Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisca u� K J U J N 3AY x Nd s Q i n \ 6�_ m YN o� s S 3AY NffK S 3AY ST13M S 3AY SVMIIVA F VJ ff N s 3nv 11�r�na v N N W 0 AA31143d NV 1d 73136 - sh LCONVWNOINS[ d I Hff1659ANSV-1-11VYCD ooF d ' ' D E 7f�f dd %-L8i1 1i1 0 m ul LL,�a ANVN81-1 NalN38 t3� Z ;} �§ ',• J ✓ J � � f ,'l�fl iJf , .tet �' � "�f� r `� ' ��s ,• a$P fir'':' 62 . LU f �^r f ;;rte' .is:- �( / :� }..'•1 ` Jill [I�� ��� } i !�' � i� �' r`,� : • �' �' ._: meq, a Pei r ��/i `\. �� �7 �� .`�5 � l � ■tel P 71.� + � LU f �^r f ;;rte' .is:- �( / :� }..'•1 ` Jill [I�� ��� } i !�' � i� �' r`,� : • �' �' ._: meq, a M3fA43i Nv'ld SEI$ i� s• x � o � Z �f_�F.� v _ � �LSD6GtlM'ND13a32iH.ltY�5�nN3nvnlrvool. aha i 1 aCL � 'ice X8Vd ,1L2i38f1 lb r -1 NOIN31i ,s_ s I { s f xx g H J I L a(01 ME Poir F 4 C t �M , ------ --- , I � v j LU L.� yf ' cdll � �E• \ 4 1 :J ._iii ex i , -.:. L IQ €'nisi `4� � F:g�. IN ±\ it ^"•I �--�y -: - N^oSerxa�YN+y! yE- _S Y F ��_ ;% •� do $ MMA3H NVId 31tS F Q - �� sa��i ° '_ � ��, Gsoaednn'rh71N3a�w.nos�nrr�ne�-{IwonF ��� = I � NZlb d All:mia 1 t si s M �` f � � � SIS' I I ll[ jf { I I Y � 1pJ Y ♦ ii �• Q 4 � -q— � I � i I � J Y t SPW � ' f 5 ho - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 17, In ;x; [[ may{ r. t .• f � p ori �S1c�'�o_ �.� 4Ir LLI__`SCS;; .. .'n . / 'Jl J . 4 Mfr �` p:�'f r '^ �}• -�.3w/� �7 .,ti � - f�IL �aD J F If [ s •r�,o--:�F :' r-- 'rte � _ _ --- _ •-:.-a _ � _ _ � W e.;R tit Jl! I I M3[Aa2J MVld SIJ$ Q Q O € F : LURE bu. `No --sti I ti_nos3nM3AYniw oc� a O nL NMVd )1233811-.V - z h- .kUVNSII ND1N32i i 1 'a `n ac-_ .� Q v � ' i ac-_ .� Q v � ' / c o P. Li tu cG EG Yj x W iLOZ'a L'S' �d 3.US iia=q g � AAMA3Z! N'd- ANQ s,. - 1 � - 6i ,i � � LS0$6'dhA 'M{117� LIIHif1Q53flLF3Ab '371iV 404 I j � aarrd ua�g� r lv ,� L) C1 �- AN"1311 NOIN38 1 U € _ i m 14 ®❑0 t) ui f•. �� �` ^�.�,� % rte. '�=. 777 rr, : - -e Lu CA ` — - —1 \ u "s`i vY ES173L-5 c 14L31113a NV -1d RJ.1$ C: r y � d` t f C3 {{ Ls,m6 VM'NO.LN3a ! HLr,os 3nN�nv riYv ao� f= � of9t i JE ' )iNvd AIUA30-1 IV Y M w CL 0 1 t Na.1 N3�# z za3= 0 r- � D 3 r if�+ C: r c t f a {{ , f= of9t i JE 1 t 0 r- � D 3 r if�+ C: r c t f 9 , ... ............ ------------ AAAklad NV-ld 31150 QWilij C%4 NMVcl ),L'8381-1 IV m lkaVMSII NOINAN LU t J6 d C: 0 4� CQ) CC ct- I 7-2 U e�ort1sMgtA-4�1 sig w A.t �52 N" ADS Y i Z cq Fd '4i z• �. tsoae vm,No.w:-b I H MOS i3nra3nd i uw cet q r 1 e. a MVd AIU30FI 1V 3o q m 1 - ANVN811 No1N3M U C) 0 .� 4 i - k b U (D-- � ? OWNS M3A38 NV-ld aES I'MRSVWHOIND8 j RLMS2fJNaAV-IIIY4XL NUVdUM71SIl IV . AbVU1311 NOIN3M j LU y€gid: ii? UOUN'S m —UJ Cf] fS!_ seg (do M31h32irr,d X115 I - O O M �mz n o Lu f ?l2fdd1�f3f�8f1 11f r X 0 E LU LU m, s co 2 X W 0 0 a CC UjUj Q fCmL W Ul co 2 X W a UjUj S M 6 <! 1 �Z�y L g J S � � 9 z L co 2 X W 41 IT 41� Ak. 'j 17TV its 01 AS 0 Ij 41 .6 IT 41� AS 0 Ij .6 �},, _ 5 t ME� r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �1,e'ity ❑f 10a, (M��� - ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATI0N OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) PROJECT" NUMBER: LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H EXHIBIT 14 APPLICANT: Greg Smith, King County Library Systern PROJECT NAME: Renton Library at Liberty Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the remodel of the existing Renton Main Library located at 100 Mill Ave. S_ The 22,400 SF library is currently constructed over the Cedar River and is located across three different parcels including. Liberty Park and the parking lot on the south side of the Cedar River. Overall, the area of work would impact 37,630 SF and the remodeled library would be 19,680 SF following renovations. The site's zoning is primarily Center Downtown (CD). The proposed improvements to the building would include seismic upgrades, demolition of -existing building envelope, and installation of new envelope and associated site improvements. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed. All but one tree is proposed to be retained. The applicant submitted the following studies with the application: a Stream Study and Habitat Data Report, Regulated Material Survey, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Technical Information Report, The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone I, flood hazard area, Shoreline of the state and a habitat conservation area. PROJECT LOCATION: 100 Mill Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions. were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4- 9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on'this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 5, 2013. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-5-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: June 21, 2013 DATE OF DECISION: June 17, 2013 SIGNATURES: Gregg Zi m rrffa Administrator Mark Peterso , Administrator Public Work D artrnent Date Fire &Emergency Services Date S Terry Higashiyama, Administrator C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Admin��A 1 istra Community Services Department Date Department of Community & Economic Date Development DEPARTMENT OF.COMMUNITY Q city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT'' DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000255, ECF, 5M, SA -H APPLICANT. Greg Smith, King County Library System PROJECT NAME: Renton Library at Liberty Park PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the remodel of the existing Renton Main Library located at 1.00 Mill Ave, S. The 22,400 SF library is currently constructed over the Cedar River and is located across three different parcels including Liberty Park and the parking lot on the south side of the Cedar River. Overall, the area of work would impact 37,630 SF and the remodeled library would be 19,680 SF following renovations_ The site's zoning is primarily Center Downtown (CD). The proposed improvements to the building would include seismic upgrades, demolition of existing building envelope, and installation of new envelope and associated site improvements. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed. All but one tree is proposed to be retained. The applicant submitted the following studies with the application: a Stream Study and Habitat Data Report, Regulated Material Survey, Geotechnical Engineering Study, Technical Information Report, The site is located in the Aquifer Protection Zone 1, flood hazard area, Shoreline of the state and a habitat conservation area. PROJECT LOCATION: 100 Mill Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1.. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Stream Study and Habitat Data Report, prepared byTalasaea Consultants, Inc., dated February 28, 2013 and revised May 10, 2013. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Geo Engineers, dated December 20, 2012. 3. The applicant shall design and place lighting so that it is shielded'from impacting the Cedar River and atthe same time balances necessary lighting for site safety standards. Ln CalH H X W ADIVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m, and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (5:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit 4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPIDES) permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared. S. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained. 6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link ternporary construction fencing around the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees. Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty feet (SO') indicating the words, "NO TRESPASSING — Protected Trees" or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment ortrucks are moving near trees. Plan Review — SanitarySewer: 1. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is an 8 -inch sewer main in Mill Avenue South with a manhole at the intersection with South 2nd Street. The existing sewer service connection extends southerly to this main. 2, The project is required to cut and cap the existing side sewer at the property line as part of the demolition permit. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 4 A new side sewer is shown on the preliminary drawings and shall be installed to the updated building as condition of the building permit. Plan Review—Storm Drainage: 1. The FEMA approved 100 -year base flood elevation at the Renton Library over the Cedar River is elevation 39.62 based upon the NAVD 88 Datum per the FEMA approved 2006 Cedar River Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Case No. 06-10-1359613. 2. The Library is located over the floodway of the Cedar River and any work within the floodplain or the floodway would have to comply with City adopted flood hazard regulations in the Critical Areas Ordinance and FEMA Nationa[ Flood Insurance Program regulations. This also includes compliance with the National Marine Fisheries Biological Opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives regarding the National Flood Insurance Program compliance with the Endangered Species Act, as they relate to development in the FEMA floodplain. 3. FEMA regulations require that when a structure is located in the 100 -year floodplain, any substantial improvements (i.e. when cost of improvements exceeds 50% of the appraised value of the structure) require the structure to be brought up to current floodplain development standards. Any improvements within the floodplain or floodway, such as placement of fill, piers or supports as part of the seismic retrofit work within the floodplain or floadway, will need to comply with FEMA floodplain requirements. 4. The applicant must show the 100 -year base flood elevation (39.62 NAVD 88 Datum) on the construction plans. 5. A drainage plan and drainage report was submitted with the site plan application. The report complies with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments'to the KCSWM, Chapters 1 and 2. A final T1R is required with the building permit. Plan Review — Transportation/Street: A 12 -foot sidewalk with cut-outs for street trees is not required to be constructed with the project. 2. A traffic study was not required for this project as the use is the same with a smaller building. Plan Review —General Comments: 1. All construction utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. Separate permits are required for the water meter installation, side sewer connection, and storm water connection. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Nates Page 3 of 4 Fire: 1_ The fire hydrant and fire flow requirements for the proposed library are adequate as they exist. 2. The existing automatic fire sprinkler system will be required to be modified for any tenant improvement work. 3. The existing fire department apparatus access roads are adequate. 4. The existing automatic fire alarm system shall be replaced with an all new system as the existing system cannot meet current fire code requirements. System shall be fully addressable and full detection is required. 