the public for three weeks in August and it is presumed that thousands of people will attend training. There will be a plan to shuttle people from off-site parking areas. Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Avenue, 34th Floor, Seattle 98101 stated that he is the Attorney for Seahawks and that there were several people that would be speaking today. There are no specific height limits in the urban environment, the Shoreline Master Program does allow new commercial uses if public access to and along the water is provided. A significant public access has been provided and it will be open just like a City park. It will only be open during the day, there will be on-site security. Lance Lopes, VP Seahawks, 800 Occidental Avenue S., Seattle, WA 98034 stated that he also serves as the general manager for this project. He identified goals in acquiring this location, the Kirkland facility was too small and had become obsolete in terms of what teams need to handle their requirements. The site in eastern Washington has served them well for many years, in recent times there has been a drop-off in attendance at the training camp, the fans from western Washington have not been able to get over there. The number of users for this property varies, there are approximately 130 full-time employees and a varying number between 30 and 90 players depending on the time of year. The site is laid out with the fields to the south, with three fields they can rotate during the training camp, the fourth field may or may not be built. That location will provide an area where fans will be able to view the practices of the team. The office building was built with the views in mind, both lake and practice fields. The nineteen acres is really the minimal amount and just about all ofit has been used for this facility. The month of August is the best time to think about training camp, it typically is a 25-day period and can vary from year to year. That is the time of year that the players are trying out for the team, the public is very interested in that process. The number of fans coming out for training camp could be in the range of 1,500 and 2,000 per day. A Saturday or Sunday could rise to perhaps 2,500. Practice is in the morning and the afternoon each day. They have asked the City about developing a bus turnaround on Ripley Lane, which can be shared with the current school bus stop, they propose to make it a nicer bus stop. That would allow the shuttle busses to drop people off right at the front gate. Burlington Northern Railway has indicated they would allow an easement over the center entrance area. Offsite parking has not yet been determined. There are some locations that they are looking at currently. Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra. _, g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 5 The indoor facility is standard for the industry, which allows special teams lo practice their punting and kicking. Public access will be from the north side of the property down to the lake and still keep the practice fields private. The plan is for a cyclone fence with a green screen on the fence. Between the Misty Cove and Seahawks a quality wood fence has been planned. David Murphy, Crawford Architects, 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64108 gave a power point presentation of the project with site layout, vegetation and design details. The design materials allow them the ability to create a corporate image that is appropriate for the City of Renton and the Seattle Sea hawks. The facility will be designed specifically to the Pacific Northwest. They are currently in design development stages, the south side of the office will be facing the practice fields and would be constructed with a series of cementiuous materials. The practice facility would consist of cementiuous panels or metal panels that would make up the composition of the fa9ade. On the east elevations there would be cementiuous panels, wood, and translucent materials that would allow daylight to come into the indoor practice facility. The north side, facing Misty Cove would be designed with horizontal lines with shadows to break down the scale of the building. The green screen at the base would be 30-feet of lattice with green plantings to cover and allow for privacy. The west elevation of the building is proposed to be two stories and the south three stories. However, the west may go to 3 stories, it has not been fully determined as yet. The dumpsters and loading dock areas will be screened from the public. To study the view impacts on the project from the Misty Cove property, the owners of units 302 and 312 allowed access to their property and they were able to photograph views from those sites. The lower levels on the south side have blocked views to the shoreline and to the site. Several photos were shown with various views to the south. Their goal was to maintain and enhance as many view corridors as possible. A 5-minute break was taken. Larry Barsher, 6940 96., Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that he lives directly west of the facility across Lake Washington and from the front of his house he can see the training facility. From a close up perspective, it looks very attractive however, from a mile away it still is going to appear as a big box. When the final landscape plan is prepared he would like to suggest that some consideration would be given to soften the view as much as possible by the addition of perhaps some trees that could reach heights of I 00-feet at maturity. In addition, perhaps a green wall could be installed on the roof of the office building in the center to add some contrast and softening. He did appreciate the fact that the lights would not be on in the evening. Eileen Halverson, 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302, Renton, WA would like to know where the parking would be located for the public access. Esther Barsher, 6940 96., Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that she was concerned about the lighting for the parking area, would it be lit all night? Joe Burcar, 3190 160., Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is a shoreline specialist with the Washington State Department of Ecology. Considering the City Shoreline Master Program, would the use of this facility be considered a Conditional Use within the Master Program or is it in fact a permitted use and how would that translate into the final shoreline permitting, would it be a substantial shoreline permit or a conditional use permit? Ms. Higgins stated that there would be some buffer averaging. The wetland buffer is 50-feet and extends into the field area, however there is some buffer mitigation outside the field area that has been approved. The indoor practice facility which is 95-feet to the center clear height on the interior is outside of the 200 foot line. The Seahawks' Headquarters and . ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 6 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program does not regulate buildings below 75-feet that are within the 200-foot buffer. Mr. Burcar stated that he is testifying on behalf of the State. And finally, the parking area along the north of the facility, is there any buffer averaging happening in that area as well? He further was concerned as to the use of fertilizers and pesticides and what kind of plan would be in place to ensure that water quality of the lake would be protected. Ms. Higgins stated that this project does not require a Conditional Use Permit. The Shoreline permit is being processed separately. The ERC report states that the applicant is proposing an integrated pest management program with extremely limited use of chemicals on the fields and landscape areas. Carl Hadley, Cedar Rock Consultants, 19609 244th Avenue, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a professional fisheries biologist with 18 years of experience in the Seattle area. He was part of the team that wrote the lake and stream study, which was a requirement of the Renton Municipal Code. That study was required because there is a direct impact to a water body, the Gypsy sub-basin drainage and secondly, the site contains a shoreline of the state. The study takes a look at existing functions and values and compares that to future conditions based on mitigation and other things that are proposed for the site. It must be shown that there are equivalent or better values for the fish habitat and wildlife habitat on the site. The Gypsy sub-basin has been declared a fish bearing water, it drains 320 acres of the slope to the east with runoff from paved surfaces via roadside ditches, culverts, and parking lots with a bad history of flooding. There is a 500-foot long, 2-foot wide culvert, with a 125-foot open reach at the bottom of a 15-foot deep manmade ditch. The 125-foot open reach will be filled with capping, there can be no exposed water. The culvert will run between the playing fields and the side of the building. A new outfall will be built for the pipe with a 25-foot channel on the lake as mitigation for filling that existing open section of channel. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has initially approved the proposed plan. An Integrated Pest Management plan has been established for the site and will include a set of rules regarding the use of pesticide and fertilizer. Air, sunlight and drainage for the fields are an important part of pest control. A small amount of chemicals will be used for fungus only. Mr. Pearce stated that there is no proposed parking for the public access to the lake, the public most likely will use it more when the Burlington Northern tracks become a trail. There is a landscape plan in the application materials that points out species that will be planted including some larger species such as Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar. Regarding Mr. Burcar's comments, this is a permitted use so long as significant public access is provided to and along the shoreline. No variance is required for height under the City Shoreline Master Program. There is a SO-foot setback for commercial buildings from the shoreline, not for paved surfaces or playing fields or grading. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that they are working with the applicant regarding Ripley Lane and the Gypsy Creek flooding onto Ripley Lane. If a security gate is being provided for Misty Cove, is there a turnaround being provided for those people that like to wander in and will then need access to get out. That will all be covered during the design phase. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11 :34 am. Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 16 7. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the project site, with fans then being bused to the site. 8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. 9. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 10. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. 11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and State regulations. 12. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. 13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit approval. ORDERED THIS 7'" day of December 2006. TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of December 2006 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Lance Lopes VP Seahawks 800 Occidental Avenue S Seattle, WA 98034 Eileen Halverson 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302 Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98055 David Murphy Crawford Architects 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Joe Burcar 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Roger Pearce Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue, 34th Floor Seattle, WA 9810 I Larry & Esther Barsher 6940 96"' A venue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Carl Hadley Cedar Rock Consultants 19609 244th Avenue Seahawks' Headquarters and Tr, g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 15 18. The proposal is basically self-contained. The site's limitations include the poor and/or contaminated soils on the south half!eaving commercial and office development a reasonable accomplishment. In addition, the COR zoned property to the south provides a residential component. It meets the comprehensive plan's goal ofredeveloping the subject site with high quality uses. 19. The plan provides both public and private open space. There is the walking path along the shoreline and there are the open practice fields for team workouts. The applicant proposes to enhance the shoreline by restoring natural plants and protecting the existing wetland. 20. Shoreline view corridors will be provided both by the shoreline trail as well as the open views across the playing fields. Views of the lake will be available from the office building and other open areas on the subject site. 21. The proposal will provide a focal point as an icon of a professional football team as well as when it is open to the public for practice sessions in the summer. The building is well designed and should be attractive even at its larger scale. 22. The access for the site is focused along Ripley Lane and/or Lake Washington Boulevard. It should reasonably serve the site for both vehicles and pedestrians. DECISION: The proposed Master Site Plan and Site Plan are approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating exterior materials and finishes to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake Washington and install landscaping of a type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian habitat. Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of!andscaping shall be completed prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8- l 20D 12, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of- way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits and installation shall be prior to building occupancy. 5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light levels, and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 6. Football Northwest shall develop the project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plat-Alternative. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the indoor practice facility. In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the indoor practice facility substantially in accordance with the principles stated in the Settlement Agreement. Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, :SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 14 accommodated by shuttle vehicles from remote parking areas to help limit the amount of traffic to the site. A canopied walkway connects parking to the main entrance. Interior walkways will accommodate pedestrians moving between facilities on the property. 12. The large open spaces on the south as well as the setback between the residential complex to the north and the current proposal allows entry of light and air to both the side and neighboring properties. The east aspect is already fairly open given the parallel roadways and railroad. The relocation of the building will reduce some shadow impacts although, again, any development of the subject site by legally permissible development would have an impact. The impacts have been reduced but not eliminated. 13. Construction will generate the most noise and this should be limited in duration. As noted above, there will be additional hubbub when the site is occupied and a bit more during the open practices during the summer season. 14. The site will be served by City water and sewer service. The Baxter Lift Station will need to be utilized and appropriately updated. Stormwater will be directed to the lake. The development will comply with the Department of Ecology and King County regulations. The creek's alignment will be altered and its outfall enhanced but it will remain culverted for a majority of its run through the subject site. The applicant will be paying mitigation fees imposed by the ERC to offset some impacts of the development on the City's facilities. 15. The redevelopment of the subject site will enhance the site and prevent deterioration or additional blight on the subject site 16. In addition to the above criteria the COR Zones provide additional criteria for reviewing a proposal. Those criteria include: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable; b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban Center North Comprehensive Plan designations; c. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development; d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems; e. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable; f. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items; h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and 1. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. 17. There is no Planned Action Ordinance involving the subject site. Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra .. 1g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 13 and wetlands and views out over the lake. These will be well exploited by the orientation of the building. 6. The building meets the bulk standards for the COR 2 zone in terms of height and lot area coverage. Staff reported that it complies with the urban definition requirements of the City's current Shoreline regulations. Compliance with building and fire code requirements will be determined when appropriate permits are submitted for actual development. 7. The building complex has been moved away from the lake an additional 62 feet to offset to some extent its impacts on the adjacent residential complex. It has also redesigned its north facade treatment to reduce its visual impact on its near neighbors. There is no question that any permissible development of this site that adds buildings above grade will have an impact. That cannot be prevented save for keeping privately owned property as open space. That is not currently an option and the proposed plan appears to have achieved some reasonable compromise. After all, approximately half of the site, the entire south portion of the property will be open space -it will be practice fields. The applicant is seeking to create its own, new crossing of the railroad to reduce traffic impacts on its northerly residential neighbors who all share Ripley Lane. The applicant proposes replanting areas of the lakeshore with native plants and some larger specimens. Those efforts will serve to provide some screening without closing off the site's own visual access to the lake view. 8. The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element, the indoor practice fields, at 111 feet. Open space is a featured element on the entire south half of the parcel. Landscaping will be used to soften facades and enhance the perimeter of the site near the railway and the road system. The building has a formal entry and focal point. It also has the public shoreline walkway. The exterior treatment combines a variety of high-quality materials and finishes, colors and textures. Both horizontal and vertical banding and articulation will also be used in the facades to add visual interest and break the bulk into faceted planes. Recognizing past industrial pollution and current sensitivities, the applicant will be using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques on all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf practice fields. 9. The redevelopment of this will increase property values although there is no avoiding the fact that construction and occupancy on what has been a vacant site for quite a while will have an impact on the immediate community. The construction impacts should be relatively short-lived. The impacts of reuse and occupancy were anticipated when this site was comprehensively planned and the zoning was put in place. It was expected that this site and its neighbors to the south would be developed with a variety of more intensive uses bringing with those more intensive uses additional traffic, people, urban scale development and the general tumult of a vibrant urban lake shore. 10. The settlement agreement provides assurances that for an extended period of time there would be no night activities or lighting to accommodate night activities. Normal considerations will limit exterior lighting and parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off features to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Again, though, interior lights will change the character or visual canvas that a vacant site provided from the lake's vantage point or even for those looking down on the site from the east. 11. The site's somewhat isolated location limits the complexity of access and circulation although the site does share Ripley Lane with others north of the site. The applicant is seeking an additional access which, would help improve access for both visitors to the site and to adjacent properties. The internal circulation appears reasonable. Additional visitor access during open events on the campus will be Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 12 1. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and J. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. 3. The criteria for a Master Plan and Site Plan review overlap or coincide in a number of particulars. Frankly, the Master Plan criteria are intended for a large multi-dimensional project with a variety of components, probably spread over a larger area. The Master plan would be more appropriately applied to a large, multi-phase or multi-building project where the aim is to achieve a cohesive, blended, harmonious whole. The Master Plan review would be to make sure to knit a uniform project that looks as if all of the elements and a variety of buildings had a basic design theme or one which made sure that all of the elements worked together as far as access, circulation and similar features spread over a larger proposal. A Master Plan review does not necessarily identify with the current proposal where one purpose is identified by the applicant -a complex in which to manage and train a professional football team. In the current proposal there really is only the one building, served by one, linear access road and the associated outdoor sports fields. The site pretty much stands alone. If and when development occurs south of the proposed complex on additional COR 2 property that will be under separate ownership and development criteria. 4. A fair number of City goals and objectives all point to redeveloping this very under-utilized property. The City has always envisioned more interesting, one could say, grand plans for this former industrial area along the lakeshore. It has been years since a major industrial use that was water-related could utilize lakeshore property and not potentially inflict environmental damage on the shoreline or the lake and its water quality. Of course, some questions could be raised about the limited scope of this proposal in terms of creating new as opposed to relocated employment and of basically leaving fallow, the spaces dedicated to practice fields that might have been developed with additional office buildings or research park. Might a mixed-use complex been more appropriate rather than one focused solely on the Seahawks football team? Possibly, but than again, a portion of this property still requires remedial capping of environmentally questionable soils probably mediating against development of housing. Similarly, disturbance of some portion of the underlying soils would not be advisable for building foundation work whereas outdoor practice fields present a good match since there would be limited disturbance of the soils. The proposed plan will bring executive and administrative offices to this site. The site will be a focus for public visitation -practice and pre-season games. The proposed complex is also quite well-<lesigned and has metamorphed into a better plan. The building has been moved further from the lake to reduce its visual impacts on both neighbors and those using the lake itself or viewing it across the lake. The four playing fields also keep about half of the site visually unencumbered. The complex will also be screened by landscaping along its facades and the site's perimeter. The building couplet has been scaled and terraced and utilizes visual elements to reduce its bulk and increase its visual interest. Clearly, any permissible use of the site, other than open space or parkland would create impacts on neighbors, boaters and Mercer Island residents. The plan also accommodates public use of a shoreline that has been closed to the public for decades. 5. The comprehensive plan suggests the redevelopment of former industrial sites with large-scale projects while remediating the impacts of the former industrial pollution. The proposed Seattle Seahawks administrative offices and practice facilities appear to fulfill these objectives with a high profile tenant in a highly styled complex. The complex as noted offers a mix of structural components, the office building and the indoor practice facility, and open space and landscaping, the four open-air practice fields and the general landscaping found around the grounds. The shoreline location suggests public access and that will be provided by the approximately 250 feet of trail along the lake shore as well as the connecting trail to the public rights-of-way east of the subject site. The offices will provide an urban focus and a center for employment. The site, of course, provides built-in amenities. It has the lakeshore Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra,. g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 11 The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity appropriate to the level of review. 1. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on-and off-site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's Urban Center Design Overlay, where applicable; 3. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5. To promote coordination of public or quasi-public elements, such as walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments oflarger developments and between individual developments; 6. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; 10. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. 2. More specific guidance is provided in the following criteria: 1. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of area-wide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; Seahawks' Headquarters and ·ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 10 29. As noted, there will be access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. Access to the shoreline path would be via an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. A landscaped seating area and viewpoint would be provided. This path will typically be available to the public on the same schedule as City parks. 30. The development will increase traffic approximately 555 average vehicle trips per day. Traffic during open public sessions, mainly in August would be generally confined to normal traffic as well as some form of shuttle service to limit the amount of traffic and avoid taxing the local roads and the parking facility. 31. The applicant proposes using an "integral pest management plan" to limit the use of chemicals on the site. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The following general criteria are applicable to the subject site, which is zoned COR: Section 2 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW: A PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of site development plan review shall be to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans at varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to, site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular environment, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and buffering, parking and loading facilities, and illumination. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. 1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a single large site. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. 2. Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra, .. , g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page9 thirds to reduce the apparent height and vertical modulations and articulations will also be used to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. Additionally, the administrative office portion of the building will be about half as tall as the indoor practice portion, providing a terraced or stepped aspect. There will be a formal entry along the Ripley Lane facade and a canopy will connect parking with the formal entrance. Other entries are provided along various aspects of the building complex. 21. The appeal settlement resulted in the building being moved toward the east approximately 62 feet and away from the shoreline. The taller indoor practice building is now located outside of the 200-foot shoreline management area. The move will reveal more of the shoreline and sky for the residents of Misty Cove. It will also move the mass of the building away from the shoreline. 22. The COR 2 zone permits lot coverage of 65 percent and a building height of I 0-stories or 125 feet. The office building has a footprint of approximately 55,674 square feet, the indoor practice complex has a footprint of approximately 89,423 square feet and there is the 6,000 square foot maintenance shed for a total of 151,097 square feet or 17 .7 percent of the 19.6 acre site. The office building will be 55 feet tall while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall. Staff reports that the office building which falls within the 200-foot shoreline management zone complies with the Urban Shoreline designation ofRenton's Shoreline Master Program. Although it is not a water-dependent use, the complex will provide access to the portions of the shoreline that have been off-limits to the public in the past. The one-story, 6,000 square foot maintenance and equipment storage building would be located in the southeast comer of the site. 23. There would be three or four outdoor practice fields. Some of the fields can be rotated to account for wear patterns. The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the portion of the property. The one artificial turf practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the east property line. The four practice fields would cover 8.3 acres. 24. The site would contain secured area to protect the practice fields, the players and to provide security and privacy during practices. 25. There is a variety of vegetation on the subject site including weeds, weed trees and some limited natural vegetation along the lake shore. The site will be landscaped with a variety of native trees and shrubs. Some of the larger trees would be preserved. As indicated a "green wall" would be located along the north facade as part of landscaping and screening. 26. Parties from Mercer Island with a view across the lake to this facility were concerned about views and screening as well as night lighting. 27. Primary access to the site would be from Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. Any access or accesses will have to cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. Currently, the primary access would be at the northeast comer of the subject site near the Misty Cove complex. A secondary access is available at the southeast comer of the property to Lake Washington Boulevard. Negotiations are underway with the railroad for a crossing about midway along the east property line. This would become the primary access if agreement can be reached. 28. On-site roads would be private and there would be parking for 252 vehicles. Parking would include 91 stalls for general surface parking and 161 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors. Seahawks' Headquarters am, .ining Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 8 13. The site is essentially flat. Gypsy Creek runs through the site in an open ditch for approximately 125 feet before entering a 490-foot culvert. The culvert empties above the surface of the lake in an unnatural drop. Plans are to restore the shoreline in this area, create a cove and create a more natural entry into the culvert. 14. A Category 3 wetland has been restored. It would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. It probably would not be open to the public. 15. The subject site is under a cleanup agreement with the State. Remediation involves removing contaminated soils and capping depending on the proposed use and contaminants involved. The contamination was the result of the former use of the property for wood-processing activities. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site and grading would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. Any fill material will be tested or require a "source statement" to assure clean materials. As noted, the adjacent site to the south is under Superfund cleanup governance. 16. Two existing structures remain on the site. A single-story, 1,300 square foot wood-frame office building on the north portion of the site that would be removed. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. Currently, there are no plans for these facilities. 17. The underlying geology of soils dictated where the building would be located. Soils generally dictated that the large building would need piles for structural support and the soils on the south half of the site were not appropriate without additional remediation. In addition, the proposed practice playing fields require more and appropriately shaped space, which the wider south half provided. 18. The proposed complex consists of the Seahawks administrative offices and accessory training and practice facilities and a smaller maintenance building. The two major components are the attached office and indoor practice facility located on the north portion of the subject site and four practice fields including three with natural turf and one with artificial turf on the south portion of the property. The maintenance shed will be located at the southeast comer of the property. 19. Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building on the North Baxter property. The office or Headquarters portion of the building would be up to 55 feet in height and contain two stories and a mezzanine level that would be open to the indoor practice field. The office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage of the lake views. It would be L-shaped and wrap around the southwest comer of the larger indoor practice field. The height of the indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 111 feet. Originally, the roof was designed to swing upward along its edges to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. That equipment has since been moved into the building proper. The practice building has been designed to have an inside height clearance of approximately 95 feet to accommodate realistic passing and kicking moves. 20. The building would be a steel frame building. It would be faced with synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and cementiuous or metal wall panels would be used on upper portions and vary depending on location. The color palette would be earth tones with light beiges, buff, light gray and browns and greens would be used for exterior treatments. The settlement agreement requires a green-screen or lattice wall with vegetation growing on it on the north facade, the facade facing Misty Cove. There will be horizontal banding breaking the building into Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra , g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 7 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Football Northwest, for the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, filed a request for a Master Plan and Site Plan review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff 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). An appeal of this determination was filed by adjacent property owners. The appeal was settled with an agreement to include certain additional conditions on the development of the subject site if those conditions were found appropriate after public hearing and review. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject site is located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N and is also addressed as 5015, 4801 and 4635 Ripley Lane. The site is just north or west of the NE 44th Street (Exit 7) I-405 interchange. The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The Burlington-Northern railroad tracks run between the site and Ripley Lane. 6. The site actually runs at a diagonal from the southwest toward the northeast along the lakeshore but is commonly thought of as running south to north. Therefore for illustrative purposes and descriptions this common reference will be used and so the lake will be considered the western edge of the site and Ripley Lane the eastern edge of the site -readers will be able to orient facilities and buildings to their location on the site from the lake and roadway locations. 7. Misty Cove residential complex is located immediately north of the site. As noted above, the homeowners in Misty Cove had filed an appeal of the SEP A decision but they, along with a separate resident of that complex settled the appeal prior to the hearing after reaching an agreement with the applicant. 8. Immediately south of the subject site is the Port Quendall site. That site is a "Superfund Site" that is highly contaminated and subject to separate cleanup regulations. 9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 10. The subject site is currently zoned COR-2 (Commercial, Office, Residential). 11. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1823 enacted in April 1960. 12. The size of parcel is approximately 19.6 acres or 853,776 square feet. Seahawks' Headquarters and Trk g Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 17 Football Northwest 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40"' Street, Ste. H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Port Quendall Company 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thomas Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 9810 I Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309 Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302 Renton, WA 98056 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third A venue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of December 2006 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Stan Engler, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Woodinville, WA 98077 Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213 Renton, WA 98056 Elya George Baches 1414 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group Two Union Square 60 I Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 9810 I Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., December 21, 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen ( 14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF December 7, 2006 Page 18 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance 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 p.m., December 21, 2006. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) ~ -~ "i ~ StXl1I{ fO/Kr COi.DWi I . POTlfT l LAKE SHINGTON 0 1/4 112 1 EXHIBIT Scaie In MIies 2 NOTE . . Reproduced wffh pennlsslon granted by lliOMAS BROS. MAPSe. This map Is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSe. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce ell or any part 1hereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Alf rights reserved. PROJECT LOCATION Seahawks Headquarters and Practlce FaciOly Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP l I September 2006 21-1-20525-003 1-S-HAN..:__N_O_N_&_W_ILS_O_N_, 1-N-C.--,------tJ Osolactak'lllancl E.1vt:w11..riaf Canadtants ~---------------------..1.-----------'--------.. -~ ... I- \ ... _ -.. '->-::.;;.:-:.~..... I "V ' I / I / '15-QR // i'--~ ~·-..( ,, ''·,,;· '•,,,,',,, _,,r , ......... ,,,,.,, / / ; / !; I I ·-·-----------·--;--- COR ; I / ZONING MAP <[ u ,C, (C'__A ___ JL..~. ~ .. -,--------·t------ --. ____ _i ' I> I ~JC~-- / ' ·.~ 4 C1JR---- EXISTINC POWER POL£ LOCATION----J SOUTM PROPERTY f£NCE LIN( ---...._ PS( EASEMENT UNE (TBO)--...._ cu••,-.---- NEW 1-STORY IMINTE.NANCE SHEO-- COv'E:REO CAR WASI-, PMJ I hrrur1 EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION 11 l Wi!NT. PARKIN, 10 STAU.S SECURITY GATE ,, • • " • • • " LAKE WASHINGTON \,j , ) -.,.,. m.,, I ------· .:§2.·-··-··-----,,." !,,T,";,;>e""(·-··-··-·----c~= "3:!W _____ L, -··-··---·· -·~ 1, -__ .. _ .. _, ___ .. ______ ,, _____ _ ... ------·=····=·.:=·.:=: =· ·= ··-··------------------------ = PW:ING. COUNT -SJB(AN,__gJ,«: GENtlW. SURFACE PAAKINQ H 1 STALLS 4 0 5 lAKE WIISH!irGTON -CLASS 1 SECURE 1'>M PARKINQ 113 STAUS T [RST AT [- GYPSY sue SASIN ORAJNAGt -CLASS 2 (RE: ncuRE e.3} · IN -------~TOt=="'-=========--i'~"l:!~:r-~ --·· .. -.. --·-·· ··- b~~~~ .. .. • • • • - EXHIBIT 9 ~ .~ ~I .JJ! - ® -------- " • -™ ·-~-u~ 1-- ifi z ::; 0 a. -oti ..J ::, UJ Cl'. > 1--UJ (/) Oz zo @l -I ~---=--·-• .. =:;, a· '"~- ca. !? -@ ~ i ., __ f ~= i .gal ]~ ., u. I Q) 0, ~ ~ :~ ~f ,. e f Jg I-!! ., . <I) (/) ~ ~~~--Q it-• I -.f.1--.:.- 0 0 am:~ Le') z An ,..l'\11.l Misty Cove Unit 312 -Existing View EXHIBIT 17 :t ( c.. I·-.L. .,,-~ ~' <t: 0 (!) z -z -~ I- I ;: w -> ..J <t: -a:: w <t: ------- • ------------ w~ z ct: <( 0 ..J~ >-(!) w~ ..JS( a. 0 -o 0:: ..., :E 0 0:: LL. s: w > --. i ' l · • j 'J ~ , ,\ •I I l 'I ( i I J \ i, ~: ' ., l :1 ! ~ I . 1 ' 1 \ \ w~ ~::, <( 0 ..J Cl) :E (!) 0~ O::o LL 0 s: .... w -> City of Renton PIBIPW Depa •. . ,t SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACIUTY PUBUC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page lof 20 appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November 21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shail comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc VIA MESSENGER Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 November 17, 2006 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073 Dear Mr. Kaufman: Direct Phone (206) 447-4676 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1997 E-Mail PearR@fostcr.com r-·. . -,,_.' • -v-c CITYof 11 --.J ---.rrH~tA~Rl~NG~~~l:J!,iUtNt/j'·i]R __ " As part of its settlement with the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, permit applicant Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") agrees to the following permit conditions with respect to its Master Plan and Shoreline Permit Applications for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility under the above-referenced project number (the "Project") and respectfully requests they be made conditions of permit approval. Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Design. FNW shall develop the Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ("!PF") located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plan-Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this letter. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the !PF (the !PF elevation to the south of the Misty Cove Condominiwn). In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the !PF substantially in accordance with the principles stated in Exhibit B to this letter. Training Camp Off-Site Fan Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project site. Project Dumpster/Recyling Area. The Project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags. Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. 50744613.2 Mr. Fred J. Kaufinan November 17, 2006 Page 2 Project Outdoor Lighting. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. Signage. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and state regulations. Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turflntegrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project application shall be conditions to permit approval. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC ~~frP&uc Roger A Pearce Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Tom Peterson, Esq. Mr. Lance Lopes Ms. Elaine Wine 507446U.2 " ,, " ,, ,, " • • m X I OJ ''\. •i~ LAKE WASHINGTON -f ~ ' \ \ CURS<---- EXISTING POWER I 1• POLE LOCATION--------++ SOUTH PROPERTY FENCE LINE --....._ PS[ £AS[f.![NT UN[ {T8D) -------....._ EXISTING POWC:R POLE LOCATION , '\ WETLANDS '\ \.r "~ _B_UfCI.EB. ( ....._'~-. r-·-- I/ l--:::t==,_----1 ~- \ \ EXISTING atJILDING STRl.CTURE iO BE R(MOVEO , .r..11++++++++++1 ~ M-1 CURS----....._ N[W 1-STORY M/IJNT[NANC[ SriED-- COV£REO CAR WASH EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION-----H-.__ MAINT. PARKING Lk;; ~ 3 STALLS SECURITY GATE ·~ ' I ,, , -----• --------------------·-.d·,._ -~·~, ··J,,f}:.~\1;;.?~~-:-~~ ----------------, -------- --------------- ~ I PARKING COUNT STREAM q ASS LAKE WASHINGTON -ClASS 1 GENERAL SURFACE PARKING SECURE TEAM PARKING GYPSY SUS BASIN DRAINAGE -CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.J) TOTAL -------------------- b ~~!~TION SITE PLAN -Al TERNATIVE \ \ \j -:--~;(. :'"';:::-cc~\~-=-= ~\f~:;;:.:.:-z:;:;,,-·.:::,;.+/-+-1 --~ --~ -----·---------·-· -· -· ------ 91 161 252 I STALLS I STALLS I STALLS~ PROPOSE.I) RAILWA" CROSSING -----INT ERST A T[-405 -- ~ " ----------------------- ® ~i" =•• BSEl'TEl.eER ~EVISEO • 1J NOVEMBER • f-z wz ::a 0 a. -0 f-...Ju w ::i > Cl'. w f- 0 ~ zo (') u I @ -=n~~ ... ---- '=f~F ---- ~'ra:::¥- = -=:-::-,:::;::: o1! I!! ~~ ro = ~T5 "' re ro lL Q) C) :c: .!: ~-~ :;: ~ re f- 1 1~ ! !i ~~ Jg ~~ ~ 1 °m ! Cl) • ~ === cii Cl'. . ~~~-I '.::"".""'""""" -·-~ I-MmGA.TlON 0 0 SrTEPWI "'z -~~~ I Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) -North Elevation The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF, three exterior wall systems are being developed: 1. Base -The first 30 feet of the fai;;ade will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 30 feet. Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green-screen" that is comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation. 2. Middle -The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 80 feet with no "green screen." 3. Top -The "top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to 70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the fai;;ade by casting varying shadow on the IPF fai;;ade. Each layer of the fai;;ade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the fai;;ade will have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure. A range of color palettes are being studied for the fai;;ade including: 1. Metal Panels/Siding -Nickel to light gray 2. Cementious Panels -Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel 3. Translucent Panels -white to "off-white"/light gray 4. "green-screen" -stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the screen. Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page. EXHIBIT '(3 I ..f ~ • . 1-, ·' • •• -J,I'_ ·--.,_ __ :,;,,·: -,~ ',.i_J.; ,· .. · .. _.,;.; EXHIBIT ~ -=----- 2 o+ 2- CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 5th day of December, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing State Department of Ecology State Department of Ecology Office of the Attorney General Attorney General Target owner Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): -------~--------------- STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Holly Graber signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: : ;:) -] -Oy for the State of Notary (Print): fc\",l;"'" ,r / -( v:, 1 , \,V, ~ \"'" n My appointment expires: ;)-\ "\ -lo Seahawk Training Facility LUA06-073 SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF • .JI • CIT'\ 1F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator o~:t('~. 1, -'> Kathy Kcolkcr, Mayor <o\~,rO'~'------------------------------------ January 8, 2007 Ms. Sunny Linhao Becker, P.E. Environmental Engineer, Toxics Cleanup Program Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office 3190-160'h Avenue SE Bellevue Washington 98008-5452 Re: Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Engineering Design Dear Ms. Becker This letter is sent to advise you that we have reviewed the submittal package provided to the City of Renton by the applicant for the Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility. This submittal includes demolition plan, rough grading ( cut and fill) plan, temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan, Gypsy Subbasin pipe and outfall replacement, and utility and drainage control plans. We have found the submittal to be in conformance with City of Renton development standards and design requirements. We are also advising you herein that inspection of construction activity at the site will be performed by City of Renton inspectors, not a third party utility construction inspection service as previously planned. Please do not hesitate to contact the project planner, Elizabeth Higgins at 425-430-7382, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. Sinc1rel?' / 7--ff-· 1\J tu {:(/d.,{l11 Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division Cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager David Murphy, Architect Elaine Wine, Project Manager _______ 10_5_5_S_ou_t_h_G_ra_d_y_W_a_y_--R-en-to_n_, -W-a-sh_in_g-to_n_9_8_05_7 _______ ~ ~ Th1i; n;:inP.r<:nnt;:iin!', SO% recvdFJd material 30% oostconsumer ,\HEAD OF THE Cl1 RVE SOCIUS:. GROUP;, November 17, 2006 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Fred Kaufi:nan Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Scahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073 Dear Mr. Kaufi:nan: CITY OF RENTON NOV 1 7 2005 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 206.838 91 00 t//\H>J ''HO~li. 206.838.91 01 1/M>J ··1,.x Tw(1 Unior ::Sc1u;:i.rc E01 Union St. Suitt 4950 Sc;itt1c. \/'/A 98101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.838.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com This law firm represents Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners (the "Association"). The Association is a condominium association formed under RCW ch. 64.32 comprised of the owners of condominium units in Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove"). Misty Cove is located adjacent and to the north of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility. The Association is a party, having filed comments and an appeal of the City of Renton's Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance ("MONS"). Football Northwest LLC d/b/a Seattle Seahawks ("FNW") and the Association have negotiated a Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Association has withdrawn its appeal of the MONS. The Association supports the City's permit for the Scahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility. No. LUA06-073 based upon the agreed permit conditions set forth below: Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Design. FNW shall develop the Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ("!PF") located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plan-Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this letter. FNW shall develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the !PF (!PF elevation to the south of the Misty Cove Condominium). In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the !PF substantially in accordance with the principles stated in Exhibit B to this letter. .<oci11s!:11.i co111 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman November 17, 2006 Page 2 Training Camp Off-Site Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project site. Project Dumpster/Recycling Area. The Project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays -not at nights or very early morning hours. All non-recyclable materials placed in containers will be in sealed plastic bags. Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least equal quality. Project Outdoor Lighting. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under this permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences. Signage. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site, so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and state regulations. Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower-level plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property. Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turflntegrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project application shall be conditions permit approval. Along with FNW, we request that the foregoing items be made conditions of permit approval in your decision. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Enclosures cc: Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton Roger Pearce 15830 Very truly your~ '1~ omas F. Peterson " " ,, fTj >< I co ---! • • ,,~ ~-,, _AKE WASHINGTON ,, rt,~c ,I j STA:: J ccem----- cx1sc-1NG POWER ' \ POL[ LOCATION --._j SOUTH PROPERTY FF:NCC: Ll~C: PSE EASEMENT LINE (TBD)~ EXISTING POWER POLE LOCAT'ON CUR8 NEW 1-STORY t.11\INTENANCE SHED -- COVERED CAR , , '\, WETLAN)S re:--_lo_\ -'~ BUFFER_ , ''If --- I 1 ,,_ -----~, -~- /01 ___ ,"-."'-&'?&1/1( ,: ... :--CuR& //1 1''1'11 '-1--,...,_,,./ IIIIIIFH-~--+ ,: j/ I ~§ ~ E '~,-;if J> EXISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE TO BE R!:_MOVED \ EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION MAINT. PARKING l.l....::::,.., C::::.~ .. INDOOR PRACT<E ,,,,LnY i~-'~---~:~_I i ~ ·§r ~rl r ~ -~)11 \j 3 STAI.LS SECURITY GATE & ~--______/ Lh I ' "---· Bl)RUNGTO_N_ NQ_RT_HERN SAN_T_,:', __ FT . RIG .. ' -----------------------4/ F-'lJM ---~-~~=-!'--.. J· '. ·.; ,-:;) ... ,::~is:~.-;::-:t_ ....... --~ ------. -. ---'.~Cf ::I;~~ -,'-',"'-"-' .-~-.:,:__1--+----------"~- -_-:-_-=~ -______ -_-_ _---x-_-----~ ----_--___ --:::._\--=-==--=--=--==---=---------------- PROPOSFD RAILWA"!' CROSSING ~ PARKING COUNT ---------------------- STRfAM C\ASS LAKE WASHINGTO"I -CLASS 1 GYPSY SUB BASIN DfWNAGE -CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3) GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 91 STALLS SECURE TEAM PARKING 1 61 STALLS TOTAL 252 ~T~- lN1ERS1 A 1[-405 ~--- ® l"•.w1:",,.t 00!'" b M1~!~~TION SITE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE 6SEPTEMOER REVISED· !l NOVEMBER @ ~: ·=rg~= ~·rasr ,:::::;: ~ l!! -l!l -2:' «l:: ::i-u O""' -g LJ.. '" Cl I.~ ~ ] ~~ o. ii H •l ~-~ 3: ~ "'f--J:: • "' ~ '" Cf) ~ -1S::-""'li, f-ij, i ~ _--'-- 0 (.), u:j ~1--~ > f-• LJ.J UJ! DZ' z o' ~'.::·_~=,,-1 C/'J i....,-.. wo,1c-~.---, 0 LL _,, .. _ I-MITIGATION ";fl. o: SITEPLAN g Zi "'"' ,., ,., Indoor Practice Facility {IPF) -North Elevation The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF, three exterior wall systems are being developed: 1. Base -The first 30 feet of the fa9ade will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 30 feet. Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green-screen" that is comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation. 2. Middle -The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 80 feet with no "green screen." 3. Top -The "top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to 70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the fa9ade by casting varying shadow on the IPF fa9ade. Each layer of the fa9ade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the fa9ade will have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure. A range of color palettes are being studied for the fa9ade including: 1. Metal Panels/Siding -Nickel to light gray 2. Cementious Panels -Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel 3. Translucent Panels -white to "off-white"/light gray 4. "green-screen" -stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the screen. Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page. C:XHIBIT ---'~-- 13 ;-,\H181T ___ _ 2-0 {:2--- I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CITY OF RENTON No •; ' 7 .