5. Exiting shall meet all'current building and fire code requirements. Polite: Recommendations: Due to the renovation vs. new construction, this review would be better served by a security survey following the completion of the improvement project. CFS would remain about the same since there will be no additional structural space added_ ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 4 Agencies See Attached Maaike Post Contact Greg Smith Applicant City of Renton Owner David Keyes Party of Record Teri Nallauer Party of Record Beth Asher Party of Record (Signature of Sender): GRA 'it STATE OF WASNfNGTON j ti 55 �,otAp��Loa'pf f c COUNTY OF KING fz 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker 114r+ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act f�11I i�` s,�3�nd purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: [ Nota Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): �.i A _ A- (-&i, �r My appointment expires: A t j D -L RentonLibrary at Liberty ParkN .�.-.:� raz"�+ •�1�.®R template - affidavit of service by mailing rl F.. Fy Cal X vd AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ** WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckle -shoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. " Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Wafter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 r -d Avenue SE Olympia, WA98504-7703 Auburn, WA 93092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program ° Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn_ Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172 d Avenue SE Pp Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp, of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* e [3istrictDfEice —Enrirornnentai-PlamringsAttn_-Cmtclimi l Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 985D4-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seatbe, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv_ City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn_ Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98DSS-1279 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Tra nsit Puget Sound Energy City of TukvAla Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Jae Jainga 62DO Southcenter Blvd, 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98D09-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 3 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the Notice of Application. **Department of Ecology Is emailed a copy of the Environmental Checklist, Site Plan PMI", & Notice to the following email address: sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov template - affidavit of service by marling Vanessa Dolbee From: Griffith, Greg (DAHP) <Greg.Griffith@DAHP_WA.GOV> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:26 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP); Kramer, Stephen ie'(DAHP) Subject: Library Comment Letter Attachments: 1053_001.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thank you Vanessa for taking the time to talk about the attached letter in pdf format. I appreciate your consideration of our comments, which we understand come to you after the SEPA comment time period has envied. Let Gretchen or myself know if you have any follow-up questions. Thanks Greg Griffith Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Washington State Dept_ of Archaeology & Historic Preservation 360-586-3073 oreg.griffthCcDdaha.wa.gav My regularly scheduled office hours are Monday thrd Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm The Washington State Historic Preservation Plan is being updated. Contact me to get involved! I s IN H CID H x W PXRT,vi T OF tiRCtiiQ�OGY & MTOM PRESERVAT 014 ,lune 25, 2013 Greg Smith King County Library System 980 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Vanessa Dolbee, Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 062013 -03 -KI Property: Renton Library - LUA 13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H Re: Archaeology - Survey Requested Dear Mr. Smith and Ms. Dolbee Myson Brooks Ph.D., Director $tote Historic Preservation Officer City of Renton Planning Division JUN 2 6 2013 IRE60"IE V IED We have received the City of Renton's DNS -M materials for the proposed project referenced above. Question #13 of the SPPA checklist was missing information relevant to your review of the project. There are 10 reeoded archaeological and historical resources within one mile of the project area, and several within less than'/ mile. Seven of these are archaeological sites and/or cemeteries. The Cedar River area has extremely high potential for archaeological resources. In the past, you may remember other projects in Renton that encountered archaeological resources during construction and experienced delays, including the High School and Henry Moses Aquatic Center. In order to avoid such complications during this project, a- professional archaeological survey of the project area should be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities_ This will identify and archaeological resources present and allow you to make plans to appropriately avoid, protect or conduct mitigation if Impacts are necessary. We also recommend consultation with the concerned Tribes' cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. In addition to the comments above regarding archaeological resources,' we note that the existing library building has drawn DAHP's interest from a historic architectural standpoint in being a good example of mid -20n' Century modem architecture and landscape architecture. in the post - World War II era, the Library's modernist style and bold pian spanning the Cedar River clearly evoked the image of Renton as a grooving, progressive city. As a result of the building being a good local example of this style and time -period, UAHP also recommends the Library Board, the City, and other interested partners explore ways to capture the building's contribution to local history into planning for the new building. This could happen through interpretive displays, landscaping, art, and perhaps recycling building elements in the Library's plans. State of Washington ► Department of Archaeology & Hisforic Preservation afy P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia. Washington 9850448343 • (W) 586-3065 _ www.dahp.wa.gov 9. r% ' rl H m H X W In closing, just a reminder that if any federal funds or permits are involved, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, (as amended), and Its implementing regulations, 36CFR800, must be followed. This is a separate process from SEPA and requires formal government -to - government consultation with the affected Tribes and this agency. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we .look forward to receiving the survey report. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 886-3088 or Gretchen.Kaehler0daha.wa.ciov. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Local Governments Archaeologist (360) xW3088 Gretchen-.kaehlerfe7dshp.wa.gov cc: Laura Murphy Steve Mullen -Mases Dennis Lewarch Cecite Hansen Charlie Sundberg Phil Letourneau State of Washington - Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, WasNngton 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 T www.dcihp.wa.gov Vanessa Dolbee From: Chris Moore <cmoore a@preservewa.org> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 9:40 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject, Renton Library Attachments: 062013-03-KI_062013. pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Vanessa, E)CHI81T 17 d '�b Would you please forward the message below, with the attachment, to Chip Vincent. The only email I could find for him was an online form that does not allow attachments. He should have received the text below, but I'd like him to see the attached letter as well. And one other question for you— with the in -water work proposed for the library, has the Army Corps of Engineers been contacted to determine if a permit is needed from them? Thanks Vanessa — I'm sure we'll touch base when I'm back in the office on July 1. Best, Chris Hi Chip, Sorry to be emailing on a Friday night, but I am out of town next week and wanted to be sure you received this message. When we spoke on Wednesday I mentioned that my interest in the Renton Library project was based on inquiries we received regarding the historic nature of the building. Under question 13 on the SEPA checklist, the question dealing with historic and cultural resources, the form indicated that none were present on the site. Yet yesterday I was copied on a letter from the state historic preservation office to the Friends of Cedar River Library that the library, along with the surrounding park and civic campus, is eligible for listing in the National register of Historic Places (as 1 am unable to attach the letter to this form email, I will send it to Vanessa). Given this, it would be our hope that efforts were made to rehabilitate the existing library in a manner that is historically appropriate and would retain the structure's National Register -eligibility. Short of this, we would at least expect the MDNS for the project to be revised to include mitigation measures for loss of the historic structure. Such measures should include, but are not limited to, documentation of the library and National Register -eligible site, retention of certain features of the library, including character -defining features present in the interior, and a survey of other post-war resources in Renton to better understanding the legacy of the city's built environment. As mentioned, I will be returning to my office July 1. I'd be happy to discuss these ideas further at that time. Best, 1 Chris Moore Field Director WA Trust for Historic Preservation CHRIS MOORE I HELD DIRECTOR WASHINGTON TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION STIMSON-GREEN MANSION 1204 MINOR AVENUE SEATTLE, WA 98101 206,624,9449 (0) 206,930,5067 (C) 205_6242410 jF) cmoore@preservewa.org a tww.preservewa.org 2 MR RTAhEf fT OF ` HAEOLOGY & iii ORIC PRESERVATION Nicola Robinson, "treasurer Citizens to Save the Cedar River Library PO Box 1483 Renton, WA 58057-1483 In future correspondence please refer to: Log; 062013 -03 -KI Property: Renton Library & City Hall - DOE Re: Determined Eligible Dear Ms. Robinson: City of Renton Planning Division, i7 - V;, , 1111.11 Of L Allyson Brooks Ph.D.. Director State Historic Preservation Officer June 20, 2093 Thank you for contacting our office. This is a follow up to your request to evaluate the eligibility of the downtown library building in Renton for potential listing on the National Register of Historic Places. After touring the site and conducting some additional research on my end regarding the construction of the library, I have determined that the building is ELIGIBLE for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. While the structure is not quite 50 years old, I believe that the building has exceptional