-0[1" V t ' L( )) RECEIVED UTY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. NO. LUA06-073 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF APPEAL Appellant Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners hereby voluntarily dismisses its appeal of the City ofRenton's Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated 17 filed November 6, 2006, with prejudice. 18 DATEDthis?l-t;;;yof ~ , 2006. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF APPEAL 15843 SOCIUS LAW GROUP, PLLC .,rrG~ Thomas F. Peterson, WSBA #16587 Attorneys for Appellant -1- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 ~ FOSTER PEPPER"' Via Facsimile Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 November 10, 2006 Direct Phone (206) 447-2690 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2193 E-Mail taraj@foster.com DEVELOP'-IENT p r,, 'F AENT~NtNG NOV 1 5 2006 hi:CEIVEO Re: Misty Cove Ass 'n of Apartment Owners v. City of Renton and Football Northwest Request for Pre-hearing Conference Dear Mr. Examiner: We represent project applicant Football Northwest LLC in the above referenced appeal of the City of Rcnton's MONS on the proposed new corporate headquarters and training facility for the Seattle Seahawks. The SEP A appeal hearing will be held on November 21, 2006 in conjunction with an open record pre-decision hearing on the underlying permits. In the interest of making the hearing as efficient as possible, we request a pre-hearing telephonic conference with the Examiner to discuss the order of presentation of witnesses and evidence and related pre-hearing matters. We can be available for such a conference anytime during the week of November 13th except for 11:00 AM Monday (13 1h), Noon Thursday (l 6'h) and 1 :00 PM Friday (17'\ cc: Roger Pearce, Esq. Tom Peterson, Esq. Tom Ehrlichman, Esq. Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes, Esq. Ms. Elizabeth Higgins Clients Sincerely, \ Jeffrey B. Taraday Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC TEL 206.447.4400 FAX 206.447. 9700 1111 THIRD AVENUE. SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981013299 WWW FOSTER.COM 50743652 I SEATTLE WASH[NGTON SPOKANE WASHINGTO.'./ PORTLAND OREGO'.\I 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF 6 APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE JANSEN, 7 File No. LUA06-073 8 9 V. Appellants, CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL 10 NORTHWEST, 11 Res ondents. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Football Northwest has applied to the City of Renton for shoreline and master plan 14 permits for its proposed new Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Headquarters") 15 for the Seattle Seahawks: The City ofRenton's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") 16 issued a Report and Decision on October 16, 2006. The Report and Decision included the ERC's 17 SEPA threshold determination -a Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance ("MDNS") -for 18 the Headquarters project. Decisions on the permit applications have not been made. An open 19 record pre-decision hearing on the permit application is scheduled before the Examiner for 20 November 21, 2006. 21 Mr. Steve Jansen has filed an appeal of the October 16, 2006, ERC Report for the 22 Headquarters project. Mr. Jansen owns and resides in a unit at the Misty Cove apartments that 23 arc adjacent to the proposed Headquarters. Instead of challenging the City ofRenton's MONS, 24 Mr. Jansen's appeal challenges only the Headquarters project's compliance with certain 25 development regulations. Mr. Jansen is certainly free to comment on those issues at the public 26 hearing on the permit applications, but there is no appeal of those issues currently available. The MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -1 50743735 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THmn A VlcNUf., Su1n 3400 5EA1TI f, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 l'HONE (206) 447-4400 F.\X (206) 447-9700 I only appeal currently available before the Examiner is the appeal of the MDNS. Accordingly, 2 Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. ARGUMENT The only appealable decision that has been made with respect to the Headquarters project is the SEPA threshold determination. Mr. Jansen has not appealed the issuance of the MDNS. Instead, Mr. Jansen's appeal alleges only that the Headquarters project fails to comply with certain development regulations. (Mr. Jansen quotes language from RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4- 9-030M but may have meant to cite the shoreline regulations at RMC 4-3-090K3.) Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons. First and foremost, the ERC's discussion of the permitting criteria, being only a recommendation to the Examiner, is no! subject to appeal -only the MDNS decision is subject to appeal. The Examiner will consider all the applicable development regulations, including any of the regulations referenced in the Jansen appeal (if relevant), when the Examiner considers the pending applications.1 Because the Jansen appeal is not an appeal of the SEP A threshold determination, it should be dismissed. Instead, the Examiner should treat the applicable portion of the Jansen appeal as a comment letter2 on the pending applications. DATED this 141h day of November, 2006. Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21 l l 3 Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest 1 Note that some of the development regulations cited by Mr. Jansen would not apply to this project. Even as a comment letter it should be noted that Mr. Jansen's concerns about wetlands appear to be misplaced. No wetlands are proposed to be filled as part of the Headquarters project. The only wetland on the project site is a compensatory wetland that was created in conjunction with the Department of Ecology clean up of hazardous materials from the site. This wetland and its buffers will not be disturbed by the Headquarters project. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -2 s014n_1, 2 Fos nm PEPPER PLLC 1111 'n11no A VENUE, SUITE 3400 Sl'ATTlE, WASf-llNGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4-100 FAX (206) 447-9700 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF SERVICE Susan Allan declares: I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and that, on November 14, 2006, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the attached Motion to Dismiss Jansen Appeal to the following: Fred J. Kaufman Thomas Ehrlichman Hearing Examiner TJ Ehrlichman & Associates City of Renton 2827 Rockefeller Ave. 1055 South Grady Way Everett, WA 9820 I Renton, Washington 98055 E-mail: tehrlichman@tjelaw.com Fax: 425.430.6523 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Via Fax and U.S. Mail Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. Renton, WA 98056 P. 0. Box 626 E-mail: smjansen@msn.com Renton, WA 98057 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail E-mail: zlfontes@seanet.com Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Thomas Peterson Elizabeth Higgins Socius Law Group PLLC City of Renton, Two Union Square Development Services Division 601 Union St., Suite 4950 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. Seattle, WA 9810 I E-mail: tQeterson@,sociuslaw.com Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor Via E-mail and U.S. Mail 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 E-mail: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us Via E-mail and U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 14th day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. Susan Allan MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -3 50743735 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THrn n A V~NU~., Sum: 3400 SrATTlE, WASH[NGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) <147-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE JANSEN, File No. LUA06-073 Appellants, V. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST Respondents. TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and TO: All Parties; and their respective attorneys. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, without waiving any defenses or objections, Roger A. Pearce, Jeffrey B. Taraday and Foster Pepper PLLC appear in this action on behalf of the Respondent Football Northwest. Copies of all further papers and proceedings in this action, except original process, should be served upon Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. Taraday at the address stated below. Specific contact information for Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. Taraday are as follows: Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 9810 I Ph: 206.44 7.4676 Fax: 206.749.1997 E-mail: pearr@foster.com NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST· I S0i440I\! I FOSTF.R PEPPER PLLC 1111 Tttmn A VENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASH[NGTON 98101-J299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Jeffrey B. Taraday Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 9810 I Ph: 206.447.2690 Fax: 206.749.2193 E-mail: taraj@,foster.com DATED this 13th day of November, 2006. Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113 Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST-2 FOSTER PEPPfR PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUf., SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 S0744'Jl8 \ ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF SERVICE Susan Allan declares: I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and that, on November 13, 2006, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below true and correct copies of the attached Notice of Appearance, and this Declaration of Service, to the following: Fred J. Kaufman Thomas Ehrlichman Hearing Examiner TJ Ehrlichman & Associates City of Renton 2827 Rockefeller Ave. 1055 South Grady Way Everett, WA 98201 Renton, Washington 98055 Via U.S. Mail Original Via U.S. Mail Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. Renton, WA 98056 P. 0. Box 626 Via US Mail Renton, WA 98057 Via US. Mail Mr. Thomas Peterson Elizabeth Higgins Socius Law Group PLLC City of Renton, Two Union Square Development Services Division 601 Union St., Suite 4950 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. Seattle, WA 98101 Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor Via U.S. Mail 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 Via US. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DA TED this 13'11 day or November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. ~~~ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -3 5074401 B I Susan Allan FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 TttllUl AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHlNGTON 98101-32.99 PHONE (206) H7-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 I' November 14, 2006 Ms. Elaine Wine Football Northwest, LLC 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: BAXTER SITE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS, SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS AND PRACTICE FACILITY, RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Elaine: ALASKA COlOAAOO FLORIDA MISSOURI OREGON WASHINGTON Pursuant to your request, we have prepared this letter to summarize the general differences between the subsurface conditions below the north Baxter site, where the Headquarters and Indoor Practice Facility are currently proposed, and the south Baxter site. The subsurface conditions of the north Baxter site were explored with 13 soil borings. These soil borings encountered competent bedrock at depths ranging from 17.5 to 58 feet. A subsequent geophysical survey completed on the north Baxter site revealed that the competent bedrock surface is generally less than 40 feet deep below most of the proposed building footprint. Tue bedrock will provide competent bearing for foundation shafts supporting the proposed building. Two deep soil borings were completed within the south Baxter site in previous studies. Boring BAX-8b encountered dense soils at 50 feet deep. Boring SWB-2 encountered bearing soils at 90 feet deep and bedrock at 98 feet. The overlying soils above the dense soils and bedrock are mostly loose or soft sand, silt, or clay, with discontinuous layers of peat. This overlying soil is not suitable for foundation support of the proposed building. Based on the results of the subsurface explorations, it is reasonable to conclude that the north Baxter site is a much better location for the proposed building from a geotechnical engineering perspective. The relatively shallow depth to competent bearing materials on the north Baxter site will make foundation construction costs significantly less than if the building were located over the south Baxter site. Although additional subsurface explorations would be needed to fully 400 NORTH 34TH STREET· SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206·632·8020 FAX 206·695·6777 TDD 1·800·833·6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21-1-20525-004 ' • Ms. Elaine Wine Football Northwest, LLC November 14, 2006 Page2 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. evaluate the potential depths of foundation shafts on the south Baxter site, it is our opinion that foundations would likely be two to three times deeper and therefore more costly on the south Baxter site. Additionally, the ground surface elevation of the south Baxter site is several feet lower than the north site. We expect that significantly more grading work would be required to develop the building on the south site and practice fields on the north, as compared to the currently proposed site plan. Please call me at (206) 695-6875 if you have any questions. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ( EXPIRES 4/21/ 0 '( ---' Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Associate MWP:TMG/mwp 2 l-J-20525-004-UNvS .doc/wp/EET 21-1-20525-004 Exhibit 26 EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review documentation, correspondence from interested parties, and other items pertinent to this request. Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown) Exhibit 4: Zoning Map (dated 02/16/2006) Exhibit 5: Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative Plan (dated 11/13/2006) Exhibit 6: Plan Diagrams (dated 11/07/2006) Exhibit 7: North and South Building Elevations (dated 11/15/2006) Exhibit 8: South View Transverse Section (dated 11/15/2006) Exhibit 9: Base Site Plan (dated 11/13/2006) Exhibit 10: Building Location Options (dated 11/03/2006) Exhibit 11: Green Screen Wall A (no date) Exhibit 12: Green Screen Wall B (no date) Exhibit 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 (no date) Exhibit 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Mitigated Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Comparison (no date) Exhibit 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 (no date) Exhibit 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Mitigated Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Comparison (no date) Exhibit 21: Daily Shadow Studies -Base Plan (no date) Exhibit 22: Daily Shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan (no date) Exhibit 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Existing Conditions (no date) Exhibit 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Base Plan (no date) Exhibit 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan (no date) Exhibit 26: List of Exhibits I_.) '-6 1.-'-, "'r ZJ:, Jf 3 D ~1 t,.,,,.,v ' l I Gv.LL ~-1 ~ l, '""'-~*' j ~1 [,__~ STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on October 23, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $150.75. · ----------- ~-:A j) --' -;,-; I f / Jody Legaf A:dveTtising Representative, King County Journal Subscribed and sworn to me this 23'' day of October, 2006.: f..' ) _,.J_.. ( r:'?} 2u /(')7) B D Cantelon Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington PO Number: · NOTICE Oi' r:NVIRONMEKTAL JJETJ<;HMJNATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE & PUBLIC HEARING RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Revif•w Com- mittee has issued a Detcnninat.ion of Non-Significam·f!-Mitigated for the fol- lowing project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Ccxie. Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUAOG-07:l, SA-M_ SA-H, SM, EGF Location: 501fi Lake Washington Blvd N. The project proponent i:o requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawb Hcadquarte-rs and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a thrni:-!- story office building and indoor practice facility in a single stru(..ture and four outdoor practice fields for the ilport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage ii-ahm planned. The prnpost>d project location is a vacant site behveen the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44ih Street interchange wiih lnb;r;,tak 405 <Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The :oite consists of two ta..x parcels, known a:-:. Baxter North and Birxter South Properties_ The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment farility. Appeals of ~he environmental determination mu...c;t be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required S75.00 application fee v.-ith: Hearing-Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Wny, Rent.on, WA 980;)5. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Kenton Munkipal Code Sec- tion 4-8-110.R Additional information regarding the appf'al procf'8S mn.y he obtained from the Renton Citv Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. · A Public Hearing will ltB held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers. City Hall, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 /\M to con- sider the Master Rill-i Phm and Master Site Plan. If the Environmental Deter- mination is appealed, the appt-al will be heard as pmt of this public hear- ing. Interested parties are invikd to attend the public hearing. Publication Dat.e: October 23, 2006 Published ln the King County ,foumal October 23, 2006. #861925 • November 27, 2006 Ms. Sunny Linhao Becker, P.E. Environmental Engineer, Toxics Cleanup Program Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office 3190-160th Avenue SE Bellevue Washington 98008-5452 ·c1T-F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Re: Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Engineering Design Report Substantive Requirements /.....UA o" -o 7 3 SA -.H, ~A-H, S t--1 1 Ec.r Dear Ms. Becker We have reviewed the "Draft Engineering Design Report for the Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility -North and South Baxter Properties Renton, Washington," which includes an Addendum to the "Engineering Design Report for the Baxter South Property in Renton." Both were prepared by The RETEC Group, Inc., for remediation of site contamination, and dated October 2006 and May 28, 2002 respectively. The cleanup action is being accomplished under the Model Toxics Control Act, and as such, Washington State Department of Ecology preempts local permit authority. Per RCW 70.105D.090, however, the remedial action must comply with the substantive provisions of any laws requiring or authorizing local government permits or approvals. Our review indicates that the proposal to remediate contamination on the Baxter property meets substantive permit requirements of the City of Renton, including Criteria for Wetland Buffers and Buffer Averaging (RMC 4-3-050M), Criteria for Relocation of Piped or Culverted Streams (RMC 4-3-050L5), Shoreline Substantive Development Permit (RMC 4-9-190), Special PermitforGrade and Fill (RMC 4-4-060), Routine Vegetation·· Management Permit (RMC 4-4-130), and Utility Construction Permit (RMC 4-4-060). These permits would allow construction of utility systems including water, fire, sanitary sewer, and stormwater control. Permit requirements not included in our review for compliance include Building Construction and Roadway Construction Permits. Inspection of construction activity at the site would be performed by an agreed-upon third party utility construction inspection service. Please do not hesitate to contact the project planner, Elizabeth Higgins at 425-430-7382, if you have any questions regarding this correspondence. Sincfre,ly .r . , . , . tvaf tciITt Neil Watts, Director Development Services Division Cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager ______ R_o_g_e_:0-:-:-a:-:-:-·th_F G_os_r:-:r-yl-:-:-:-~-rR-:-:-~-:-.-W-a_s_h-in_gt_o_n_98_0_5_5 _______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~ FOSTER PEPPER,.u, To: From: Date: Memorandum City of Renton Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufman Roger A. Pearce, Attorney for Applicant Football Northwest LLC November 21, 2006 Subject: City of Renton Application LUA06-073 Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility City of Renton Shoreline Regulations This memorandum briefly outlines the regulations of the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program applicable to the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters project The Seahawks site is in the City's Urban Shoreline environment. Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") §4-3-090](2). Urban environments are areas of"high- intensity land use" that are suitable for areas "extremely intensive use pressure." The Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Project) is a relatively high intensity use, even though only approximately 130 employees and up to 60 players would use a site a/over 19 acres. RMC §4-3-090J(5)(b) Priority is given to "planning for" public visual and physical access to water. Commercial uses shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable. The higher portion a/the Project building-the Indoor Practice Facility (!PF) has been pulled back to approximately 200 feet/ram the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in order to minimize view impacts to the water from the neighboring Misty Cove Condominiums. With respect to public views from 1-405 and other nearby roads, approximately ha// o/ the Project site will be athletic fields developed at grade, which will function as a view corridor to the water. The Project is furnishing a public access and walk area along the shoreline which will tie in with the eventual rails-to-trails project just to the east o/ the Project site. RMC §4-3-090K General Use Regulations for all Shoreline Uses 4-3-090K(2) Consider effects on water quality and wildlife and soil quality; control erosion. TEI: 206.447.4400 FAX· 206.447.9700 1111 THJRD1WENUE.tiU1Tl:34UD, SF.ATTLE, WASHINGTON <J8101-32<J9 WWW.FOSTEltCOM SF.ATTLE WASHlNGTO\l SPOKANE WASHINGTON POH.TLAND ORE(.;01\: 50743533 3 I\'\ 1. Memorandum November 21, 2006 Page 2 The stormwater management plan, the Lake and Stream Study, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan for the Project's athletic.fields ensure water quality and wildlife impacts are mitigated. The Project is part of a cleanup of a formerly polluted industrial site. That cleanup is being administered by the Washington Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Erosion will be controlled by best management practices during construction, as detailed in the Engineering Design Report to Ecology, a copy of which is in the City's permit record. 4-3-090K(3) Potential impact on adjacent and nearby land and shoreline users shall be considered and "efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. (a)(i)Consider view obstruction. The Project buildings have been sited in order to minimize view obstructions. (a)(ii)Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic. Training camp activities will be conducted on the south end of the site, away/ram the residential use to the north, and will occur during the middle of the day. No odors are anticipated. No nighttime athletic field lighting is proposed, and outdoor security lighting will be designed with directional.fixtures that prevent light spillage onto adjacent buildings ojf- site. No changes to water traffic are anticipated. Adverse impacts to land traffic are being mitigated by contributing to the City's road improvement project/or Ripley Lane and by off-site parking and busing fans to the Project site during training camp activities. (a)(iii)Uniform and coordinated design. The site buildings are being designed in a coordinated manner. (a)(iv)Landscape screening to hide from public view areas such as disposal bins, storage yards. The dumpster and recyclable areas will be screened. (a)(v)Work areas on a site in a residential area should be in enclosed buildings. Outdoor activities of commercial operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the enterprise. Outdoor activities on the athletic fields are necessary/or the operation of the enterprise. Other activities are within the buildings. RMC §4-3-090K(4) Where possible, leave space and ROW for nonmotorized trail connections. 50743583 3 The Project will provide for a connection with the proposed rails-to-trails project in the BNSF right-of-way to the east of the site. An integrated trail system along the water's edge is impractical in this location because of the Misty Cove residential building and marina along the shoreine to the north and the wetland and Puget Sound Energy substation sites along the shoreline to the south. Memorandum November 21, 2006 Page 3 RMC §4-3-090K(5) Facility arrangement -Where feasible, locate water-related or water-enjoyment uses along the shoreline and other facilities inland. Public access is located along the water's edge. The other proposed uses of the site in this application are not water-related. RMC §4-3-090K(6) Landscaping -Landscaping should be indigenous to the specific type of waterway. The existing invasive species on the site will be replaced by indigenous species, which will provide better habitat values. RMC §4-3-090L Specific Use Regulations RMC §4-3-090L(5) Commercial Developments RMC §4-3-090L(5)(a)(i) Encourage new commercial developments in areas where current commercial uses exist. The 19+ acre site was most recently used.for industrial purposes. Industrial uses still occupy the site to the south. The Project provides a transition between the residential use to the north of the site and the industrial use to the south. RMC §4-3-090L(5)(a)(ii) New commercial development on Lake Washington that is not water-related, water-dependent or water-enjoyment must provide significant public access to and along the water's edge. Public access is provided along the north side of the site and along the water's edge. Access along the south of the site is not practical because it would conflict with the site's planned practice field uses, would conflict with the wetland areas in the west corner of the site, and would require public access across the Super.fund site to the south. RMC §4-3-090L(5)(b) New commercial development should incorporate recreational opportunities along the shoreline for the general public. Passive recreation opportunities are provided along the shoreline for the general public and are appropriate.for this site. RMC §4-3-090L(5)(c)-View Impacts Applicant must indicate in application the effect the proposed development will have on the scenic view prevailing in the given area0 And indicate what steps have been taken in design to reduce to a minimum the significant view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. The primary scenic view in this area is the northwest -the view to Lake Washington and Mercer Island beyond, which is to the northwest. The visual simulations prepared for the project show that there is little or no view impact to residential properties up the hill. Because those properties are distant from the Memorandum November 21, 2006 Page4 project (across Ripley Lane, across the broad I-405 right-of-way, and across the wide commercial zoning area on the other side of 1-405) the new Indoor Practice Facility (!PF) at the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters occupies a very small percentage of the overall viewfrom those properties. The views from those properties to the water are also already largely obstructed by existing mature trees, particularly the large trees along the Ripley Lane right-oj~way east of the Project. The views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from the south- facing units at Misty Cove are shown in Project photosimulations. Those views are not significantly impacted by the project. The original building site plan proposal had some impacts to views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from upper Misty Cove units that are located most easterly. The mitigated building site plan location has moved the entire building approximately 60 feet to the east, which has minimized or eliminated those impacts. RMC §4-3-090L(5)(d) Commercial building should be located no closer than 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark The proposed building is well backfrom the 50foot setback line. The !PF is now located outside the Shoreline District. To: From: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facilitv LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF (Higgins/ The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary bullding for football-related equipment storage Is also planned. The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North (10.01 acres) and Baxter South (16.57 (7?] acres) Properties. The Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. The 19.68 acre property (total) is zoned Commercial/ Residential/ Office 2 (COR 2). cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Suzanne Dale Eftey, EDNSP Director® J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/8/PW Development Services Director ® F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S. Engler, Fire Prevention ® J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/8/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney ® I 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF 6 APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE JANSEN, 7 File No. LUA06-073 8 9 V. Appellants, CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL 10 NORTHWEST, I I Res ondents. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Football Northwest has applied to the City of Renton for shoreline and master plan 14 permits for its proposed new Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Headquarters") 15 for the Seattle Seahawks: The City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") 16 issued a Report and Decision on October 16, 2006. The Report and Decision included the ERC's 17 SEPA threshold determination -a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MONS") -for 18 the Headquarters project. Decisions on the permit applications have not been made. An open 19 record pre-decision hearing on the permit application is scheduled before the Examiner for 20 November 21, 2006. 21 Mr. Steve Jansen has filed an appeal of the October 16, 2006, ERC Report for the 22 Headquarters project. Mr. Jansen owns and resides in a unit at the Misty Cove apartments that 23 are adjacent to the proposed Headquarters. Instead of challenging the City ofRenton's MONS, 24 Mr. Jansen's appeal challenges only the Headquarters project's compliance with certain 25 development regulations. Mr. Jansen is certainly free to comment on those issues at the public 26 hearing on the permit applications, but there is no appeal of those issues currently available. The MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -I 5074)735.2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (2061447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 only appeal currently available before the Examiner is the appeal of the MONS. Accordingly, 2 Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. ARGUMENT The only appealable decision that has been made with respect to the Headquarters project is the SEPA threshold determination. Mr. Jansen has not appealed the issuance of the MONS. Instead, Mr. Jansen's appeal alleges only that the Headquarters project fails to comply with certain development regulations. (Mr. Jansen quotes language from RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4- 9-030M but may have meant to cite the shoreline regulations at RMC 4-3-090K3.) Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons. First and foremost, the ERC's discussion of the permitting criteria, being only a recommendation to the Examiner, is not subject to appeal -only the MONS decision is subject to appeal. The Examiner will consider all the applicable development regulations, including any of the regulations referenced in the Jansen appeal (if relevant), when the Examiner considers the pending applications.1 Because the Jansen appeal is not an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, it should be dismissed. Instead, the Examiner should treat the applicable portion of the Jansen appeal as a comment letter2 on the pending applications. DATED this 14th day of November, 2006. Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113 Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest 1 Note that some of the development regulations cited by Mr. Jansen would not apply to this project. Even as a comment letter it should be noted that Mr. Jansen's concerns about wetlands appear to be misplaced. No wetlands are proposed to be filled as part of the Headquarters project. The only wetland on the project site is a compensatory wetland that was created in conjunction with the Department of Ecology clean up of hazardous materials from the site. This wetland and its buffers will not be disturbed by the Headquarters project. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -2 S07437J5 2 FOSTER PFPPER PLLC 1111 Tttum Avt.Nm., Surn. 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF SERVICE Susan Allan declares: I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and that, on November 14, 2006, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the attached Motion to Dismiss Jansen Appeal to the following: Fred J. Kaufman Thomas Ehrlichman Hearing Examiner TJ Ehrlichman & Associates City of Renton 2827 Rockefeller Ave. I 055 South Grady Way Everett, WA 98201 Renton, Washington 98055 E-mail: tehrlichman@,tjelaw.com Fax: 425.430.6523 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Via Fax and U.S. Mail Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. Renton, WA 98056 P. 0. Box 626 E-mail: smjansen@msn.com Renton, WA 98057 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail E-mail: zlfontes(a),scanet.com Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Thomas Peterson Elizabeth Higgins Socius Law Group PLLC City of Renton, Two Union Square Development Services Division 601 Union St., Suite 4950 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: tQeterson(wsociuslaw.com Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor Via E-mail and U.S. Mail 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 E-mail: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us Via E-mail and U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 14 1h day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. \::~0,)~ Susan Allan MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -3 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC S07437JS 2 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX 4206) 447-9700 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE 9 JANSEN, File No. LUA06-073 Appellants, 10 V. 11 CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST 12 13 Respondents. 14 TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and 15 TO: All Parties; and their respective attorneys. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, without waiving any defenses or objections, Roger A. Pearce, .Jeffrey B. Taraday and Foster Pepper PLLC appear in this action on behalf of the Respondent Football Northwest. Copies of all further papers and proceedings in this action, except original process, should be served upon Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. Taraday at the address stated below. Specific contact information for Roger A. Pearce and .Jeffrey B. Taraday are as follows: Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 9810 I Ph: 206.447.4676 Fax: 206.749.1997 E-mail: pearr@foster.com NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -I 50744018. I FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD A VENUE, SUITE 3400 StATl'I.E, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX 1206) 447-9700 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Jeffrey B. Taraday Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Ph: 206.447.2690 Fax: 206.749.2193 E-mail: taraj(al.foster.com DATED this 13th day of November, 2006. EPPER PLLC Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113 Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400 SU\TrLI, \VASIUNGTON 98101-3299 PllONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 50744018. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF SERVICE Susan Allan declares: I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and that, on November 13, 2006, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below true and correct copies of the attached Notice of Appearance, and this Declaration of Service, to the following: Fred J. Kaufman Thomas Ehrlichman Hearing Examiner TJ Ehrlichman & Associates City of Renton 2827 Rockefeller Ave. 1055 South Grady Way Everett, WA 9820 I Renton, Washington 98055 Via US Mail Original Via US Mail Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S. Renton, WA 98056 P. 0. Box 626 Via US Mail Renton, WA 98057 Via US. Mail Mr. Thomas Peterson Elizabeth Higgins Socius Law Group PLLC City of Renton, Two Union Square Development Services Division 601 Union St., Suite 4950 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. Seattle, WA 98101 Via US. Mail Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 Via US Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 13 1h day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. ~s~~ NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST -3 50744018.l Susan Allan FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THJRD A VEt,;UE, SUITE 3400 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700 ~ FOSTER PEPPER , Via Facsimile Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Direct Phone (206)447-2690 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2193 November 10, 2006 E-Mail taraj@foster.com Re: Misty Cove Ass 'n ofApartment Owners v. City ofRenton and Football Northwest Request for Pre-hearing Conference Dear Mr. Examiner: We represent project applicant Football Northwest LLC in the above referenced appeal of the City ofRenton's MONS on the proposed new corporate headquarters and training facility for the Seattle Seahawks. The SEPA appeal hearing will be held on November 21, 2006 in conjunction with an open record pre-decision hearing on the underlying permits. In the interest of making the hearing as efficient as possible, we request a pre-hearing telephonic conference with the Examiner to discuss the order of presentation of witnesses and evidence and related pre-hearing matters. We can be available for such a conference anytime during the week of November 13th except for 11 :00 AM Monday (13 1h), Noon Thursday (16'h) and I :00 PM Friday (17 1\ cc: Roger Pearce, Esq. Tom Peterson, Esq. Tom Ehrlichman, Esq. Mr. Steve Jansen Zanella Fontes, Esq. Ms. Elizabeth Higgins Clients Sincerely, Jeffrey B. Taraday Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC 1r: 206.447.4400 1.\:\: :206.4--+ 7. g;oo 11 1 11111111 ''-i·:-..L , .. suTi-: ,.ion SEATTLE. \VASJ i 1 r-<GTON cJ1<,1::_ ,2,H \V\V\V.FOSTER.COiVl 50743652 I SEr\TTLF \\,\~111v;1u, SPOIC\\lL 11·\-;Jil:\GTO:\ PORTLAND 01,u;o"\ FP 11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 001/004 Fax Server Ill F O STE R PE PP E R "" FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEE1' Date Faxed: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:59:44 PM TO: Fred Kaufman FAX NUMBER: 425.430.6523 From: Jeffrey Taraday/Susan Allan Direct Dial: 206-447-7901 Direct Return Fax: Number of Pages (Including cover page): 04 Message: Hard copy to follow. VOICE CONT ACT: IliE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUN/CAT/ON IS PRIVIUGED AND/OR CONFIDENT/AL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF EACII INDNIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION JS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. /FYOll HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. PHONe 206.447.4400 FAX 206.447.9700 llll TH1RDAVENU]'.SUITE3400, SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 WWW.FOSilill..COM SEATILE WAS!llNGTON SPOKANE WASHlNGTON POR1LAND OREGON FP 11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 002/004 Fax Server 1 2 3 4 5 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATrON OF 6 APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE JANSEN, 7 File No. LUA06-073 8 9 Appellants, v. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL 10 NORTHWEST, II MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Football Northwest has applied to the City of Renton for shoreline and master plan 14 permits for its proposed new Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Headquarters") 15 for the Seattle Seahawks: The City ofRenton's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") 16 issued a Report and Decision on October 16, 2006. The Report and Decision included the ERC's 17 SEPA threshold determination-a Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance ("MDNS")-for 18 the Headquarters project. Decisions on the permit applications have not been made. An open 19 record pre-decision hearing on the permit application is scheduled before the Examiner for 20 November 21, 2006. 21 Mr. Steve Jansen has filed an appeal of the October 16, 2006, ERC Report for the 22 Headquarters project. Mr. Jansen owns and resides in a unit at the Misty Cove apartments that 23 are adjacent to the proposed Headquarters. Instead of challenging the City of Renton 's MDNS, 24 Mr. Jansen's appeal challenges only the Headquarters project's compliance with certain 25 development regulations. Mr. Jansen is certainly free to comment on those issues at the public 26 hearing on the permit applications, but there is no appeal of those issues currently available. The MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -l J07UTIJ.2 POS11!R PEPPE& PLLC 1111 TulRD A.vuruE,SUrTEl400 SEATnli,. WASHINGTON 98101-3299 P'HoNE '2961.U7-4&00 F.u: (206}M.7-9700 FP 11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 003/004 Fax Server only appeal currently available before the Examiner is the appeal of the MONS. Accordingly, 2 Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 n. ARGUMENT The only appealable decision that has been made with respect to the Headquarters project is the SEP A threshold determination. Mr. Jansen has not appealed the issuance of the MDNS. Instead, Mr. Jansen's appeal alleges only that the Headquarters project fails to comply with certain development regulations. (Mr. Jansen quotes language from RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4- 9-030M but may have meant to cite the shoreline regulations at RMC 4-3-090K3.) Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons. First and foremost, the ERC's discussion of the permitting criteria, being only a recommendation to the Examiner, is not subject to appeal -only the MONS decision is subject to appeal. The Examiner will consider all the applicable development regulations, including any of the regulations referenced in the Jansen appeal (if relevant), when the Examiner considers the pending applications, 1 Because the Jansen appeal is not an appeal oftbe SEPA threshold determination, it should be dismissed. Instead, the Examiner should treat the applicable portion of the Jansen appeal as a comment letter2 on the pending applications. DATED this 14m day of November, 2006. Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113 JeffreyB. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182 Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest 1 Note that some of the development regulations cited by Mr. Jansen would not apply to this project. Even as a comment Jetter it should be noted that Mr. Jansen's concerns about wetlands appear to be misplaced. No wetlands arc proposed to be filled as part of the Headquarters project. The only wetland on the project site is a compensatory wetland that was created in conjunction with the Department of Ecology clean up of hazardous materials from the site. This wetland and its buffers will not be disturbed by the Headquarters project. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -2 S07073S.1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 THII.DAVENUE,StlnE3tOO SlATJUi,. WASHINGTON HWI-3299 PJ.foNI (106} 447-MOO FAX (2.06) "47-9700 FP 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 004/004 Fax Server DECLARATION OF SERVICE Susan Allan declares: I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competentto be a witness in the above-entitled proceeding, and that, on November 14, 2006, I caused to be delivered in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the attached Motion to Dismiss Jansen Appeal to the following: Fred J. Kaufman Thomas Ehrlichman Hearing Examiner TJ Ehrlichman & Associates City of Renton 2827 Rockefeller Ave. 1055 South Grady Way Everett, WA 9820 I Renton, Washington 98055 E-mail: tehrlichman@tjelaw.com Fax: 425.430.6523 Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Via Fax and U.S. Mail Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Warren, Baroer & Fontes, P.S. Renton, WA 98056 P.O. Box626 E-mail: smjanse~msn.com Renton, WA 98057 Via E-mail and U.: Mail E-mail: zlfontes@seanet.com Via E-mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Thomas Peterson Elizabeth Higgins Socius Law Group PLLC City of Renton, Two Union Square Development Services Division 60 I Union St., Suite 4950 Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. Seattle, WA 98101 Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor E-mail: ~terson@sociuslaw.com Via E-mail and U.S. Mail 1055 South Grady Way Renton Washington 98055 E-mail: ehiggins@ci.renton.waus Via E-mail and U.S. Mail I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 14th day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL -3 FOSTEll i'El'l'l!R PLLC 1111 TlmDAVDl'Ul.SU'rrl 3400 SEAffl.11,, WASHINCTON 9110I•l299 PHoNI (206) M7..f400 FAX IW) rMl7..,700 I I CIT"\_ )F RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 13, 2006 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey B. Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas Peterson, Esq. Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 9810 I Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. POBox626 Renton, WA 98057 RE: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA-06-073, ECF Dear Appellant and Attorneys of Record: Hearing Examiner· Fred J. Kaufman; Thomas Ehrlichman, Esq. Two Union Square 60 I Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 9810 I This office has received two appeals, hereinafter SEPA appeals, of the City's Environmental Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) for the above matter. State law and City code require that such appeals be combined with the underlying Public Hearing on the original land use action, a Site Plan approval and Master Site Plan approval. The Site/Master Plan hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:00am. Therefore, the two SEPA appeals will also be heard on that date and at that time. The hearing is scheduled to be held in the City Council Chambers on the 7th Floor of City Hall. This office prefers attempting to separate the SEP A appeal testimony and witnesses, a more formal appeal situation, from the hearing on the merits of the land use matter, a more relaxed public hearing forum. Therefore, the appeal aspects will open the presentation and be followed by the Site/Master Plan review. Witnesses will be accommodated if their schedules had not anticipated a more lengthy public hearing. This office further understands that a pre-hearing telephonic conference is being arranged in hopes of making the hearing as efficient as possible. This may affect the order of presentation of witnesses and evidence at the actual hearing. 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 -(425) 430-6515 @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURV1E Seahawks Training Facility November 13, 2006 Page Two If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services FP 11/10/2006 3:35 PAGE 002/002 Fax Server ~ FOSTER PEPPER"'' Vu, Facsimile Fred J. Kaufinan Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 November JO, 2006 Direct Phone (206) 447-2690 Dirett Facsimile (206) 749-2193 E-Mail taraj@foster.com Re: Misty Cove Ass 'n of Apartment Owners v. City of Renton and Football Northwest Request for Pre-hearing Conference Dear Mr. Examiner: We represent project applicant Football Northwest LLC in the above referenced appeal of the City of Renton's MONS on the proposed new corporate headquarters and training facility for the Seattle Seahawks. The SEP A appeal hearing will be held on November 21, 2006 in conjunction with an open record pre-decision hearing on the underlying permits. In the interest of making the hearing as efficient as possible, we request a pre-hearing telephonic conference with the Examiner to discuss the order of presentation of witnesses and evidence and related pre-hearing matters. We can be available for such a conference anytime during the week of November 13th except for 11 :00 AM Monday (13th), Noon Thursday (16th) and I :00 PM Friday (17th). cc: Roger Pearce, Esq. Torn Peterson, Esq. Torn Ehrlichman, Esq. Mr. Steve Jansen Zanetta Fontes, Esq. Ms. Elizabeth Higgins Clients Sincerely, Jdfrey B. Taraday Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC TEL:206.447.4400 FAX.206.447.9700 1111 THIRDAVBNUE,SUITE :5400 SEATTLE, WASHING'fON 98101-32"9 WWW.FOSTER.COM S07<6652.I SEATTLE WASl-'IINCTON SPOKANE WASHINGTON PORTLAND OREGON FP 11/10/2006 3:35 PAGE 001/002 Fax Server ~ FOSTER PEPPERmc FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET Date Faxed: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:34:34 PM TO: Fred Kaufman From: .Jeff Taraday/Susan Allan Direct Dial: 206-447-7901 Direct Return Fax: FAX NUMBER: 425.430.6523 Number of Pages (Including cover page): 02 Message: VOICE CONTACT: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY TOR THE USE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR ENTI1Y NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN mis COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA mE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. PHONE: 206.447.4400 FAX 206.447.9700 1111 THIRDAVENUE,.SUITE3400, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981Gl-3299 WWW.FOSI'ER.COM SEATILE WASHINGTON SPOKANE WASHINGTON PORTLAND OREOON City of Renton Hearing Examiner City of Renton CITY Ct= RENTON NOVO 6 2006 ,,· R€CEJVED 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1/,2& 1,111. JS I am appealing the Enviromental Committee Report for the Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility file number LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM located at 5015 Lake Washing Blvd N, Renton, WA, 98056 dated October 16, 2006. Specifically I am appealing because I feel that the project has failed to meet two following criteria: I) Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: (Ord. 3599, 1-11-1982) specifically sub-section C c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. I also feel that the enviromental plan does not meet the requirements ofRMC: (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) -4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: There is no detailed plan for the Wetlands Mitigation & the restoration of the shoreline along Lake Washington. Sincerely, /,, <''#~ Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Renton, WA 98056 cc· wc.i1/y /Jc I I C, fy d#-c,-;,,i,, ;1 De/· Svcs. D,,,.1c,/~ ~f\'.Y 0 o~,; :& ·.~ + ~-~ KathyKeolker,Mayor ~NCS'O October 19, 2006 Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 CITY iF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERG Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Rent(>n Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record Enclosure _______ 10_5_5-So_u_th_Gr_ad_y_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, _W_as_h_in_gt-on-9-80_5_5 ______ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE . . ... CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 Receipt N:. 0682 D Cajh _D <;Ppy Fee D Notary Service Jl;l.<$eck No. 73 &, °/ Q'Appeal Fee D ---------+-- Description: A() Ni:; / b t/r« o.;Z!· F, t;e/!V ell/' ; 11' I ,1 ~ -,A'I 1.~ l-va-0(, -07 ·. t.Cr. 5d'/Mr Sr/' Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip • <' :, ., 7 ; Amount $ 7 ~ O '? .J CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 14'h day of November, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representin!l Parties of Record Ray Colliver (Signature of Sender):_.~., ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) See Attached Owner/Applicant/Contact I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. ,,,"""'1111 -.:::-'" \.. YNN ;..!.!_11 2@\ .. ~".~'l\11.:'-*-"" Dated: \\-IL\ -Ou Notary (Print): Q400~u sz{4'tv1 ,, ~~ My appointment expires: -)-\ q_ -\ o Project Name: Seahawks Training Facility Project Number: LUA06-073 __ ,)·. f _ o,~ 1,, ~ • Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N #213 Renton, WA 98056 Eileen Halverson 16226 Crystal Drive E Enumclaw, WA 98022 Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue #3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3299 Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Larry Barsher 6940 96th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040 Jeffrey Taraday Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue #3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 Joe Burcar Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N #4 Renton, WA 98056 Elya George Baches 1414 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #302 Renton, WA 98056 Barbara Paxhia 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #104 Renton, WA 98056 Tom Ehrlichman Socius Law Group Two Union Square 601 Union Street #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas F. Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N #304 Renton, WA 98056 Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N #309 Renton, WA 98056 Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40th Street #H-4 Renton, WA 98056 Lance Lopes Qwest Field 800 Occidental Avenue S #100 Seattle, WA 98134 Shelly Munkberg SECO Development 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N #50 Renton, WA 98056 Richard Wagner Baylis Architects 10801 Main Street #110 Bellevue, WA 98004 0~(\'Y ~,& -- ~ >+- + .II + ~~ 2: Kathy Keolker, Mayor ?i>Nrr 0 November 14, 2006 Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S #900 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: CIT OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended on November 6, 2006 for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated for the above-referenced project. Appeals have been filed on the ERC determination. Therefore, the appeals will be heard as part of the public hearing scheduled for November 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the 7th Floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, /3/)~,J.;.d,L .)~ Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner cc: Parties of _Record Enclosure -------l-0.5_5_S_o_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W-ay---R-e_n_to-n,-W-as-h-in_gt_on_9_80_5_5 _______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled matenal, 30%post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING November 21, 2006 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Training Facility PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent is requesting Master Plan and Site Plan Review for development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The 19.6 acre project site is located in the Kennydale area of northeast Renton. The proposed project would be a single building consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels with an intermediate mezzanine level and an 89,423 sf indoor practice facility and up to four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. Both general surface parking and secure surface parking areas would provide 91 and 161 parking stalls respectively (252 stalls total). A 6,000 ancillary building for field and landscape maintenance supplies and equipment storage is also proposed. HEX Agenda 11-21-06 PUBLIC HEARING City of Renton Department of Planning I Building I Public Works PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Hearing Date: Project Name: Owner: Applicant: Contact: File Number: Project Description: Project Location: November 21, 2006 Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Port Quendall Company; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle WA 98104 Football Northwest; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle WA 98104 Ray Colliver; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle WA 98104 LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, Planner: Elizabeth Higgins, ECF Senior Planner The project proponent is requesting Master Plan and Site Plan Review for development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The 19.6 acre project site is located in the Kennydale area of northeast Renton. The proposed project would be a single building consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels with an intermediate mezzanine level and an 89,423 sf indoor practice facility and up to four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. Both general surface parking and secure surface parking areas would provide 91 and 161 parking stalls respectively (252 stalls total). A 6,000 ancillary building for field and landscape maintenance supplies and equipment storage is also proposed. 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) City of Renton P/8/PW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 2ot 20 B. EXHIBITS The following exhibits are entered into the record: Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review documentation, correspondence from interested parties, and other items pertinent to this request. Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown) Exhibit 4: Zoning Map (dated 02/16/2006) Exhibit 5: Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative Plan (dated 11/13/2006) Exhibit 6: Plan Diagrams (dated 11/07/2006) Exhibit 7: North and South Building Elevations (dated 11/15/2006) Exhibit 8: South View Transverse Section (dated 11/15/2006) Exhibit 9: Base Site Plan (dated 11/13/2006) Exhibit 10: Building Location Options (dated 11/03/2006) Exhibit 11: Green Screen Wall A (no date) Exhibit 12: Green Screen Wall B (no date) Exhibit 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 (no date) Exhibit 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Mitigated Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Comparison (no date) Exhibit 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 (no date) Exhibit 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Mitigated Site Plan (no date) Exhibit 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Comparison (no date) Exhibit 21: Daily Shadow Studies -Base Plan (no date) Exhibit 22: Daily Shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan (no date) Exhibit 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Existing Conditions (no date) Exhibit 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Base Plan (no date) Exhibit 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies -Mitigated Alternative Plan (no date) HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 3 of 20 C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Owner of Record: Zoning Designation: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Existing Site Use: Neighborhood Characteristics Access: Site Area: Project Data: North: East: South: West: Existing Building Area: New Building Area: Total Headquarters Building Area: Maintenance Building Area: Total New Building Area: Port Quendall Company; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle WA 98104 Commercial-Office-Residential -2 (COR 2) Commercial-Office-Residential Vacant (abandoned wood processing facility) Misty Cove Condominiums, zoned Commercial-Office- Residential -2 (COR 2) Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way, zoned Commercial-Office-Residential -2 (COR 2) Quendall Terminals (vacant property), zoned Commercial-Office-Residential -2 (COR 2) Inner Harbor, Lake Washington Via Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane North 853,776 gsf (19.6 acres) N/A Office, Level One: 55,674 sf Office, Mezzanine Level: 48,556 sf Office, Level Two: 31,304 sf Indoor Practice Facility: 89,423 sf 224,957 sf 6,000 sf 230,957 sf D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Lot Line Adjustment LUA-00-044 N/A 01/05/2001 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/2004 Comprehensive Plan N/A 5100 11/01/2004 Short Plat LUA93-097 N/A 01/14/1994 HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 4 of 20 Annexation N/A 1823 04/21/1960 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.B: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations -General Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage HeighULocation Limitations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions F, APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1 . Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element 3. Economic Development Element G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 2). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre property is a former J.H. Baxter Company timber processing/wood treatment facility (Exhibit 3). The site was used for various timber operations, including initially harvesting on-site trees and wood treating, throughout the twentieth century until wood processing operations ceased in 1981. The property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Cleanup of the property has been prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-SKNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with early stages of site construction for the proposed project. The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of May Creek. The drainageway for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way. Once on the property, it flows from east to west first HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing £xaminer LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the shoreline of Lake Washington. Page 5 of 20 The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on the property at the present time. A single-story, 1,300 sf wood-frame office building built on Baxter North in 1963, would be removed from the property, as would asphalt-paved interior roads. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these features and they would be fenced from the area of the site accessible to the public. On-site clean-up activities consisting of remediation of effects of the former wood-processing activities, have consisted of soil excavation, contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site (see Environmental Review Committee staff report, Exhibit 1) and grading for site features would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material would be required at the time of site construction. In 1994 the property was rezoned from "Planned Office I Residential" (POR) to "Center I Office I Residential" (COR). This zone was modified in 1994 to "Commercial I Residential / Office." The property is currently zoned Commercial / Residential / Office 2 (COR 2) to distinguish it from other COR zones in the City (see Exhibit 4). The COR 2 zoning requires a two-level project review by the Hearing Examiner. Both Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review are required. The stated purpose of the Commercial / Residential / Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment." Although a major, national sports franchise headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone." The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and accessory training and practice facilities (see Exhibit 5). The functional spaces are either within buildings or are outdoor-related. Existing underlying site conditions have largely dictated the basic site layout. The primary building would be located on the North Baxter property, where substrate conditions would allow pilings to be utilized for building foundation construction. The outdoor fields would be located on the South Baxter property, where the site has its widest dimension. More important, the South Baxter property has poor quality soils deemed unsuitable for building construction. Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building on the North Baxter property (see Exhibit 6). The aesthetically significant building would be architecturally compatible with the Pacific Northwest. It is intended to be sensitive and responsive to the site and its context. The Headquarters (offices) portion of the building would be up to 55 feet in height. The height of the indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 111 feet. The roof would be various heights, due to its shape, which is proposed to angle upward at the perimeter to conceal rooftop mechanical equipment (see Exhibits 7 and 8). The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray cementious, or nickel to light gray metal, wall panels would be used on upper portions, depending on location. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton P/8/PW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report. to the Headng Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 6of 20 The project proponent's vision is for a building that would be highly efficient, well-organized, and with a prevailing milieu of "openness." A mezzanine would be situated between the first and second office levels, opening onto the interior practice facility. An atrium would also connect the first and second levels at the front of the Headquarters portion of the building. The lower. Headquarters portion of the building would be closest to Lake Washington, to minimize views from the lake of the mass of the indoor practice field portion of the building. The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the South Baxter property. One artificial turf practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the east property line. The four practice fields would cover 8.3 acres. A one-story, 6,000 sf maintenance / equipment storage building would be located at the southeast corner of the property. The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies, that intend high intensity use, with the natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by project completion. The majority of the site would be covered with uses that would not impact views. Primary access would be by private street from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane) on the east across the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. A secondary access is available at the southeast corner of the property, also from Lake Washington Boulevard. The project proponent is currently negotiating with BNSF for a new right-of-way crossing at the approximate mid-point of the project. This access. which is anticipated to be successfully obtained, would become the primary entrance to the facility. On-site roads would be private. There would be parking for 252 vehicles; 91 stalls for general surface parking and 161 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors. Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native vegetation (wetland and shoreline) or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems would be installed in all landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings until they are established. (Landscaping will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). Access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline would be available to the public by means of an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary (see Exhibit 5). A viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with benches. A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. Public access to the wetland is not currently a part of this proposal. In addition to the two-level project review and approval (Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review), the project would require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to its proximity to Lake Washington. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on October 16, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non- Significance, Mitigated for the project. The DNS-M included seven mitigation measures. A 14-day HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 7of 20 appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November 21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page Bof 20 As per RMC 4-9-200.B.1.b, the COR-2 zoning of the development site requires Master Plan review. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. The Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site Plan Approval. The purpose of the Site Plan review is to assess the detailed arrangement of project elements to ensure their compatibility with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan review is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. 6. GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR BOTH MASTER PLANS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW The following general review criteria are required to be met through the Master Plan and Site Plan review process, consistent with RMC 4-9-200E.1: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies. i. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Purpose The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation is to provide opportunities for large-scale projects developed through the master plan and site plan process. COR sites are typically transitioning from industrial uses to more intensive, non- industrial land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington (Quendall and Southport) and/or the Cedar River (Stoneway). Redevelopment of these sites provide the opportunity to remediate the effects of past industrial activities and, although still held as private property, may offer increased access to the public to shorelines within the City. The proposed Seattle Seahawks Headquarlers and Training Facility is approximately one- third of the "Porl Quenda/1" Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation. The Porl Quenda/1 Commercial/Office/Residential designation conforms with the purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential, which is intended to redevelop former industrial properlies into a mix of uses, including commercial and office (J.H. Baxter wood processing properly) and residential (Barbee Mill properly). Final clean-up of the Baxter and Barbee properlies would occur simultaneously with redevelopment. The center properly, Quenda/1 Terminals, is a designated Superfund site and is currently undergoing remediation. Its future use is unknown at the present time. Applicable objectives and policies of the Land Use Element include: Objective LU-VVV: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural HEX staff rpt 06-073 .doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 9 of 20 amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity. The Seahawks Headquarters has been designed to be an architecturally significant, state-of-the-art facility that is intended to further the goals of the team through design and functionality. The natural amenities of the lakeshore location, natural wetland, and views are incorporated into the siting and building architecture. Just as the Boeing assembly plant has been a prominent landmark along the Renton 's Jakeshore and sign of economic power in the City, the Seahawks facility would be a new landmark and sign of new economic vitality in Renton. Policy LU-408: Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include mixed- use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, cultural facilities, hotel and convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and corporate headquarters. Although the proposed use was not anticipated when the comprehensive plan designation was assigned to the property, the use meets the intent of the COR designation by consisting of office and business meeting space and serving as corporate headquarters for a major-league football team. In addition, professional sports venues are contemporary cultural facilities that provide a focus for enthusiasm and spirit generated by the sports team. Policy LU-410: Commercial development, excluding big-box, may be a primary use in a Commercial/Office/Residential designation, if: 1) It provides significant economic value to the City; 2) It is sited in conjunction with small-scale, multiple businesses in a "business district;" 3) It is designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR; and 4) It is part of a proposed master plan development. Although the Seahawks Headquarters is not a typical commercial development, it is a business that is anticipated to add significant economic value to the City, directly and from "spin-off' commercial uses as well as increasing the overall attractiveness of Renton to potential investors. The scale of the proposed project is consistent with the envisioned development of the Port Quenda/1 COR designation. Policy LU-411: Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at the scale and intensity envisioned for the designation Commercial/Office/Residential project, or if proposed as part of a phased development and multi-parcel proposal that includes a mix of uses. The three properties of the Port Quendall COR will, cumulatively, consist of a mix of uses. Policy LU-413: Sites that have significant limitations on redevelopment due to environmental, access, and/or land assembly constraints should be granted flexibility of use combinations and development standards through the master plan process. The Baxter properties would not be ideal for a more typical commercial development due to poor location in terms of visibility to potential consumers. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Reporl to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 10 of 20 Policy LU-421: Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: 1) Public plazas; 2) Prominent architectural features; 3) Public access to natural features or views; 4) Distinctive focal features; 5) Indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate; 6) Structured parking; and 7) Other features meeting the spirit and intent of the COR designation. The proposed development would have an entry plaza and distinctive building architecture. A publicly-accessible viewpoint would be available at the shore of the lake. The project would be a significant focal point at the north end of Renton, as viewed from the lake, from Mercer Island, or flights approaching or departing from Clayton Scott Field (Renton Municipal Airport) and the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base. ii. Comprehensive Plan Community Design Element Purpose The purpose of the Community Design Element is to set standards for high quality development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, and guide the development of new neighborhoods. Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are based on the belief that a positive image and high quality attracts more of the same, so that high standards can lead to increased revenue. The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, both in its site layout and architectural design, meets the primary objective of the Community Design Element and is expected to set a new standard for development excellence within Renton. Applicable Community Design Objectives and Policies for New Development Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. The building design would be unique, not only in the Puget Sound Region, but among like facilities of its type in the nation. Policy CD-41: Rooftops that can be seen from public streets, parks, or open space should be designed to hide mechanical equipment and to incorporate high-quality roofing materials. The roof of the indoor practice facility would flare up along its perimeter to conceal roof- top mounted equipment. Policy CD-42: Design characteristics in larger new developments or individual building complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity. The proposed project will completely transform a vacant former industrial site and add architectural distinction to an area, with the Barbee Mill property, that is currently being redeveloped. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton P!BIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 11 of 20 Policy CD-43: A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building mate- rials and finishes should be promoted. High-quality materials and finishes have been proposed for the building. Policy CD-44: Development should provide appropriate landscaping and fac;:ade treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts. Extensive landscaping has been proposed, including along Ripley Lane abutting the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans. Landscape plans have been submitted with the project application. Policy CD-53: Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas. All pervious areas of the site will be landscaped appropriately. Policy CD-55: Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in development projects, including entryways, street rights-of-way, stormwater retention/detention ponds, and common areas. Maintenance programs utilizing Integrated Pest Management (1PM) techniques have been proposed for all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf practice fields. Policy CD-58: Aesthetic improvements along street frontages should be provided, especially for properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incentives should be provided for the inclusion of streetscape amenities including: landscaping, public art, street furniture, paving, signs, and planting strips in developing and redeveloping areas. The project proponent has included maintenance of new landscaping along Ripley Lane in the project maintenance program. Policy CD-71: All utility lines should be placed underground. All utility lines to the project site would be underground. iii. Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Purpose Renton's economic development is important because it has a role in the timing, emphasis and extent in which the long-range goals of the city will occur. Economic development policies encourage collaborations between the public and private sectors to ensure the long- term economic health of Renton and its citizens. A healthy economy provides jobs and opportunity and helps pay for vital public services such as education, parks, transportation, police and fire protection, and human services. The policies encourage a mix of uses that will result in a diversified employment base. The policies encourage the quality development necessary to sustain a high standard of living in Renton. The proposed project is expected to contribute to Renton 's economic vitality both directly and indirectly. First, by converting an unused, derelict "brownfield" site into an asset to the community and second by making Renton known as the "home" of the Seahawks, much as the Bronx is known for the New York Yankees and Arlington for the Texas Rangers. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Applicable Economic Development Objectives and Policies Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 12of 20 Policy ED-16: Work with private property owners and governmental agencies to remedy contaminated sites and prepare the sites for redevelopment. The City of Renton is coordinating the effort to convert the proposed project property into a suitable redevelopment site for this project. Policy ED-17.1: Work with property owners to transition surplus industrial properties to their highest and best use. Renton has encouraged the redevelopment of the Baxter property for a non-industrial use. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject site is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential 2 (COR 2). The purpose of the COR zone is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high- quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. It is intended to implement the Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone. By virtue of its high economic value, the proposed use is appropriate for the COR 2 zone. Also, it is designed with the scale and intensity of use envisioned for the COR 2 zone. i. The following Development Standards apply to uses within the COR 2 zone (RMC 4-2- 1208): a. Lot Coverage -The maximum lot coverage by buildings in the COR 2 zone is 65% of the total lot area. The building coverage by the proposed Seahawks Headquarters (55,674 sf), indoor practice facility (89,423 sf), together with the maintenance building (6,000 sf) is 151,097 sf on the 19. 6 acre site results in a 17. 7 percent lot coverage. The project is in compliance with this requirement. b. Maximum Building Height -The maximum building height in the COR 2 zone is 10 stories and/or 125 feet: provided, the master plan includes a balance of building height, bulk, and density. The office portion of the Headquarters building would be two floors with a mezzanine level between them. The total height would be up to 55 feet. This portion of the building is located closest to the shore of the lake, with the indoor practice facility in back of it, away from the lake. The indoor practice facility would have a height of 95 feet at the center of the building. The overall height would be up to 111 feet, due to the roof treatment, which is designed to flare upwards at the perimeter. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses: i. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIB!PW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA·M, SM, ECF Page 13 of 20 The proposed project will result in a large structure being located on a property that has been essentially vacant. This will have an impact on the abutting condominium project, the residents of which have enjoyed largely unobstructed views of Lake Washington. In an attempt to reduce the impact of this situation, the office portion of the building has been located on the "lake side" of the building. This lower portion of the building will allow views across the top. Also, the entire building has recently been relocated 62 feet farther away from Lake Washington (see Exhibits 5 and 9), further improving the view corridor across the Baxter property to Lake Washington. ii. Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates the spirit and/or intent of the zoning code and impairs the use, enjoyment, or potential use of surrounding properties. The proposed project would be within the size standards of the zone and would be only "overscafe" in terms of the site's long history of being void of buildings. The building would cover a small portion (fess than 18 percent) of the site area. The bulk of the nearest building, the 50-unit condominium, Misty Cove, would provide a transition to the smaller, single family residential structures located along the /akeshore north of the proposed project. The building has been specifically designed to reduce its impact in terms of its proximity to the shoreline and the condominium building to the north. The proposed building would be "stepped" from west to east, with the lower office building closest to the lake. This portion of the building wraps around the southwest corner of the larger part, the indoor practice facility. The north fagade of the indoor practice facility will be softened by use of a "green-screen wall" (see Exhibits 11 and 12). This wall would attain a height of 30 to 40 feet at maturity. The articulation provided by windows and wall panels and the choice of earth tones for the color palette would further reduce the apparent size and scale of the building. The recent relocation of the building to more than twice its previous distance from the lakeshore would mitigate the proportion of the horizontal distance from the lake edge to the building height. iii. Provision of desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and industrial systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffer techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements. The project proponent is negotiating with the BNSF Railroad to obtain an additional railroad right-of-way crossing at the approximate mid-point of the site. ff successful, which is anticipated, this would place the primary entrance to the project away from the properties to the north and south and reduce potential conflicts. iv. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural characteristic of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended by the spirit of the zoning code. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 14 of 20 The project site is flat without significant topographic change, which could otherwise create the perception of a building with greater height than is allowed by the zoning. The building height as proposed would be allowed by the Development Standards. v. Effective location, design, and screening of parking and service areas in order to promote efficient function of such facilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote "campus-like" or "park-like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning code. Parking and service areas, which would be placed in proximity to Headquarters building entrances, would be effectively landscaped or otherwise screened from on-site and off- site views. The loading area would be approximately 375 feet from the nearest point of the Misty Cove Condominiums and further separated by perimeter landscaping along the north property boundary. vi. Mitigation of the unnecessary and unavoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and future development sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and promoting "campus-like" or "park-like" settings in appropriate zones. There would be, undeniably, impacts associated with constructing a large structure where none existed previously. There are two primary issues; one is views of the structure and other project elements (see section ii, above). The other is the impact on view corridors given the location of the structure. In order to mitigate impacts on views, a study of the view corridors from several locations off-site (most notably from the Misty Cove Condominiums to the north and from NE 7ffh Street to the east) was conducted. The most significant impacts were to views from Misty Cove Units 302 and 312. Both Units are on the top floor of the Condominium building, with 302 closest to the Lake and 312 farthest to the east. The building has been designed to place the lowest height closest to the lake. Following the site visualization studies, the building was also shifted farther away from the lake by 62 feet. Exhibits 13 and 17 illustrate existing views from Misty Cove Units 302 and 312 respectively. Exhibits 14 and 18 show views of the building in its original ("Base Plan') location. Exhibits 15 and 19 show views with the building shifted 62 feet to the east and Exhibits 16 and 20 compare the views with both building locations. Although it is a matter of personal taste, a view of the campus-like facility could be considered an improvement over the historical views of an abandoned industrial site. vii. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote a "campus-like" or "park-like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning code. All service functions, including waste receptacles and recycling areas, would be effectively screened from on-site and off-site views. Roof-top mounted equipment would be out of view due to the roof design, which flares upward at the perimeter. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlment SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 15 of 20 viii. Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. Exterior lighting of parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off features to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Outdoor practice fields would not be used at night, so athletic field lighting would not be installed. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; i. Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduction; orientation to views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to pedestrian and vehicle needs. Outdoor practice fields would be located on the south portion of the site, away from the condominium building abutting to the north, thereby reducing potential disturbance from noise. There would be some impact on the existing condominium building from shadows cast during winter months although the north side of the condominium building is similarly affected due to its orientation. The shifting of the building 62 feet to the east reduces the impact of shadows cast on the Misty Cove Condominium building, particularly during winter months. Shadow studies demonstrating impacts of original design (Exhibit 21) and the mitigated alternative building location (Exhibit 22) illustrate this. ii. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over concentration or the impression of oversized structures. By placing the primary structure at the very north portion of the site next to the existing condominium, the remaining approximately 82 percent of the property would remain essentially open. iii. Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed development. Due to longstanding industrial use of the site, very little natural landscaping remains. A shoreline restoration plan and wetland enhancement program have been proposed as part of the project. iv. Use of topography to reduce undue cutting, filling, and retaining walls in order to prevent erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and desirable natural vegetation. No undue cutting or filling is planned; retaining walls will be minimally used. No erosion would be allowed, nor would unnecessary storm water runoff. All stormwater would be directed through on-site control facilities. Vegetation currently consists primarily of invasive species which would be replaced as part of project landscaping. v. Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and increase natural infiltration. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hean·ng Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF Page 160/ 20 Paving would be limited to driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks. Grasscrete has been proposed for a paved roadway at the west side of the building. vi. Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. Landscaping would be protected from damage by vehicles and/or pedestrian traffic. vii. Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year round conditions of sun and shade both on-site and on adjacent properties and to promote energy conservation. A sun/shadow study of the proposed project was completed as part of the project design analysis. The building was shifted 62 feet to the east following this analysis ( see Exhibits 23-25). The size of the building has been determined by the functional program. Its location is based on subsurface geotechnical considerations. The buildings would meet energy code requirements. e. Conservation of area wide property values; The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and additional employment opportunities. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; i. Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties. Improvements would be made to Ripley Lane to improve lane configuration, channelization, and vertical sight distance. The project proponent is negotiating with BNSF Railroad to secure an additional right-of-way crossing at the approximate midpoint of the site, which would separate the project entry from other properties to the north and south. ii. Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of channelization for turning movements. Ingress and egress movements will occur with sufficient channelization to ensure public safety. iii. Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, when feasible. Currently, access at the south property line would be shared with the Quenda/1 Terminals property and a Puget Sound Energy facility located between Quenda/1 Terminals and the Baxter properties. This access has been secured by easement. iv. Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIB/PW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 170/ 20 Both on-site and off-site vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be minimal through site design. v. Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets, when feasible. No arterial streets are in the vicinity of the proposed project. vi. Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicle and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways. The "Main Entrance" and access point for visitors and corporate employees who would work in the offices of the Headquarters building would be through an entrance lobby on the first level, on the east side of the building. This entry is connected to the general parking area by a canopied walkway. The "Players Entrance" would be on the north side of the office portion of the building and would be connected by a covered walkway to the secure parking area. Two more entrances, "Field Entrances" would connect the outdoor fields with the office building. The indoor practice facility would have 7 entrances from various points around its perimeter, but would be primarily accessed from the office portion of the building. All elements of the internal circulation system would meet City of Renton design standards for safety of pedestrians and vehicles. vii. Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas. Loading and delivery areas would be located away from general parking and pedestrian areas at the north faqade of the office building .. viii. Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access when appropriate. Transit service is not currently available to Ripley Lane due to low potential ridership. Carpool facilities may be made available by the project proponent to building users. During the 'training camp" a 3-week period in August when football practice sessions are open to the public, an off-site location for public parking would be available with shuttle bus service provided to the project site. ix. Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings public sidewalks, and adjacent properties. The campus-like site plan would provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas and the various building components. g. Provision of adequate light and air; The single, large building would not have a negative impact on site light or air circulation. Impacts from shadows cast by the building have been mitigated (see discussion above). h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; It is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. A Construction Mitigation Plan that would HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc City of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 18 of 20 provide measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. would be required at the time of construction. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. There would be minimal noise impacts from increased traffic. The sounds of football practice would probably travel off-site to a certain extent, but should not be at levels as to pose harm to public health or safety. i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and Fire Prevention Bureau and Police Department have indicated existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the ERG, the applicant will be required to pay the Fire Mitigation fee prior to the issuance of building permits. The Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring the project to comply with the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for water quality improvements. There currently is insufficient capacity in the Baxter Lift Station to provide wastewater seNice to the property. The project proponent would be required to either partner with the Barbee Mill development project or participate in a Latecomers' Agreement. Utilities are required to be installed and extended as necessary to the building by the applicant as required by City code. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. The proposal would result in redevelopment of a former industrial site into a state-of-the-art corporate headquarters and professional sports facility. It would therefore contribute to the wellbeing of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular. k. Signage i. Employment of signs primarily for the purposes of identification. Signage would be limited to corporate identity signage and wayfinding. ii. Management of sign elements, such as size, location, and arrangement so that signs complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the building and site to which they pertain. Sign elements would be in keeping with the overall project size and intent. iii. Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction. Visual clutter would not occur on the project site. No off-site signs are anticipated. iv. Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign visibility. Surface brightness and lighting intensity would be appropriate for signage location and function. v. Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and addresses. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc Cify of Renton PIBIPW Department SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Preliminary Report to the Hean·ng Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 19of 20 Addressing would be limited to the primary site entrance. On-site wayfinding signs would be placed as needed. I. Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities. Due to planned implementation of Integrated Pest Management, use of chemicals for landscape maintenance would be limited. Nevertheless, chemicals would be stored in the maintenance building located at the south property line of the property (see Exhibit 5). 7. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COR ZONES: a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable. Not applicable, there was no Planned Action Ordinance for the subject property. 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. The proposed development would result in the construction of a 135,534 square foot office building with an attached 89,423 square foot indoor practice facility, 252 parking stalls, and a 6,000 square foot maintenance building. The proposed project would implement the Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design policy statements. The project would result in the creation of a professional sports headquarters on currently vacant land. The plan provides an overall design concept that is internally consistent, and provides quality development. 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. The proposed project would provide public access to the lakeshore where there currently is no access available. Outdoor areas would be available for use by individuals associated with the Seattle Seahawks football team and employees of the Seahawks corporation. d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable. Views to the lake would be available from various points on the property and from offices within the Headquarters building. e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas; A public access point to the lake with viewing area and site amenities would be provided. The public viewpoint would be accessible by a walkway located abutting and parallel to the north property boundary. The extent of the access would be approximately 250 feet. f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural features, or other items HEX staff rpt 06-073 .doc City of Renton PIBIPW Oepartmem SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA·M, SM, ECF Page 20of 20 The site plan provides focal points through the use of prominent architectural features (canopies) that are utilized to distinguish building entrances. In addition, significant landscaped walkways are proposed through the site. g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned The site is accessed by private roads from Ripley Lane. h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of transportation. Currently, pubic transit service to Ripley Lane is not provided. A sidewalk would be provided along Ripley Lane adjacent to the project site. A shuttle bus service would be provided during training camp when football practice sessions are open to the public. H. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA06-073, 5-H, SA-M, SM, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating exterior materials and finishes to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake Washington and install landscaping of a type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian habitat. Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of landscaping shall be completed prior to building occupancy. 3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8- 120012, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of. way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits and installation shall be prior to building occupancy. 5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light levels, and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals (SA-H, SA-M): Five (5) years from the final approval date. HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc 6 l:I ~ ~ ., ~ StJIJTII PCIKT LAKE COWW< PC/KT Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSe. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved . PROJECT LOCATION I SE_ u ' ' I ~- Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP September 2006 21-1-20525-003 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Oec:Aeclw ilcal and Enminmenlal Consutants .._ _____________________ .__ ________ ...... .__ ____ ~ --~·····~---,: .• . . '· ... , . -,.'Y"-. .:· ,_ •, ;: .. ·-'· ~ 1 ~. !'"~.' ' I ,,-._.;. ' I(" 'I ' Ir 4 • ' . " if!! ~·"-~ ... ~,; .. /(,"' .....1. ....... _-; L,,._ ~; .JI' ,.,,; Historic Aerial Photo of North and Ba,t-.(rroperty (date unknown) I Map Legend ; .. ,/ lot~ r:i.1<11;, MilJ or Ro.i ch, 0.Uiw Ro;u.J h1!(1• ~\JI<! ~111111< !,1i1h,•,.1v /·/ !.Jl;J. l1l~Jli"'~V RGads Clt1e1o ,: : I USGS Quad lndu 24K lc-wer4B Avallabl(l WeOantf N~n·Dl{llt.11 Digit.II No O.tta 1: :lt:.111 NHD Streams ·-, Cr;iuntie. 100K 0 D D SUltes 100K South America North Am111rlCi1 EXHIBIT 3 // . . .... ~ ,,/, \ r---. ) / / ' / •. / .. · ·· .. , . , . / COR //, ··,, ""''-~ ·" , -/ ;····· I I I I / I ' .. J \ \ CA c~ 43 CDR ~<# R-8 N, 38th . . . . . ;Jkst···.·· 'R'. ·g,Z ' -•Ju .. ,.,, > ' ' . .;,: · ·' St CX) I fr'. ;:::;::::::=::::::::::::=':::='. • Rc:c8 .. • ....... ') I~ '1 <±J .. . ZONING MAP <[ u rzl :z; EXHIBIT 4 CURe----___ EXtSTING POWER POLE LOCATION--{. SOUTH PROPERTY FENCE LINE-........._ PSE EASEMENT LlNE (TBD) -------........ EXISTING POV/ER POLE LOCATION CURE>----"'-._ NEW 1-STOR'I' MAINTENANCE SHED -- COVERED CAR WASH / ' ' ,1 ""'"""- • • • ,, " • .. • " • LAKE WASHINGTON ' EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION----t+~ \i ·-~·-~··l•••l .. .;i~:1, MAINT. PARKING lk_;, ::"1111 .3 STALLS ~ I "' -··-...-, " ,~rote& ---·--1 •• ----· ------I I I -----____________ C;~~~;;;;;;;;,;;;;,..+-t----- -----------·-··-··-··-··-··-··-··---------------------1=~-------·--------=--=--------------------------------- PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING EXHIBIT = -PAJ3KJNG COUNT 5 STREAM 9ASS --LAKE WASHINGTON -CLASS GYPSY SUB BAStN DRAlNAGE GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 91 STALLS 4 0 5 SECURE TEAM PARKING 161 STALLS T ERST AT (-CL.ASS 2 (RE: FlGURE 8.3) 1N - ______ :TO=T=AL============2S:'.2:_;,ST~AU.S~~---== ----· -------~-- b ~IT;~!,TlON SITE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE .. " @ 0 !oO' 100' ··----~ -™ . """""' FtEV!SED-13NOVQl89 • ' 1-- ffi z ::a;o a. -oti ...J ::, w a:: > 1--w en Cl z zo Cl () cij a:: WO Cl u. ~ 1--a O "' z @i _! ... ~--=-== ~ .. ;:..-.:- .;;.~- oil ~ 1 t: .2:-) ~~ I al u.. Ii Q) 0, . :c ·~ j ~-~ ! co f-~ .r:. • ill en =m:, .. .,;-~ - -·-·-= ""'""" LOCKERS AND FOOTBALL EXERCISE EQUIPMENT AREAS AREA SHED FOR INDOOR PRACTICE 1VSTUD10 MTG. RM. ~ ~ ~ w I~ I> ~ © g 1 LEVEL 1 • PLAN DIAGRAM L'J 1"=100' / STORIES Wik 1 STORY vVITH " 1 MEZZANINE 1 MEZZANINE 'I ROOF 11 OFFICES, BUSINESS AREA z SHED FOR INDOOR PRACTICE w ONE STORY g; 3 LEVEL 2 • PLAN DIAGRAM 1" = 100' \ -···-···· aw,,., / ·/··-----~\ CRAWFORD AACHrTECTS, LlC .. 1901 MalnS!rff!Sulte200 i Kanan City, MO 64108 ' l c ........ o .. o ' 1111: 816.421.2640 \ \ ........ -···7 fu:&16.421.2650 \ .. www.cnwfordarch.eom Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility ·-...... -·· ---·----·----~----------· OFFICES, MEETING AND DINING ANO BUSINESS CLASSROOMS KITCHEN AREA OPEN ______/ -~ w z "' u w "' SHED FOR INDOOR PRACTICE ~ w 0 o'i -- . 2 LEVEL 1 M • PLAN DIAGRAM 111 = 100' AREA CALCULATIONS· PROPOSED FLOOR AREA • LEVEL 1 :. . .................... 55,674 S.F. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA -MEZZANINE LEVEL ................. 48,556 S.F. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA· LEVEL 2: .. .. ................. .31,304 S.F INDOOR PRACTICE FACIL TfY: ...... ..................... 69,423 S.F. TOTAL BUILDING AREA (All LEVELS):. . .................. 224,957 S.F. n Del!icrlption i Dote I PLAN DIAGRAMS Pro' number KC045.Q5 o,~ 11/07/06 Drawn t,, JEF Checked bv JEF .... . Seale 1" = 1QO' . EXHIBIT 6 trJ ~ -..J ::r:: -to ->-3 ' I .... '~ -# ••• , .. _ ,.,_.,. _____ • i ! i ' '® •© ,EJ ·0 ,€) '® ,e ' IS) ,e i@ ,© ,e . ,, ·0 -----cr---: .. i\ I I • ' I ,_ ... _, ,, ~ , __ ._,, _,_ ' i t t j " DESll,,N DEYELOP.MENT; NOT fOR CPNSTij.UCTIQN $ .'I ' 0 ® @ e e IS) @ © 0 0 El © ' © ',-.. ,. r· r f< ' I r i' i r i r ,, i > I ~ II I i "' m 0 ~ 0 z 5 0 "' ~ "' § I _\·". r l I ' I . ' • • ,, . ti: ; tr: I (~ II ~ II .. I M" ~ *· ---=· ----· .. ------·---·, ·, (i ! ,. ll ' P, ~ <, V I ' ' : ' ' ' I : ' --~------j I I I • • ' . ··.·. •,.c,_ .. ,-.-,.....-. .--.. ..:-------, . .., ... _~- ! f l : i ,@ ' © ' 6 . ' 0 . i 8 ; 0 ' ........ , "l @ . i e l ! ' e • I @ ' : 0 ' I @ : I ® l , j 0 . DESIGN DEYELPPMENT .-NOT fOR CPNSfflUCTIQN Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTEIAU. NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON I r - ., r I ' /-;: !/ '.I, C\JRB------------.__ "l! EXISTING POWER---! ~ ' r!-1 I POLE LOCATION ~'i!Jr' PSE EASEJ.i~ li:; 11 LINE (TBD) ~ EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION WR&----~ NEW 1-STORY MAINTENANCE SHED -- COVERED CAR WASH ~c~~~l~R 11 l l~ hAAlNT. PARKING ~ 10 STALLS / ,, • • LAKE WASHINGTON -- / NAf,JRAL GRASS ,t/ 11m11I1! --->:,·>·-- • • • • XISTING BUILDING STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED 4· ACCESS WALK ' \j --r---+::;~""-:§2 .. ___________ _ ~':'.S:..-:~·-··-:· ---~---::;;;_;:;;,,.=) I .. ----------·-··-----------------_--··--·-------------------- PROPOSED RAlLWAY CROSSING = PARKING COUNT STREAM Ci ASS GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 141 STALLS 4 Q 5 LAKE WASHINGTON -CLASS 1 SECURE ITAM PARKING 11J STALLS T ER s T AT E- GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE -CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.J} . l N TOTAL 254 ST -- --------· ------ ~ ~~_!Ill: PLAN EXHIBIT 9 C SC" 100" @ -~ I -1-J//!, -,0:,A,H ------·-RE\JISE0-13 ~ @i, ~~ .. -'---·-~ ,_ -r .. ..:-... -~- ,a ~ -@ .z:. (ti:..::::: :, ·-c,-O " "' "'u.. Ill C> ~:! 3: L "'I-,:;: "' a, CJ) i b J; H !!! ~ § ~ "'"'"F-=";4 ;5·;:--. a. -00 _, =>---1 w a:: iii I- Q ~ zo CJ (.) ~ 15 11~·-1 Q u.. ------ ""' == cf l-o Oil -"' z·---.11 LAKE WASHINGTON r...::r~ ==-::c=- :-...:= =-..= ===:::, ----- ----------------r---------------------·~ ~--_-:----- --=:E- -~--co-~\?Vi -----==---~ -T M" SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY ~ BUILDING LOCATION OPTIONS _!._1?)9 CIWilmttl ~ ti!; @ CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS. LLC 1901n.ln~...W200 """""" dly, mo&4108 ml: 916.421.2640 la.c,811:1.421.2660 FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC ----- PROJECT KC-045-05 m z ~ ,_ " z z z j I ; 1ll1 ~ 1J "' 1111 ----SITE PLAN EXHIBIT 10 _, Pf .. ., i: ... , ·tr I'~•'. ·'(•-\c,;,·"; Misty Cove Unit 302 -Existing View EXHIBIT 13 Misty Cove Unit 302 -View with Base Plan Location EXHIBIT 14 Misty Cove Unit 302 -View with Mitigated Plan Location EXHIBIT 15 Misty Cove Unit 302 -Comparison of Views with Base and Mitigated Plan Locations EXHIBIT 16 Misty Cove Unit 312 -Existing View EXHIBIT 17 Misty Cove Unit 312 -View with Base Plan Location EXHIBIT 18 Misty Cove Unit 312 -View with Mitigated Plan Location EXHIBIT 19 Misty Cove Unit 312 -Comparison of Views with Base and Mitigated Plan Locations EXHIBIT 20 JUNE 21ST SEPTEMBER 21 ST DECEMBER 21ST 3:00 PM M" SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES '0__) SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY SHADOW STUDIES -CURRENT DESIGN Cl 2006 CRO.W>C,RO ARCHllfflC:. Lll MARCH 21ST 3:00 PM EXHIBIT 21 FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC @ JUNE 21ST SEPTEMBER 21ST DECEMBER 21ST :-,, , ... ,%i:zri : mt 3:00 PM 3:00 PM M' SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES SHADOW STUDIES -MITIGATED ALTERNATE i.::__y SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY C 2006 CRAWFORD Jo.RCH1T!'CT:i, Li(. MARCH 21ST 3:00 PM EXHIBIT 22 FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC @ . :, ·~) . ' ' ~.·· .1.:. ' J!:.t '.'' ,,,~ ... ·;1 I . "" ~ , :I" ,f{l'ij''",.,n-?}f ·</'! ' J ,..S:,. , __ ---.,_ ,, -~·· .... UNE 21 ·""''··, -....... , st ", ~'. :' ~·~ ";,'I•"°"' .. ~~.·., . , -i ~ I ~, .. J;r.'i -IA'~~'.j SEPT21~~, st .ii.,• -=! }.NT[RSTA T[ L\Q'.:i SITE PLAN -EXISTING CONDITIONS rv,, SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES <Y SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY II 2U0ij CRAWFORD AllC:Hi1lCTS. LLC SCALE 1" • 50'-0" cfio'li ··· +=~~ +-~~, I EXHIBIT FOOTBALL NORTHWEST: LLC 23 @ fv.' SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES ~.• .. ~ • -·.'\,';.' ~-\-·· -INl[RSTAlE SITE PLAN -CURRENT DESIGN '"6,' SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY c }OOf> CRAWFr1RO AO:CH'ECJS. LLC 40':'J .. SCALE 1" = 50'-0" cflftF~'l-c~c.J"c=i--- FOOTBALL NORTHWEST7 LLC .~. ,_,.:-,\.~ .. '.' .. ..,< .. .'";;;:'t;.·\.··;·:.1 ... · • I • 'i ,·. . : : if ' : ·y··· ~ ~ if, ; :'. :?> ':, ··'r·.,. •; I·;,,~• .. ~ ..... -'..-... ·, ,,-. ···.~····· JUNE 21st EXHIBIT 24 ;. "'\. 't ..... ~ /f~"- ;'-_:)11"~ ~ "l:-~~4~~:~.,, -· _ ... _ .. ~--...... 4.~· ' ,·-s"., ~ -· .. ,,.-:--·c,~ <, • .'· ... y·· . .;; .•. ,,, ~::.:·-··· "'. .' .' . _.: ,.'' .. . ' ' _-' , . ... ~ . ,··.\·u<:,TAf[ 1N 1 ·"'· SITE PLAN -BUILDING MOVED 62' EASTWARD '5?:' SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES 1,.,J SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY C, /f.