significance in terms of its direct connection to the growth and development of the city of Renton in the post WWII era, as well as being a representative example of the noted architectural local architectural firm of Johnson -Campanella, who greatly shaped the built environment in Renton during the mid to late 20"' century. Note that the library is eligible as part of a larger complex (a small historic district) which includes the said building, the City Hall and the surrounding landscape elements designed by noted landscape architect Glen Hunt. I look forward to working with you on your effort to develop a National Register nomination for these properties. if listed, these. would be the first National Register listed resources in Renton; an exciting prospect. National Register listing is strictly honorary with the goal of raising the public profile, celebrating the history, and formally documenting the building(s). Also note that for publically owned properties, owner consent is not required for listing_ These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michael Houser State Architectural Historian (360) 586-3076 michael.hou r dah .wa. ov CC: Chris Moore, WA Trust For Historic Preservation CArk• State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation T P.O. Box 4$343 • Olympia, Washington 98504$343 + (360) 586-3065 2 G www.dahp.wa.gov H H C0 H X W --- - Q, 07/30/2013 Ir ARTMENT OF HAEaLOGY & Allyson Brooks Ph.D, Director ORIC PRESERVATION State Historic Presenollon Officer rm4err Mk Fall, Shope the slum TUE 11:25 FAX rZool/001 Nicola Robinson, Treasurer July 30, 2013 Citizens to Save the Cedar River Ubrary Pr] Box 1483 Renton, WA 98057-1483 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 062013.03 -KI Property: Renton Library & City Hall - DOE Re: Determined Eligible Dear Ms. Robinson: This Is a follow up to your request to elaborate the eligibility of the downtown library building in Renton for potential listing on the National Register of Historic Places. My initial assessment that the building was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was reached after touring the site with you on March 28, 2013. While the library is not quite 50 years old, In my opinion the building has significance in terms of its direct connection to the growth and development of the city of Renton in the post WWII era, as well as being a representative example of a noted'l000l architectural firm. Important character defining features of the library include the spanning of the building across the river, the public access to the building on the Cedar River side via a bridge (rather than from the land), the exterior curtain wall system, and the integration of art into the interior design of the building. The design is certainly unique in Washington Stats and offers the city an exceptional opportunity to celebrate their heritage for future generations. Please note that" library is eligible as part of a larger complex (a small historic district) which includes the said building, the City Hail and the surrounding landscape elements designed by noted landscape architect Gien Hunt. I have yet to fully review the submitted National Register nomination(s) for the complex but hope to accomplish this later this week or the early part of next week, These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment, Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Michael Houser State Architectural Historian (360) 586-3076 michasl.houss ah .wa. ov EXHIBIT 17, D CC: City of Renton State of Washington • D"mrfrnent of Archaeology & Hlsladc fresewallon P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504,8343 + (360) 586-3065 www.dahp.wa.gov C Vanessa Dolbee, EXHIBIT 18 From: Karen Walter <KWalter@muckleshootnsn.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:16 PM To: Vanessa Dalbee Fisher, Larry D (DFW) Subject: Renton Libraryat Liberty Park, LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H, Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated Fallow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Vanessa, We have reviewed the Notice of Application materials for the Renton Library redevelopment project referenced above_ This project will remodel the existing library located over the Cedar River. When we met with City staff and the consulting team in February 2013, we identified several issues for this project as noted below and offer recommendations where we can based on the information reviewed to date: Artificial lighting- The checklist and the Critical Areas Report (CAR) discuss how the project will seek to reduce artificial lighting impacts in several ways. In addition to the measures proposed, we also recommend that the City use light bulbs which reduce artificial lighting -opportunities to the Cedar River or nighttime sky. Previously, we provided information to City public Works staff about potential light bulb options that could be used. We also request a copy of the detailed site lighting plan for our review which is proposed to be part of the final construction plans. 2, Stormwater- We need additional information about the details as to how stormwater will be managed from . redeveloped site, particularly for water quality. We request a copy of the Technical Information Report which likely contains the stormwater management details. 3. Wood management plan- At the February meeting, we indicated that the site should develop a wood management plan to deal with any wood that may approach or be entrained by the existing concrete piling in the Cedar River. This issue was not addressed in CAR. Wood management is needed to ensure that wood is not removed from the Cedar River or its banks unless it is absolutely necessary. Wood is shown being near the site from the photos the City provided in February. Wood may no longer be on or adjacent to the site with winter floods; however, the City should plan on wood transported to and through the site with time and future floods. It is timely to develop a wood management plan now as part of the redeveloped. library. Please note that Boeing developed a wood management plan for its Cedar River bridges. We recommend that the City review it for applicability to the library site_ 4. Gabion baskets- We understand that there is no bank work or modifications to the existing gabion baskets used to stabilize the river banks located on the site.. Gabion baskets are subject to failure when exposed to streambed scour flows, requiring require repair or replacement with some regularity. When they fail, they can adversely affect fish habitat by adding angular rock to the stream channel that can create beneficial habitat spaces for sculpin and other salmon predators. In addition, the broken metal baskets can entrap adult salmon causing injury or mortality. In the course of a tagging study that included sonic tags, M€TFD staff found dozens of live and dead adult salmon an arm's length from the bank inside several failed gabion baskets in the lower Cedar project reach. These fish presumably were seeking hiding cover or slow velocity resting places and were unable to complete their migration and spawning cycle in the Cedar River. The gabions also create poor salmon habitat conditions in the lower Cedar River by eliminating the complex natural stream bank habitats. characterized by low- velocity areas, vegetation, pools, and undercut banks that are preferred by juvenile and adult salmon and reducing bank sources for spawning gravel. When the gabion baskets in the project area need repair, other alternatives that provide bank stability and improve habitat conditions for salmon should be pursued. 5. Construction Noise- The project should seek to minimize disturbance to spawning sockeye and Chinook in the vicinity from construction activity, particularly any piling driving activity that may be needed_ 6, Shoreline mitigation- We recognize that the project needs to comply with the City's Vegetation Conservation provisions from the Shoreline Master Program and there are limited opportunities to meet the 104 -foot vegetated shoreline buffer requirement. Per the CAR, the applicant is proposing to pay an "in -lieu -fee" to the City's Vegetation Conservation Fund, which needs to beset up. Further, the CAR identifies several potential sites and actions on page 14 where the in -lieu fee could be spent. We are keenly interested in seeing the lower Cedar River's riparian areas enhanced and request the opportunity to work closely with City staff for this project, as well as, the overall framework approach to implement the in -lieu program_ For this project's in -lieu proposal, we would like to work with the City to verify the extent of the impact area; the proposed fee amount', and the mitigation project area. For example, the $9'.25 per square foot rate may be too low and only cover the costs of acquiring and planting plants which may not be sufficient to actually plant areas if easements, acquisitions, and permits are needed. Once a rate is accepted by the City it is likely that others will seek to use the same rate, so it is important to ensure that the in -lieu rate is sufficient to cover all of the mitigation project costs. We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses and coordination. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckieshoot Indian Thbo Fisheries Division Habitat Program 39015172nd Ave SE Aubum, WA 98092 253-876-3116 STREAM STUDY AND HABITAT DATA REPORT RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON ° Ccd " Pianning Division REVISED Date //0Lc PV Prepared For. - KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM Issaquah, Washington Prepared By_ TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 28 February 2013 Revised 10 May 2013 a ton ch rl F- m w Planning Division REVISED, Date 5 �10 a MAR 1 PREPARED FOR; City of Renton t 1DM S. Grady Way Rentory WA 98057 (425) 430-6M PREPARED THROUGH: The MilIer Hidt Partnership, LLP 71 Columbia Street, Sixth Floor Seattle, WA 98104. Phone: (206) 682.6837 Contact- Ruth Baleiko PREPARED BY; COUCHUNPORTFRLUIiiDEEN 413 Pine Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98101. P: 2U6/343-0460 Contact: Bart Balko, REE N H m X W July 5, 2013 Hearing Examiner C/o City Clerk City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 SUBJECT: EXHIBIT 22 CITY OF RENT014 JUL 0 5 2013 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE t Alli APPEAL of ENVIRONMENTAL SEPA) THRESHOLD DETERMINATION / g. n. Renton Library at Liberty Park, LUA13-000255, ECF, SM, SA-Hrtar `'°� Dear Hearing Examiner: �cry}7f1(�' t.