\(;b ;:llAWl(1r,:, .1,,ua.lFCH. UC SHADOW STUDIES --. ------·-----·----·"--······---.f7!:"~:'./?: ;. ;:~: ;~? .. ,'ft:•;,::;-;,.;: ~r.:;?<,;, ··. .. • ..• ,,... ~ l". ·1 -. "' ,., ,:"•",, t-i:-_. ~·~··· •. ···1 I : j• : • ·1il r.. '. , •. , ·., .: : \' !~.' ~~~ JUNE 21st 405 SCALE1"=50'-Q",ftHF"'+,c,j'''L,=, I EXHIBIT l(ci FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC ~ 25 Cll -T OF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 13, 2006 Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Renton, WA 98056 Jeffrey B. Tarada y Foster Pepper 1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas Peterson, Esq. Two Union Square 60 I Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 Zanetta Fontes Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S. POBox626 Renton, WA 98057 RE: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA-06-073, ECF Dear Appellant and Attorneys of Record: Hearing Examine~ Fred J. Kaufmaii Thomas Ehrlichman, Esq. Two Union Square 601 Union Street, Ste. 4950 Seattle, WA 98101 This office has received two appeals, hereinafter SEPA appeals, of the City's Environmental Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) for the above matter. State law and City code require that such appeals be combined with the underlying Public Hearing on the original land use action, a Site Plan approval and Master Site Plan approval. The Site/Master Plan hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:00am. Therefore, the two SEPA appeals will also be heard on that date and at that time. The hearing is scheduled to be held in the City Council Chambers on the 7th Floor of City Hall. This office prefers attempting to separate the SEPA appeal testimony and wimesses, a more formal appeal situation, from the hearing on the merits of the land use matter, a more relaxed public hearing forum. Therefore, the appeal aspects will open the presentation and be followed by the Site/Master Plan review. Wimesses will be accommodated if their schedules had not anticipated a more lengthy public hearing. This office further understands that a pre-hearing telephonic conference is being arranged in hopes of making the hearing as efficient as possible. This may affect the order of presentation of wimesses and evidence at the actual hearing. ----,o-5_5_S-ou-th_G_ra-dy-W-ay-.-R-e-nt-on-,-W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_8_05_5_--(4_2_5_) 4-3-0--6-51_5 ____ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material. 30% posl consumer AHEAD OF THE CllrVE Seahawks Training Facility November 13, 2006 Page Two If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, -~ <l<~t~.-- Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Kathy Keolker, Mayor Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services [tel F O S T E R P E P P E R ,·cc, November 13, 2006 VIA MESSENGER Ms. Elizabeth Higgins City of Renton Development Services Division Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor Renton Washington 98055 Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073 Dear Elizabeth: Direct Phone (206) 447-4676 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1997 E-Mail PearR@foster.com Please find enclosed hard copies of the following revised documents related to the above- referenced application: L Revised Site Plans. • The Base Site Plan shows the revised maintenance shed and revised public access along the water's edge. • The Mitigated Site Plan (Alternative) contains the above revised elements and adds the proposed mitigated building location. The Seahawks propose to relocate the office building and indoor practice facility (IPF) 62 feet to the east. This is proposed to minimize view impacts to the Misty Cove condominiums. 2. Memorandum addressing shoreline permitting issues raised by Misty Cove Board 3. Unit 302 Misty Cove panorama visualizations showing existing, base site plan, mitigated site plan, and comparison. 4. Unit 312 Misty Cove panorama visualizations showing existing, base site plan, mitigated site plan, and comparison. 5. Shadow Studies showing 6/21, 9/21, 12/21 and 3/21 at 9 AM, Noon and 3 PM. Please call with any questions. S0744085.l ' November 13, 2006 Page2 Enclosures cc: Zanella Fontes Clients 50744085.1 Very truly yours, FOSTER PEPPER PLLC Ro~~ / ' \ \ CURB~ EXISTING POWER ii' POLE LOCATION ~ ':ill~ SOUTH PROPERTY Ji FENCE LINE ~ PSE EASf),![NT • LINE(TBD)~ EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION co,a-------~ NEW 1-STORY MAINTENANCE SHED -- COVERED CAR WASH EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION 11 \.__ \ tAAl"IT. PARKING Uis..:n::::: :!; 10 STALLS SECURITY CATE _J_ ... ~, l-:;_,,.- .,.//1r --'/ I / 'l-----''--+-'.;-----l ,, ,, " " " • " • • LAKE WASHINGTON '...:..:-- ....:·, \ \j ---- ; P, (7) +P--~--~---··-··-··-·· "-·c>t··-·· ~ ,.A ----------------~.1m-1 1 ------··---------·--··--··--··--.--··---------------------- PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING = PARKING COUtU STREAM Cl ASS GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 141 STALLS 05 LAKE WASHINGTON -CLASS 1 SECURE TtAM PARKING 11J STAU..S ERST f\ TE-4 GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE -CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.J) 1 NT ,.., TOTAL 254 ST -- -----------------® o SQ' 1W ~ -·" b B~~ITE Pl.AN ·--RfVISED -13 NOVB'8ER .. @I -' 7~~ ---- ~~ ~·¥.:::" .... .. ~-1;- .,a I!! ~~ CCI= 5-·u " "' ffl LL a, Cl I<:: i:~ "'I- ~ "' a, C/J 1 h Jf if •• ~ ~ #9) :::U-- 1: ~1 wz ::. 0 a.. - 0 t; _, =,,Ir---==-g; er w 1- Cl~ zo Cl u ci5 a:: - :!5~~-I '# I--~7" I oO .stT'l:f'Ll,N lO z ............. CURe---------___ EXISTING POWER_.__ I !f , . I Iµ POL£ LOCATION ~ SOUTH PROPERTY FENCE LINE ----........_ PSE EASEMENT LINE (TBO) ---....._ EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION ,oee------ NEW 1-STORY MAINTENANCE SHED -- COV£RED CAR WASH EXISTING POWER POLE LOCATION-----tt-~ ' Lf -., MAINT. PARKING....:::;.., C::::::.--.. 3 STALLS SECURliY GATE ·~ • ' ' LAKE WASHINGTON ' \~ l -·-· • , -£=T-"·--·-·---------::·=----:::,.,,~+,'y-1~------------c~~:,-::;:;1-=::J I 1 , _· --:_ ------. ---~ --£--:_ _________________ _::::_ __ -___ ___ · ___ r ----------------- PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING = PARKING COUNT STREAM CLASS GENERA!,. SURFACE PARKING 91 STALLS r: 4 Q 5 LAKE WASHINGTON -CLASS 1 SECURE TEAM PARKING 161 STALlS 1 ERST A 1 L' GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE -CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8 . .3) l N TOTAL 252 STALLS ----- b Ml!!~±~T10N SITE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE " ---------------- ~00 @ ='" ----- • '"""""' ~E0-1JMOVEMl!ER @ ~-- --=.-,,-~;- ~-,:::'.:.:" .... !ES' .. ...:-...:: .... == oil ~ . ~ -2=' i "' --] ::, '5 .!~ a-co j(I> ] u.. .fi~ Q) 0, 2',:; I .5 lj (/) .E ~a: -"' "' . ;, ~ ' m I-~ ,:; . "' " U) =m-, ==---:t !z 1--wz ::. 0 a. -oti -' w:::J11r-=~ > 0:: w l- o ~ zo QO ~~II~~~~ 11 a O SITEPlAN "' z liiE] FOSTER PEPPERm, To: From: Date: Subject: Memorandum Elizabeth Higgi~s rJ) Roger A. PearceW 1 November 1, 2006 Shoreline Permitting Issues Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility City of Renton Application LU A06-073 This briefly responds to the substantive issues raised by the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners in their October 10, 2006, letter 1. The Seahawks Corporate Headquarters Project Has Minimized Any Shoreline View Impacts. Misty Cove's primary contention is that view impacts are not sufficiently analyzed or mitigated. The City's Shoreline View Requirements. Under the City's shoreline regulations, the applicant for a commercial project on the shoreline needs to indicate the effect which the proposed development will have upon the "scenic view prevailing in the given area" and indicate what design measures have been taken to minimize the interference enjoyed by "any significant number of people in the area." RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c); see RMC 4-3-090(K)(3)(a)(i). We believe the Seahawks' proposal clearly meets these requirements. The Primary Scenic View in the Area is West/Northwest. The primary scenic view in this area is the view to the shoreline and out across Lake Washington toward Mercer Island, which is west to northwest. Thus, Misty Cove's complaints about view impacts from boats on Lake Washington or from Mercer Island are not relevant. The visual simulations prepared for the project ( especially the simulations of the mitigated alternative building location) show that there is little or no view impact to residential properties up the hill. Because those properties are distant from the project ( across Ripley Lane, across the broad I-405 right-of-way, and across the wide commercial zoning area on the other side of I-405) the new Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) at the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters occupies a very small percentage of the overall viewshed from those properties. The views from those properties to the water are also already obstructed by existing landscaping, particularly the large trees along the Ripley Lane right-of-way. The views from the south-facing units at Misty Cove of the shoreline and across Lake Washington TEL, 206.447.4400 FAX: 206.447.9700 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400, SEA TILE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299 WV\/W.FOSTER.COM SEA TILE WASHINGTON SPOKANE WASHINGTON PORTLAND OREGON 50743583.1 Memorandum November 9, 2006 Page 2 are likewise not significantly impacted by the project. While a few of the Misty Cove units had marginal impacts of their views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from the original proposal (only 3 or 4 units on the upper south side floors), the mitigated building location has totally eliminated even those impacts. In order to minimize view impacts, the applicant has The Seahawks Proposal Has Minimized Any View Impact. As mitigation for any view impacts, the Seahawks have proposed moving the building even further to the east. The original proposed design had already provided significant view mitigation: moving the building as far south as possible while still retaining the ability to place three outdoor practice fields on the property; placing the shorter building (the office building) on the shoreward portion of the property in order to minimize view impacts to Misty Cove; proposing shorter shoreline landscaping elements for the north comer of the property in order to minimize view impacts to Misty Cove; removing existing power poles along the north property line to actually improve shoreline views from Misty Cove; and moving the entire structure back from the shoreline. As further mitigation, the Seahawks are proposing to move the entire building structure approximately 62 feet to the east. This will eliminate any obstruction of views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from Misty Cove. Revised photosimulations illustrating this point are enclosed with this memorandum. Misty Cove Misunderstands the Facts. Misty Cove has some factual misunderstandings about the proposal that should be clarified. First, Misty Cove repeatedly refers to a 120-foot tall project in the shoreline. In fact, the current proposed maximum height is approximately 110 feet-IO inches above grade. Final design of the roof trusses may alter this height slightly ( as may moving the building 62-feet to the east) but the application has never shown the !PF as a 120- foot tall structure. Second, Misty Cove also mistakenly states that there was no geotechnical engineering done on the south part of the Baxter site. In fact, the supplemental geotechnical report shows that there were 17 test pits and 13 borings on the South Baxter site (and one additional boring immediately to the south). These borings showed that it was up to 85 feet to bearing soil on South Baxter, which makes construction on South Baxter far less practical. Locating the building on the North Baxter site also allows the building pilings to be augured (rather than driven) which will greatly mitigate noise impacts of construction. In addition, locating the building on North Baxter means that the quieter office building use will be adjacent to Misty Cove, rather than the noisier (although infrequent) practice field and training camp use. Third, the City should also note that the mitigated building location removes the !PF building entirely from the City's Shoreline District. Thus, the City's shoreline regulations and policies should not even apply to the !PF. Even if the City considers the project as a whole, however, it is clear that the Seahawks have minimized any view impacts to the primary scenic view in the area. The Shoreline Management Act Requirements Are Met. Under the Shoreline Management Act, development on shorelines of the state that obstructs a "substantial number" of residential views "on areas adjoining such shorelines" may not exceed 35 feet unless overriding considerations of public interest are served. RCW 90.58.320. Here, as noted above, the !PF portion of the )0743583. ! .. Memorandum November 9, 2006 Page 3 Seahawks project is nor proposed to be entirely outside the City's Shoreline District The office building portion of the project does exceed 35 feet, but it does not block any residential views - including views from the Misty Cove Condominiums. Even if the project is considered as a whole, the City should find that a "substantial number" of residential views are not "obstructed." The mitigated building location proposal eliminates any view impacts of the shoreline and Lake Washington from Misty Cove. With respect to the far distant views from residences across I-405 and the intervening commercial area, the Seahawks do not believe those views are from areas adjoining such shorelines. Even if there were considered "adjoining," those distant views are only marginally impacted a) because their current views of the water are already largely obscured by mature trees and b) because their overall panoramic view is only slightly impacted (less than a few percent of the .overall view). 2. The Seahawks Corporate Headquarters Is an Authorized Use. Misty Cove mistakenly states that the Seahawks corporate headquarters is not an authorized use. Misty Cove is mistaken. The City's Urban Shoreline Environment is intended for high-intensity land uses. RMC 4-2-0901(2). For new commercial development on Lake Washington, such as the Seahawks project, the City's Code allows such development so long as significant public access is provided to and along the water's edge. The project does propose a significant new public access along the north side of the property to Lake Washington and then southward along the water's edge. After discussions with the City, the Seahawks have expanded the public access area along the lake edge. 3. There Are No Significant Impacts to Endangered Species. Finally, Misty Cove states (without any analysis or expert reports) that proposed retaining walls will impact endangered species -specifically bull trout and Chinook salmon that utilize Lake Washington. First, Misty Cove has evidently not reviewed the revised application materials which greatly reduce the need for any retaining walls. Second, and most important, the project's Lake and Stream Study shows that there will not be any significant impacts to salmon or other species. In fact, the project will replant a severely degraded area of the Lake Washington shoreline with native plantings, replacing the invasive species currently on the site, and improve habitat values. The project will also comply with the most recent King Count stormwater manual, with Ecology's new regulations for NPDES construction permits, and with a detailed Integrated Turf Management Plan. As the City found in its Mitigated DNS decision, this will ensure that there will no significant adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. cc: Zanetta Fontes 50743583.1 . .,,,.._..__... ~ ----4-BS · .. ··"---~-lN:Vf.RS1A1E .. . .::.-.-:. SITE PLAN -EXISTING CONDITIONS r:::>,• SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES ·'(-') SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY C) 2006 CRAWF'ORD AMCl1 ll (C1S, LLC SCALE 1" :;:: 50'-0" ,d'~=;::--·-~ ~ FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC SHADOW STUDIES f :'~·rr. ' :-~-,. ) ; .. _~: -~.·~, 1 t .. r.ei ;ir\ -~~ ."'1 '. J UNE 2~~t ,.jf; ~:t ~ ._ ....... -. -· ----·--- @ : ~ .:.. ·- M " SITE VISU ALIZATION STUDIES ''0.) SEAHAWKS HEA DQU ARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY ...... -.-r-~_..,.,.,._, .• rNrT-£R S 1 f.'-,,l°"E A·OS SITE PLAN -CURRENT DESIGN Cl 2006 CRAWroRD ,\RCH l-:'(CTS. LLC SCALE 1" = 50'-0" ,i:Fl.fl{===~ ~ FOOTBALL NORTHWEST , LLC SHADOW STUDIES @ :::~--- .. ---. -ER S T·A TE 4 os-. --. I. N-1 . I SITE PLAN -BUILDING MOVED 62' EASTWARD (Y.:" SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES 'C_,) SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY C 200(, CRAW F'ORO 1,RCt1!t(Cl$, U.C SCALE 1" = 50'-0" dt:R:f=~ l=:...--::i FOOTBALL NORTHWES T7 LL C SHADOW STUDIES @ , -. ? y. t JUNE 21ST SEPTEMBER 21 ST DECEMBER 21ST MARCH 21ST 3 :00 PM 3 :00 PM 3:00 PM 3:00 PM 1~• SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES '(y SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY SHADOW STUDIES -CURRENT DESIGN G 2006 Cf.(A~FORD ARCHtTEC~, I u.: FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC @ JUNE 21ST SEPTEMBER 21 ST ·~ 3:00 PM DECEMBER 21ST 3:00 PM (C>r SITE V ISUALIZATION STUDIES SHADOW STUDIES -MITIGATED ALTERNATE '<Y SEAHAW KS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY O 2006 CAAYll~ORD AkCHIT(Cf~. U.C MARCH 21ST 3:00 PM FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC @ City of Renton Hearing Examiner City of Renton OMLOPMEN1 SERVICES C11Y OF RENTON CITY a: RENTON NOVO 6 2006 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 NOV 07 2006 RECEIVED ,..- I am appealing the Enviromental Committee Report for the Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility file number LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM located at 5015 Lake Washing Blvd N, Renton, WA, 98056 dated October 16, 2006. Specifically I am appealing because I feel that the project has failed to meet two following criteria: I) Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site requirements shall be required: (Ord. 3599, 1-11-1982) specifically sub-section C c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance. Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures. I also feel that the enviromental plan does not meet the requirements ofRMC: (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) -4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS: There is no detailed plan for the Wetlands Mitigation & the restoration of the shoreline along Lake Washington. Sincerely, ~', Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane #4 Renton, WA 98056 CIT OF RENTON o~"'Y C?~ + ~ R +. Planning/Building/Public Works Department ~~NcfO~~-Ka-th_y_K_eo_!_k•_r ... M .. •yo_'.''_r .. ,' · .. : ... '·· .. • .. • ' ... • .... ,..,' .. "--------G .. r_eg_g_Zi_·_m_m_e_r_ma_n_P_.E_.,_A_d_llll_·n_is_t_ra-to_r __ October 19, 2006 Ray Colliver · Port Ouendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA•M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the .subject project and have ,issued a threshold Determination of Non" Significance-Mitigated with Mif,gation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decisfon, Part 2, section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the ~nvironmental determination must be-filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM on · November 6, 2006 •. Appeals must be fded in writing together with .the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton; 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City oLRentoh, MunicipalCode'Section 4,8-110.B. Additional. information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510, · A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing 11:xaminer ih the ¢ouncil Chambers on the seventh . floor of City Hall, 1()55 South Grady W,ay, Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant Qr rep,;¢~ntative(s) of the applicant is required to· be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report Will be maRed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is ap~d, the appeal will be heard as. part of this public hearing. . · The preceding information will assist you in planning for irnptemeRtallon ofy-0ur project ancl enable you to exercise your a[lpeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any quesiions or desire clarification of the above, please can me at (425) 430-7382. For the Enviromnental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record Enclosure ----~-10""'5-5 .-So~uth-Gra-dy-W--'a-y---R,-en-to_11,_W_as_hingt _____ o_n_9-80'-"55-. ~ ....... -~-~ ~ .a,,, 4.l,f;J1.An·nF Tin:_ r'rr11v1-" ~No. CITY OF RENTON City Cl~rkDlvi~ion 1055 Soullt Gt'l!cly Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 Fuuds l&ceiv«l Fro.nu At!k¢ss Cff~p • $t(tlt:'tJ tff:. ,kit111 c' Rece~pt NE 0682 Date . lt/o/2oa,6 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 Cl!litEI..OPMEN SERVICES CtlY OF RENTON NOV 07 2006 RECEIVED BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON CITY OF RENTON NOVO 6 2006 { RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE J:klivered-tout/e,1 ,;j: 2.-:, f,nl, MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, NO. LUA06-073 Appellant, v. CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. I. NOTICE OF APPEAL; APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED WITH MITIGATION MEASURES (Oct. 16, 2006) INTRODUCTION Comes now the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Misty Cove") and for its appeal of the above-captioned Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated ("DNSM") pleads as follows. This appeal is filed pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC"), chapter 4-08- 110, the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"), and under the procedures set forth on Page 15 of the Report & Decision of the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") (Oct. 16, 2006). The City Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to review an appeal of the ERC's Determination of Non-Significance for this proposal. RMC Section 4-8-070(H)( 4 ); RMC Sec. 4-8-070(T). MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S -1-Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 lS56J 1 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 .. , / /J . f . /~Ji. . Telephone 206.838.9100 cc , L('-,r'/ !Vt./lf',fl (.,1 ry l(Tf;rney Facsimile206.838.9101 1Ve, I ,,Jq tf s / De i1. Svcs. 'D, rtcV I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Misty Cove Associatiiiid's an~i~co'rporated condominium association of over 50 residents 1 , residing on Lake Washington directly adjacent and to the north of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The Misty Cove Condominiums consist of the condominium building, parking, grounds, and marina located at 5021 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. The proposed Seahawks facility involves a relocation of an existing facility from Kirkland. By moving their facility to Renton, the Seahawks hope to quadruple the size of their current Kirkland facility.2 The effect oflocating this large commercial enterprise on this vacant lakeshore site is immediate and certain change in the lives of Misty Cove residents. In their recent internet promotional materials for the new facility, the Seahawks management admit the new 120-foot tall facility will be "massive," located within 50 feet of Lake Washington. 3 In the same promotional video, Renton's Mayor promises to "fast-track" every permit application filed by the Seahawks, in support of the new facility. While it is understandable City leadership would wish to attract an economic engine with a "massive" commercial facility within the City limits by fast-tracking the permit and SEPA review, the City's environmental determination must focus on impacts to the shores of Lake Washington, a shoreline of statewide significance. When issuing the DNSM, the City's SEP A responsible official failed to consider public comments and failed to ensure consistency with the City's adopted Shoreline Management Master Program4 and other 1 There are 50 residential units located at Misty Cove, some of which are occupied by multiple residents. 2Information derived from the Seahawk 's promotional website at: www.seahawks.com/News/News.aspx%3Fid%3 DI 021 S+Seahawks+ Training+facility+Kirkland, + W A&hl=en &gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=I I 3 ld., "Video Report" promoting new facility, Seahawks President Tim Ruskell. 'RMC Sec. 4-9-070(0)(2Xc). MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM IS563 -2- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Unioo Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattfe, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 permit regulations. Those regulations protect the interests of Misty Cove residents and the interests of all state residents who enjoy Lake Washington's waters and shores. Unfortunately, neither the applicant nor City staff appeared to incorporate suggestions or comments from neighborhood meetings or either of Misty Cove's letters to the City providing detailed concerns. The first letter was sent in July 2006, over three months ago. The applicant's resubmittal in September 2006 did not adequately address those concerns and did not propose any new voluntary permit conditions to mitigate impacts described by Misty Cove. Upon appellate review, a central issue will be whether this massive facility may impede, alter or impair the views of existing residents throughout the area, for a commercial use that is neither water-dependent nor water-related. Misty Cove residents believe additional design work is needed to mitigate the massive scale and height of the proposal in order to make the facility consistent with applicable City shoreline regulations. Additional study is needed to determine impacts and appropriate mitigation on a host of issues not addressed by the DNSM conditions, not the least of which is the impact of stormwater runoff on endangered species habitat along the shoreline. Misty Cove therefore requests the Hearing Examiner remand the DNSM for additional study and SEPA conditions mitigating probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified in this appeal. II. SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS INF ACT OR LAW As required under the City's appeal procedures, Misty Cove offers the following list of substantial errors in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings. RMC Sec. 4- 8-11 O(C)(3). A. List of Errors. In addition to those reasons listed in the attached letters, the DNSM is in error because: MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM IS56l -3- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • This proposal does not meet the City's adopted shoreline standards for the location of commercial development along Lake Washington: New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither water-dependent, nor water-related, nor water-enjoyment, nor which do not provide significant public access to and along the water's edge will not be permitted upon the shoreline. RMC Sec. 4-3-090(L)(5)(ii). • The facility is not located in an area "where current commercial uses exist," as required for Commercial Use within the Urban Shoreline Environment. RMC 4-3-090(1)(4); 4-3-090(L)(5). • The 120-foot high structure is not of the same scale as other commercial development contemplated for this commercial zone. • The scale and design of the facility will impede or impair the views of adjacent residents; the SEPA DNSM does not include any permit conditions concerning design or scale capable of providing the mitigation required by the City's shoreline regulations. • The DNSM is silent on any mitigation conditions addressing obstructed and impeded views, traffic gridlock, degradation of fish and wildlife habitat, parking impacts, loss of aesthetics, increased noise, and new sources of light and glare. As part of this appeal, Misty Cove incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, two letters submitted by Misty Cove during the public comment period, providing specific allegations of fact and law demonstrating probable significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the project's noncompliance with SEPA, RCW ch. 43.21C and its implementing regulations, WAC ch. 197-1 I, the Shoreline Management Act, RCW ch. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -4- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle. Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 90.58, and applicable City regulations and policies. Additional errors are described as follows. B. Failure to Impose Specific SEPA Conditions Necessary for Consistency with Shoreline Policies and Regulations. As discussed above, the DNSM does not contain specific SEPA mitigation conditions necessary to demonstrate consistency with the City's adopted standards and policies for commercial uses within the shorelines. The applicant did not meet its burden of demonstrating consistency "with the criteria which must be met before a [shoreline] permit is granted." RMC Sec. 4-9-190(F)(4). Neither the shoreline permit nor other permits may be granted under City code, absent a showing of consistency with the City's adopted shoreline program and regulations. RMC Sec. 4-9-190(E). If the proposal is inconsistent with the City's adopted SEPA policies governing the use of shorelines and mitigation of impacts, it follows that the proposal does not adequately mitigate project impacts to the extent required by SEPA and the City's environmental regulations. The criteria for issuance of a shoreline permit are relevant to the Examiner's review of the ERC's decision. The City's shoreline policies and regulations serve as the basis for substantive conditioning of the project to ensure adequate SEPA mitigation, because they are adopted SEPA policies. RMC Sec. 4-9-070(0)(2)(c). Under City code, specific SEPA mitigation measures become conditions of the underlying permit approval decision, once issued. RMC Sec. 4-9-070(L)(l3). Given the interrelationship between shoreline permit conditions and SEP A conditions, the ERC needed to determine whether the project was consistent with the City's adopted SEPA policy for shorelines, as a pre-requisite to completion of the City's SEPA review. City code required that any mitigation conditions addressing the requirements of the City's shoreline regulations be specific, in order to qualify as SEPA mitigation measures. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -5- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 RMC Sec. 4-9-070(L)(9). In the absence of specific mitigation measures addressing compliance with shoreline regulations, the DNSM must be overturned and remanded for further study. C. Failure to Impose Specific SEPA Conditions Necessary for Consistency with Other Land Use Permit Regulations. 6 It does not appear that the Optional DNS issued by the City covered more than a 7 shoreline substantial development permit application. On September 6, 2006, the applicant 8 added permit applications for a Master Site Plan Approval and Site Plan Approval. The ERC 9 Report & Decision dated October 16, 2006, appears to have expanded the Optional DNS IO notice to now include more than the shoreline permit, specifying "SA-M" and "SA-H" 11 designations. It is not clear from the text of the decision or staff recommendation exactly 12 what permit applications are covered by the DNS. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 D. The Record Lacks Evidence the Public Comments Were Considered for This DNS, as Required by SEP A. It is little surprise the DNSM failed to include specific mitigation conditions addressing timely-submitted neighborhood comments and concerns. In the City's haste to fast-track the permitting process, detailed comments from Misty Cove and other members of the public were not considered. The City's SEP A record does not contain any evidence that the staff or ERC considered Misty Cove's comments, timely filed prior to issuance of the DNSM. As the City's SEPA Responsible Official, the ERC had a duty to consider Misty Cove's written comments and those of other members of the public, prior to issuance of the DNS. WAC 197-11-355(4).5 ' This is the citation for a DNS issued under the Optional DNS process. It is unclear from the Report & Decision issued by the ERC on October 16, 2006 whether the ERC utilized the Optional DNS process. If it did not, the State SEPA Rules require consideration of public comments for a period of 14 days following issuance of the DNS. During that period, WAC l 97-l l-340(2Xf) requires the responsible official to "reconsider the DNS based on timely comments." MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 -6- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Misty Cove submitted a comment letter to the City in July 2006, and again in early October 2006, both prior to issuance of the DNSM. Neither letter was even mentioned in the staff report to the ERC or in the ERC's written decision and letter issuing the DNSM. It seems clear the complete lack of design mitigation conditions in the DNSM is in error in light of the comments the City received from the public concerning inconsistencies with the City's adopted SEPA policies, which include the Shoreline Management Master Program and its regulations. E. The ERC Failed to Examine Underlying Permit Applications and Proposed Conditions and Failed to Require Sufficient Environmental Information. The exhibits offered to the ERC for its review are described in the staff recommendation dated October 16, 2006. None of these exhibits include the specific permit application materials covered by the DNS. Because the DNS relies upon mitigation measures applied to other permits through existing codes, it was logically necessary for the ERC to review specific measures proposed for the underlying permits, which apparently were not presented. By way of illustrative example, Paragraph 5 of the DNSM states that Mitigation Measures for the DNS are described in "the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action." The record of the ERC decision shows that the ERC did not appear to consider the shoreline permit application and did not review any specific mitigation measures proposed as conditions for that application. Thus, the DNSM is flawed by citing to the shoreline permit mitigation measures when they are not listed in the DNS and are not otherwise disclosed in the application materials or record of staff review. Under City code, the mitigation conditions for the application had to be listed in the Notice of Application, so that the public had an opportunity to comment. This was not done. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15:56) -7- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 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 Similarly, the staff recommendation, dated October 16, 2006, discusses ideas for mitigation of building design, without proposing any specific mitigation conditions for underlying permits related to design, mass or scale. Clearly, the DNSM list of mitigation measures on Page 3 of the ERC Report & Decision does not address these issues or identify conditions proposed for any underlying permit. The staff recommendation curiously identifies not a single mitigation measure related to impacts to shoreline water quality or fish habitat. Under the heading "Water" (Page 5, Para. 3 ), the staff recommendation notes a proposal to improve the functions and values of the riparian zone, but does not cite to any specific proposed permit condition and does not propose any DNS mitigation condition. In fact, the recommendation in its entirety refrains from mentioning the presence of endangered salmonid species, their documented use of the shoreline during migrations, or any proposed mitigation to preserve and enhance this valuable state and federal resource. See discussion at Page 11, Para. 10, Staff Recommendation ("No mitigation is required."). The staff report to the ERC does acknowledge there will be five new stormwater drainage system outfalls to Lake Washington at the ordinary high-water mark. Because the staff report failed to describe any ESA habitat assessment, the ERC did not carefully consider probable significant adverse environmental impacts of stormwater runoff on that habitat. In the absence of materials from the applicant or staff, the ERC had a duty to direct staff or the applicant to produce missing information concerning not only proposed conditions for underlying permit applications but also basic environmental data necessary to assess impacts and a record of public comments. Insufficient data was provided to the ERC concerning: • the presence of fish; • the presence of endangered species; MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM ISS63 -8- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 • the current quality of nearshore habitat for aquatic species and birds; • the impacts of five new stormwater discharge facilities on habitat and water quality; • the impacts of construction sediments on nearshore habitat and fish migrations; • proposed mitigation to address specific impacts to the shoreline ecosystem; and • public concerns about changes to the shoreline. 7 Misty Cove requests the Hearing Examiner remand the DNSM to develop missing 8 information, review proposed voluntary conditions for underlying permits, and for further 9 consideration of appropriate mitigation conditions to be incorporated into the DNS, following 10 a review of public comments. 11 F. Errors Incomorated by Reference. 12 Descriptions of errors of law or fact are contained in other sections of this appeal and 13 are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety as though fully set forth in this section. 14 III. STANDING 15 As required for SEPA appeals and under RMC Sec. 4-8-11 O(E), Misty Cove 16 incorporates the above and alleges the following facts demonstrating that its interests are 17 among those that are required to be considered, the decision prejudices those interests, the 18 prejudice will result in injury in fact, and a decision in favor of Misty Cove would 19 substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice. 20 The interests of Misty Cove residents are within the zone of interests the City must 21 consider, as specified in City code and SEPA. The City's shoreline regulations expressly 22 require consideration of view and aesthetic impacts on adjacent residents. RMC Sec. 4-3- 23 090(K)(3); RMC Sec. 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). Similarly, the SEPA Checklist required for the 24 project included discussion of impacts to traffic, storm water, fish and wildlife habitat, 25 parking, aesthetics, noise, light and glare, all environmental factors to be considered by the 26 MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 1$563 -9- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Slreet, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 City during its SEPA review. Issues of height, noise, design, parking and traffic mitigation are all issues considered as part of the City's review for the underlying Master Site Plan approval. The City's critical areas and shoreline regulations also require protection of the natural resource along the shoreline. The interests Misty Cove members seek to address in this appeal are within the zone of interests the City was required to consider under its code, the Shoreline Management Act, and SEP A. Thus, the City was required to consider the comments and interests of Misty Cove residents related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, aesthetics, noise, light and glare. The injury in fact and manner in which the Association and its members are prejudiced by the DNSM are set forth in detail in the Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Declaration of Steve Jansen, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the Declaration of Brian Sabey, attached hereto as Exhibit C. With 50 residential units on four floors and a marina, Misty Cove residents have real property interests in their use and enjoyment of the Misty Cove property and adjacent Lake Washington, including views. Under the Declaration of Condominium for Misty Cove recorded on February 11, 1980, all of the owners of units at Misty Cove are members of the Association. The Association represents the interests of its members in this appeal. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer. See, Save a Valuable Environment v. Bothell, 89 Wn. 2d 862, 865-68, 576 P.2d 401 (1978). Many, if not all, of the individual members of the Association are likely to be harmed by significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Seahawks Practice Facility that are immediate, concrete and specific, related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, light and glare. See, e.g., MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM ISS6J -10- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Declaration of Steve Jansen. As such, the Association is prejudiced by the City's decision to issue a DNSM that fails to adequately mitigate those impacts. The residents of Misty Cove have chosen to live there because they use and enjoy Lake Washington and the shoreline adjacent to it. All of the units of Misty Cove have balconies and patios. The lake and the shorelands can be viewed from almost every unit. Misty Cove residents frequently walk on the shorelands, view the water and shorelands, fish, boat, engage in watersports, watch wildlife, and generally enjoy all of the sights and activities available on Lake Washington and the adjacent shorelands. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ,I 4. Because of the proposed massive height and scale of the structure, the lack of conditions requiring design modifications and a lack of visual mitigation measures in the DNSM, views of the water and shorelands will be impaired from nearly half of the units of Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout their property. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,I 3. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington shorelands. In the case ofresidents on the ground floor, at least one resident believes the 120-foot high facility will prevent his unit from being exposed to the sun for the better part of most winter days. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,I 4. Misty Cove Association members also have an interest in use and enjoyment of the Lake Washington's water quality, as reflected in the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and in some case below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shoreline habitat for endangered species of fish, other fish, birds and MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM IS56J -11- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mammals using the nearshore habitat. Association members have observed bald eagles and osprey on the Port Quendall property to the south (Seahawks site) and regularly engage in bird-watching. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,r 5; Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ,r 1 O; Declaration of Brian Sabey, ,r 4. Association members who live on the north side of the property enjoy walking along the waterfront and sitting beside the Misty Cove pool, which is located on the southwest portion of the property to engage in birdwatching. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ,r I 0. Misty Cove members also fish and utilize boats parked in one of the 24 boat slips available to them in the Misty Cove Marina. Association members frequently boat on Lake Washington in the vicinity of the Port Quendall Property. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ,r 11; Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,r 6; Declaration of Brian Sabey, ,r 6. Probable significant adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff include but are not limited to damage to fish, poor visibility in the Lake waters, and sedimentation of nearshore gravels, all of which directly harm Misty Cove members enjoying the shoreline and waters of Lake Washington. The DNSM fails to include mitigation measures necessary to prevent these probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The Association and its members are also harmed by the DNSM decision because it does not contain mitigation measures designed to reduce the noise and harmful effects of the proposed service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest corner of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause harm and annoyance to Misty Cove and the members of the Association. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,r 8. Because Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road, Association members believe it more than likely the Football Northwest proposal will result in a substantial increase in traffic and parking problems. Currently, the only traffic in the area leads to Misty MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM IS56l -12- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The DNSM failed to include mitigation measures capable of reducing what is projected to be an enormous amount of new traffic to the area, associated with summer training camp, when thousands of people a day are expected to visit the Seahawks property. Without DNS mitigation measures, Misty Cove Association members believe their parking lot and dock will be utilized as a shortcut to gain access to the Seahawks facility. Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ,I 14; Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,I 9. Parking problems are expected to increase as a result of the proposal. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area during Seahawks events will increase the demand for parking within the Misty Cove property and potentially create security problems as hundreds of visitors use the area during training camp. The DNSM did not include mitigation measures capable of addressing increased parking demand off-site and security measures for crowd control. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ,I 9; Declaration of Brian Sabey, ,I 9. The proposal evidently would not include the construction of lamp posts and field lighting for night-time practice. Misty Cove would be directly harmed by such lighting, because glare would likely be seen from the Misty Cove property at night, thus substantially reducing the visibility of night-time skies through "light pollution." Misty Cove believes the SEPA DNSM should have included permit conditions permanently prohibiting night-time lighting of outdoor play fields. No mitigation conditions are currently proposed in the DNSM. IV. RELIEF SOUGHT Misty Cove seeks an order remanding or revising the above-captioned DNSM. Remanding the DNSM to the ERC for additional study or revising the DNSM to include necessary mitigation conditions would substantially eliminate or redress each of the above- MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM IS563 -13- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 described injuries to the interests of Misty Cove members, related to views, traffic, storm water, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, light and glare. Petitioner Misty Cove requests that the remand order require adoption of specific mitigation conditions related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, !~ht and glare, as described in this appeal. DATEDthis (of-dayof / l,c;v~ ,2006. MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION APPEAL OF DNSM 15563 SOCIUS LAW GROUP, PLLC By mas F. Peterson, WSBA #16587 Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners TOMEHRLICHMAN,ATIORNEYATLAW .,~{¥ Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners -14- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square • 601 Unlon Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF 9 APARTMENT OWNERS, NO. LUA06-073 1 0 Appellant, DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN J l V. 12 CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Respondents. I, Steve Jansen, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief. I. I own and reside in a unit of Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") and am a member of the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Association"). 2. I own unit number 4, which is located on the southwest corner of the Misty Cove building. From my unit, I have views to the west of Lake Washington and to the southwest of the shoreline located on the Port Quendall property where the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility is planned. Not only do I live in my unit, but I have my home office there too. Consequently, I am in the unit and on or about the Misty Cove property during all hours of the day throughout the week. DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN -1- 15549 ~XHIBITJL_ Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Unioo Square• 601 Union Street. Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3. The 120 foot high indoor practice facility proposed for the Seahawks site will seriously impair views of the water and shorelands from nearly half of the units of Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout the property. All of the residents and guests of Misty Cove will be affected by the project in some way. The practice facility will block my view of the shoreland to the south of the Misty Cove property and the territorial view beyond. 4. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington shorelands. The shadowing will particularly impact me because my unit is located on the ground floor. I doubt whether I will be able to see the sun for the better part of most winter days. Furthermore, the 120 foot high indoor practice facility will loom over the public areas of Misty Cove creating a canyon-like effect. Driving in and out of Misty Cove will be like driving down a dark alley. 5. I enjoy watching the wildlife from my unit and around the Misty Cove Property. I have observed blue heron, otter, beaver, turtles, migrating geese, nesting osprey, bald eagle, raccoon, and deer in the vicinity of Misty Cove and the on the Port Quendall property to the south. 6. I also enjoy boating and fishing, I own a boat slip at Misty Cove, although I 24 do not currently have a boat moored there. 25 26 DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN 1SS49 -2-Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square • 601 Union Street. Suite 4950 Seattle. Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 FacslmUe 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and in some cases below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. There is virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat. 8. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest corner of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause particular harm and annoyance to me because my unit is located on the ground floor directly north of the proposed service area. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems. 9. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution, and security problems in the area. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area will seriously harm Misty Cove residents. In addition, the pressure on parking from Seahawks visitors will make matters even worse. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people will visit the property each day. Those people DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN Socius Law Group, PLLC -3-ATTORNEYS 1S549 Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.836.9100 Facslmlle 206.838.9101 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to cross the property to gain access to the Seahawks facility. These Seahawks visitors will walk through the Misty Cove property directly past my windows and through the parking lot to the Ripley Lane. I have already experienced this problem at events like when the Blue Angels perform. I expect that it will be even worse when the Seahawks are aronnd. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the ~tate of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this _h_ day of~~/ 2006, at klb , Washington. - DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN .4. Socius Law Group, Puc l55i9(1J ATTOHN~Y$ Two Union SqU8i8 • 601 Ur,ion Strwt, Suite 4950 Seonle, WOSlllngtOO 98101,395! Telephone 206.838.9100 Fa0&imlle 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. NO. LUA06-073 DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER 16 I, Eleanor Margo Kennamer, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein 17 and make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. I am the President of Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("the Association"). The Association is an unincorporated condominium association formed under RCW ch. 64.32. 2. Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") is a condominium consisting of a building, parking, grounds, and marina located at 5021 Ripley Lane North, Renton, Washington. Misty Cove is located on Lake Washington directly adjacent and to the north of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER IS48Q -1- EXHIBIT.B_ Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 3. Misty Cove contains 50 residential units on four floors. 25 units are located on the north side of the building and 25 are located on the south side of the building. Under the Declaration of Condominium for Misty Cove recorded on February 11, 1980, the owners of units at Misty Cove are the members of the Association. 4. Many, if not all, of the individual members of the Association are directly and perceptibly banned by the proposed Seahawks Practice Facility. 5. The residents of Misty Cove have chosen to live there because they use and enjoy Lake Washington and the shoreline adjacent to it. Misty Cove residents frequently walk on the shorelands, view the water and shorelands, fish, boat, engage in watersports, watch wildlife, and generally enjoy all of the sights and activities available on Lake Washington and the adjacent shorelands. 6. All of the units of Misty Cove have balconies or patios. The lake and the shorelands can be viewed from almost every unit. 7. The 120 foot high indoor practice facility proposed for the Seahawks site will seriously impair views of the water and shorelands from nearly half of the units of Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout the property. All of the residents and guests of Misty Cove will be affected by the project in some way and some more than others. 8. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty 23 Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses 24 the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block 25 26 DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER ""' -2- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 SeaWe, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimlle 206.638.9101 I views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington 2 shorelands. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new storrnwater outfalls within the shoreline and in some case below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. 