�/v�7L'7n This Filing Letter is written on behalf of Citizens to Save the Cedar River LibraAgain! to Appeal the City of Renton's Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated (DNS -M) for the project referenced above. The project address is 100 Mill Avenue South in downtown Renton. Notice of this Environmental Determination was published in the Renton Reporter, June 21, 2013 edition_ As this project as proposed is likely to have significant impact on the Environment, we ask that the City's Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigate (DNS -M) be ordered vacated. Further and as remedy for the issues of likely environmental impact (including Historic and Cultural Preservation, existing Land & Shoreline Use, Public Parks and Recreation, and Aesthetics) on which our Appeal is based, we ask that either: 1. The Proponent of this project be required to submit a Full Environmental Impact Statement for the project addressing fully and accurately the SEPA Elements of Environmental Impact, OR... 2. The project as proposed be modified to directly address and mitigate its likely significant environmental impacts on these same Elements of the Environment. Citizens to Save the Cedar River Library... Again! consists of volunteer Renton residents and citizens concerned specifically with the continued operation, progress and redevelopment of Renton Libraries in light of the policies and directions taken by the Renton City Council, City Administration and the King County Library System (KCLS) under the current Interlocal Agreement(s) (IIA) between these parties. Our group is registered with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) in the form of a Campaign Ballot Committee. Members of our group have testified repeatedly, as representatives of this group or as individuals, before the Renton City Council on aspects of this redevelopment. We have endeavored to communicate our concerns to the KCLS design team over a number of months and as individuals, also addressed the KCLS Board of Trustees. Please note that we were unaware of the exact submission date for the revised Master Land Use Application package on this project, and the cover page of each component within the revised submission was incorrectly stamped upon Intake as "Received, March -12013, City of Renton Planning Department', However, from the City's Report to the Hearing Examiner, we have learned the revised Master Land Use Application was in fact submitted to the City of Renton on May 10, 2013 and determined complete by the City on May 29 of this year. Therefore, where we refer below to elements of the Master Land Use Application, we are referencing the version of the document actually submitted to the City of Renton on May 10, 2013 as the revised Application. Project LUA13 000255: Appeal of Environmental Determination July 5, 2013 Grounds or Basis for this Appeal: A. Deficiencies within the Master Use Application submission on which the Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated is based. a. Grossly inaccurate and incorrect answers submitted by KCLS and their architectural consultant, The Miller Hull Partnership LLP, to Question 13 "Historic and Cultural Preservation" within the Environmental Checklist dated 05.10.2013 and signed by Maaike Post. In this case, the dismissive answers provided by the Proponent have bearing on specific issues of existing Land & Shoreline Use, Aesthetics and Recreation as well as obvious concerns of Historic and Cultural Preservation and Parks or other Recreational Facilities. All of these are specific Elements of the Environment established within the scope of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)_ Please Reference WAC 197.1.1-444. b. Inadequate or incomplete answers provided to other questions within the Environmental Checklist that also omit salient facts having bearing on the answers to Question 13. While these individual answers may result in more subtle impact on Reviewers' perceptions than answers to Question 13 itself, taken together they create a perception of a project having less impact on the present condition of existing historic or cultural values than will actually occur if this project is implemented as currently proposed. c. Specific omissions exist within the written Project Description relative to KCLS's intended demolition of an area of concrete structural floor (deck and beams) spanning the main channel of the River. (This action is referenced only obliquely in a comment added below question 1.g of the Checklist: "reduction in footprint... spanning the Cedar River by .... 7%") Effectively, this demolition results in permanent loss to Renton residents of their continued vested Public Access and Recreational or Civic use of approximately 1,000 s.f. program area above the Raver. Again, this loss is a specific impact pertinent to Elements of the Environment noted above. d. Within the drawings made a part of the revised Master Land Use Application, specific discrepancies exist between drawings produced by separate design disciplines and the drawings fail to clearly depict with either graphics or annotation the actual extent of building demolition for Reviewers or interested parties. Again, this omission significantly lessens a Reviewer's sense of either actual or potential adverse impacts on existing public resources, particularly cultural and historic and public access. B. Deficiencies within the Environmental Review as conducted by the City of Renton, specifically; a. Failure of the Review Committee and the City of Renton to recognize, challenge or question the inadequacies cited above within the LUA but clearly subject to review under SEPA,- h. EPA;b. Failure of the Review Committee and the City of Renton to acknowledge or recognize in their Findings of Fact that significant cultural and historical values are present at and in close proximity to this project (the existing Library itself; c. Failure of the Review