10. I keep a pair of binoculars at hand because I enjoy watching the wildlife that live and frequent the properties in the vicinity of Misty Cove, including the property to the south. Although my unit is on the north side of the building, I frequently sit on a landing on the south side of the building to view the birds and mammals and also do so when I visit my neighbors. I also enjoy walking along the waterfront and sitting beside the Misty Cove pool, which is located on the southwest portion of the property. I have personally observed bald eagles and osprey on the property located to the south of Misty Cove. I have also frequently observed six dear on that property. 11. There are 24 boat slips in the Misty Cove Marina. Many of the Association members own boats. We own two boats and frequently boat on lake Washington in the vicinity of the Port Quendall Property. 12. The proposed grading, construction, and installation of stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and below the ordinary high water mark if not carefully designed and mitigated will seriously impact fish and wildlife habitat, including those of endangered species. There is virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat. DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER 15486 -3- Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facslmlle 206.838.9101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 13. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthennore, the project proposes to locate the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest comer of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause harm and annoyance to Misty Cove and the members of the Association. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems. 14. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution, and security problems in the area. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people a day will visit the property. Those people will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to cross the property to gain access to the Seahawks facility. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp. DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER IS486 -4- Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two UnlOn Square• 601 Union Street, Sulte 4950 SeaWe, Washlnglon98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 From: l'tN Realty NOV. 6. 2006 1:31PM 4259436640 SOCIUS LAW GROUP 11/0 06 14: 42 11990 P. 001/001 NO. 2582 P. 6 1 I declare under penalty of perjury UDder the laws of fhe staoo of Washington 1bat the 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF ELEANOR MARGO KENNAMER. -Soolua Law Group, PW: -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, Respondents. NO. LUA06-073 DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY 16 I, Brian Sabey, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this 17 declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I. My wife and I own and reside in a unit of Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") and are members of the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Association"). 2. We own unit number 304, which is located on the top floor of the southwest corner of the Misty Cove building. From my unit, I have views to the west of Lake Washington and to the southwest of the shoreline located on the Port Quendall property where the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility are planned. Not only do I DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY "™ -1- EXHIBIT C Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimlle 206.838.9101 1 live in my unit, but I have my home office there too. Consequently, I am in the unit and on 2 or about the Misty Cove property during all hours of the day throughout the week. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3. As proposed, the Seahawks indoor practice facility will block my view of everything to the east and south. I currently enjoy a wonderful territorial view of Renton and Bryn Mawr that will be lost if the practice facility is built as planned. Instead oflooking out at the hill, trees, and sky, I will see a massive ten-story wall. 4. · I enjoy watching the wildlife from my unit and around the Misty Cove Property. I have observed blue heron, and bald eagles nesting and feeding on the Port Quendall property and in the adjacent waters of Lake Washington. 5. Besides enjoying the view and observing wildlife from my unit, I also frequently stand, walk, and run along the road adjacent to the Port Quendall Property, along the Misty Cove shoreline, and on our dock and pool area. The views of the shoreline will be blocked from all of those vantage points by the proposed indoor practice facility. 6. I also enjoy boating and fishing. I own a boat, which I keep in the Misty Cove Marina. From our boat, my wife and I view the marine life in the waters adjacent to the Port Quendall property. 7. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater outfalls within the shoreline and in some cases below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. There are virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat. DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY -2- IS564 Socius Law Group, PLLC A T T O R N E Y S Two Unk>n Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, washlngton 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facsimile 206.838.9101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 8. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest corner of the building nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors, debris, and vermin will cause particular harm and annoyance to me because my unit is located on the third floor directly north of the proposed service area. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems. 9. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution, and security problems in the area. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area will seriously harm Misty Cove residents. In addition, the pressure on parking from Seahawks visitors will make matters even worse. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people will visit the property each day. Those people will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to gain access to the Seahawks facility. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp. DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY -3- 15.564 Socius Law Group, PLLC ATTORNEYS Two Union Square• 601 Union Street, Suite 4950 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Facslmlle 206.838.9101 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. !' BrianSabey Execu:t:,s "-6._ day of t/an,,o/11 /, 0006, at {I-/, Washington. DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY -4-,,... Socius L~w Group, PU."'-c __ A,TTORNEYS. Two Union S<lue,re • 601 Um>n StreE,t, Suite 4950 Seo(Ue, Waslllngton 98101.3951 Telephone 206.838.9100 Faoomle 208.8$6,9101 socm USLAWG ROU PrLLC July 10, 2006 VIA LEGAL MESSENGER Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA98055 Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 Dear Ms. Higgins: 206.838.1;1100 WJNPHONE 206.038.9101 MAltffAX Two Union Square 601 Union St, Suite 4960 Seattle, WA 98101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.838.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com Tbis law finn represents the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners. As you know, Misty Cove Condominium is located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. We provide this Jetter by way of our comments to the Seattle Seahawks' ("Applicant's") request for environmental (SEPA) review and for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Timing of SEPA Review. As an initial matter, we note that the City appears to be conducting an environmental review for a shoreline substantial development permit only, without first requiring environmental review for the entire project, which is known to the applicant and the City at this time. Conducting environmental review of shoreline uses only is incomplete without first requiring the applicant to submit all known information about the ultimate buildout of the project, i.e., traffic analysis and building footprints shown on a site plan. Piecemeal review is prohibited under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21 C (SEPA), as discussed in numerous court cases. The City's Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) ("Notice") issued on June 23, 2006 ("Notice") identifies a very limited scope of review for a project involving multiple permits. The "Permits/Review Requested" is limited to "Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit." Because the Notice states that the applicant is only seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit at this time, it seems clear the SEP A review applies only to that permit. To our knowledge, no other permit applications have been filed. Thus, the SEPA review could not cover those unfiled land use applications and is being conducted piecemeal on only one select pe1mit application, fue JJ.SS2 EXHIBIT_Q_ soci11sl11111. com Elizabeth Higgins July I 0, 2006 Page2 shoreline substantial development permit. Alternatively, if the SEPA review is intended to cover the entire project, the SEPA applicant should be required to provide full details of the entire project, including but not limited to a traffic analysis, prior to your issuance of a mitigated SEP A determination. Absent a full disclosure and analysis of all project impacts prior to issuance of the SEP A determination, the SEP A determination fails to assess possible needed mitigation addressing those undisclosed impacts. SEP A's policy against piecemeal review is specifically designed to avoid such a result. " The Notice does not identify commencement of a review period for the Master Use Permit Application and furthermore, no Binding Site Plan has been submitted. Accordingly, the City will have to commence a new SEP A review process when those applications and plans are submitted. Such piecemeal review conflicts with SEPA and SMA policies. Merkle v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844,509 P.2d 390 (1973). We request that the SEPA review be postponed until the application and plans are complete so that the City and the neighbors can see the whole project and the full suite of impacts and proposed mitigation before the SEP A review process begins. The Practice Facility Location. The Preliminary Site Plan calls for construction of a 120-foot high warehouse structure for use as a practice facility on the North end of the Baxter Property. The location of the practice facility should be moved for a number of reasons. 1. View Blockage. All of the apartments on the south side of the Misty Cove condominium currently enjoy unobstructed views of Lake Washington to the south and west. The proposed practice facility will block most of these views. Such view blockage directly conflicts with the City's Shoreline Master Program. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline Master Program provide as follows: The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction. 13SS2 The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page 3 RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). The Application incorrectly characterizes the impact of the development on the views of Misty Cove owners. The Project Narrative states that "[v]iews to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south will not be adversely affected." Land Use & Shoreline Permit Application (the "Application"), § 2, p. 4. The Environmental Checklist contains similar mischaracterizations. Application § 3, p. 16. This misstatement by the applicant alone is grounds for the City to delay issuance of a SEP A determination, pending submittal of complete and accurate information on the entire project. It is also a basis for denying the shoreline substantial development permit for failure to comply with the policies and regulations cited above. Not surprisingly, the Application does not state what steps the Applicant has taken to "reduce to a minimum" the interference that the practice facility will have on Misty Cove owners' views. In fact, the practice facility is located in the spot that will most interfere with Misty Cove views. The negative view impact would be minimized if the practice facility was located on the south side of the project, where there are no adjacent residences, or situated further from the shoreline. This appears to be feasible given the proposed layout of the site. The practice facility is also quite tall. Although a 120-foot high structure is not barred outright in a COR zone, where the building is abutting a lot designated as residential, maximum building height is to be determined through site development plan review. RMC 4-2-120B. Generally, the limit is 20 feet higher than the maximum height allowed in the abutting residential zone. Id. This would not be an issue if the practice facility were located on the south end of the property, which area does not abut a residential zone. If the facility is not relocated, we contend it is in violation ofRMC 4-2-120B. 2. Shoreline Orientation. The proposed practice facility is located too close to the shoreline. The General Use Regulations provide as follows: Facility Arrangement -Shoreline Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependant, water-related and water- enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all other facilities inland. RMC 4-3-090(K)(5). The General Use Regulations further require preservation of unique and fragile Areas: Unique and Fragile Areas: Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from development and encroachment. RMC 4-3-090(K)(7). The Preliminary Site Plan locates the practice facility only 50 feet from the shoreline. This not only orients this massive structure, which is not water dependant or water-enjoyment related, too close to the shoreline. It also may impinge on _ the unique and fragile areas of the waterfront. As currently designed, it appears the. proposed shoreline permit would need a variance or conditional use approval from the IJSS2 Elizabeth Higgins July IO, 2006 Page4 Department of Ecology. If such a request has been made, please provide us with a copy of that correspondence, so that we may comment to DOE. We reserve our right to comment further on these issues, as more information is disclosed by the applicant and we have an opportunity to review any critical areas studies submitted in support of the total project. Traffic Impacts. One of the problems with piecemeal SEPA review is the difficulty of commenting on and reviewing significant issues before the required plans and studies are submitted. There will likely be significant traffic impacts on the neighborhood but the actual impact is unknown because the Applicant has not yet submitted its traffic impact analysis. We reserve comment on the traffic impact until the traffic impact analysis has been provided. The Applicant states that the facility will accommodate annual training camp on site and that parking for training camp vehicles will be located offsite. Misty Cove requests that a requirement for offsite parking be made a condition of permit approval. Community Disturbances/Refuse/Service Areas. The preliminary site plan does not identify the location of areas for refuse bins, service entry, storage yards, and outdoor service areas. The Misty Cove owners are concerned that those areas will be located in the parking area adjacent to Misty Cove Condominium and that they will cause excessive noise, odors, night lighting, pollution, and be unsightly in appearance. The Shoreline General Use Regulations cited above, restrict community disturbances such as noise, odors and night lighting, and require screening of visually unpleasant areas. RMC 4-3- 090(K)(3)(ii)&(iv). Furthermore, RMC 4-4-090(C) contains general requirements relating to refuse storage areas. In addition, the Shoreline General Use Regulations proscribe activities near the shoreline that may cause pollution or ecological disruption. RMC 4-3-090(K)(2). Misty Cove requests that proper identification, location, and screening of these areas be provided in the site plan. Misty Cove further reserves comment on these issues until the site plan is available for review. Dock Use. The Baxter site currently contains the remnants of a dock. We understand that the Applicant intends to restore and use the dock. Misty Cove is concerned that prolonged parking of ships and large yachts at the dock will obstruct views. Misty Cove requests that pennanent or Jong term mooring of boats, particularly large ones, be restricted as a condition of the permit. Misty Cove owners are also concerned that visitors to the Seahawks facility will use the Misty Cove marina for mooring. We request that the conditions for the shoreline permit include limitations on the amount of time larg~r vessels may be moored at the facility and prohibit mooring at the Misty Cove manna. Security and Parking, Because Ripley Lane is a dead-end street, Misty Cove owners are concerned that people going to the new facility will often end up in the Misty Cove parking lot, which is not adequate to accommodate existing Misty Cove tenants. The owners are also concerned that the increased traffic will lead to more car break-ins and llS.52 Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page5 other safety threats to Misty Cove Owners. Appropriate signage and security measures should be made a condition of permit approval to avoid these likely impacts on adjacent residents. Lighting and Noise. The Environmental Checklist states that there will be no permanent lighting of the practice fields and no glare anticipated that would adversely impact adjacent land uses. This should be made a permanent condition of permit approval. The Checklist also states that there will minimal noise impact on adjacent properties both during construction and after completion. Plans to control noise should be a condition of permit approval, based on the applicant's promise. The Misty Cove Owners request that the City and the Applicant consider these co=ents and make the appropriate changes for the better of the surrounding neighborhood. If you have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Thomas F. Peterson cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail) IJSS2 Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail) Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company (via U.S. Mail) Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners SO Ci U SLA\#~L1G ROU PPLLc October l 0, 2006 VIA LEGAL MESSENGER Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 . Dear Ms. Higgins: R ECITCYOFAENT01v e,veo OCT 1 o 200b BU1LD1Neo1v1s1oN 206.838.9100 MI\INPHONE 206.838.9101 MI\IN FAX lWO Union Square 601 Union St, Suite 4950 Seattkc!, WA 98101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.636.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com On behalf of our client, the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, we are writing to provide supplemental comments regarding impacts of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility on our clients' homes. This letter is intended to supplement rather than replace our earlier letter, sent to you on July l 0, 2006. That earlier letter is hereby inco!porated by reference. I. INTRODUCTION Our clients live at the Misty Cove Condominium, located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. As such, they will be directly affected by the changes taking place at the Seahawks Training Facility and along the shoreline of Lake Washington, if the various applications are approved as currently designed. We appreciate the assistance of City staff in our review of materials. Please consider this letter an initial comment letter (supplemental), based on our initial reviews of the files. We may have missed something or new infonnation may be developed during the review and hearing process, thus giving rise to additional analysis in the future. If there are any pieces of information we cite below as missing that are actually in the City file, we would appreciate your letting us know so that we can correct our data list. · Our aim during this review process will be to present an accurate analysis of facts in the record and to provide additional data that appears to be missing. In that effort, we appreciate the applicant's willingness to respond in writing to our requests for information or clarifications. Unfortunately, the applicant recently denied our clients even limited access to the property for EXHIBIT G sociusln111.co111 Elizabeth Higgins October I 0, 2006 Page2 the purposes oflooking at the site with our fisheries and wetlands biologists. We trust the City and the applicant will continue to work with us as we seek an honest evaluation of the facts, recognizing the citizens' role in upholding the policies and requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, RCW ch. 98.58, as well as their rights under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"). II. SCOPE OF THESE COMMENTS AND REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE This letter is intended to present our clients' concerns and initial comments applicable to each of the following, individually and collectively: • Notice of Application (revised application September 22, 2006) • Revised Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) (Sept. 26, 2006) • Applications for Approval of: o Master Plan o Site Plan o Shoreline Substantial Development Permit o Construction Permit.and Building Permit We understand City staff will make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner and provide a presentation at the public hearing tentatively scheduled for November 21, 2006. We request that this letter and our previous Jetter be provided to the Hearing Examiner as part of the permit file. We also request advance written notice of any public meetings concerning this proposal and would appreciate your assistance to ensure we remain a party of record. Your continued assistance is much appreciated. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPOSED DESIGN MITIGATION REQUIRED BY BOTH THE SHORELINE CODE AND SEPA CONCERNING ADVERSE IMPACTS TO VIEWS The City's shoreline policies and regulations are particularly important to our analysis. These policies contain directives on the types of uses that are permitted, and require analysis and mitigation of aesthetic impacts. Although quoted in our prior Jetter, these specific requirements are worth repeating here. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline Master Program provide as follows: 15079 The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page3 1. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimwn interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant nwnber of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(S)(c). As discussed herein, the application does not provide information or mitigation capable of demonstrating compliance with applicable shoreline regulations concerning views. In our opinion, the City is therefore compelled to declare the application incomplete for purposes of shoreline permit review. If and when the application is submitted with a credible view analysis as required by code, the City should require preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS"). This project, as proposed, is not allowed under the Shoreline Management Act. The current proposal will bring over 343,000 square feet of new buildings to a vacant lot directly adjacent to the Misty Cove Condominiums.1 The buildings are expected to reach as high as 120 feet. This 19.6-acre site includes over 1,800 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline on Lake Washington. The state-regulated shoreline is 200 feet wide, from the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM"). RCW 90.58.030(f). Washington's review criteria for all development mandates that a permit shall not be issued for any new building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining shorelines. WAC 173-27-140. In addition to imposing a 50-foot setback from the OHWM, City regulations also require an assessment of how a project within the [200-foot] shoreline will impact the scenic view prevailing the given area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c); RMC 4- 3-090(L)(5)(d). The view analysis provided by the applicant does not do justice to the significant impacts this massive building within the shoreline will° have on current residents. Nor does the study make any attempt to evaluate the views from the water for boaters, or from Mercer Island. The applicant's view study does not identify the 200-foot shoreline in its photographs and has what 1 Information about the specifics of the proposal is obtained exclusively from the applicant's Project Overview and Environmental Checklist, both revised Sept. 6, 2006. 1.5079 Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page4 may be questionable digital scaling when making comparisons between pre-and post- construction views. The applicant's response to the shoreline permit requirements for a view analysis was to submit "two pages" of analysis. The entire second page is blank except for the following: 3.00 ON GOING ANALYSIS Analysis will be on going as the design proceeds. Addendum I, Visualization Assessment (Section 11) (Crawford Architects Sept 27, 2006). That is a circular statement. City regulations do not allow the permit to proceed unless all materials required by code are submitted as part of the application. An incomplete or cursory submittal does not satisfy the intent of the shoreline regulations for a full analysis of view impacts and design measures to mitigate those impacts. The applicant's one page of text offers a before-and-after view comparison for only three visual points. For one of the views taken from a Misty Cove balcony, the photographs displayed in Figures 5 and 6 do not line up and thus involve some form of digital scale adjustments that call into doubt whether a true comparison is being made between the before-and-after views. 2 Equally important, the 200-foot shoreline of statewide significance is not identified anywhere on the photographs to give the viewer a sense of how views of the state shoreline area would change. The photographs are also misleading because they are taken from vantage points beyond the railings of the effected units (as is apparent from the photos themselves). They do not show the view impact on residents from typical viewing positions such as seated on the balconies or inside the units. From these vantage points the building will block much of the views of the 200-foot shoreline. The photos and text also solely concern views of the water and ignore the residents' views of the rest of the shoreline, the landscape, and sky and the impact of the building on light and sunshine (particularly in late fall through early spring when the sun traverses the southern sky.) Even the applicant's photos show that the massive building will block these views and light. City shoreline policies and regulations require an assessment not only of the views to be affected by the project--which clearly has not been completed here--but also a listing of the applicant's design measures to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by a significant number of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(K.)(3), (L)(S)(c). The applicant claims that "the building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep foundations." Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6 2006) at 17. However, the Geotechnical Report indicates that deep borings were done only in the area of the proposed building. The 2 Once_ can simply compare the measorement between the skyline on a point and the diagonal roofline on a point, for each picture, to see the maccuracy of the comparison between the two pictures; they do not match. TI1e digital photographic work completed for this assessment appears to have been of very poor quality. ,,.,, Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page5 applicant has not adequately explored the subsurface of other portions of the property to determine suitability of alternative locations that will not impair views from neighboring properties. The applicant's view study does not provide the information required by the City's shoreline code. Thus, the City should determine the application to be incomplete. The City has the authority to do so, since the resubmitted application was provided to the City on September 22, 2006 and the City has 28 days under state Jaw to make a completeness determination. RCW 36. 70B.070. On that basis the master application, which includes the shoreline application, should be deemed incomplete until required materials are provided to the City for public review. Given that these same comments were provided previously in response to the initial SEP A notice, and the fact the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit proposed mitigation based on an analysis of the issues, withdrawal of the proposed Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is appropriate. The City should issue a Determination of Significance, for the purpose ofrequiring the complete view analysis required by code. The benefit of the EIS process would be to carefully identify design mitigation potential, and any alternative sites within the City or the vicinity. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). IV. THE CITY SHOULD NOT EVEN REACH AN ANALYSIS OF SHORELINE OR VIEW IMPACTS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" Lake Washington is adjacent to the site and is classified a "shoreline of statewide significance." RMC 4-3-090(E), (F). The proposed Seahawk building and facility are not consistent with the list of priority uses within the 200-foot shoreline: 1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for shorelines of statewide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. RMC 4-3-090(D) 3 The proposal is not consistent with these mandates because the extensive construction and lot coverage would decimate rather than preserve the "natural character" of the 3 Preference is given to the uses in descending order of priority. 15079 Elizabeth Higgins October l 0, 2006 Page 6 shoreline. Id. Similarly, the public interest in Jong term visual aesthetics along Lake Washington outweighs the relatively short term needs of the local football franchise -short term when compared to a Jong term historical timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, the Specific Use Regulations of the City's shoreline code prohibit the kind of use proposed for this facility and thus the application must be denied, following issuance of a Determination of Significance. New commercial development on Lake Washington is not permitted unless it is either water dependent, water related or involves water enjoyment. RMC 4-3-090(L)(S)(a). The Seahawks Training Facility, however popular, cannot be permitted in violation of this exclusive list of permitted commercial uses within a shoreline of statewide significance. It simply is not water dependent, water related or involved in water enjoyment. Furthermore, the project does not provide "significant public access to and along the water's edge." The application does not contend otherwise. The applicant can be expected to argue that none ofits buildings or fields are planned within the City's setback area (50 feet from the OHWM). That is not the test under the use regulations for the City's shoreline program. Instead, the setback only comes into play if the use itself is · authorized within the 200-foot zone, which it is not as explained above. V. IMP ACTS FROM NEW RETAINING WALLS WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT As previously mentioned, Lake Washington has been designated a "shoreline of statewide significance" under state law. RCW 90.58.020. Despite the presence of endangered species habitat along the shores of Lake Washington, the application proposes grading and permanent retaining wall construction not only within the 200-foot shoreline zone, but also (as disclosed in the application) inside the City's standard SO-foot setback area for approved shoreline urban development.4 This is proposed in at least three separate locations within the SO-foot setback. At this time, the plans for the grading and construction of retaining walls are not described, based on our review of the application materials. Similarly, proposed mitigation is not well-articulated to address the impacts of grading and permanent structures on Chinook salmon and bull trout shoreline habitat, and bald eagle habitat.5 We do know that the applicant's wetlands report rates this as a high quality "lake-fringe" wetland that is subject to freshwater tidal influences.6 Thus, use of the site and its impact on juvenile endangered species should be analyzed, impacts assessed, and mitigation proposed. : Baxter Development Project-Phase I 50 Foot Setback, Sile Plan, AOOJ (May 3, 2006). Chmook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles are protected under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA''). • Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels (The RETEC Group, Inc. Aug. 30, 2006), Wetland Rating Form, Page 3 (May 26, 2006). 15079 Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page 7 The project appears to include a proposed grading and retaining wall project to be constructed at elevation 21 feet (NAVD88), which is within one and one half feet in elevation from the highest ordinary high water mark acknowledged by the applicant (19.5 feet NA VD 88 datum).7 Despite these proposed but as-yet-undefined shoreline stabilization walls, the entire discussion of impacts and mitigation concerning ESA species habitat along the lake are so sparse as to be non-existent as follows: 2.4 Wildlife Habitat No federally Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive animal or plant species were observed on the subject property during the site visit 8 An earlier section summarizing the report's "Shoreline Survey'' does not even mention BSA species in the lake or their habitat along the shoreline. See Section 1, at Page 2. Nothing in the report discusses habitat let alone mitigation from the proposed grading and retaining wall construction within the 50-foot setback or within the 200-foot shoreline zone. In addition to addressing those issues, the report should have interpreted the applicant's prior study in May 1997 ,9 which identified May Creek as a nearby "shoreline of the state" supporting runs of Coho, Chinook and sockeye salmon as well as resident fish species ( citing Williams et al., 1975). Mitigation may be required for the linkage between May Creek residents and use of the nearby shoreline of Lake Washington at the project site, i.e., at various times of their life cycle. Thus, we conclude the application is deficient because it fails to adequately address the project's impacts on BSA species. Ironically, the applicant's Environmental Checklist, updated September 6, 2006, does disclose the existence of Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle on or near the site. However, no habitat is described and no mitigation is offered. Instead, the following is offered: Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing on the site vicinity. Sockeye juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6, 2006) at 12. 'Conceptual Grading Plan, C!Ol (May 3, 2006); RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Survey at 2 (Aug. 30, 2006). • RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Sun,ey (Aug. 30, 2006) at 2. 9 Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (May 1997) at 8. ,,.,. .. Elizabeth Higgins October I 0, 2006 Page 8 A Determination of Significance for the project should be issued instead of the proposed Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance, in part to ensure careful study of shoreline ESA habitat and determine whether mitigation measures would ever moderate the adverse impacts from the proposed, permanent disturbance of the SO-foot setback area and the 200-foot shoreline and associated wetlands. By requiring an EIS on this issue, the City would .also ensure that an objective assessment of site alternatives is conducted by the applicant. Misty Cove residents enjoy the shoreline of Lake Washington on a daily basis. They enjoy existing shoreline views and the natural habitat for plants and animals along the vegetated shoreline, including endangered species. There is a direct linkage between the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project and residents' continued use and enjoyment of their property and the adjacent lake. Thus, they have standing to appeal the City's SEP A determination; in the event it is necessary. Please consider these comments in addition to the co=ents set forth in our letter of July 10. If you have any questions about these co=ents orifwe can provide any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Thomas F. Peterson cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail) "'"' Misty Cove Homeowners Association (via U.S. Mail) Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail) Lance Lopes, Attorney for Applicant (via U.S. Mail) CITY OF RENTON City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-6510 Receipt N~ 0683 Date tf/tho0 -+7 --,7~---- DCash C9'fheck No. D Copy Fee D Notary Service '8't1 )o !:k(ppeal Fee D --------- Description: __,tf-~IJ~J)f.u4µ...I_.L.Jft?~-l-i!=-,z,c:Z,(,'.L;~~~u.\--=E;::..itu:.w"-'6~¥4u.'/.!:<&z.rc:.· ---'~-~11.,s.'P_-~------rr rfr1. -;;r L v d-12c. -o7 3 r 1:,cF, s-et-c!J_, so1 . r ~ Funds Received From: Name 5ocJ () ') 4,w b/ovf,, f'?/.L Address -' I , .A /' ~ e i,.v D VJ/ I VT I ..::> (J.J<. c,b./ I I Amount $ ? 1,. tJ 0 c~i,~ • ,. "~y 0 o~,~ ~ . + ... + ~ -~ Kathy Keolker, Mayor &'Nero October 19, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CIT~ OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) on October 16, 2006: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football- related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. · If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7382. ' For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Waiter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation -Encu:1SUie_ ___ lO_S_5-So_u_th_Gra_d_y_W_a_y_--R-en_t_on-,-W-a-sh_in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE REPORT City <>f Renton & Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE REPORT ERC MEETING DA TE: October 16, 2006 Project Name: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Owner: Port Quendall Company Applicant: Football Northwest Contact: Mr. Ray Colliver 505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 File Number: LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Project Description: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. Continued next page Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane) Exist. Bldg. Area SF: NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 129,595 sf Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 215,000 sf Site Area: 19.68 acres (853,776 sf) Total Building Area GSF: 215,000 sf RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/BIPW Departmen E SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, . TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 2 of 18 !!PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND, CONTINUED The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7} in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1 ). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility (Exhibit 2). The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2- 11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of May Creek. The drainage way for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Once on the property it flows from east to west first in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the shoreline of Lake Washington. The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on the property at the present time. A single-story, 1,300 sf wood-frame office building built on Baxter North in 1963, would be removed from the property, as would asphalt-paved interior roads. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these features and they would be fenced from the area of the site accessible to the public. On-site clean-up activities, remediation from the former wood-processing activities, have consisted of soil excavation, contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site (see Environmental Health discussion, below) and grading for site features would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material would be required at the time of site construction. The property is zoned Commercial/ Residential / Office 2 (COR 2). The stated purpose of the Commercial I Residential/ Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned development that is integrated with the natural environment." Although a major, national sports franchise headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone." The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and accessory training and practice facilities (Exhibit 3). The office and an indoor practice field would be within a 215,000 gross square foot building on the North Baxter property. Administrative offices would be 48,000 sf and technical / support and player meeting space would be 15,000 sf each. Four outdoor, practice fields covering 8.3 acres would be located on the Baxter South property. Three would be natural and one artificial turf. The proponent's vision is for a building that would be both functional and aesthetically significant. Of the total building area, 131,000 gross square feet of office space would be located on three levels. Most of the building would be between 52 and 55 feet in height. The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet. There would be three natural grass practice fields, oriented east-west on the South Baxter property. A one-story, 6,000 sf maintenance / equipment storage building would be located near the south property line. The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront systems on the lower level. Clear-glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray cementious, or nickel to light gray metal, wall panels in on upper portions. (Building siting and design will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review}. The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies that intend high intensity use, with both the natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by project completion, and residual contamination from the former industrial use. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 TRAINING FACILITY E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA.()6-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 3 CJf 16 Access would be from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane) on the east and would require crossing the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way with a private street On-site roads would be private. There would be parking for 299 vehicles; 195 stalls for general surface parking and 104 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on-site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off-site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service. Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native vegetation (wetland and shoreline) or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems would be installed in all landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings until they are established. (Landscaping will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review). A viewpoint at shoreline of Lake Washington would be accessible to the public by means of an east-west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. This viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with benches. A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. The wetland would not be accessible to the public, although public access to the shoreline of Lake Washington would be provided by the proponent at the northwest corner of the property. j!PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINA T/ON OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures X DETERMINATION OF NON • SIGNIFICANCE -MIT/GA TED. Issue DNS-M with 14-day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15-day Comment Period with a Concurrent 14-day Appeal Period. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington." by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation. backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Department SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A "RAINING FACILITY E, ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 Exhibit 13 Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Vicinity Map (September 2006) Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Building Plan (September 2006) Seattle Fault Zone (July 2006) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Site Plan (September 2006) Baxter Cove Wetland Mitigation Plan (August 2006) Lake Washington Shoreline, Existing Conditions (2006) Riparian Habitat Functions and Values Chart (September 2006) Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement and Relocation Plan (August 2006) Summary of Pest Control Measures (September 2006) Visualization Assessment Viewpoints (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, NE 761h Street Viewshed (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 312 Viewshed (September 2006) Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 302 Viewshed (September 2006) Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Elevations (September 2006) D. Environmental Impacts Page 4 of 16 The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: An Environmental Checklist submitted by the project proponent and a report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., September 13, 2006, forms the basis of analysis of impacts classified within the category of "earth". Additional, existing reports were reviewed for consistency with the literature study and on- site investigation. Site exploration consisted of drilling 6 borings and excavating 29 backhoe test pits. Borings were based on proposed location of building corners and the estimated building center. The test pits were spaced across the site to provide an overview of near-surface soils. Some pits were more closely spaced where deeper excavation for site preparation would occur. The subsurface geology is a combination of naturally-occurring and artificial conditions. Fluvial deltaic, lacustrine near-shore deposits and constructed fill overlie Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic and sedimentary bedrock. The site has undergone many influences over past decades including the lowering of the lake approximately 8 feet when the Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed in 1916. In the mid 1950s, filling occurred on the site to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities. Ongoing dredging and backfilling increased the complexity of the soil so that the subsurface material consists of a highly heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel, and cobbles. Intermixed are abandoned subsurface structures and discarded debris from past industrial activities on the site. Generally, subsurface soils in the building and fields locations consist of either fill material to a depth of 2 to 3 feet, soft estuarine deposits and loose alluvial soils to depths of between 17 and 38 feet. The estuarine and alluvial deposits have layers of loose sand and compressible peat making them subject to liquefaction (see discussion below), The depth to bedrock varies greatly across the site with depths from 17.5 feet to more than 50 feet. It consists of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations. The site slopes gently at about a 1 percent grade across the property from northeast to southwest. There are isolated slopes at about 5 percent along the north of the site. There is an elevation change from 33 feet in the northeast corner to about 21 feet where a wetland is located in the southwest corner (see below). The proposed access road would gain elevation between the railroad crossing and the proposed office building. The elevation of the driveway and parking lot at the building entrance on the east side of the building Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Deparlmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A CRAIN/NG FACILITY £1 ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 5 of 16 is proposed to be approximately 14 feet above the existing grade. The parking area would slope downward as it wraps around the north end of the building to the west, where it would meet the existing grade. A loading dock at the northwest corner of the office building would be approximately 1 foot above existing grade. This configuration would require construction of walls designed to retain up to 14 feet of fill adjacent to the office building. The remainder of the site, consisting primarily of outdoor practice fields, would require an average of approximately 4 feet of fill, with cuts on the east side and up to 3 feet of fill on the west. The site is located approximately 3 miles south of the "Seattle Fault," (Exhibit 4) and is therefore considered to lie in a moderately active seismic zone. Due to subsurface conditions, the site is subject to earthquake- induced liquefaction and settlement. This susceptibility to liquefaction extends to a depth of about 40 feet. The office/indoor practice building would have typical loads for a structure of this type and size (verified by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, project structural engineers, in conversation with Shannon & Wilson). The recommended foundation design for the building would include 24-to 36-inch concrete shafts drilled to bedrock. The practice equipment building would be supported sufficiently on spread footings. These proposed site improvements would not be anticipated to have adverse long-term impacts on surrounding properties, although drilling to bedrock may have temporary sound, emissions, and vibration impacts during construction (see Advisory Notes to Applicant, below). Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains .. Nexus: RMC 4-4-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations" 2. Air Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary adverse air quality impacts could be associated with site work and building construction required to develop this property. Project development impacts during construction may include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, odors from roofing installation, and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and sprinkling of the site with water as needed. Odor impacts during construction are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature. Post development impacts potentially include vehicle and heating and cooling systems exhaust. These emissions are regulated by state and federal agencies. Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified impacts from exhaust is required. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 3. Water Impacts: The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage of the Lake Washington East Basin. The Gypsy Subbasin is a 320 acre, Class 2 water north of and near, but independent of May Creek. Class 2 waters are salmon id-bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall. The drainage collects at a point on the west side of the project site where it flows for 125 feet in an open ditch prior to entering a 24-inch piped culvert. The culvert length is 490 feet to an outfall at the shore of Lake Washington. Lake Washington is a Class 1 water, a salmonid-bearing perennial water also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance (see Shoreline discussion below). Reconfiguration of this feature of the Gypsy Subbasin (see Stormwater discussion below) and site development within 200 feet of a Shoreline of the State would occur as a part of the proposed project. For Sea hawks E RC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen E SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS J • TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 6 of 16 these reasons, both Standard and Supplemental Stream/Lake studies were required. A report, "Stream and Lake Study, Supplemental Stream and Lake Study, Stream Mitigation Plan, Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility, Renton, Washington," by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. and A.G. Kindig & Co, dated September 20, 2006, was submitted for review. The overall goal of the cumulative remediation, as determined by the Consent Decrees, has been improved water quality in Lake Washington. The proposed project incorporates the final remediation with the initial phases of development. This action is laying a 3-foot deep clean soil cap across the site. At the building location, the floor slab would serve as a part of this cap. Upsizing of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert, prior to completing the cap, would alleviate upstream flooding. Replacement of exotic species along the shoreline and replanting to improve functions and values of the riparian zone has been proposed. Most native plants and large trees along the shoreline would be preserved. These improved conditions would improve the shoreline role in protecting aquatic habitat values critical to Lake Washington. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 4. Wetlands Impacts: Two on-site wetlands were excavated and filled in association with the remediation plan that resulted from the negotiated Consent Decrees. Also as part of the Consent Decrees, approximately 0.46 acre of mitigation wetland was restored in November 2002, along 250 feet of the shoreline of the Lake near the southwest corner of the property (Exhibit 5) at Baxter Cove. The Baxter Cove wetland is designed to be a forested wetland with open water and emergent components within the cove. Ultimately, it will be a forested wetland, but currently trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas have not attained the required height to meet classification standards for this wetland type. The open water component is less than 40 percent of the total wetland area. The emergent classification can be applied to the open water area when the lake level is low and to the edges of the cove when levels are high. This lake-fed wetland meets the Renton standards for a Class 3 wetland (newly emerging). It complies with performance standards and is intended to remain as an undisturbed component of the project proposal. (Initial conceptual plans had a public access to the lake shoreline constructed through this area, but the final plan has public access to the lake outside of the protected wetland and its buffer). A 50-foot vegetated and enhanced wetland buffer was also restored as part of the mitigation. A portion of this buffer would be subject to buffer averaging, as allowed by the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, but no part of the buffer would be reduced to less than 40-feet in width and the total amount of buffer area would not be reduced. Approximately 1,220 feet of the wetland buffer would be filled, with replacement of buffer area at a 1 :1 ratio (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, a wetlands site assessment was conducted by The RETEC Group, Inc. in May 2006 and the results included in their report, "Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels, Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, City of Renton," dated August 30, 2006. No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified on the project site during the wetland reconnaissance, other than the Baxter Cove wetland. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 5. Shoreline Impacts: The proposed project site has 1,887 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State (Exhibit 7). There are approximately 1.23 acres of vegetated area within 100-feet of the shoreline (excluding 0.36 acres of the Baxter Cove area that is part of the restored wetland). The character of the shoreline is a steep bank of between 2 and 3 feet high with vegetation rooted at the top of bank. A covered boathouse with pier and a dock are at two locations along the shoreline. Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/BIPW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 TRAINING FACILITY E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 7 of 16 The proposed project would require the following work within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington: • Capping (soil cover placement) consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree • Construction of the Seahawks Headquarters building • Construction of natural grass practice fields • Shoreline improvements per statute within the 50 foot setback, including riparian plant zone • Construction of retaining wall and driveways • Piping a section of Gypsy Creek drainage to an existing Gypsy Creek outfall at the lakeshore Proposed improvements are features allowed within the Renton Shoreline Master Program under the Urban Environment designation. Lake water elevations fluctuate depending on US Army Corps of Engineers regulation of water level at the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Typically, the elevation of Lake Washington in June is about 18.8 feet above sea level and 16.8 (the lowest level) during December and January. An Ordinary High Water Mark of 19.5 has been noted on this site, however, possibly due to erosion caused by a combination of lack of vegetation on the steep bank slope and wind and boat-generated waves. As part of the wetland restoration, large woody debris was anchored along the shoreline at Baxter Cove. Other logs, pilings, and seawalls along the shoreline may act to reduce the effects of wind and wave erosion. A Lake Washington shoreline planting plan is part of the proposed project. All trees 10 inches or larger in diameter at breast height within 100 feet of the shoreline have been inventoried and would be retained wherever possible. The vegetated area of 1.23 acres would be maintained or increased. All non-native vegetation would be removed and replaced with native plants that provide moderate to high shoreline protection and wildlife function. The existing 0.82 acres of tree canopy would be matched or exceeded, with cover objectives being met within 5 to 10 years (Exhibit 8). The shoreline restoration and management program is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action. Mitigation Measures: [Mitigation of shoreline development is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action.] Nexus: Not applicable 6. Stormwater Impacts: The project site is located in the Gypsy Subbasin. Stormwater currently sheet flows from east to west across the weedy brush-covered, but vacant site, free draining into Lake Washington. An existing, degraded storm drain system crosses the site conveying stormwater from offsite to an outfall at the Lake. The site soils are a minor factor when considering the stormwater control system due to their heavily degraded nature and the manipulation of the site through filling, grading, and dredging over many years. For purposes of drainage analysis, soils would be designated as from Hydrologic soil Group C, moderate runoff soils (till). As part of the Consent Decree remediation, a "cap" is to be placed over potentially hazardous materials on site to prevent incidental contact following site development. This cap would be a factor to be considered during design of the stormwater control system (see Environmental Health discussion below). A report, "Stormwater Technical Information," by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, dated August 30, 2006 has been submitted by the project proponent and would be the primary basis for stormwater control systems design. Stormwater management would be based on the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), which would be applicable for this project. The project is exempt from detention as it discharges into Lake Washington, a direct discharge receiving water. The system would include water quality treatment, however, prior to discharge. The KCSWDM designates areas draining to Lake Washington as subject to the requirements of Basic Treatment. The proposed water quality treatment system, however, would provide Enhanced Basic water quality. Treatment systems would vary according to functions at different zones on the site, as follows: Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen• SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, TRAINING FACILITY E · · nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA·H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 8 of 16 Pedestrian hardscape (sidewalks, plaza), non-sports field landscaping, and building/roof areas: As non- pollution generating surfaces (roofs do not consist of unpainted metal), stormwater runoff will drain to Lake Washington as direct discharge. The synthetic turf field consists of a 12-inch base course of imported crushed rock, a minimum 1.5 inch porous asphalt layer, a fiber polyurethane woven fabric, 5/8 inch energy absorbing layer of granular rubber, 1.5 inch granular rubber and sand mix overlain by synthetic field turf. Rainwater on the synthetic field would infiltrate through the surface material and base layers to subdrains to be conveyed to the Lake for discharge. Natural turf fields: The natural turf fields would overlay an 18 inch layer of sand, which would function as a filter. As with the synthetic turf field, subdrains would convey runoff to the Lake. An Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Plan would be utilized for turf management (see Environmental Health discussion below). The 1PM Plan would address the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides so that field runoff meets water quality standards. Parking lots and driveways: Stormwater runoff from paved areas subject to vehicle traffic would be collected and directed to four sand filters. Three of the filters would be grass covered to provide pre-treatment and maintain the surface permeability of the sand filters. Pretreatment at the fourth filter would be provided by an additional layer of sand. This filter would function, additionally, as a football practice area. To maintain the filter system and protect the health of the football players, the sand layer would be cleaned of potential pollutants annually or more often as needed. Subdrains would convey collected stormwater to the Lake for discharge. Peak rate runoff control in not required or provided for this project because the site discharges directly to Lake Washington, a major receiving water body. Therefore, retention/detention analysis and design would not be required. The Baxter Cove wetland is hydraulically connected to Lake Washington and will not be part of the project stormwater management systems. Discharge to Lake Washington would be through five new drainage system outfalls. The pipe outfalls would release stormwater above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington and subsequently drain over energy dissipating rock-lined channels to the OHWM. The channels would be located at areas of the shoreline where non-erosive material is located that would protect the shoreline during periods of lowered water levels. A portion of the Gypsy Subbasin drainage system, which conveys stormwater from the east side of Interstate 405 to the Lake, currently daylights for 125 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. This section consists of a below-grade, man-made ditch with steep, rock-lined side slopes. There is minimal fish habitat present. This open channel enters a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe that slopes approximately 0.1 percent to the Lake. The outfall is about 1 foot above the lake level, when the lake is at a low elevation. When the water level is at higher elevations, the culvert experiences backwater that makes upstream fish travel possible, although it has not been observed. The proposed project would require replacement and relocation of this Gypsy Subbasin drainage feature. The Headquarters building footprint conflicts with the current pipe location. The 490 foot pipe would be realigned around the building and lengthened to approximately 860 feet (Exhibit 9). The existing outfall would remain in place at its current condition. The Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for this work states the following potential impacts: "elimination of 125 feet of open channel, a slightly larger culver across the project site, will affect riparian vegetation along the Gypsy Subbasin and Lake Washington, and will result in some disturbance to the shoreline of Lake Washington above and below the ordinary high water mark." The existing outfall would be used and shoreline restoration at the outfall would occur as part of this work. Alternatives to piping, including daylighting the entire drainage channel and maintaining the existing open portion were studied. The capping requirement of the Consent Decrees, however, is premised on the need to avoid direct contact of flowing water with residual contaminated soils on the property. The capping and culvert together isolate the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington from site soils. Therefore, the open section of the drainage would be included in the new piped system. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, REPORT OF OCTOBER 16. 2006 TRAINING FACILITY E. >nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 9of 16 The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surfaces would be required. Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements will be addressed through the site plan review process. Nexus: SEPA Regulations 7. Transportation Impacts: Transportation impacts have been analyzed in the report, "Traffic Impact Analysis Seahawks' Headquarters," by The Transpo Group, dated September 2006. Vehicle access to the site would be from Ripley Lane (also known as Lake Washington Boulevard North). Lake Washington Boulevard intersects with Northeast 44•• Street near the project site. Exit 7 of Interstate 405 is located at NE 44•• St. Currently, Ripley Lane is improved with minimal pavement and no pedestrian amenities. There are two existing at-grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The southern one crosses the Quendall Terminals property. There is an access easement recorded granting access rights across the Quendall property to the proposed development site. The project proponent is discussing the possibility of a third crossing at a mid-point of the project site. A third crossing would not be a necessity for project access however. The City of Renton Transportation Division has requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each direction, and a paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway (one side only) abutting the bicycle lane. These improvements should extend from Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44•• St on the south (beyond the project site) to the north end of the Seahawks Headquarters site. The City of Renton would contribute toward these improvements. In is estimated that the proposed project would contribute an additional 555 average daily weekday trips (ADT) to the City's transportation system. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to a transportation mitigation fee of $75 per trip. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Parking for up to 315 cars would be provided on-site, with 104 spaces within a secure, fenced parking area. The site is not served by public transportation. The nearest transit stops are to the north in the City of Newcastle at 1161 • and 76 1 • or south, in Kennydale, at Park Avenue N and N. 33"' St. Mitigation Measures: A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 8. Fire Protection Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides required improvements (see Advisory Notes Seahawl<s ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS J REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 TRAINING FACILITY E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 10 of 16 to Applicant, below) and mitigation fees are paid prior to building permit issue. The mitigation fee, for commercial space, is $0.52 per square foot. Mitigation Measures: A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. Nexus: SEPA 9. Vegetation Impacts: The project site has been periodically cleared of vegetation over the years of its industrial use. Comprehensive site clearing took place in 1990. Vegetation was also removed during Consent Decree cleanup activities. Currently, approximately 10 percent of the site has trees and other plants. Final cleanup including the placement of the 3-foot deep cap will require removal of most existing vegetation from the site, excluding that in the wetland and wetland buffer. Existing vegetation varies on the site depending on past activities and current situation. Vegetation zones include open meadow, which is the predominant condition, BNSF Railroad right-of-way edge, Gypsy Subbasin Drainage feature, Baxter Cove Wetland, and Lake Washington shoreline. Past industrial activities on the site, including clearing, have restricted the ability of trees to mature; thereby growth of tree canopy has been limited. The majority of the site is open meadow. Non-native grasses (bent grass, velvet grass, tall and red fescue, and reed canary grass) and weedy herbaceous plants (soft rush, sickle-leaved rush, bird's foot trefoil, white clover, western dock, vetch, and hairy cat's ear) typical of disturbed meadows dominate the vegetation on the property. Trees that are present along the eastern edge of the property, abutting the SNSF Railroad right-of-way, include black cottonwood, red alder, Scouler's and Pacific willow. Although a tree inventory has been completed and trees larger than 10 inches in diameter identified, these tree species are exempt from Renton's tree retention regulations. Preservation of many of these trees has been proposed by the project applicant, but would not be required by the City of Renton. The steep banks of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage have cover consisting of red alder, black cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom. The proposed project would relocate this open channel into a piped culvert and the existing vegetation would be removed. The lake-fed Baxter Cove wetland has three types of vegetation structure with its 0.46 acre area. They are aquatic bed, emergent plants, and scrub/shrub. When trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas attain greater height, classification standards for forested wetland will be met. Trees planted in the wetland include Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Oregon ash, red alder, Pacific willow, bitter cherry, and cascara. Shrubs include vine maple, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, western crabapple, Sitka willow, hazelnut, salmonberry, nootka rose, Oregon grape, sword fern, snowberry, twinberry, and salal. Emergent plants include lady fern, slough sedge, hardstem bulrush, small-fruited bulrush, water parsley, and tall mannagrass. Shoreline vegetation, at the top of a 2-to 3-foot bank, consists of blackberry, purple loosestrife, Scotch broom, red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Other than Himalayan blackberry extending several feet over the bank there is little vegetation along the water edge. All pervious areas of the development are required to be landscaped. Renton Municipal Code requires that parking areas be landscaped and all areas planted with plants other than drought-tolerant varieties must be irrigated. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species have been observed on the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required. Nexus: Not applicable Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIB/PW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 10. Wildlife TRAINING FACILITY E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 11 of 16 Impacts: Both upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is considered to be low due to the highly disturbed nature of the property. On-going and persistent site manipulation associated with the industrial business conducted on the upland portions of the property has resulted in limited vegetation and residual contamination. A 4-foot high beaver dam is located at the downstream end of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel at the east side of the site. This structure currently provides improved habitat value to the open channel that would otherwise be too shallow, muddy, and lacks instream structure and cover. There is little protection against winter storm events that result in high velocity fiows. Likewise, low fiows during summer also limit habitat quality. Higher value habitat may be located along the shoreline, although the dominance of non-native invasive plant species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as snags also results in limitation on value. No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species have been observed on the property. Turtles of unknown species, but probably painted or red-eared sliders, were present near the Baxter Cove wetland, a killdeer was seen at the center of the property, and Canadian geese were observed on the property to the north. Other fowl observed in the vicinity include red-winged blackbird, snipe, and numerous duck species along the shoreline. Osprey are present in the area from mid-March through August and have nested at various locations in the area including the Baxter properties and the Barbee Mill property through the years. Their nests and perch site are also frequented by Canadian geese and bald eagles. Three bald eagle nests have been known, historically, to be west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island. Given the size and location of the property ii can be expected that deer, beaver, raccoon, opossum, skunk, and other small mammals and rodents frequent the property. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 11. Environmental Health Impacts: The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-?KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) were negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act occurred in 2000. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction. Although site cleanup occurred in 2002, as part of the Consent Decree for the North Baxter property, a "cap" is to be placed over the site to prevent incidental contact with potentially hazardous residual materials following site development. This cap would consist of both pervious and impervious materials including pavements, building foundation pads, athletic field materials, and imported fill. Where the cap consists of pervious materials, an indicator layer consisting of a fabric or geogrid textile would be placed over the 3 foot deep cap as a warning device for potential future excavation. The property abutting to the south, the Quendall Terminals, has been designated a superfund cleanup site. Cleanup will commence under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. The southern-most property, the Barbee Mill, has on-going, voluntary site remediation. Previous studies of the historic use of the properties in this area reveal that past industrial use, and resulting contamination, is property distinct, therefore cleanup plans are appropriately unique to each site. Natural turf field maintenance would be according to an Integrated Pest Management (1PM) Plan developed by the applicant. The 1PM would address management techniques and potential chemical uses on the natural turf practice fields. The plan also includes an accidental spill and response plan. The 1PM would utilize Best Management Practices (BPMs) to specify disease-resistant turf species and varieties, control of drainage and light, fertilization and watering regimes, and soil mechanics (Exhibit 8). Weed and insect pest damage threshold levels would be established and chemical treatment applied on an Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS, . TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA·M, SA-H, SM Page 120116 as-needed basis, if necessary. Alternative methods of cultural treatment control, however, would be preferred and sought. The exception to this approach would be routine, seasonal preventative treatment against fungus diseases. This would be necessary to prevent development of disease to levels that would require higher doses that would also render the fields unplayable. Pesticides would not be proposed for use. An on-site field manager and staff would monitor and record turf health, damage levels, and response thresholds. Chemical analysis would be conducted to determine turf requirements. Field maintenance would comply with Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. The turf fertilizer program includes nutrients and trace minerals to maximize turf health and minimize the need for pesticides. Slow release fertilizer would be the preferred form at application to reduce nutrient transport from the turf root zone. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become completely liberated and available for turf utilization. Management of application rates would prevent overapplication of fertilizer. The potentially adverse impacts to water quality from the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in fertilizer would also be mitigated through source control. The depth of the sand filter underlying the natural turf fields has been increased to 18 inches, which would provide a high level of water quality treatment and would comply with recommendations of the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual for sensitive fish habitat environments. Another method of reducing escape of fertilizers from the area of application is through irrigation control to avoid overwatering. Preferred management of pests, like disease control, would be through a combination of cultural methods and accepted tolerance levels. No chemical control would be proposed for insects or broad leaf weeds. Instead, management would include selection and enhancement of competing vegetation that resists pests and disease. Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required. Nexus: Not applicable 12. Aesthetics Impacts: Proposed site development would include the construction of an office and indoor training facility building, playing fields, surface parking lots, and landscaping. The aesthetic character of the currently vacant site would change as a result of the development. The office and indoor training facility structure would range in height from 55 feet (office) to 120 feet (training facility). Development of the site raises several issues to be considered related to aesthetics, including building siting on the property, building massing and architecture, shadows, landscaping, lighting (see discussion below}, and altered and/or obstruction of views to and from the project. An assessment of potential aesthetic impacts was initiated by the project proponent. A visual assessment of the proposed project was performed by Crawford Architects, (Addendum 1, dated September 27, 2006). Over 70 views of the project were photographed and from this data, 11 potential view corridors to Lake Washington were evaluated. The "worst case" situations are included herein, SE 76 1h St, a publicly accessible upslope location, and two top-floor units of the Misty Cove Condominiums (Exhibit 11 ). The Headquarters building on the North Baxter property would be visible from off-site areas, and would be prominent on the site due to its height and bulk. A second, one-story building on the South Baxter property would not be within view from off-site areas to the east or west because of the screening vegetation of the wetland and BNSF Railroad right-of-way vegetation. Views of this building would be blocked from Misty Cove by the Headquarters building. It is anticipated that the Headquarters building would be visible from areas of both the City of Newcastle and Renton, from higher elevations. It is not anticipated that views from higher elevations would be obstructed or altered. Seahawks ERC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A, 'RAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Ei ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 13of 16 View impacts were evaluated from off-site areas including SE 761 • Street upslope from the site, and from southwest facing units within the Misty Cove condominium complex, just north of the project site. Views to and from the site, and to the site from off-site locations, would be affected by the proposal. As evidenced in Exhibit 12, views from SE 761 " Street would change. Views of Mercer Island (to the west) from this location would be foreshortened. Views of Lake Washington, which are limited at this location due to existing vegetation on the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, would remain basically unaltered. Views from both the southbound and northbound lanes of Interstate 405, located between the SE 761 " viewpoint and the site would be similar, with comparable impacts. Many units of the Misty Cove Condominium have enjoyed territorial views across the property. With development, foreground views from the Misty Cove Condominiums would be affected by the presence of a building on what has been a vacant site. Presently, unmanaged site vegetation limits some views across the project site to Lake Washington. Industrial activities and outdoor storage of materials have also been largely screened from view by trees and shrubs between the Misty Cove property and the project site. Exhibit 13 shows the existing and proposed view from a third-floor unit, number 312. Similar views are shown for un~ 302, located closer to the lake than the previous unit (Exhibit 14). A derelict office building on the site (to be demolished) is also within the view corridor of unit 302. The view to Lake Washington would remain unchanged, while the view of the site would change from vacant and vegetated to developed and landscaped. The 120-foot high building would be prominent. Measures proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts of the project include architectural design treatments intended to diminish the bulk of the structure, including roofline treatment, window detailing, and exterior finishes and colors. In addition, the building is being setback 50 feet from the water's edge and approximately 170 feet from the common property line. Overhead wires, currently within the Misty Cove view corridor, would be undergrounded. Landscaping at the building perimeter and property boundaries would buffer the building from the residential area to the north. Trees, planted as part of the landscaping proposed to buffer the structure from the Misty Cove condominiums, would mature to heights greater than the existing trees. On-site vegetation growth has been limited historically, due to the industrial activities on the property, which resulted in removal of trees before they reached maturity (see Vegetation discussion, above). The Headquarters building siting, on the North Baxter property, is based on geotechnical and soil contamination issues (see discussion above). The office and support functions of the building would be located on the west side of the structure in order to reduce the apparent mass of the taller portion of the building in which the practice facility is located (Exhibit 15). The three story Headquarters portion of the building, at about 55 feet, would be adjacent to the shoreline. This would also maximize views to the lake from interior office space. Architectural details, such as arcades, horizontal lines, roof treatments, and window detailing would be used to reduce the scale and mass of the building. The building color palette would be warm earth tones including buff/sandstone, light gray, nickel, and cherrywood. Views to roof-mounted mechanical equipment would be limited from ground level on the site, on adjacent properties, and the Lake. The environment of the area would be significantly altered by the proposed project, as is almost always the case when land transitions from vacant to fully developed. Significant adverse impacts are not expected, however, beyond those impacts that can be mitigated by the project proposal. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A Seahawks ERG Report 03 City of Renton P/B/PW Deparlmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS,. TRAINING FACILITY REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 13. Light and Glare E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 14 of 18 Impacts: Although some interior building lights in offices may be on after dark, practice fields would not be lit because football practice would not occur at night. It is not anticipated that light levels would be higher than typical for an office structure. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A 14. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: Historic and cultural impacts have been analyzed in relation to information included in the report, "Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington," by Larson Anthropological/ Archaeological Services, dated march 27, 1997. The 60-acre study area included the properties to the south of the Baxter site (Quendall Terminals and the Barbee Mill) and to the east (Pan Abode Cedar Homes). In addition to literature search and on-site subsurface exploration, the study included consultation with individuals representing the Muckleshoot and Duwamish Tribes. The area of the study is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish-speaking group predominant in the Seattle area. The Duwamish lived in cedar longhouses in villages located on most of the larger bodies of water in the central to southern portion of the Seattle area (Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon Bay, and on the Duwamish, Green/White, and Cedar/Black Rivers. A village of the Duwamish tribe was probably located in the vicinity of the Pan Abode property, upstream of the current mouth of May Creek. The lower portion of May Creek, which crosses the Barbee Mill property, would have been below the level of the Lake until exposed in 1916. All of the properties in the study area have been heavily influenced by fluctuations in lake levels over time due to earthquakes and the lowering of the Lake approximately 9 feet following construction of the Hiram Chittenden Locks and the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916. The first non-native inhabitant of the area within the study was James Madison (or Manning) Colman. In about 1875, he acquired 160 acres of property on both sides of May Creek. The study area encompasses this property. Colman Point, located about 0.5 mile south in Kennydale, is named for him. Except for about one acre of cleared land for the Colman house. the property was largely unused. The Baxter property is near an access road localed to the north that was used for hauling coal from mines in Newcastle to Lake Washington for shipment to Seattle. In 1902, the timber on the Colman property was sold. In 1903, the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the property for construction of a railroad spur along the east side of Lake Washington. The railroad was built along the lake shore in 1905. The Colman family started selling the land in 1908. The portion that became the Baxter property was sold in 1914 to be used as a shingle production facility. The shingle mill was demolished sometime between 1939 and 1946. The Baxter Company purchased the property after leasing ii from 1955. They used it primarily for wood treatment processes consisting of debarking and treatment for telephone poles and pilings. If present, it is unlikely that shallow remains of historic activity could have survived the severe manipulation of this site over the past sixty-plus years it has been used industrially. There may be archaeological features and artifacts deeply buried below the ground surface, dating from hunter-gatherer communities that existed in the vicinity of the property during historic times of low lake levels. Due to Consent Decree restrictions on exposing underlying soils, excavation on the site would be limited to borings for building structure pilings. Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology Seahawks ERG Report 03 PROJECT LOCATION ! l I ----+--------- SWTH PO!Nr 0 1/4 EXHIBIT 1 LAKE SHINGTON 1/2 Scale in Miles NOTE CIJLIJfAJ/ POINT 1 , Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. ~ This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It is Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington VICINITY MAP ~ unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for September 2006 21-1-20525-003 o personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved . ., SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 1 ~ ._ ____________________________ .... ______ ""'-""""""""'---""-"°"-""""--Is--'------.... " ~-':Wi:~~&!'~-aillll " ~.;,., :,·; . . .. ~-.,.::· .. i) __ ,:. . ' -"· .. ti',. :all. WIIIIIII ;' ·' -,,,.l ,., . ' ·~·,. ~ ~-~ .. .. ' ~I -f" ; -. .,,~'°· . Jtl<', -, ,( ,-:r' 1 " t _.,,, .. ""_,.::-t,·- lt.,c: .J _;./ ,.-./ /,/ ,: :1 --D D D 1,11e, n,tat£< r,lajor Roath; Ollrnr Roal.I l11U,s~t<1tt1 !ililt111-hiuhw"v U.S. lilflh"'<IV Roa(!!; Cities USGS Quad lnde11: 2,JK Lower 48 Available IJ'i('tlar N01\•Dlglt.JI OlglU.I No Oaia Sun NHD Straams Counliu 100K Sli:Jtlls 100K South America Noirth Aminit:.a EXHIBIT 2 "Tl G) C ;o m -' 0 ~ § i I I I I! q,,, ,=1 ! f , 1 r 1 , " I ' ..... . -• ' ·-- ' '--.J i ••11 fjj 0 z ~i i ~ s : -\ I~ s • • • • y-~ ' I rl 0 0 I z .. I I • 0 I I i I , ' s '~ I I -~~--I ' -.,, ·dC7!Ci\ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility ~--=--------; FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON. WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 3 I ' ·' ii > :-i. i ~ ~ ij 0 z ,. • 0 • 0 ~ g ., a N 0 2 Scale in Miles NOTE .;, Map based on Blakely et al., 2002, 'Location, structure, EXHIBIT 4 Seahawks Headquarters Renton, Washington SEATTLE FAULT ZONE :g and seismicity of the Seatle fault zone, Washington: 'l', July 2006 21-1-20525-001 Evidence from aeromagnetic anomalies, geologic ;;; mapping, and seismic-reflection data' SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. 3 ~ -and Envlr-1 Constllanls u:.__ _____________________ ..._ __________ .... ____ ... ' Rf: Ll\lO (FiCURf 9 11 >OR LAN[)SCA~t & !-IAA(lSCAPl INFORW.TiON ' . " " " L .,. 'fl .. I. _, ___ ,, '/ " •. J_ .1 . " t""" ...... r:q ...... l£) ' l -· ,r't::;\ \ \·~- "--~ ~---"\""" "'---- ~ 'iln~·~~ I /\Kf WASHINCTON ~ ~ !,1.,.c1 j/.' •., \JD Tt~\\'.o u'• \ l ' / S.TATION } _.,. . . r -, "'.,,,... '\': ... _, ; ·, ~ ' --/ ,, ~'v//,1 ' '<·:...c:-.;:o-, .. I ~ ::" , !a!!, __ · · /~_L,, 1:-----~ --~ ' \( ~~! :,c~t'.fC:Jj ['"!~f CURB·------~-- t.Xi<;TING POWER . !;--. -•.. -;. ••. ----1·.--1' i=::= ... -. ' -. : '~l. . -z=:T =::I. ->'"c···--·:-1::;:::i ,1-------s , . ·~~~•----=Ji i-"c~ J •.. :.: ·., I !f""NA_~-~ ,, ·, ·m.£ LOCAl!Ot. -----~ -,0\JlH P~Of'lf.!l'>' 1 ffNU U"' -~,~') P<:[ ~ASCMENl Ll~f (rOO) -........_~_ I fXIS'"lNt f'{l~,f>, I" . :: ~''.:"~=--,-~ ' '-.Jr l _j1'l ,,I ' ' r~ =--:-------:::::..·.J _-j,:-_---:_·----__ .,_(lW!LW'~'-!r __ -~ -· I t.(I\' 1 •;101.."1 IJAJNTr:"IANL't. '"fO ----·-:-it"' CO\IE~(D 8.R WM.t-< Pll.l';l '/-ARTIFICIAL fURr..../ j PRA._':TICE Fir.lfi' ~ ' ±~ SAN[) FIi rrn ,I/ ·-··--------·· ,:421l'·-WORKOU1"_ ARE.A. ~+-----~~~~~~- rlNG l>OWl".R ~r · ·.r · · (X\S. "'N:TlQl>/--- PQLl L'-"-" ; , MAINT p.,,f~KINC------- 4 S1A1.LS . _ ____....-; Sf.C,L'Rrf'!" CAH •. .; --~ bu (ill"i$.L$1r, $If 140-i TLICli' JP; Jl;4 I [ WGI II 6 QiA I l'!Q]l: SJSfllM.~ c.Akf WASHl~GTON CLASS (,YP~y SUB BASIN ORAINAG'<. SITE PLAN ~-...... ..• ____ .,.,. CL.AS':, Z (R~ ~1\,LJR~ 'LS} ~ [----------------·--------~ P..fl&:,;_[lli; ..mJ.fil.l ,EN['(AL ·>uR•A(f. r,,1,F,;,;iN(.. ,-;:i;; STALLS XCURt T[AY ''"''IK'NC. 104 S1Al.LS OlAL 299 SiALLS ···---------·-··------·--- r-NOTE: OHW,~ ,e.tt (NAVD88) / OR t<;_;( {1\/GV():?9) 1 00 YEAR r·Looll'OPLAl"I Al LAKf WA. O.H.W.M. ,r,~:,,iili 11hl' ;, I f!l.~ I ;r;1:·rt1'.'" LIMIT or ~s, l'-l(;.,.- .AL\S6· 11- J~ :I ~RFACf. ~K1Nq. ~~~~\-§f-t~~-~Jl i, :C'\ ----.,.._;::...-. --------- J:,I:l ;-EXISllNC ~UILDtNG , SrRUCTUR£ TO 8£ r_·10' PIJBUC ACCESS :;:._4' ACCESS WALK ;K.-1._. Ii,;:_' S::,~E.s.C~URITY f[NC( '{/ 7/f~.;!.-:.u~VICE ROAD 4 -SECURIT'I '.;ATE 1~ & FENCE" I ~ .ft~ ·------.~ ---.----------; ---------------------- PROPOSED fWt.WAY CROSSIN(; .-·· z 0 I- (.) ::) O::• "' I- C/) f! " z i ~:l ~ 0, 5-'B I~ u-c., - 0::: !ll LL. i 0 :c "' 3' :=ti~~ 0 ..... 8~ z m ~ I ' (/J 1-z w ~ 0 -.I w >, w Cl z (!), C/) w Cl ! ' ' . , ~'i ' ' ' : . ' ;.·1·. ' : : I ! ; Ii\ ; ; i. i.1· I ' i . : I •!1 : : ' ', ' f!1 I : t :·i l -j ·, I 1 '• -, r ... -~LOPME:NT Pl,.AN/fl'&ti:,,r RS 1 {\ 1 t:.. CITY OF RENTON i [ . lN -SEP 22 2006 ~ - ~ • "''""' RECEIVED ·-., ----··"-, ······i---- FIGURE 5.2 i AOOL ::0 m 0 m < m C 1- : l I ' l : ~-: ' ' I -----·-----· --------------- .... ~~i N;.;i• 0 I! •• j ' j m .11 ;1 EIE)! f" • l . . j J.: I !, "-----1----- . <::~- : ):' I_-------,---·-·---___ _( \ / / / : . -· ----' I \, \ I I / :1· \ ~ ' ': \ EXHIBIT 6 01 ~----1!-------,-,,.--,-c-cc-cc-C""COC=---,----...J/-+C-----------""'·!Ll!l.l!l!.S"'--'---; a> • NOT FOR CONST UCTION --L--..:.....-....;· __ "" ____ _.;;..-___ _..J..------"-----'.....,t:..-'---.;..._----=-""'---=--'----''------' hli +-H: iij/l@~ I Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOT8AU NOmHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON Photo 5 _._ ' Photo of pilings (background) and washed up logs (foreground) along the northern portion .,.,·a·•. ,;,.;.--.._,,._., of the restored Baxter Cove wetland. Photo 6 ' EXHIBIT 7 Page 3 of8 Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington Table 3 Stream and Lake Study/Miligation Plan Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions ~~ ------------------------------- Habitat Potential Existing Shorrlim.' Proposed Shoreline Habitat Yalue Function tor Class Comlirions Conditions Com pat isnn I Lakes -~-· . --.. . . . --.. . - Water Qua I ity Low to Existing condition lacks Future development is not Eguivalent Moderate width, plant density, and plant dependant on riparian function under diversity. Lack of native function for water quality both conditions vegetation also a minus. because it employs the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, so width for water quality treatment is not required. Native vegetation is a plus. Food Low Sparse non-native vegetation Vegetation optimized with Pro(!osed action provides little beneficial leaf a diverse mix of native will have higher litter and small organic species. High habitat value value debris. near lake. Microclimate Low to Existing shoreline area has Proposed shoreline area EguivaJent Moderate little effect on microclimate. will have little effect on function under microclimate. both conditions Temperature Low to Not a significant issue for Not a significant issue for Eguivalent & Shade none large Class l waterbodies. large Class I waterbodies. function Wlder both conditions - Human Low Lake Washington is a public Lake Washington is a Eguivalent Access access area so access control public access area so access function W1der not a habitat function issue control not a habitat both conditions function issue Large Woody Low Site periodically cleared so Planting that will contribute Pro~osed action Debris unlikely to have any some minor woody debris will have higher significant future LWD in the future. value contribution. Channel Low Controlled lake level and no Controlled lake level and Eguivalent Migration surface channels on-site. No no surface channels on-site. function wider potential for channel No potential for channel both conditions migration migration Bank Stability Low to Exotic species dominated Root strength increased Pro11osed action Moderate shoreline. Banks partially with native shrubs and will have higher protected by large logs. trees. Banks partially value protected by large logs. Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species Native plantings in a dense Pro12osed action Habitat dominated riparian vegetation multi-story contiguous will have highest of relatively low value as canopy will provide high value bird, amphibian, reptile, and wildlife habitat value. EXHIBIT rodent habitat. Adapted from: A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. September 20, 2006 Seahawkr/09-10-06 loJ:es Stream Re;mrt.doc CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KJNDIG & CO. Page 29 8 ,: I I ! ! ----------~---~- I ' ' i I I .... -I Tl' - I i I G);,-~= --------.-·-·-~ ~ ·_ -~ --------. C: .. --·--. --··-----····-·------------·--------------· ---- ;:o m '--~•--1.Ml•!;-'l;;;;."' .. ' -'~ ... ··.1 - I ' I -----·-----·-·---··--·--·-< ,______) I Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility fOOTBALL NORnM'EST LL.C ~NTON. WASHINGTON /l n 1; ;::= ===:;::== u ( '----;:=====:;---I---- ' ' t ' EXHIBIT 9 ., Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (!PM) Table2 EXHIBIT 10 Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields Physical/ Disease or Pest Cultural Control Mechanical Chemical Control Control Turfgrass Control Primo Maxx Turf growth suppressant Overseeding with (Trinexapac-ethyl) and Annual Bluegrass desirable during growing IPoa annual control turfgrass; season Promote vigorous Prograss turf root growth to (ethofumesate) for with soil nutrient curative post- Weeds and irrigation emergence control Annual Bluegrass control, to out-of annual compete Poa bluegrass in fall annua. and in spring if warranted. Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight) Corticum Red Thread (Laetisaria fucifonnis) Dollar Spot (Lanzia spp. And Moel/erodiscus spp.) Fusarium Blight Chipco 26GT (Fusan'um spp.) (I prodio ne) Fusarium Patch Good air as preventative (Microduchium nivale) Gray Snow Mold Promote vigorous circulation; method of control Good drainage; fall and spring (Typhula spp.) turf root growth to Helminthosporium with soil nutrient Avoid shading; (Dresch/era spp.J and irrigation Avoid irrigating in Necrotic Ring Spot late afternoon; (Leptosphaeria korrae) control, to out-Limit thatch; Pink Snow Mold compete weeds. Maintain soil pH (Fusairum nivale) <7 Rust 'Puccinia coronata 1 Fungus Diseases Brown Patch (Rhizoctonia so/ani; R. blight) Heritage Fusarium Patch (azoxystrobin) (Microduchium niva/e) as preventative Rust method of control (Puccinia coronata) in fall and winter Take-all Patch 'Gaeumannom 1~ces 'Yaminisl September 20, 2006 A. C. KINDIG & CO. Page 7 ii l - I : :'.! '•Q ,c .~ ]fTl ;,.., 0, ., I •• 1. " --.... -------.-.--.liiiil ~ ~ -G " z i • m _, C r, ,.---,-,, ~. ~ . ~ • Q C ~ m Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBAU. NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 11 ' ' l ------.... ----- i[f l -= I ~1.., • sj;;; . " IC C i~ ~ m !A ~ ' 12 ~, !I[ 1 I I ~-==-c-~ -----.----~---'---"---"---=--....:...--"--_., __ -'-_---''---....:;.---'--:=--'''---....,_, -----j-» iijj/@) J Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON ~!~~ I, I l=t--=:=fil ----------= = = = = a a ~ • ., = I -I:~ ~ ~ '"Q •o C C ·1~ ~ m Im ~ i Seahawks Headquarters & I Training Facility -------, FOOl'BAl...l.. NORTHWEST LLC RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 13 ;~ I -,~~ • ·<> I~ Im I :l , ~ . " C ~ m ~ Seahawks Headquarters & Training Facility ~--'----~ FOOTBALL NORTHWEST UC RENTON, WASHINGTON EXHIBIT 14 ii,. !? 1-I,,~ f $ ,p ., i:l ... m ~ r m ~ ~ g " g z _, z 0 ', ~ I. e I © ! l @ il ii ' @ I !/ G J-4:} I ... , 6 I @ I . 0 0.) ·-ll ~ 0 •di --Ci-) '111 . -r ~ T • !,. I ' ~ !I! 0 . •----~ 0 ;1 11 ,!Ii e (0 \ I • 0) G ! ' d~ r .. I j, ·1111 I 8 ?! \ t) ' 'Tl G) C ;;u m ,,..,,.. ..•. _ r ., I !Ill I , li,1 . I l' • -'i ,. 0 I ill . \ \ ' I I ·-,l l e .,,. .. !Ill i: I!! @ ,: ., © ij I @ ·,-. II fi 1!1 0 I e ' '-.. I 0 I I • '! I !l I i i ~ I ,, $ .. ' -, ~ .. • DESIQN DEVELOPMENT; NOT f OR C,ONSTBUCTIQN ~l 1l1 I IS I fi I I l , I I I Seahawks Headquarters & I B •:111 r,~, ; · Training Facility !qi ~!) / : ~ ·-~. F~=~.~r::=~LC ~-EX_,_H_I-BI-T~ 15 City of Renton P/8/PW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A TRAINING FACILITY E. ,mental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 15of15 and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311. and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental I Divisional Reviewers for their review. \Nhere applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. ____Jf_ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. __ Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work. the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement. Fire Prevention 1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150- feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. If "grasscrete" is proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be followed. 3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department. 4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. 5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches. 6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable format. shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department. 7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Section 403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code. Sea hawks E RC Report 03 City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS J REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 TRAINING FACILITY E nmental Review Committee Staff Report LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM Page 16of 16 8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials. Plan Review -Storm Drainage 1. The project does not include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy Subbasin') across the site, but the off-site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of the proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this time. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Water 1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10- inches in order to provide the required fire flow. 2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30 feet tall. 3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi. 4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to comply with City code. 5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of $0.273 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Street Improvements and Transportation 1. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard/ N 44th Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a turn-lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project. 2. All new wire utilities must be undergrounded. Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards. 2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are required. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall. Seahawks ERC Report 03 WE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Stahawks Hndquan.rs and Training Facility PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06.073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF LOCATION: 501$ Llkt Wnhlngton Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The project propon,nt la requeetlng SEPA ,nvlronmental review for development ol the SHhawks HHdquarten and Training Facility, The propond project would con1lst of a thrn .. tory offie• building tnd Indoor practlu taclllty In a alngle ,tructure and lour outdoor practice fleld1 for the aport of profnelon•l l<,otb,,11. An ancillary bulldlng for football-rel1t.d equipment storage la also planned. The propos111d project loc•tlon 1, a vacant alte between the ah ore ol Lake, Washington and the NE 44th StrHI lnt•rchang• with lnt9r.tat9 405 (Exit 71 in Northeast Renton. Th• sit• o::onslst. of two UJC parcel1, known u Baxter North and Ba~ter South Properties. Th, 19.6 acr• Baxt•r prop•rty ls a fonn•rtimber proeaulng/wood tre,atment lao::Lllty. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appe.ila ol th• environmental determination muel b, filed in writing on or bo:tfor<1 5:00 PM on Nov•mbar 6, 2006. AppNi. muel be filed in writing togeth•r with th• requlr<1d $75.00 appllcaUon IH with: Hnring Eominer, City ol Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Eumlnar are govarnad by City ol R•ntoo lllunk:lpal Code Section 4-11-110.B. Addlllonal lnlorma11on regarding the appeal proo::Hs may be obtained from the Renton City Cl•rk's Qffie9, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 21, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE MASTER SITE PLA.N AND SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINAT!ON IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL Will BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATION I, )E;rH ~ , hereby certify that S copies of the above document were posted by me in _2_ conspicuous places or nearby the described property (2._~,~~~1~1f,. DATE: (tJ· @~ ~ .::.-o.." "'""""'~.,,l ~ .ff Y"t~~;:1--\nN e~~"~,.,-s I GNED: _--,_c:.,.,:;z::.:t;;;_~cq;;i:i<!c:~=:;,...z5;:'$~.-.li-,;;-"'!:..,...:o,-J1 A~;. ~ -.,_\ 7 -~:#0 ~ {,Jl'!,, ~ -: ;(J • -~ ~ ATTEST: Subscnbed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, m and for the State of Washmgton res1dmg fu ; -; ~ , 1, C, .. ~ .... ~ 1.Pt, "°us\.....: Jo= rl ~ l "~'' <-19.\<:J~"'-.F ( ~ !\.A...--v""\IV I mW'~~ NOTARYUBLICSI :.: 131'-W"~$ Hi1"'""' , on the d)rc\ctay of O;,>,;;J_:&1 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility PROJECT NUMBER: LUAOS-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF LOCATION: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The project proponent Is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location Is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property Is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITIEE (ERG) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 21, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. ""<\'.Y 0 o~.-. ~ ·~ + ~ -~ Kathy Keo Iker, Mayor &>NrtO October 19, 2006 Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 CIT'90F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERG) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERG Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh fioor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382. For the Environmental Review Committee, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: Parties of Record Enclosure -------10_5_5-So_u_th_Gra_d_y_W_a_y_--R-en-to_n_, -W-as-h-in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ AHEAD OF THE CURVE CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Football Northwest APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three- story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44 1 h Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: MITIGATION MEASURES: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains. 2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality. 3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits. 4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review. 5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue. 6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue. 7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Football Northwest Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three- story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional ·football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44"' Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. ' LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEAD AGENCY: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided.as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received. 2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dales of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement. Fire Prevention 1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150-feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants. 2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. If "grasscrete" is proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be followed. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of3 3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department. 4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. 5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches. 6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable fonnat, shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department. 7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Section 403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code. 8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials. Plan Review -Storm Drainage 1. The project does not .include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy Subbasin") across the site, but the off-site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of the proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this time. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Water 1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10- inches in order to provide the required fire flow. 2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30 feet tall. 3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi. 4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to comply with City code. 5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of $0.273 I sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the lime the utility construction permit is issued. Plan Review -Sewer 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. 2. Plan Review -Street Improvements and Transportation 3. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake Washington Boulevard / N 44th Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a turn- lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project. 4. All new wire utilities must be. undergrounded. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 Plan Review -General 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards. 2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are required. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall. ERG Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF Football Northwest APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three- story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football-related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1 ). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North (10.01 acres) and Baxter South (16.57 [7?] acres) Properties. The Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. The 19.68 acre property (total) is zoned Commercial I Residential / Office 2 (COR 2). LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: SIGNATURES: Gre g Zimmerman, Administrator Planning/Building/Public Works Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services October 23, 2006 October 16, 2006 t'V/\ 1; /oi.o Date Date Cit_ Renton Department of Planning I Building IP Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT. @ Jt'.ft COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 . , ..... ~ ,,. APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Ra Colliver -Port Quendall Com an PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainin PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA ross : NIA LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Neceuary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Lioht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS with particular attention to those areas in wNch we have expertise and have identdied areas of probable impact or i needed ta pro erly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Au Date .. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM October 11 , 2006 Elizabeth Higgins Juliana Fries (x:7278) Seahawks Training Facility -LUA 06 -073 5015 Ripley Lane N I have reviewed the application for the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, located at 5015 Ripley Lane North and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER The site is outside the Aquifer Protection Area. There is an existing 12-inch water main located within the westerly 5 feet of BNSF right-of-way (refer to as-built drawing W-400). The available fire flow from the existing 12-inch is 4,000 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. The static water pressure is approximately 125 psi. Pressure gradient zone is 320 feet. SEWER STORM STREETS Per the Fire Marshal, the fire flow has been determined to be 3,000 gpm, including the use of fire sprinkler system. There is a 12-inch sewer main along the easterly property line (possibly within BNSF right-of-way). This project drains to the Gypsy sub-basin. The site discharge directly into Lake Washington and flow control (detention) is not required. Street improvements are installed along the frontage of the parcel and Lind Ave SW. Curb and Gutter are installed along SW 12th Street. A section of sidewalk is missing along the frontage of the parcel with SW 12th Street. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10-inch in order to provide the required fire flow. 2. A double check Valve Assembly (DCVA) in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30 feet tall. 3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi. 4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to comply with City code. 5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger ,Jater System Development Charges, in the amount of $0.273/sq.ft. of site area. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SOC) is $0.142/sq. ft. of site area. A redevelopment credit applies. SURFACE WATER 1. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDM has been submitted and reviewed. The project is under the threshold for detention. Water Quality is proposed through a bio-swale. 2. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SOC) is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued. TRANSPORTATION 1. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under grounding Ordinance. PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 1. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. The site drains to Gypsy Creek. Due to flooding and erosion problems, staff will recommend as a SEPA condition this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (conservation flow control) and water quality (basic) improvements. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report dated September 13, 2006, regarding "Earthwork Recommendations". 3. All excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains shall be done in accordance with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations. 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 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction permits. 5. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed. 6. The Stormwater Technical Information report, dated August 30, 2006 notes that the existing stormwater bypass conveyance system (Gypsy Creek system) in the site is undersized for the upstream flow. Relocation of the existing bypass system is proposed because the building will be located over the existing pipe. Staff recommends that concurrently with the relocation of the pipe, the applicant make the necessary conveyance improvements to the existing Gypsy Creek outfall that extends from Lake Washington Blvd to the easterly boundary of the site (adjacent to BNSF right-of-way). Necessary conveyance improvements are those improvements (including permits) required to convey the 100-year design storm for the Gypsy Creek drainage basin assuming future land use condition flows based on full build out of the upstream basin. 7. It does not appear that sufficient horizontal separation exists between the proposed water line and the proposed storm drain line. Staff recommends a minimum of 7 .5 feet horizontal separation (measured tram outside wall to outside wall) betwe.,,, the water and storm lines. Minimum separation between the water line and any structure shall be 1 O feet. 8. Transportation Division requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each direction, and a paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway (one side only) adjacent to the bicycle lane. These improvements should extend from Lake Washington Blvd/NE 44th St on the south (beyond the project site) to the north end of the Seahawks site. Transportation Division will be contributing $500,000 towards the costs of these improvements. cc: Kayren Kittrick City-· .1enton Department of Planning I Building IP c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Rav Colliver -Port Quendall Comoanv PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainina Facilitv PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA lnross): N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Mo,e Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major lnfonnation Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housino Air Aesthetics Wafer Liaht!G/are Pfants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utifities Animals Transnnnation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or i needed to properly assess this proposal. /0-{ 1-06 Date Cit, __ Renton Department of Planning I Building I • ic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Ra Colliver -Port Quendall Com an PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainin PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA ross : N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 BUILDING DIVISION SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major lnformaUon Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Ufi/ities Animals Transrvvration Environmentaf Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 8. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS c. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w re additional infi ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. Sign Date DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM October 6, 2006 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Site Plan Review for Seahawks Training Facility MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. Fire mitigation fees of $0.52 per square foot of commercial space are required and are payable at time of building permit issuance. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are, one hydrant required within 150-feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants. 2. Main training facility building is required to have complete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems. Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150-feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Roadways are required to be minimum 20-feet in width, fully paved, with a turning radius of 45-foot outside and 25-foot inside. There are areas like the northern parking lot that do not meet the turning radius requirements and north access road that does not meet the 20-foot width. Grass-type paving is not accepted. Dead end roads that exceed 150-feet in length are required to have approved turnarounds, see attached examples. Fire lane on the west side shall be fully paved with an approved turnaround. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13-feet 6-inches. 4. For pre-fire planning purposes an electronic copy of your individual building site plans shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department, see attached document for acceptable formats. 5. Any buildings classified as High-Rise shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code section 403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code. 6. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of tanks containing hazardous materials. _ FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x 'l:t.~-'130-7000 :;::.-:::::::. ·1:.·::.·.".·::: ·: .... -........... -.-.~-' :::::.:::::::. ·:iiii•:iii·:iii, f .i·.iiii·.·.iii·:, .-::::.·::::::.·:.·.-·::::::::::::: .,-):········-::~ ......... L ...... .z. ············•·· .............. ---~'- l 45' • ······························ ________ ......_ EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROtJNb -HAMMER.Hf:AI) Cit_ Renton Department of Planning I Building I J c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FIRE COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF DATE RECIRCULA11:0: SEPTEMBER 28, 2ooel APPLICANT: Rav Colliver -Port Quendall Comoanv PROJECT MANAGER: Efizatieth Hiaafns PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainina Facilitv PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries r- . SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA /arossl: N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N I WORK ORDER NO. 77607 utl"' 2 7 2006 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is prop,c;,sed to be lo~a!ed on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processirlg facility located on t~e shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Ea<th Housinn Air Aesthetics Water Uaht!G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transrv.rtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic!Culturaf Nature( Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS Signature of Director or Authoriz Date Cit, -· Renton Department of Planning I Building I I c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PARKS COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF 'DAf! ~CIJO.Wlfi SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 APPLICANT: Ra Colliver-Port Quendall Com an PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA ross: NIA SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre {857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Liaht/G/are Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans~-... ation Environmental Health Public SeNices Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ;j;U/lZ.. Q,V_ ft{) ~~ lo l}~sJc., fc~ t.,11 ~ ,<11..V1,~ Ctvm.¥' ii\.iN, W • < Yk, . C. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informati ·s needed to properly assess this proposal, Date City 1enton Department of Planning I Building IP Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CONSTRUCTION COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF •. ' . .1.1 --~.,.,,. APPLICANT: Rav Colliver -Port Quendall Comoanv PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Traininq Facility PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries ,._,,, rv, "'-"''-'" RECEIVFn SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA lnross): N/A '"'~-·, ~ ~,,,,- I --· -· ,v0u LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is propos~~1~/?1~~ 1Bhl!J~@bn a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable MOl'f/ Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earlh Housina Air Aesthetics Water Uaht/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnnrration Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /fe/./C C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS A/OA-10 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whe dditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date , City o ton Department of Planning I Building I Puc 'ori<s ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 2006 APPLICANT: Rav Colliver -Port Quendall Comoanv PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainina Facilitv PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA laross): NIA LOCATION: 5015 Ripley lane N I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) stte known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the projeci's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Jnfonnation Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water UahVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals TranslY'lrtation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14.000 Feet B. POUCY-RELA TED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • City _ ... enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu . , Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 2006 APPLICANT: Rav Colliver -Port Quendall Comoanv PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hinnins PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainina Facilitv PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA lnrossl: NIA LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processin~ facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Pem,it due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housin,, Air Aesthetics Water LirrhVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans""rlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airporl Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. ~ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative ~ Date City-· .. enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu ... _· Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C COMMENTS DUE: JULY 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 2006 APPLICANT: Ra Colliver -Port Quendall Com an PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hi PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainin PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA ross : N/A JUN , 6 2006 LOCATION: 5015 Ri le Lane N WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance v.4\h the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water LiQhVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transnnrlation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas whera-yadditional information is neede~ to properly assess this proposal. Date ' PROJECT LUA 06-073, SM, ECF Seahawks Training Facility City of Renton Department of Planning/ Building/ Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET (Continuation) POLICE RELATED COMMENTS 430 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually CONSTRUCTION PHASE Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction trailer or storage area should be completely fenced-in with portable chain-link fencing. The fence will provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw when bolted. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter-resistant. Toolboxes and storage containers should be secured with heavy-duty padlocks and kept locked when not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction phase. These signs will aid police in making contacts with unwanted individuals on the property if they are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials. This project will involve a large amount of time with different phases of construction going on at various locations. Theft and burglary at construction sites is prevalent, and I expect due to the isolated location and overabundance of con~truction materials, this site will be a target for such incidents. It's recommended that the developer go the extra step and provide secured temporary housing for materials that could be easily removed during the course of an evening or weekend. The same security considerations should be made for any construction equipment (tractors, backhoes, excavators, etc.) When not in use, this equipment should be lined up along fence lines that abut adjacent streets. Spark plugs and/or batteries should be removed when not in use for long periods of time (i.e., evenings, weekends, and holiday periods.) The addition of security personnel after hours is highly recommended. Although this may seem like overkill to some, the isolated location of this project may increase the risk of criminal incidents during construction. COMPLETED FACILITY All exterior doors should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy-duty deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry-resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. If glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing thP likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry. Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing, as Security Survey Page 1 of 2 06-073 these areas could be vuln >le to crime due to the lack of n; ii surveillance by passing vehicles and/or pedestrians -especially along the west (water) side. It is recommended that the entire facility be monitored using recorded security systems. It's not uncommon for businesses to experience theft and/or vandalism during the hours of darkness, and it's my belief this facility will be especially vulnerable to trespassing by unwanted individuals. An auxiliary security service should be utilized to patrol the property during those times. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the facility. Any alternative employee/player entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing. During training season, it's recommended that the additional step of hiring commissioned police personnel be considered to insure the security of the facility and its users. If outside payphones are a consideration at all, I would like to discourage this. Public payphones could draw unwanted pedestrians into the area, who would have a legitimate reason for being in the area (i.e, using a public payphone). With the common use of personal cellphones these days, I don't feel the installation of public payphones would be needed. All areas of this project need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe pedestrian travel for individuals frequenting this location. All structures should have building numbers cleorly posted with numbers at least 6" in height and of a color contrasting with the building. This will assist emergency personnel in locating the correct location for response. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility -not too dense and not too high. Too much landscaping will make customers and employees feel isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary and malicious mischief (property destruction). Parking Areas Lighting is the number one deterrent to crime. Theft from motor vehicle is the most common occurring crime in our city, and I would expect the parking areas within this project could be susceptible. Appropriate lighting in and around the parking areas is mandatory. Although the responsibility for property protection is consider3d to belong to the driver, if individuals don't feel safe and secure, they will not frequent it. Signage should also be posted within the parking areas advising users not to leave valuables within sight and to secure their vehicles properly. It's recommended that surveillance equipment be installed in ill! parking locations, and signage stating such posted in conspicuous loc8tions throughout the area. Miscellaneous I strongly recommend the developer have a Crime Prevention Representative conduct a security survey for this facility once it is near completion. Security Survey Page 2 of 2 06-073 City enton Department of Planning I Building I Pu . Walks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 10, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF APPLICANT: Ra Colliver-Port Quendall Com an PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Trainin SITE AREA: 19.68 acres BUILDING AREA ross : N/A LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housina Air Aesthetics Water Uoht!Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Trans ation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000Feet 14,000 Feet Lf.30 B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Date Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE Fisheries Division 39015 -172nd Avenue SE • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763 Phone: (253) 939-3311 • Fax: (253) 931-075~ October 10, 2006 City of Renton, Development Services Division I 055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055 RE: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility (Lake Washington) -Determination of Non- Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M), LUA 06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM Dear Ms. Higgins: The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination (DNS-M), the environmental checklist and the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (dated February 17, 2000) for the above referenced project. We are forwarding the attached comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's fisheries resources. This project proposes to construct 48,000 ft2 of administrative offices; 215,000 ft2 for an indoor practice field; 50,000 ft2 of training facilities; 15,000 ft' of player meeting space; 15,000 ft 2 of technical and support areas; and 6,000 ft2 for a maintenance/storage building on the "Baxter North and South" properties; totaling 19.6 acres. As noted, a portion of this site is undergoing remediation and mitigation under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). In general, this project represents a unique opportunity to restore 1,887 lineal feet of the Lake Washington shoreline and a portion of Gypsy Creek for the benefit of salmon. While some of these benefits are partially discussed in the documents we reviewed, additional information is needed to determine potential project impacts and necessary mitigation for these impacts. The additional information we need is identified in the attached comments. As a result, we reserve the right to provide additional comments once we have received this information. We look forward to working with the City and the other regulatory agencies to address any concerns we may have with this project. If you have any questions, or would like to meet to discuss these comments, please contact me at 253-876- 3116. Si~cerely, ~ 2~!' Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Cc: Kitty Nelson, NMFS Susan Powell, ACOE, Regulatory Stewart Reinbold, WDFW, Region 4 Monica Durkan, WDNR, Aquatic Lands, SPS Rebekah Padgett WDOE, NW Region / Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facilities Environmental checklist comments October 10, 2006 Page 2 I. Question 7-Since this property is on Lake Washington and is currently without a dock structure, it would seem likely that there will be a dock structure proposed in the future to provide water access to the site. If so, then this section should identify this potential activity now to avoid phasing the environmental review for this project. 2. Question 9-The response in this section should be modified to discuss the relationship between the Baxter, Quendall and Barbee Mill properties and the status of any necessary clean-up and restoration activities on these properties. 3. Question 3.a.1-Please elaborate on the response that a portion of Gypsy Creek that is not currently piped will be capped. Additional information is needed including a quantification of the length of stream that will be affected by this proposal. The checklist also fails to note how much of the stream is currently piped and how much of this piping is on site. Please discuss in detail the proposed mitigation for any activities that will fill, cap or pipe Gypsy Creek on the project site. Also, it should be noted that the Washington Department of Transportation intends to restore fish passage to Gypsy Creek where this stream crosses under 1-405. As a result, this project should facilitate the restoration of Gypsy Creek on site including restoring any culverts associated with the BNSF railroad to maximize the benefit of having new fish passable culverts for salmon upstream of the site. The response to this question for wetlands appears to be incomplete. According to the Figure 1 in the Wetland Detennination report for the JAG Development Property (dated May 1997); there are two wetlands on the Baxter property (wetlands D and E). The response only discusses one wetland and fails to identify if this wetland is Wetland Dor E. The fate of the remaining wetland is not discussed in the checklist. According to the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum, it appears that both Wetlands D and E were filled under the Consent Decree. Please clarify. 4. Question 3 .a.6-The response lacks any discussion about fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials that will be used on the practice field, which be within 200 feet of Lake Washington and draining to the Lake using dispersal trenches. The information in the preliminary stormwater technical report suggests that for certain storm events, the stormwaler from the loading dock will bypass the water quality treatment facility via a flow splitter. Please clarify how the storrnwater will be treated from the site. 5. Question 3.c. I -The checklist fails to indicate exactly which applicable stormwater regulations will apply to the site. However, the preliminary stormwater technical information document dated May 25, 2006 indicates that the project will be using the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Please note that this particular version of the King County's design manual is two versions out of date and is not adequate to protect salmon and their resources. It is also doubtful the 1990 version will ensure that the stormwater generated from the site will meet Washington's Water Quality standards. At a minimum, the applicant should use the 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology, "Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington" (available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0110057.html) or alternatively the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to design the stormwater facilities for this project. If the more updated manuals are used then, the result could be larger facilities, which if located near the 50 ft proposed riparian buffer, may cause a reduction in the buffer along the shoreline unless the site plan is modified. 6. Question 4.b -The checklist fails to fully discuss the existence of all trees greater than 6" in diameter within 200 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline and Gypsy Creek and the potential for these trees to be removed as part of this project. Also, please clarify if this project will result in a minimum 50 foot revegetated buffer for the entire length of the project (i.e. 1887 lineal feet) or not. In addition, please clarify if the proposed retaining wall that appears to run Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division Comments to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facilities October 10, 2006 Page 3 the length of the project is required as the result of the site clean-up actions or not. The amount of this retaining wall that is within the proposed 50 ft buffer needs to be quantified too. Finally, please clarify the amount of public trail or access that will be built within 200 feet and 50 feet of Lake Washington. 50CIUS GROUP,,, October I 0, 2006 VIA LEGAL MESSENGER Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 Dear Ms. Higgins: 206 838.91 00 M1\lf·J P"10·'<L 206.838.9101 M.l\lf•I ~AX T.-vo U11ior, Square O:.J I lJr111m SI, Suite 4950 Sciltllc. WA 98101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.838.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com On behalf of our client, the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, we are writing to provide supplemental comments regarding impacts of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility on our clients' homes. This letter is intended to supplement rather than replace our earlier letter, sent to you on July 10, 2006. That earlier letter is hereby incorporated by reference. I. INTRODUCTION Our clients live at the Misty Cove Condominium, located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. As such, they will be directly affected by the changes taking place at the Seahawks Training Facility and along the shoreline of Lake Washington, if the various applications are approved as currently designed. We appreciate the assistance of City staff in our review of materials. Please consider this letter an initial comment letter (supplemental), based on our initial reviews of the files. We may have missed something or new information may be developed during the review and hearing process, thus giving rise to additional analysis in the future. If there are any pieces of information we cite below as missing that are actually in the City file, we would appreciate your letting us know so that we can correct our data list. Our aim during this review process will be to present an accurate analysis of facts in the record and to provide additional data that appears to be missing. In that effort, we appreciate the applicant's willingness to respond in writing to our requests for information or clarifications. Unfortunately, the applicant recently denied our clients even limited access to the property for ·' I) (I"·' I El w. /' II Ill Elizabeth Higgins October I 0, 2006 Page 2 the purposes oflooking at the site with our fisheries and wetlands biologists. We trust the City and the applicant will continue to work with us as we seek an honest evaluation of the facts, recognizing the citizens' role in upholding the policies and requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, RCW ch. 98.58, as well as their rights under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"). II. SCOPE OF THESE COMMENTS AND REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE This letter is intended to present our clients' concerns and initial comments applicable to each of the following, individually and collectively: • Notice of Application (revised application September 22, 2006) • Revised Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M) (Sept. 26, 2006) • Applications for Approval of: o Master Plan o Site Plan o Shoreline Substantial Development Permit o Construction Permit and Building Permit We understand City staff will make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner and provide a presentation at the public hearing tentatively scheduled for November 21, 2006. We request that this letter and our previous letter be provided to the Hearing Examiner as part of the permit file. We also request advance written notice of any public meetings concerning this proposal and would appreciate your assistance to ensure we remain a party of record. Your continued assistance is much appreciated. III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPOSED DESIGN MITIGATION REQUIRED BY BOTH THE SHORELINE CODE AND SEPA CONCERNING ADVERSE IMPACTS TO VIEWS The City's shoreline policies and regulations are particularly important to our analysis. These policies contain directives on the types of uses that are permitted, and require analysis and mitigation of aesthetic impacts. Although quoted in our prior letter, these specific requirements are worth repeating here. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline Master Program provide as follows: 15079 The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page 3 1. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(S)(c). As discussed herein, the application does not provide information or mitigation capable of demonstrating compliance with applicable shoreline regulations concerning views. In our opinion, the City is therefore compelled to declare the application incomplete for purposes of shoreline permit review. If and when the application is submitted with a credible view analysis as required by code, the City should require preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS"). This project, as proposed, is not allowed under the Shoreline Management Act. The current proposal will bring over 343,000 square feet of new buildings to a vacant lot directly adjacent to the Misty Cove Condominiums.1 The buildings are expected to reach as high as 120 feet. This 19.6-acre site includes over 1,800 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline on Lake Washington. The state-regulated shoreline is 200 feet wide, from the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM"). RCW 90.58.030(f). Washington's review criteria for all development mandates that a permit shall not be issued for any new building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining shorelines. WAC 173-27-140. In addition to imposing a SO-foot setback from the OHWM, City regulations also require an assessment of how a project within the [200-foot] shoreline will impact the scenic view prevailing the given area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(S)(c); RMC 4- 3-090(L)(5){ d). The view analysis provided by the applicant does not do justice to the significant impacts this massive building within the shoreline will have on current residents. Nor does the study make any attempt to evaluate the views from the water for boaters, or from Mercer Island. The applicant's view study does not identify the 200-foot shoreline in its photographs and has what 1 Information about the specifics of the proposal is obtained exclusively from the applicant's Project Overview and Environmental Checklist. both revised Sept. 6, 2006. 15079 Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page4 may be questionable digital scaling when making comparisons between pre-and post- construction views. The applicant's response to the shoreline permit requirements for a view analysis was to submit "two pages" of analysis. The entire second page is blank except for the following: 3.00 ON GOING ANALYSIS Analysis will be on going as the design proceeds. Addendum 1, Visualization Assessment (Section I/) (Crawford Architects Sept. 27, 2006). That is a circular statement. City regulations do not allow the permit to proceed unless all materials required by code are submitted as part of the application. An incomplete or cursory submittal does not satisfy the intent of the shoreline regulations for a full analysis of view impacts and design measures to mitigate those impacts. The applicant's one page of text offers a before-and-after view comparison for only three visual points. For one of the views taken from a Misty Cove balcony, the photographs displayed in Figures 5 and 6 do not line up and thus involve some form of digital scale adjustments that call into doubt whether a true comparison is being made between the before-and-after views.2 Equally important, the 200-foot shoreline of statewide significance is not identified anywhere on the photographs to give the viewer a sense ofhow views of the state shoreline area would change. The photographs are also misleading because they are taken from vantage points beyond the railings of the effected units ( as is apparent from the photos themselves). They do not show the view impact on residents from typical viewing positions such as seated on the balconies or inside the units. From these vantage points the building will block much of the views of the 200-foot shoreline. The photos and text also solely concern views of the water and ignore the residents' views of the rest of the shoreline, the landscape, and sky and the impact of the building on light and sunshine (particularly in late fall through early spring when the sun traverses the southern sky.) Even the applicant's photos show that the massive building will block these views and light. City shoreline policies and regulations require an assessment not only of the views to be affected by the project--which clearly has not been completed here--but also a listing of the applicant's design measures to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by a significant number of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3), (L)(S)(c). The applicant claims that "the building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep foundations." Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6 2006) at 17. However, the Geotechnical Report indicates that deep borings were done only in the area of the proposed building. The 2 Once. can simply compare the measurement between the skyline on a point and the diagonal roofline on a point, for each picture, to see the inaccuracy of the comparison between the two pictures; they do not match. The digital photographic work completed for this assessment appears to have been of very poor quality. 15079 Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page 5 applicant has not adequately explored the subsurface of other portions of the property to determine suitability of alternative locations that will not impair views from neighboring properties. The applicant's view study does not provide the information required by the City's shoreline code. Thus, the City should determine the application to be incomplete. The City has the authority to do so, since the resubmitted application was provided to the City on September 22, 2006 and the City has 28 days under state law to make a completeness determination. RCW 36. 708.070. On that basis the master application, which includes the shoreline application, should be deemed incomplete until required materials are provided to the City for public review. Given that these same comments were provided previously in response to the initial SEP A notice, and the fact the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit proposed mitigation based on an analysis of the issues, withdrawal of the proposed Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is appropriate. The City should issue a Determination of Significance, for the purpose ofrequiring the complete view analysis required by code. The benefit of the EIS process would be to carefully identify design mitigation potential, and any alternative sites within the City or the vicinity. RMC 4-3-090(L)(S)(c). IV. THE CITY SHOULD NOT EVEN REACH AN ANALYSIS OF SHORELINE OR VIEW IMPACTS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" Lake Washington is adjacent to the site and is classified a "shoreline of statewide significance." RMC 4-3-090(E), (F). The proposed Seahawk building and facility are not consistent with the list of priority uses within the 200-foot shoreline: I. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for shorelines of statewide significance. 2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines. 3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits. 4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines. 5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines. 6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. RMC 4-3-090(D) 3 The proposal is not consistent with these mandates because the extensive construction and lot coverage would decimate rather than preserve the "natural character" of the J Preference is given to the uses in descending order of priority. 15U79 Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page 6 shoreline. Id. Similarly, the public interest in long term visual aesthetics along Lake Washington outweighs the relatively short term needs of the local football franchise -short term when compared to a long term historical timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, the Specific Use Regulations of the City's shoreline code prohibit the kind of use proposed for this facility and thus the application must be denied, following issuance ofa Determination of Significance. New commercial development on Lake Washington is not permitted unless it is either water dependent, water related or involves water enjoyment. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(a). The Seahawks Training Facility, however popular, cannot be permitted in violation of this exclusive list of permitted commercial uses within a shoreline of statewide significance. It simply is not water dependent, water related or involved in water enjoyment. Furthermore, the project does not provide "significant public access to and along the water's edge." The application does not contend otherwise. The applicant can be expected to argue that none of its buildings or fields are planned within the City's setback area (50 feet from the OHWM). That is not the test under the use regulations for the City's shoreline program. Instead, the setback only comes into play if the use itself is authorized within the 200-foot zone, which it is not as explained above. V. IMPACTS FROM NEW RETAINING WALLS WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT As previously mentioned, Lake Washington has been designated a "shoreline of statewide significance" under state law. RCW 90.58.020. Despite the presence of endangered species habitat along the shores of Lake Washington, the application proposes grading and permanent retaining wall construction not only within the 200-foot shoreline zone, but also (as disclosed in the application) inside the City's standard 50-foot setback area for approved shoreline urban development.4 This is proposed in at least three separate locations within the 50-foot setback. At this time, the plans for the grading and construction of retaining walls are not described, based on our review of the application materials. Similarly, proposed mitigation is not well-articulated to address the impacts of grading and permanent structures on Chinook salmon and bull trout shoreline habitat, and bald eagle habitat.5 We do know that the applicant's wetlands report rates this as a high quality "lake-fiinge" wetland that is subject to freshwater tidal influences.6 Thus, use of the site and its impact on juvenile endangered species should be analyzed, impacts assessed, and mitigation proposed. : Baxter Development Project-Phase I 50 Foot Setback, Site Plan, AOOl (May 3, 2006). Chmook salmon. bull trout, and bald eagles are protected under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). 6 Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels (The RETEC Group, Inc. Aug. 30, 2006), Wetland Rating Form, Page 3 (May 26, 2006). 15079 Elizabeth Higgins October 10, 2006 Page 7 The project appears to include a proposed grading and retaining wall project to be constructed at elevation 21 feet (NA VD88), which is within one and one half feet in elevation from the highest ordinary high water mark acknowledged by the applicant (19.5 feet NAVD 88 datum).7 Despite these proposed but as-yet-undefined shoreline stabilization walls, the entire discussion of impacts and mitigation concerning ESA species habitat along the lake are so sparse as to be non-existent as follows: 2.4 Wildlife Habitat No federally Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive animal or plant species were observed on the subject property during the site visit.8 An earlier section summarizing the report's "Shoreline Survey" does not even mention ESA species in the lake or their habitat along the shoreline. See Section I, at Page 2. Nothing in the report discusses habitat let alone mitigation from the proposed grading and retaining wall construction within the 50-foot setback or within the 200-foot shoreline zone. In addition to addressing those issues, the report should have interpreted the applicant's prior study in May 1997,9 which identified May Creek as a nearby "shoreline of the state" supporting runs of Coho, Chinook and sockeye salmon as well as resident fish species (citing Williams et al., 1975). Mitigation may be required for the linkage between May Creek residents and use of the nearby shoreline of Lake Washington at the project site, i.e., at various times of their life cycle. Thus, we conclude the application is deficient because it fails to adequately address the project's impacts on ESA species. Ironically, the applicant's Environmental Checklist, updated September 6, 2006, does disclose the existence of Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle on or near the site. However, no habitat is described and no mitigation is offered. Instead, the following is offered: Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing on the site vicinity. Sockeye juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore habitat along the project for rearing. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6, 2006) at 12. 'Conceptual Grading Plan, C!Ol (May 3, 2006); RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Survey at 2 (Aug. 30, 2006). 8 RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Survey (Aug. 30, 2006) at 2. 9 Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (May 1997) at 8. 15(179 Elizabeth Higgins October I 0, 2006 Page 8 A Determination of Significance for the project should be issued instead of the proposed Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance, in part to ensure careful study of shoreline ESA habitat and determine whether mitigation measures would ever moderate the adverse impacts from the proposed, permanent disturbance of the SO-foot setback area and the 200-foot shoreline and associated wetlands. By requiring an EIS on this issue, the City would also ensure that an objective assessment of site alternatives is conducted by the applicant. Misty Cove residents enjoy the shoreline of Lake Washington on a daily basis. They enjoy existing shoreline views and the natural habitat for plants and animals along the vegetated shoreline, including endangered species. There is a direct linkage between the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the project and residents' continued use and enjoyment of their property and the adjacent lake. Thus, they have standing to appeal the City's SEP A determination, in the event it is necessary. Please consider these comments in addition to the comments set forth in our letter of July I 0. If you have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours ~ Thomas F. Peterson cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail) 15079 Misty Cove Homeowners Association (via U.S. Mail) Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail) Lance Lopes, Attorney for Applicant (via U.S. Mail) @~ .. . ' . . . Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 October 4, 2006 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner City of Renton, Development Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM Dear Ms. Higgins: ocr -s 2000 The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Revised Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, dated June 23, 2006 (Revised September 26, 2006). King County's South Mercer Force Main and Eastside Interceptor, Section 4 is located within the proposed Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility site. In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Renton do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil/ Architectural Section. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Please send the drawings to: Eric Davison, DC A..tvt, Civil/Architectural Se,:ti0n King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Tel.: (206) 684-1707 Eric.Davison@metrokc.gov • Please contact Eric Davison a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during construction. @ •4ifi'lo 1202M CLEAN WATER-A SOUND INVESTMENT \ Elizabeth Higgins City of Renton, Development Planning October 4, 2006 Page2 • King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line. In the event that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided. Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed development site to Eric Davison so that he can contact the property owner regarding the easement. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Sandy Redick, Administrative Staff Assistant Environmental Planning & Community Relations cc: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/ Architectural Section REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME· June 23, 2006 [REVISED September 26, 2006] LUA 06-073. ECF. MA SA·H. SM Seattle Seahawks He,,,dquarters ancl Tra,ning Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Saatlle Seahawks Headquarters and Traimng Facility ,s proposed lo t>e located on a 19 58 acre (857.477 sf) s,le known as the "North Baxter Property." a former tir1ber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton In add>t,on lo approximately 1,887 l>nea' teet of Lake Washington shocel1ne. a JUf1Sd1r;t1onal wetland 1s located on the site The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activ,tu;,s Sile clean·.Jp f.om previous 1ndustnal ae11"1t1es 1s on-go,ng and would continue s1m~ltaneously w1lh \he i~1l1sl stsges of Sile develcpment The proJect proponenl has subm1lt<,d a land use masl<,r app:ica11on requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review and a Shorehne Substantial Dev<,lopm<,nl Pemiit The Shoreline Permit IS •eqJ1red due to the pro1ecrs prox1ni1t·1 lo Lake Washington The requested actions require env,ronmental review b)" the City of Renton 1n aoconJance with the State Env,ronmenlal Policy Act (SEPAi PROJECT LOCATION: 5015RrpleylaneN OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Ag enc)', the Crly or Renton has de1erm1ned that s,gnificanl environmenlal impacts 1hat cannot b<, mitigated by the pro1ect proponent are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore. as permil1ed under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton 1s using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice lhat a DNS·M is likely to be issued Comment pefmds for the PrDJect and the proposed DNS·M are intesrated into a sing~ comment period There WIii be no comment period iol~w1ng the Issuance o1 the Threshold Delermination of Non-Signif1cance.M1tigated (DNS-M) A 14-day appeal period will fol ow the issuance of the DNS.M PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 9. 2006 Juoe 23 2006 NOTICE OF HOLD I OFF HOLD: Auge st 11. 2006 / September 22, 2006 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ray Colliver. Port Quenda',I Company, Tel (206) 342-2000, Eml rn.yc@vulcan com Permil$1Reviaw R<1quast&d: Oth<1r P<1rmlts which may b<1 reqi,.red: Requeslad Studies: Location where appllcetlon may be NIVlawed: PUBLIC HEARING; CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW Land Use/Zoning: Environmantal 1SEPA] Review, Master Plan Revi€tW, Site Plan Rev,ew Shoreline Substantial Development Perm1I Consluct1on Permit Bu1dl1ng Permit. Occupancy Perm,t Transportation Analysis, Geotechoical Report and Waler Quality/Stomiwaler Analysis Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Serv,c<,s Division. S1xth Floor Renlon City Hall, 1055 South Grn.dy Way, Remon, WA 98055 A pub\k: haaring b€1fore the City ol Renton Hearing Examiner ·s tenlal1vel~ scheduled for 9 am November 21, 2006 ,n the City Counc,I Chanbers on the 7 tloor o1 Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA This data is subj&et to change. The subject site is designated Comm<,rc1al/Office/Resident1al on the City of Renton Comprehansive land Use Map and Commercial/Oll:ce/Res,den1,a1 2 {COR·21 an the City's Zoning Ma;:, Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Propoud Project· Development Rtlilulallons Used For Pro}eet Miti9a11on: Proposed Mitigation Maasures: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist. Stream I Lake Study GeotechrlCal Report Transportation Stud~ The pro1ect wi;I oe sub1ect to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3·051), Critical The followmg M,tpgat1on Measures woll likely be imposed on the proposed project These recommendOO Mtt1gat,an Measur8S address proJect impact& nal covered by ex1st,ng codes and regulat1o~s as c1led above Ad/leronce lo shora/in& selback reqwremen/s Adherence /o surface water menagemenl ffK///lraments: Paymen/ oft/le appropriate Tre11sport<1hon M•tigalion Fee: and P,;,ymenl of the appropriate Fire Miligario11 Fee Comments on th~ abo~e appllcatlon must be submitted In writing to Ellubath Higgins, Soanlor Planner, Development SeMcee D1vlelon, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on octobe, 10, 2006. If )OU have quesl1ons al:lout lh1s proposal. or wish to be_ made a parly of record and receive add~1onal notif>e:ation bf ma,1 CO!'!act the PrOJect Man.;,ge,. Anyone wha subm115 wntten comments w,11 autom~~cally became a party of record and wii'1 be notitied of any dec,s,an on this proJect CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: {425) 430-6576; Emt; &hlggins@ci.renton.wa.us If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project comple1e this fonn and return lo. City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 91!055. Name/File No Seattle Seahawks Tra1n1ng Facility/LUA 06-073, SM ECF NAME. MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION --, . _::, copies of the above docume&{,.\\\\\\I . ''" NN ,,,, or nearby the descnbed property~\. :,""""~J\~ . ry~ _4 -=z-:.vf/ ,ON 1,t~~, SIGNED: -~'7.: _~':,..:, , , T A,t 7 ? ":' ~-o !• · J-/ ::: ::-o A TfEST Subscnbcd and sworn before me, a Notary Public, m and for the State of Washington res1dmg~ \ 4 -• -ti ~~ J '"/. ~~,, IJ9\.\: :a-'"= \,,f· 19-~\ ,.,..o/._-.;,;f It '"''~""Ji! ~ . " ,..,-t:' \\\\\~"' I, \cm GE/5/=K, ' hereby certify that were posted by me in _l_ conspicuous places DATE:_".c../_-_Z_b_--_c_··o_· · __ _··~(\~+=·-+-·~· ~--' on the _a-~'7~1 "_ctay of :°H p tcu·)v 8 Q N CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 26th day of September, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Revised NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Reoresentina Agencies Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company Micheal Gero Surrounding Property Owners Parties of Record (Signature of Sender): &,~ ~ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) See Attached Owner/Applicant/Contact Party of Record See Attached See Attached I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for th~\,\W.~f!nd purposes mentioned in the instrument. ..:-''''\.. "l'NN i.,!!,,,, .: ~ ... ,1_ ".;lON '!t,. :.6: f/.. Dated: Cj,:;;iu:-O(,., .;::-"'"""'~"'\~u".'-* It = $'A ... CVV' :: ~ 1'~ Notary (Print): t'IY'l\lgu h "/no 1:-\BP, \'Y'<L n My appointment expires: C)-\ c,. -1 v Project Name: Seahawks Training Facility Project Number: LUA06-073, SM, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing ... Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region • Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle. WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3 755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olvmoia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton, WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160'" Ave SE 39015-172°' Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office • Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program• 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172'' Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olvmoia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72'' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing 334330288005 CROSETTO FRED A 5025 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 292405900203 QUENDALL TERMINALS PO BOX 477 RENTON WA 98055 292405901508 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY C/0 VULCAN INC 505 5TH AV S #900 SEATTLE WA 98104 334330300008 THOMAS DAVID L+SUZANNE E 5029 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 292405901201 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 334330287502 WILLARD RICK+RENEE 5031 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 • ' PARTIES OF RECORD Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SM, SA-H, ECF Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2000 eml: rayc@vulcan.com (owner/ applicant / contact) Thelma Sutherland 1205 N 29th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Jared Salstrom 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #213 Renton, WA 98056 eml: jared. sa lstrom@vi I la nova. edu (party of record) Eileen Halverson 16226 Crystal Drive E Enumclaw, WA 98022 (party of record) Roger A. Pearce Foster Pepper PLLC 1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3299 (party of record) Elaine Wine Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue S ste: #900 Seattle, WA 98104 tel: (206) 342-2397 eml: elainew@vulcan.com (party of record) Updated: 09/26/06 Michael Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 tel: (206) 419-0657 eml: mscero@comcast.net (party of record) Joe Burcar Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 tel: (425) 649-7145 (party of record) Steve Jansen 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #4 Renton, WA 98056 eml: smjansen@msn.com (party of record) Elya George Baches 1414 N 34th Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Steve Gregerson 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #302 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Thomas F. Peterson Socius Law Group PLLC Two Union Square 601 Union Street ste: #4950 Seattle, WA 98101 tel: (206) 838-9112 eml: tpeterson@sociuslaw.com (party of record) Brian T. Sabey 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #304 Renton, WA 98056 eml: bsabey@comcast.net (party of record) Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President Misty Cove Condo Association 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #309 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 650-8855 eml: margok@msn.com (party of record) Aaron Belenky, President Williamsburg Condo HOA 1800 NE 40th Street ste: #H-4 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Lance Lopes Qwest Field 800 Occidental Avenue S ste: #100 Seattle, WA 98134 tel: (206) 381-7835 eml: lancel@seahawks.com (party of record) <\'.Y o'~~ ·~ + ~,iJ\TifO~ REVISED NOTICE OF APP LI CATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: June 23, 2006 [REVISED September 26, 2006) LUA 06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed lo be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on-going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act ($EPA). PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated by the project proponent are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 9, 2006 June 23, 2006 NOTICE OF HOLD/ OFF HOLD: August 11, 2006 / September 22, 2006 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company; Tel: (206) 342-2000; Eml: rayc@vulcan.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Other Permits which may be required: Constuction Permit, Buidling Permit, Occupancy Permit Transportation Analysis, Geotechnical Report, Requested Studies: Location where applicatJon may be reviewed: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW Land Use/Zoning: and Water Quality/Stormwater Analysis. Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner is tentativeli scheduled for 9 am November 21, 2006 in the City Council Chambers on the 7 floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA. This date Is subject to change. The subject site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential on the Crty of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential 2 (COR-2) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: Proposed Mitigation Measures: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist, Stream J Lake Study, Geotechnical Report, Transportation Study The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050, Critical The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. Adherence to shoreline setback requirements; Adherence to surface water management requ;rements; Payment of the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; and Payment of the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6576; Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, SM, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: Payn entM a:E: CITY OF RENTON 1055 s Grady w ay R en1on, W A <:E055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Perm itfl: LU A06--073 Rece ptN L1Tl ter. ToialPayn ent 1,500.00 Payee: SEATTLE SEAHAW KS CurrmtPaym entMade 1o the Folbw ilg ]ems: Trans Account Code Cescription ::019 000.345.81.00.0016 9loreline Subst Cev ::020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made 1brth'6 recept Trans Payment Method Cescription Check Account8a1nces Trans Account Code #003460 Cescription 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/9lort Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 fUJ 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 M:Jbile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 9loreline Subst Cev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee ::036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 M:lps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Ceposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 59<:E 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Rem aililg Ba1noe Due: $J 00 Amount 1. 500 .00 Amount 500.00 1,000.00 Balance Due .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 .00 .00 .00 RCE047::Ei CIT1 )F RENTON o"~:Y ~& ·~ + ~-~ KathyKeolkcr,Mayor Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator ~Nrfo September 22, 2006 Mr. Ray Colliver, Senior Director Design and Construction Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM Dear Mr. Colliver The above-referenced project was accepted as a complete application on June 23, 2006. During the initial review, the City of Renton determined that submittal of additional information will be required before the review could proceed. Therefore, on August 11, 2006, a "hold" was placed on the project review and a request made for additional information. The items requested by the City having now been submitted, the hold on the project has been removed. As of the date of this letter the review has recommenced. Due to the expanded nature of the application and additional information available, we will notify interested parties and open a new two-week comment period from September 25 to October 9. Following this comment period, on October 16 the Renton Environmental Review Committee will issue an environmental threshold determination. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-7382. Sincerely • ~~/~~-­ Elizabeth River Higgins, AI Senior Planner Copies to: Lance Lopes Roger Pearce Elaine Wine Alex Pietsch Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Parties of Record _______ 10_5_5-So_u_th_G_r_ad_y_W_a_y---R-en-to_n_, _W_as_h-in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE August 30, 2006 Mr. Michael R. Cero 8300 Avalon Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 CIT'\_ :>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Re: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA06-073 Dear Mr. Cero Your letter was received today and you have been made a Party of Record for the above- referenced project. Thank you for expressing your concerns about lighting of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. At a meeting with the project proponent, city staff was told that the fields would not be lighted due to the fact that there are no night practices. We will continue to verify this information as the project review progresses. According to the most recent site plan, surface parking would be located east of and behind the headquarters building, and therefore not visible from the lake shore. The building should effectively screen parking Jot lighting. Due to increasing density and intensity of development in the City, Renton now typically requires light cut-off fixtures. The project is currently "on hold" pending submittal of additional information required to complete our review. Following those submittals, as a Party of Record, you will receive notification and may come in to Renton City Hall and, on the 61 h floor, ask to review the proposed project. There will be a public hearing to discuss the project, which is tentatively scheduled for mid-October. You will receive notification of that date also and may attend to comment on the project. Thank you for your interest in this project. Sincerely Ut~~ Elizabeth Higgins, AICP Senior Planner Cc:. Peter Renner file -------,o-5_5_S_ou_th_G_r_ad_y_W_a_y_--R-en-to_n_,_W_as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ 6'i?) This oaoer contains 50% recvcled material. 30% oostconsumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE Michael R. Cero 8300 Avalon Dr Mercer Island, WA 98040 City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department Attn: Elizabeth Higgins 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 August 22, 2006 s T -f?u ..____ ~ . .i:..__ ~, ~ ,,__ f? o IC '--~ ~ """~ f-ik (7r..,-1-.V.4 CJ{,,-07-S. ;;U_..,te-7J--'1 I='-~ Subject: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 (Glare/Light Pollution) Dear Ms Higgins, I am haunted that the new Seahawks training facility will have the same glare as the soccer field "south of Mercer Island over the hill." I would like assurance that none of the outdoor practice fields will be lit for night time use. In addition, I understand that glare can be virtually eliminated in parking Jot lighting, exterior lighting for the building walkways and entrances, and landscape lighting by the use of high cut off fixtures. These fixtures arc designed to completely hide the light source while providing illumination necessary for function and safety. An example of this type of lighting is on the bridge deck of the I-90 floating bridge. I would like assurances that the design will incorporate these fixture types to avoid both direct glare and reflected glare from Lake Washington. If you need an example of what is totally unacceptable, look to the lighting that illuminates the new 737 "green planes" that sit at the Renton airfield awaiting their first flight. The direct and reflected glare from lighting those airplanes fills the night sky from the south end of Mercer Island. This is neither necessary or acceptable. Please incorporate ant-glare light fixtures in the design of the Seahawks training facility. Michael R. Cero CIT1 :>F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator August 11, 2006 Mr. Ray Colliver, Senior Director Design and Construction Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA06-073, SM, ECF -On Hold Dear Mr. Colliver The above-referenced project was accepted as a complete application on June 23, 2006. Since that time however, the City of Renton has determined that submittal of additional information will be required before the environmental review can proceed. Of particular interest, and a key component of the review, will be the proposed plan for the enhancement of the buffer of the jurisdictional wetland located within the shoreline of Lake Washington and how public access will be provided to the shoreline. We have sent to your attention, under separate cover, a complete list of items required for submittal before the proj eel can proceed. As of the date of this letter, the project is "on hold" and will remain so until the submittal items are provided. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-7382. Sincerely , ~~~s,~ Senior Planner Copies to: Lance Lopes Roger Pearce Elaine Wine Alex Pietsch Neil Watts Jennifer Henning Parties of Record -------10_5_5_S-ou_th_Gr-ad_y_W_ay---R-en-t-on-,-W-as_h_in_gt_o_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ @ This paper contains 50% recycled material, 30% post consumer AHEAD OF THE CURVE SOCIUS GROUP July I 0, 2006 VIA LEGAL MESSENGER Elizabeth Higgins Planning/Building/Public Works Department City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 Dear Ms. Higgins: 206.838.91 00 MAI~. Fl IOt,L 20F. R'.38 91 () I f,IAI~. FAX Tw:1 Union Sc~are 6D1 Urnon SI, S.,rlti 4950 Scc",ttlc. VVA \!8101 Thomas F. Peterson 206.838.9112 tpeterson@sociuslaw.com This law firm represents the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners. As you know, Misty Cove Condominium is located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. We provide this letter by way of our comments to the Seattle Seahawks' ("Applicant's") request for environmental (SEPA) review and for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Timing of SEPA Review. As an initial matter, we note that the City appears to be conducting an environmental review for a shoreline substantial development permit only, without first requiring environmental review for the entire project, which is known to the applicant and the City at this time. Conducting environmental review of shoreline uses only is incomplete without first requiring the applicant to submit all known information about the ultimate buildout of the project, i.e., traffic analysis and building footprints shown on a site plan. Piecemeal review is prohibited under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21C (SEPA), as discussed in numerous court cases. The City's Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) ("Notice") issued on June 23, 2006 ("Notice") identifies a very limited scope of review for a project involving multiple pennits. The "Permits/Review Requested" is limited to "Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit." Because the Notice states that the applicant is only seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit at this time, it seems clear the SEPA review applies only to that permit. To our knowledge, no other permit applications have been filed. Thus, the SEP A review could not cover those untiled land use applications and is being conducted piecemeal on only one select permit application, the .,oci11.c/,1w ro1u Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page2 shoreline substantial development permit. Alternatively, if the SEP A review is intended to cover the entire project, the SEP A applicant should be required to provide full details of the entire project, including but not limited to a traffic analysis, prior to your issuance of a mitigated SEP A determination. Absent a full disclosure and analysis of all project impacts prior to issuance of the SEP A determination, the SEP A determination fails to assess possible needed mitigation addressing those undisclosed impacts. SEP A's policy against piecemeal review is specifically designed to avoid such a result. The Notice does not identify commencement of a review period for the Master Use Permit Application and furthermore, no Binding Site Plan has been submitted. Accordingly, the City will have to commence a new SEP A review process when those applications and plans are submitted. Such piecemeal review conflicts with SEPA and SMA policies. Merkle v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844,509 P.2d 390 (1973). We request that the SEPA review be postponed until the application and plans are complete so that the City and the neighbors can see the whole project and the full suite of impacts and proposed mitigation before the SEP A review process begins. The Practice Facility Location. The Preliminary Site Plan calls for construction of a 120-foot high warehouse structure for use as a practice facility on the North end of the Baxter Property. The location of the practice facility should be moved for a number of reasons. I. View Blockage. All of the apartments on the south side of the Misty Cove condominium currently enjoy unobstructed views of Lake Washington to the south and west. The proposed practice facility will block most of these views. Such view blockage directly conflicts with the City's Shoreline Master Program. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline Master Program provide as follows: The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects. 1. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers, poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction. The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant number of people in the area. Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page 3 RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). The Application incorrectly characterizes the impact of the development on the views of Misty Cove owners. The Project Narrative states that "[ v ]iews to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south will not be adversely affected." Land Use & Shoreline Permit Application (the "Application"), § 2, p. 4. The Environmental Checklist contains similar mischaracterizations. Application § 3, p. 16. This misstatement by the applicant alone is ,,>rounds for the City to delay issuance of a SEP A determination, pending submittal of complete and accurate information on the entire project. It is also a basis for denying the shoreline substantial development permit for failure to comply with the policies and regulations cited above. Not surprisingly, the Application does not state what steps the Applicant has taken to "reduce to a minimum" the interference that the practice facility will have on Misty Cove owners' views. In fact, the practice facility is located in the spot that will most interfere with Misty Cove views. The negative view impact would be minimized if the practice facility was located on the south side of the project, where there are no adjacent residences, or situated further from the shoreline. This appears to be feasible given the proposed layout of the site. The practice facility is also quite tall. Although a 120-foot high structure is not barred outright in a COR zone, where the building is abutting a lot designated as residential, maximum building height is to be determined through site development plan review. RMC 4-2-1208. Generally, the limit is 20 feet higher than the maximum height allowed in the abutting residential zone. Id. This would not be an issue if the practice facility were located on the south end of the property, which area does not abut a residential zone. If the facility is not relocated, we contend it is in violation of RMC 4-2-1208. 2. Shoreline Orientation. The proposed practice facility is located too close to the shoreline. The General Use Regulations provide as follows: Facility Arrangement -Shoreline Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline developments shall locate the water-dependant, water-related and water- enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all other facilities inland. RMC 4-3-090(K)(5). The General Use Regulations further require preservation of unique and fragile Areas: Unique and Fragile Areas: Unique features and wildlife habitats should be preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from development and encroachment. RMC 4-3-090(K)(7). The Preliminary Site Plan locates the practice facility only 50 feet from the shoreline. This not only orients this massive structure, which is not water dependant or water-enjoyment related, too close to the shoreline. It also may impinge on the unique and fragile areas of the waterfront. As currently designed, it appears the proposed shoreline permit would need a variance or conditional use approval from the l~SS~ Elizabeth Higgins July 10, 2006 Page 4 Department of Ecology. If such a request has been made, please provide us with a copy of that correspondence, so that we may comment to DOE. We reserve our right to comment further on these issues, as more information is disclosed by the applicant and we have an opportunity to review any critical areas studies submitted in support of the total project. Traffic Impacts. One of the problems with piecemeal SEP A review is the difficulty of commenting on and reviewing significant issues before the required plans and studies are submitted. There will likely be significant traffic impacts on the neighborhood but the actual impact is unknown because the Applicant has not yet submitted its traffic impact analysis. We reserve comment on the traffic impact until the traffic impact analysis has been provided. The Applicant states that the facility will accommodate annual training camp on site and that parking for training camp vehicles will be located offsite. Misty Cove requests that a requirement for offsite parking be made a condition of permit approval. Community Disturbances/Refuse/Service Areas. The preliminary site plan does not identify the location of areas for refuse bins, service entry, storage yards, and outdoor service areas. The Misty Cove owners are concerned that those areas will be located in the parking area adjacent to Misty Cove Condominium and that they will cause excessive noise, odors, night lighting, pollution, and be unsightly in appearance. The Shoreline General Use Regulations cited above, restrict community disturbances such as noise, odors and night lighting, and require screening of visually unpleasant areas. RMC 4-3- 090(K)(3 )(ii)&(iv). Furthermore, RMC 4-4-090(C) contains general requirements relating to refuse storage areas. In addition, the Shoreline General Use Regulations proscribe activities near the shoreline that may cause pollution or ecological disruption. RMC 4-3-090(K)(2). Misty Cove requests that proper identification, location, and screening of these areas be provided in the site plan. Misty Cove further reserves comment on these issues until the site plan is available for review. Dock Use. The Baxter site currently contains the remnants of a dock. We understand that the Applicant intends to restore and use the dock. Misty Cove is concerned that prolonged parking of ships and large yachts at the dock will obstruct views. Misty Cove requests that permanent or long term mooring of boats, particularly large ones, be restricted as a condition of the permit. Misty Cove owners are also concerned that visitors to the Seahawks facility will use the Misty Cove marina for mooring. We request that the conditions for the shoreline permit include limitations on the amount of time larger vessels may be moored at the facility and prohibit mooring at the Misty Cove manna. Security and Parking, Because Ripley Lane is a dead-end street, Misty Cove owners are concerned that people going to the new facility will often end up in the Misty Cove parking lot, which is not adequate to accommodate existing Misty Cove tenants. The owners are also concerned that the increased traffic will lead to more car break-ins and 1 H:iZ Elizabeth Higgins July I 0, 2006 Page 5 other safety threats to Misty Cove Owners. Appropriate signage and security measures should be made a condition of permit approval to avoid these likely impacts on adjacent residents. Lighting and Noise. The Environmental Checklist states that there will be no permanent lighting of the practice fields and no glare anticipated that would adversely impact adjacent land uses. This should be made a permanent condition of permit approval. The Checklist also states that there will minimal noise impact on adjacent properties both during construction and after completion. Plans to control noise should be a condition of permit approval, based on the applicant's promise. The Misty Cove Owners request that the City and the Applicant consider these comments and make the appropriate changes for the better of the surrounding neighborhood. If you have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Thomas F. Peterson cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail) 1~55~ Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail) Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company (via U.S. Mail) Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ® King County Wastewater Treatment Division Department of Natural Resources and Parks King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 July 6, 2006 Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Public Works Department, Development Services City of Renton I 055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: LUA 06-073, SM, ECF Dear Ms. Higgins: The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M), dated June 23, 2006. King County's South Mercer Force Main and Eastside Interceptor, Section 4 is located within the proposed Seattle Seahawks Headquarters/Training Facility site (please see the attached figures). In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Renton do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to the Design, Construction and Asset Management Program, Civil/ Architectural Section. Drawings should be submitted for review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Please send the drawings to: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/ Architectural Section King County Wastewater Treatment Division 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Tel.: (206) 684-1707 Eric.Davison@metrokc.gov • Please contact Eric Davison a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during construction. CLEAN WATER-A SOUND INVESTMENT Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner City of Renton July 6, 2006 Page2 • King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line. In the event that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided. Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed development site to Eric Davison so that he can contact the property owner regarding the easement. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, ~~a~ Sandy Redick, Administrative Staff Assistant Environmental Planning & Community Relations Enclosures (3) cc: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section ·.;.~<,Mi.~- .4\- '.l·t.\ i, .· :\ 1' \ .... ·!'WIT ~,, M. ,, '. .' .t l ~JIT ~,fl,/l/lilc. LJ; CA/1<1 J1,tl'/ON. · ., J\\\ I .. l ' ·. . . ''.llki; \ WOiPJ:' i./,f(lf$ ·---------""-{ ,~r~ 1lli. .~·-... ~-----:;-.d" ,1J'J!2"" .•.... · .. ·.·:,,, .·--· ·. ';.. .~-" ··.• .. ·::...~~. _:.-.. ,~.-~ .. · + .: ' ' ; -· .· .· ·.. \; ,, : ' ''. iJl/1. , r; ~- n'il3 • .,,.., ·u-·1tt_ . I , .. \ I . . . ··t \ ~ \ r-· . ,.,.,,,1 .. --~~=': oa;'!'.:~ . _ ~'>I \ 1-· -, ,_, soaw · r • 'T. ,1-~1 ·. . >---":.,,,r co. U!f= n .,. '''lf.,o \\ I \ \. \\ · ' ,;, 17 ,ro ~'f:~':u4:, \ \ "l" \f ~;rg:,-°J.E. ;~/'Nt· . ~1lW.11no 8'/RIE"Q ilOO Y. CA-4.t.E \ \ \ ~ ""' Oh< p IU5T$tt:>E ~M/'71V'!A' \ ~ .. _ AffTIK) 6~,.,=;$11:r!O<I ~ I "·-,. I I \ 1NrN!CfiP,y \t §fl i I -I * I,._<! ·~- AKE ~:~--•. _:. ~-...i.- .:.:.-:-:--+--~ .- 0160 WASl-l/}.JGTON E.V/J ~ . COAIT#AC-1' Co.AJ!vl"Cr TO E.1'!1TI.VG STA .;5t:.~04.05 A:.'' Tl.AAIC.8/J tr: M. AiVI) ~ l'i9 4'>'1, ?r 2,l",r/.AA/6~1) Q.'~~~tCJW /.l,'./c f!! 1;;;f;'it73~~- i'V/rµ Fl.t,?IJll-COUP1/.<hS • _..,.,. I --"" ~,, IS "~'"' / I I EK. $1/Wll :,_; ; /A!U Ci.A'S$ 1~5 FiAllGE~) ~ --------:.~-~ I · si 1' ~Ii:. t,11· a:, ~c:io Al er.:,•.,_, . .t'1"W ·· AA/GlE PT ~ - -'1'A 34 ~4Q. ~ ~ 199,4~115 £~6,130/4~ 1~ I ,.---; t i l ~-( ~. • METRO $OU'fY VERCER T5. :J~. c .,EWA.Ge' I \' PUM'PWG _ , \ STAT/OM _ _., • ,.,,-T,.:.ft'.) C01TR..,i,c T f JJO ~4-. .:ii 1· ,/ (~ <·".. -~. ' ... · .... ·~""'· jr~·· ·,• If::/ ~$Hm6'=\ '!'PRC .. ;, .I. 11,f<L UL C. O .-.~1 pg.V/!f', . . . ~~;t/11,/)I C'-'B<E. Lffllc:,· .,; Uc , l .... ·· .. ' . ~l"c-~-;_r~ -· I ' ' ' Ir! It/ l'AV1ld# #u.L"AI WC,,P¥/,V<; · etJI, .. . · ,;;~ ·--:,:~ ,:) ] :i..t '_,'{!/'. ·1} t'_~~' ,,,,, _...,,'i$fjf \~ -~-t-~- :t!;'·:·:1 ($_,Q<! ,. .,: a· I ... , IF.5. Ji( ··~ cf: ..__,,,ruu11 ,,,,,,., s""' ~ALL_ ""'l.V~ J,lfTlt/. St-NC'!'. ~- ' ""~' ~: FM STA lrf$ ... "-'4.#0 \ ---+~1.· :i_/ 't ,: 1. ~· \;." ' , ·1·;3• ---f ~ µ,oa ' • ' i{a~ J.IOT,£: ,., T :> JJ017h' rNE.,O,.Low,_ .i&,tlJ('KS -Tf>M#N,#,.,, "' .;. ,;wy w, m ~ Yl,IJ./'G. -N t u..J •. ~A ~S".'O/t' · • -· El/<f/Alll~=.J Art ,1$UAI :.13';-~o~fS'I< ~;1 4 ~ >' -~T C/4 --AP#. s2:it(41' I '1'ftll/W'.-.; ~1i/fr:'c' ; • ~(8! ~ J,l. f'J 4P.,!,IONI c:ii-; loll. ~..A~ , ~«J~;.. ·~, ·ti ~ .·'~A,!'•';··'.-;;. C l.lN~-·- 7'' ~z-..,,~ ·-.... -. .,,,,, ~. -/'--· _;,,J.· .•• .. ::-:-:,-;.1..,.~1 .. ,;~ .. ··1·, ;~.·ft te•,r·w -.· .. · ,~ __ · .-_/,."':" ·'_/·:·~:.·.,:~-:;·~-~~~f~·r; '-7~ ""' 1·· Hll'. ,.:-··~~. ..r · .. · . "~ .·-o,o', .. ·or£ I . . .,.,,#Y· .. · I/ .. ~~' #: ,·· .-... /.. . ' .. µ,.~ .. -~-~-----· .~-~-~Gflt;,r,c~ • · F'Af. Si.A .u .. ~.:'<::' . ' . ' 'i;il!C',,if,~t;:.. f.,i ·. ,; IW!.Jr ttJ!jfij))?{~{ , () "/./_.fi.,., ,;!'d5. .. j,.,; ~ ·,·-~>:"'(; ~Td ,, .·· ·,;::· ;r> i 'li ' . .-~zr~~ ml/:"-r.l' , --· N. Tl>f1S 1DRA1i\f1},j~' . -. _. . ···. : •· . .,,. ,, "' ·' .,. ,-,., ~· rJh. ~.·:-.-, R£DUCE0 ···1z· -.• :J, t.:· SUAVEY . >tiA..~-,'i,· •.·, ·~ ' ~;;.;,i; / ' )~:);>{ ~1 ~1~; ·· ·;:{~· 11 .IUJ.K~ ~-,.isr td'«J(· *.tt' OIS'&A'll;;.,,,N , . ~~~}tt(E·O(~ "'"' $,!~.Iii l',l<..-i<¥ tJI,( ~~{!f!'":~-{)F ~~ -~ ,,C, .. ""'.·.'fJl<W····il.~ .... ;,_ .... ·· , . ij~1~'Ai'S''.·' · OONTR()l.: iNFOF!MAT~ · scALE . i·~-aod-----_-----;,\(/!, ;., . M,<j' ..,,, ~,~T, t<ii.-',,.-= 100 E9<ML'5' 1,(/,w ~""Y!il~·-·"· .'Hv~a ""·"' ";, t.at~ . . . . . . . or .u: ~~'-'°"' ~ '' ' . './1/.J" l't. 'i!~J!:I *''>"ti AS .. OON$1'~ ' .,,'t('l!o~ ..,, ••• & ' .. -·, / , -~, ·:··\t:'..,,i. ·1/S. ,/;'<l~~;'.,~"'_ ,,, '"!'":; ,•"·ff,f''.:1:" ,~~ """ ? •. -jt,~,if-l., ffl!t 'JWlf P .; .. :':_;:'r"~ .,,i·.,d ---·-•••r !M' *11,4;,,,.'f . -~ 4 ·~--.. s •, • ":;~ "'1.,.e;1¥ ~,,~, 'l"!P! *'!·%.'*fytH.#.,0 '""'·':"',·"" ..... ,., . ]~._ . 1i:I l:lt ' .Jr-~,, .,.._· .,,_ __ ,__ ~----~~.....:.-,...;_.:.,..;__~_.:.,--------:--~-o ':ft' . t· ·,.7;'.· ··,;,j,v ·l :I )'-Ii,.. ! "';/ 0 )~Oi:i,. , a:.w ti j ~i 0 j >;; ~ ifoifS . " "' )crir<n -~ g:;_~ / ·1.·;1~ _,/ .:r<1::C / 'a..(/)(.) " ... ~~~ \ ' ~ . . . ~PJ \. ..,.. :" . .,!,·\' . ,-. ~';.~. .·:;-;--:.:- ·"'.'."::::7'.'"-~---------- :··~ ,.. _:;:-~..... . .. · .1/¥..:'!5?:40 ~ /J . \ FO~ CC.\'5'!',f:'i!'-710/J :_.'MiiS Pf$.J.J' L.,,,t.Dt;>£1l~"'::-·:--• IE. . .Nf.00 .. -.1.1.41Nr.'~1A1 SEE OWG .5 .:lf,F t,WG lt:14 . : . · > . ~' .. -. . . +. . . '. _-. ', . -~r :~ >:· ~------ ;, ,_~-,r--~__: r~ ~ .·cue..;.;,;. £~~_!--:r~:~' - I.. -, ~ <--:-- _e--}-:.~ ,-~g±-~-=~=- r ~-·,rArEJ? 5£Jfjl/CE" / ~"'.!E ::SffC .. iAI.. CONST /VOi"£ J DNG .i I __L ~~~· ___ ,;,(' - ".-~ :SLVO .:!."·--'I =, ~ ~ ! "--=' /,9~\:,, ---.J'% -~ ,. -u--· C -t -··-.------;c-1- . j -----~ ~L;--; ' .. ~ : -~ i l ---. ~ Pit.£ ,1,.;>,·~ 5/[~'U"~ _ • ~ • / r ' ~ ! .. ; J.:;.:~' f j 'I" I t--·.~r . ! ' i --""' ?B' 1:1 CO 5/"A ~I;!!' -, -• '--! J - $ '(,U.L 5~ :>:Jtt£ o;f'!t,1W • '. ! ft) m_~z,.'J: .... t':lc:n::·;w_ ..... _ . 1 ~ f------- "6tt a;;"JK ::wssltli'f. -' I r~ I I j :Jt>ti.Kmtl'e -~-MfY c~~.w' -"! , J -,_-' ' '~(sa, ., -----!'\-. ' · I ' · · I\ a.· l ----~--2Ilr,:S. _:._ L "L"cl!J~~ "-__;._j .. c' _,! '\:• 1 , i" , \ , "f-:1.,:6~,...,~£ r : I • ~ ~ ' \' ... i -"-L · _ _,~';;:! --· S'u".f'C.4" :7°-"" ' ~:-~l~- ..,_: i -, , · ~--·, · I , ~ .. ·· r --; . ; .. -. . ' --j • · f + · ' ' 1· -· J_ _' · . · ' +.:::: f -J~ c1,- \ . ,-----· , I I ·, 1 '-'- 1·\J-·.PRC>l;H)£ -b,r.. ~ r. · 11-311>c or P!Pc -:-"!TO ·.$.nilu;r-wAT-r.ll, rrrs-u£AR-- ~ -3'TA·;..""'7""~ ,a-~ ..,~6 ;·c.:.__··~-'· .. -~-, ! _,j_ _____ , __ ,!,' ::\.t,:,>;:/6" .• -~----· --~--___ _,_....;__.:_--t-:-: ~---~-: l--· -:---~~.-.:<::" -::--,-c--_~GJ;ipft ' ' j 1 ;,-· ·1 '\ • t\..., ,:, C -' : [ 't : -,a 1 :·~· • : ,,I ! ; . ~· ·t-... 1 ' -i. ' 1. .... f -.. i-;;·c:. -.~ .. :i .. -.4 . ,, 4"'.:. : & .... J,o !ic--·b . 1-tt.,r·. I .. : ~ .. ,h ·-. 1-.... !-.·• f . i . l I ,,. . •. . I . ' I . , .. j/ ' ' i . -: +· , 1 t • ' i . i ; "·t-·;J t/-,-f .. . i . L. -L '. ·v.·1 -; : --.: . ! I I ! , +--, ! ... , ,•~--.-~-"• -'s.;-.· _ ....... -----'-.. , .. ;,"--·+---;-~-:----,-~--.. --.:-- ' I 1~-;---r-~. --~~-~----('."'I"' TIP ..... ,,:"l,,.-fTl<"J:V ' I .. ~ ' . . " .~ .r -,._ . ( -. . ' I l . i ' ,_ CY' • "i I ' . . . .-' . . • : , ..; , , , , '. _ ·: . f , I, .. LJ-"T~A'Mi/.l!;;C l _,_ -1 .-g, C'i,)i,~~ 'f.kJAJ.. f/44"4'~---. . . -! ~. . •. ,,,, 'ti" C _ C,· 1-. m-: __ , _ -~ ,,.. _, __ -t .. . ,,p ~ tf!P :/!., Wit. ,., J/!i. . .. .,.,;,,. .~ .. -... ~-,,. _ { 1 . I 1~N~.r~r:t::..,fCC ~ I , Di -.i=..---_..._ ' -t (Se£ .!tPf.C.$) ! ~ , '\ .. !:·~f --·~, ·::\· .~... . , , ~ l - -lW/{!1..A,("$ I ;ti .. , ' I . l . 1 . . ' ----~-·~ ...... itf-··, -~--k-~1---·---·---·--:tir~-~:,·:rl --;· '. : _· -i rt-::..1·__,.~J---------, ----------·---:--.:--;:· : .T:.l'.}f--1----L;,::<~~-e:_--:_~CONp~uq~,K? .. --::-i . ~ c; t~ 'i +"tee-· . [ ~ ---------,.---~ -;,--···X' I .t . . J.c_: '\11 ' . , ... ~.~'.ttli ""-=--:.-5~. : .. : ... V!9(!_ . -*J+&o-· Sll-00 1,,:~ .... ..1 . :,;.~ • MUN IC IP ,4 L I TY OF . Ml: TR OP O L r TI.) 1,/ Mri:;;&~;i:'i,'or. rn.;,,.EE;, ··\~-,.~*" ·Aito·C.i.u~,-i_E.t-L c.•Rt".:-"'HO oc"1.uiU :~/_!.f.tri:.'.~-\~----: . .-•-,,·nc_·~ -~ ~_5so(,/ltn ,., .. tTt:I'-, ---·~- ,:,,-:,, i __ _ ,i J ' .. _.....,~~--I \ . I •. , ... "·,r ~ 'r '-;..:- fl ~ R x:p •.pttt.-*-~s t.r:'r-Tr~1 r,~P'f'.~1'.~. . ~ .. · .. -. . , • . . :· I . . . . ' ~>c, .-pw·-t_f.;~ ·~T····; : .. ~Mftti!~·.='':aL1 --.~,~·-:~-~ ... ,_ · . ;~~ -t!-'-n._1e,;9r~:.+~d&<i!>h~"'%\tf-'·· . _, .kl zs( "· ~, *"J .. "" ·,; ~:c,: ," ,·:-.:S:;J" 1c:'.·:~-~~::it, ~~~1~~:~;~j~ .. .i;~c{&' .J '~~c_:,;i(~" -: ... ; '· ' •' ·" ~-,,·'~(;/~'-:'.J>~~; ,'._>~~~; . ~--m '_.__ \ ,fr•~f~t'f ;· -~-~:~:· :~· '.' '~;r:;,.,,, ' . .. :i~\~:1t:::i:~ .... . --;.. ;.ce ... -.,_.; -···----·-·-··--------···-------.-.----.li.....--. ·-------·--·-------'------- ';J '""'""; .,.,. ·-... "''' .... _,...,,,,_ .. ··"·v•_. __ x·_•_·-1··_·_-_ -,_ .. · ,f : ... ... 1 li1 . -:,. ~--____ .--,x~:~1?-· . ---· -"'~- b .. -, .. -. .. ·,<~;~\' :~1~ ,_ ~ "!-·.?..:), ; 11 .. rli, M'r .ftr:25-- 5:;4 !!H-~. 9/ . -· 91$14 2f . :~a~· -.A ~flf-.. . -.------- :·.-/· -:i__.:;._~_-__ , __ ._ .. _._. __ ·_· __ ··--- ' ' ~ · v •• -. ,_;fjp<i)· :lft :"JC p•:104. /'··+# ;; +·iM :c.§;;,,~,-~ ·"'· d ,,. xi, a~, ,+r ·,:; 1 "'&r &ii»tli+· ;,,#a ,, * . ",. i ( hi / NP ff'!;,~ LINC HOTF: ro~ (ON.$fk'IJ°'10N V,~l/5 SEE l)JI/$ IS , .... SEC.£ .SPEOA/.. CaN5T. N(}T£ e, ':WS 3 ·T//snM$ {;CJ;VTt)(J~ Z9 .. ,r ~-CGRR~ rr11 J7tR,;'?,£1) ; -• /, -CO.Ne·. (LILY . -. -: . ----_::"~.. ...:.___ --- ---..L a .... , -___...;,_ =-cc.-r-~ ... -M ...... ·---------- h .,.,. ,, . · I ~ I j co'-! rRAC roR 3J./Ai.t. f I COA/1./ECT n1 ~.t'IST._ . .UN ', J, j ~ -: r ..._ I · 1 I . 1 ·1· .. '\,,.,,_\·,;,,. \ \t ... !I'. '-. / 1· .+• ---.!W-t' ' .. ----' .. ·. . . 1-1. • . --1"1.--,:.:c'-~. -.J \_ ' • . . I.\:: --::-_____ J ~-.,. -. ------. · · ·--·.-1'r ) --< " ... -. \ ... \ ? -~j C ·•- ~-:-e·-==~~=tiieofz---::-~;;,_-:J.r -, (~V <four ECASE.O r~:~ .. . --- ----..--::-·~-t:.:-::---.:: ~~-.=,-----~----7" ,,;,q, 05( " .. -=.·=-~---,a,~=..-~-.:.c..!'~ ?:::::~~ ~=-£.,-__ ----___ .:::_ ____ .,,..;-,-_..;._~ ~-:........-. -~\--:'.'~ _-_-_ __:;~-~ <:~--~ . .:_:_.=_ ~~--~--=-::..~::::-"-==---=~-=-------~--· ......... ~ ----= !:_;~ .. ±~ = ~-~~~;_, _;.,,__..;.~--\;;,:-::--_-;-;;;;;4 .. ,,:,s,c -~=-~~ - c~~· .,, lfl.il_· ~,, ·c' 74 / ---865 ·,........._____ ----".::--... __ ,_ __ --··.· ~-__ .-.=-..~..cc~-;_."!'.:..-·-,;;~·. ~-~· .... : . --~ -· ~-L,IKE >Y.4SH . 5E~ 5P£C C01>dt:~---!!LVD --... ---NOTE e Ol'i/S .!I •BB. .-:~ . ' . . : ~ ~-. -·~------PPOYIOE 2 JroRAI ._; \, \ r, • \:_ 1-.,1 H lf02 -.. "' -. ......______ ·------·--------. . -... ·----c,-. --..~ \·; ------......:....-- ~ NPRr: Jf/WJ.!Ne .'y'W .'.!NE ,. --. L_I .~ ,.• rt--~--l, .. , .. ,._ 1 ---~T?-7 ·t ., :t;·-)-· -.: .t WArt:R WLEf .'!fRUC.TVR/$ \ \' \ 5TA 4r•O,;i,O#-'--... W/ 2 SI{)~ MJ/.Er:1 -l'ACN \ · ,V l~j,,_?.J.J,J;t ::eE $Pe-C CO,V5T #(;Tr,' G \ \ \ -.J[r~r: ttr 1:-·;553.7:n~g SCAL[•K J. \ cQM!:': Cl'l :· t()f,JI( .. 'tC ;N:...: ~ / ! I I -·--~_.... __ • -···-.. " t ;..-.• ... ·-·· ..... -.-· ~·-· .f-· · ±_:: l i J , i I j , P7Pe ::,.e;#-<r...-v~• ,,. _ -· _ • ~--· -____ ,, __ ~ --] .... ·-i-----" --~------··--j-,--. . -~-· ----~ .. ·--t· ' ~ i '. : '. I . ! I . 1· t I I 1· ·-;.. ,. .'. . .s~·, ,tp;r:,' .it, 5/·~"' . . ' . 1 . " . 1 . • • . ' . -~·-• l · ... '· ! :. ' · ·• 1· ,· ,---·r -·:-·: 1· -:::-· -, . vutRA£e<"'fL r" -, . i-! • I 1 --t--'--Pli.O.Ylti£ DJ?'CN. ::ACti S/Dkor.-.P!PEi_ , i , j ; f -•, ~t., !tt~,W J't, !f2'.1"1!f -'. ~ f ;:.~ ---· ·4. ' .. ~.-.. W, •. "''"''_M::_U_W.£.fN.J .. ,-.... : ... ..\--.. i ·t---··---1 ..... "---~.··_.....,...._ •. ·c,y. :t'Le/t:AM41L4 __ .. ··----_, .... C. " 1 ! i 1· : ~tAi "l'-"'0 : ~~l!Wd.5 "'F ~. 1 i t . 1 r · : _:__ --r _ l'}..:;c~//'-r«..· 1'f'/rN; l,lj., . 1 r · _ . · :. --! _., _ ·1 : , : • : . : -_-:-.--, ~-i!"-~ *"'-""-sr :l : l· I -··· ··· · · ·---1-· I · ' · : ' · · ' ·-· : -j · -· . · ,. ·· · ··· t;j. ' : .. ,\' ' I , l · . , . . . _;_ ~ . ; ,,~" .. · .. ~---' .: .. ;_.,....~ .. ...; .. ---~-/....-.>!'/-~.1/r/_-~_ .·.··~-~.:-~-·.,·Y///,',./_T..-,~1""rr.Y.,.,.._-_ .... ~T'/T/)==_;;'<&f-.f_.ffi5_'$1_5_ ~3i:E'.~:~/zfli'---r/,-~:--·, ~ . ..-_.~-· ' .VP!i'>' .l!IW UNI.=, ::It§£ i ·i--- l f . f. -19 . i ··+-.. 1 I. ! • ' ·---1 ! . . ' -i- ·;_;:_·; -~. j c..,,i. ' _ _J. ~ z J =r-·--1 -.--t--·-~·---~r---·:···r--·--r·-···--· -~·-·~l.:·:·T~-1-·~ -. --.,. _ .-. ·--. . ! '! I/JOT;!'. ' . . • ! . ' j . ; ! ~ j . ; 1 i" J ,e~TRf/Crtb,., 1"'1u::J FO,t' ,. ,--I --~£ .. $:'Sr.2'(.J:t.j: .. -.,t, J..-~ L .. ,, .,-"· .. .-' • • V/,.(, . ;;:,~b.. -2;-., ~--r-~-r~1 ~ --,-~ 0 ~ % I . . ' . '//,-' ~ i ···-.. f -.--L : r--l".t'C.A-VA(£' l ·1 i j ,'J/C f :..; ~ -/ .-, t; L.A ~ Zll1./ J!lii:KFU..L r-----y-~ • • t 1 • ~ ~lNi.,r P/i..E tlP 6t.£V~r;o,VS i _:-.'!W"cr:wcnr;E,.'£/Vf~,. '. , . -I --.. -, ----. ----"---i---;----'-;;:.~~-~ ,;_.ft!,. f ;;..r .... ,. ~-~ ... ~~4;nt•j~; rt-: : i ,_:.J ·j}rf I W*.i, i ~ ] . [ _ A/U />#''-'"'lrliAT!PiI ,,; if .,v;~t -; .... · -+--~-··-~ 1 1 r--i--r--.~-·---/ /f/~-:~~rr.· 7// ;:; __ I l { I ----'SU,,,.~<>'·~ AFT/!l?.V I -,........,... • Fxo:m,we -•~-, {,. ' : • • j ! f\1" ' 1 1· Pl4£ TIP rt.ff Ar/OAF :-: ~ . .._jj i ~ ....._~'"Jl"'Of' blr,J"'!VINtM;r: -u;/M,------1-·...+-j : · I .,,,,.., 6fP. ,.,,,, -',PCC,>'.) • • ~"' • . . -• I ,, ' i ,-, ; r -"-I -T -i"' : ! '-!!., ·i:---~ .f, ENGU.EERS C~[ ,_.,,,,[' 11;R-,&11i{tlt A"~ eri:.t: AJff/ ll!5-ClC•M~~ f~•HU lln-t:'~ --r .·!.-' ·.--1 -; · --. '~ _ ·+-• --~ ' ,-.,_, . .;.c _,()O 42f09-·~(ip .p.HXJ MUNICIPALITY. OF -· ~:,_~· ~,...,.._._.,., , .,._,.,.~ni· ¥.!'. •H?IO.oi;~rn """"'-'"lO 'k"' . . ~. ' l f • •-, I •4 M-2 : .. · . St, < ::;:: QO ::~(JO ROI TON SYSTEM --r:·: -j···· Stacy Tucker -Seahawks Hdqtrs Proje ' From: eileen <skyleen@tx3.net> To: <ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us>, <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us>, <nmcquiller@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 07/10/20061:43:32 PM Subject: Seahawks Hdqtrs Project July 10, 2006 To: E.Higgins, Sr Planner, Planning Dept Renton City Council Members Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Liaison Re: Seahawks Hdqtrs Project From: Eileen Halverson Misty Cove owner 5021 Ripley Ln N I would like to address the issue of roads, Lk Wash & Ripley Ln, in regards to this project & recent development approval for 115 units at the Cuguini property. The information provided to date is the City is committing $550,000. to improve Ripley Ln for the Seahawks development. The newest mailing concerning road changes involves 405 interchange of 44th Ave. To my knowledge, nothing has been mentioned about improving Lk Wash (Blvd?) by expansion to a 3 lane or better a 4 lane street to accommodate the increasing residential development allowed by this city. Currently the 2 lane road of 25 mph max is for an idealic scenic lane, not for commuters from the ever expanding residential use and now a sports facility (estimating 175 cars daily for normal operation not counting special functions). The back log at the 7-9 am hrs along Lk Wash to access Hy 405 is only destined to be worse with the approved additional residents now mixed w/175 +-cars daily exiting and later accessing Lk Wash and Ripley Ln. As it is presently, Renton keeps approving additions to this area without ANY road improvements to Lk Wash by the developers before the land is fully developed. We know that future road expansion is far more costly, disruptive and long overdue when it finally addressed & when the area will no longer tolerate heavily congested traffic. I would like to request this city include road expansion to both Lk Wash & Ripley Ln before these Seahawks permits are approved. The Cuguini development should be required to be included on the Lk Wash road expansion since they directly impact it. The city plan of maintaining a 2 lane road along the lake at 25 mph was inadequate 3 condo buildings ago and will be even more so for the near future. It is timely to upgrade it sufficently to accommodate the expansion of the multi use you have and are looking to approve with the Seahawks land. Lastly to the road issue, Ripley Ln has been under maintained for the repeated flooding during rains. The last period left the road impassable, as it has in the past. Calls to the city road dept. were not responded to and 2 residents of Misty Cove took it upon themselves to clear the oversize off road drain. Because of their efforts, the water subsided making for a usable road. The city has known this road is problematic for years. When Ripley Ln improvements are planned for this Seahawks facility, we the long term residents would look to this poor run off problem be corrected for all of us. Page 1 Stacy Tucker -Seahawks Hdqtrs Proje-+ Seahawks building and screening: The presentation provided by the Sea hawks showed 11 O' high building and similar screening trees between the common property line with Misty Cove Condos. With both a 8 (estimate) story building and tall trees (whether they use existing trees or tall poplars shown in the preliminary design) will mean a significant reduction in light to the east end and south side of Misty Cove building. Please address this loss to a 40 yr building which have been and are the homes to numerous city residents. It cannot be underestimated how the size of Seahawks building and their intentions to screen out any view to their property will take away light to Misty Cove and create a building shadow in its place. Additionally, it will eliminate most of the view to the south. I object to the height & location of the building and intended screening. It will deprive Misty Cove of what has been part of these homes since it was built. I request the City of Renton, in their quest for fast track permit approval for the Seahawks, protect existing property owners rights. We have improved the Misty Cove property over several years and we do not want to loose the light, view and appeal of being on Lk Washington just because the city is eager to add a sports facility within it city limits. Please add my name to the notification list of residents regarding the Sea hawks project and the roads discussed. Eileen Halverson 16226 Crystal Dr E Enumclaw Wash 98022 skyleen@tx3.net 360 663 2433 Page 2 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 23, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA 06-073, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Seattja Sea hawks Training Faciliti, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattie Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 ac~ (857,4n sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former 1,mbar p.ocessing facility localed on the shore of Lake Washington m Northeast Renton. The pro1ect propoMnt has submitted a land use master application requeosting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the projects proximity lo Lake Washington The reques1ed action requires environmental revieW by the c,ty of Renton in accordance with the Slate Environmental Polrcy Act \SEPA). PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNll'JCANCE, MITIGATED (DNS•M): As the Le.id Ag1mcy, the City of Ren loll has determined that signmcarrt environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefo,e, as p,:,rmitted under the RCW 43.21C 110, the City of Renton IS using \he Optional DNS-M process lo give notice that a DNS- M ,s likely to be issued. Commen1 periods for the proiect and the proposed DNS-M are integrated Into a single comment period There will oe no comment period following the issuance o1 the Threshold O..term1nation of Non-Sign,ficance- Mit,gatad (ONS-M) A 14--'111:1)1 appeal p,:riod will follow the issuance of the DNS-M PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 9. 2006 June 23. 2006 APPl.lCANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON; Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company; Tel: !206) 342-2000; Eml: rayc@Vulcan.com Permits/Review Requntad: Envlronmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Suhatantlal Development Permit other Perm I~ which may be .. qulNld: Master Plan approval and Sita Plan Revlew Requaste-d Studlea: Wetland Oallnaallon, Transportation Analy1IG, Gaot1chnlcal Repo<1, and Water Quallty/Stormwatar Analysis. Loc1tlon where appll~atlon may 1H ,.viewed: Planning/Building/Public Worke Department, Developmunt Servlcn Division, Sl•th Floor Renton Clty Hall, 1055 So1,1th Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: NIA CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land UH/Zoning: Envlronmenlal Doeurnent,, that Evaluate the Propoaed Projeet: DaYeloprnent Regulations U&ed For Projed Mitigation: The subject s1\8 1s designated CommerciaVOffice/Res1dent1al on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and ComrnerciaVOffice/Residential 2 {COR-2) on the City's Zoning Map Environmental (SEPA) Che,:klist Th& project will be subj8CI to the City's SEPA or<.linance, RMC 4-3.QSO, Critical Areas Regulations and other appl1cablo, codes and regulations as appropriate Propoaed Mitigation Measures: The following M1hga~on Measuro,s will likely be ;mposed on the proposed proJect These recommended Mitigat,on Measures address proiect ,mpactl not cover&d by e,,1sling cocas and regulabons as c,ted above Adliaronce to snoro!ine setback roquiremenls. Adherence to surface waler managem,;nt roquirements; Payment off/!(, appropna!e Transpo!fation Ml/lga/1on Fee, and Peymiml of the appropriela Firo M,tiga/ion Fee Commenlll on the aboye application m1,1at be submitted In writing to Elizabeth Higgin•. So1lor Planner, Oevelopm1nt service& DMslon, 1oss. Soulh Grad)' Wwy, Ranton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on Jul)' 10, 2008. If you have quastiollS about tMs proposal. or wish to be made a party of record ;;md _receive additional notlf1catlon bf ma,I. contact the Project Mana{ler Anyone who submits written comments will iwtomaticalljl become a party of record alld will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Ellzabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6576; Eml: ehlgglns@d.renton.wa.us 11 you would like 10 tie made a party of record to receive further i11forma~o11 on this proposed project, complete this lorm and return to: Crty of Renton, Development Plannirig, 1055 So. Grady Way, R11nton, WA 98055 Name/File No Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, SM, ECF NAME· MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO CERTIFICATION DATE: z;a c/vwe 24tP'- - CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 23rd day of June, 2006, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Ltr, NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Reoresentina Agencies See Attached Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company Owner/ApplicanVContact Micheal Cero Party of Record Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender'.: '.?1b{?!;J Jt,{C../c,Ly- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF KING ) Project Name: Seahawks Training Facility Project Number: LUAOB-073, SM, ECF template -affidavit of service by mailing Dept. of Ecology • Environmental Review Section PO Box47703 Olvmoia. WA 98504-7703 WSDOT Northwest Region ' Attn: Ramin Pazooki King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers • Seattle District Office Attn: SEPA Reviewer PO Box C-3 755 Seattle, WA 98124 Jamey Taylor• Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. Attn: SEPA Section 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Renton. WA 98055-1219 Metro Transit Senior Environmental Planner Gary Kriedt AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) WDFW -Stewart Reinbold • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. • c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer 3190 160'" Ave SE 39015-172"' Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn. WA 98092 Duwamish Tribal Office• Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program • 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"' Avenue SE Auburn. WA 98092-9763 KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Office of Archaeology & Historic Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation• Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olymoia, WA 98504-8343 City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director 13020 SE 72"' Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. • Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERG Determination paperwork. template -affidavit of service by mailing I 334330288005 CROSETIO FRED A 5025 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 292405900203 QUENDALL TERMINALS PO BOX 477 RENTON WA 98055 292405901508 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY C/0 VULCAN INC 505 5TH AV S #900 SEATILE WA 98104 334330300008 THOMAS DAVID L+SUZANNE E 5029 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 292405901201 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 90868 BELLEVUE WA 98009 334330287502 WILLARD RICK+RENEE 5031 RIPLEY LN N RENTON WA 98056 ~y o."~· ~& . . !R . ~~~cf(J~ NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: June 23, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA 06-073, SM, ECF PROJECT NAME: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the project's proximtty to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As tile Lead Agency, tile City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under tile RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton Is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment perif',-1 followlng the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the Issuance of tile DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 9, 2006 June 23, 2006 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company; Tel: (206) 342-2000; Eml: raye@vulcan.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Other Permits which may be required: Master Plan approval and Site Plan Review Requested Studies: Wetland Delineation, Transportation Analysis, Geotechnlcal Report, and Water Quallty/Stonnwater Analysis. Location where appllcatlon may be reviewed: Planntng/Bulldlng/Public Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: NIA CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use/Zoning: Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The subject site is designated Commercial/Office/Residential on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential 2 (COR-2) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental (SEPA) Checklist The project will be subject to tile City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. Adherence to shoreline setback requirements; Adherence to surface water management requirements; Payment of the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; and • Payment of the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee. Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6576; Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton. Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, SM, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CIT' OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E~ Administrator June 23, 2006 Ray Colliver Port Quendall Company 505 5th Avenue S #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Subject: Seahawks Training Facility LUA06-073, SM, ECF Dear Mr. Colliver: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on July 18, 2006. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-6576 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner cc: Michael Gero/ Party of Record _______ 10_5_5_S_ou_th_G_r-ad_y_W_a_y---R-en_t_on-.-W-as-h-in_g_to_n_9_80_5_5 ______ ~ 6R, This oaoerconteins 50% rec:vt'.IAfi mAfAliAI ~O"/n n=trnns:;11mAr AHEAD OF THE CURVE ~ >1G VULCAN fl",. TRANSMITTAL Date: June 9, 2006 To: Jennifer Henning Company: City of Renton Address: 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7286 cc: Ray Colliver, Project File We are sending: D Attached 18] Originals [gl Copies D Samples D Olher Comments: From: Re: Phone: Pages: Tai Fowler Master Land Use and Shoreline Permit Application 206-342-2529 1 original -12 copies Action required: 18] Information and use 18] As indicated below 0 Review and comment D For signature and return D As requested 0None Please find attached one original and 12 copies with reduced plans for Master Land Use and Shoreline permit of the Baxter Properties for Development of the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters. The initial lodging of this permit has been agreed to contain the following information: Master Use Application, Project Narrative, Environmental Checklist, Preliminary Site Plan, Conceptual Grading Plan, Conceptual Grading Plan with Existing Topography in background, Conceptual Utility and Drainage Control Plan, Vicinity Map, Wetland Mitigation Plan and Map (Wet Lands are delineated on all Conceptual Plans), Wetland Determination Report, and Mitigation Analysis Memo. We are also including, DOE's Partial Certificate of Completion of the clean up at the Baxter South Parcel, and Preliminary Strom Water Technical Information Memo. Please feel free to contact me or Ray Colliver, Project Contact, with any questions you may have. Originals sent via: Method Copies sent via: Method 505 Fifth Ave S Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 206 342 2000Tel 206 342 3000 Fax VULCAN.COM • May 22, 2006 Ms Jennifer Toth Henning Principal Planner Development Services Division - Development/Planning Renton City Hall -6'h Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 ---------/,.,/ _,.. .. ' ' \ i... C:PIAW,-OAO ,.-------, ' ' ', ',. _______ ,,' ,1'/ ,, ,' ________ .. - Re: Baxter Development Project -Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Dear Jennifer: Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Shoreline Substantial Development Perntit outlined by the City of Renton, the Design Team and Owner lists the following as our understanding of the deliverables required by the City to process the Shoreline permit: Documents: (12 copies) • Environment Checklist • Master Application • Narrative (including construction mitigation) Drawings: 12 copies, each reduced to 8 Yi x 11 (I original+ 11 copies) • Site Plan • Topography Map • Utilities Plan • Vicinity Map (We'll use the reduced zoning map) • Wetland Mitigation Plan and Map Perntitting Fees: $1,500 for the two reviews which the Owner will submit at the time of submittal. Page 1 Seattle Seahawks Practice Facility Crawford Architects LLC 1901 Main Street-Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 (816) 421 2640 telephone (816) 421 2650 facsimile We understand all other requirements listed in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit checklist will be waived per the March 23 meeting with Neil Watts and subsequent meeting with the City of Renton on May 8. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions and or comments. Sincerely, CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC David M. Murphy, AIA, NCARB Partner CC: Neil Watts, City of Renton Chuck Wolfe, Chuck Wolfe Law Roger Pierce, Foster Pepper Tai Fowler, Vulcan Ray Colliver, Vulcan Brian Powers, Crawford Page2 Seattle Seahawks Practice Facility Crawford Architects LLC 1901 Main Street-Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 (816) 421 2640 telephone (816) 421 2650 facsimile SEATTLE S.,,AHAWKS Voucher Number 0000000091554 l··u·IN . . City of Renton Invoice Number 05/08/06 Invoice Date 05/08/2006 TOTALS: Payment Number 0000000102808 Outstanding Amt $1,500.00 Net Paid Amt $1,500.00 Check Date May 8, 2006 Discount Taken $.00 $.00 Check Number 001678 f I Write Off Net ~ Amt $.00 $1(500.00 $.00 Printed: 06-09-2006 Payment Made: rYOFRENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUAOS-073 06/09/2006 08:45 AM Receipt Number: Total Payment: 1,500.00 Payee: SEATTLE SEAHAWKS Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #001678 1,500.00 Account Balances Amount 500.00 1,000.00 Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits 5955 000.05.519.90.42.l Postage 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 R0602888