Committee and the City of Renton to acknowledge or recognize in their Findings of Fact that the reduction of overwater coverage by approximately 7% (Findings of Fact, No. 9) represents a specific, permanent loss of Public Access within the scope of SEPA review; d. Failure of the Review Committee and the City of Renton to evaluate the severe impacts (including actual destruction of public resources) by this project as it is currently proposed on Environmental Elements clearly within the scope of SEPA Review. e. Failure of the Review Committee and the City of Renton to include specific measures within the language of the DNS -M to address and reasonably mitigate the cultural and historic impacts of this project consistent with the public use and value of these existing resources. C. Inconsistencies in the City's Notification Process relative to the intake of the Land Use Master Application and beginning of the Public Comment period. a. Failure to notify members of our group who either: Page 2 Project LUAU 3 000255: Appeal of Fnvironmental Determination July 5, 2013 i. Had already been listed as Parties of interest for this project, or ii. Had commented in the form of public testimony before the Renton City Council on the original Land Use Master Application for this project (dated March 1, 2013). Apparent failure or procedural difficulties resulting in a lack of timely notification to the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) of this project's LLIA and SEPA review. Relief Requested-- In equested: In light of the deficiencies of the project as currently proposed, the inadequate Master Land Use Application for the project and the City of Renton's failure to address the Adverse Environmental Impacts likely to occur should this project be implemented without modification, we respectfully request vacation of the City's current Determination (DNS -M) and one of the two remedies outlined above be implemented. Signed on behalf of: Citizens to Save the Cedar River Library... Again I David A. Keyes Committee Officer 1013 Kirkland Avenue NE, Apt, 3 Renton, WA_ 98056 (425) 757-1121, email: keyes28@msn,com Beth Asher Secretary 435 Mill Avenue S, Renton, Washington 98057 Nicola Robinson Treasurer 3110 5E 5'b Street Renton, WA 98058 Page 3 'CITY OF RENTON Receipt 2050 *V 0 City Clerk Division + + 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Date T rvo 425.430-6510 El Cash 0 Copy Fee' 0 Notary Service �Z Check No. 'Appeal Fee El Description: Funds Received From: J- S Amount $ L) yr f Narne Address 7 City/zip IJ. --- - City SkffSignatu!" V EXHIBIT 23 07/11/2013 Attn: Greg Smith King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 RE: Response to SEPA determination appeal Dear Greg, We have received the filing letter submitted as an appeal to the City's Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Library Renovation project. In response, we have the following comments: — The letter cites "likely environmental impact" as a basis for requesting the submittal of a Full Environmental Impact Statement. As indicated in the submitted documents, the library project has taken several steps to mitigate environmental impact, including the following: o Restoring the library to its original building footprint and envelope location. a Keeping all construction work above or landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This prevents disturbance of shoreline habitat, critical areas, salmon environments, and water flow. o Maintaining the existing parking lot lighting and surfacing (except in locations of required utility trenching or structural work). a Maintaining the existing riverbanks, shoreline stabilization materials, and vegetation. — The letter also cites "grossly inaccurate and incorrect answers to Question 13" (HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION) of the SEPA document. We reiterate that no places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site. We also reiterate that no landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance are known to be on or next to the site. Page 1 of 3 The MillerlHull Partnership, LLP Contact Polson Building T: 206.682-6837 71 Columbia -61 Floor F: 206.682-5692 Seattle, WA 98104 www.millerhuli.com FMULL Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, Ruth Baleiko, AIA Principal, The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 s 7 9 3.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pro Tern Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON CITIZENS TO SAVE THE CEDAR RIVER LIBRARY... AGAIN! V. CITY OF RENTON Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Appellant, Respondent. Civil Action No. I_UA 13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: JULY 30, 2013 Oral Argument Requested I. RELIEF REQUESTED COMES NOW Respondent, City of Renton, requesting an order granting summa judgment pursuant to CR 56 on the grounds that no material issue of fact exists as to tl Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. Respondents Motion for Summary Judgment Renton City Attorney 100 5 2nd St + P.O. Box 626 '&IN Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.430.6487 Fax: 425.255.5474 EXHIBIT 25 Pro Tem Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON CITIZENS TO SAVE THE CEDAR RIVER LIBRARY... AGAIN! V. CITY OF RENTON Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Appellant, Respondent. I, Dr. Elizabeth P. Stewart, declare: Civil Action No. LUA 13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H DECLARATION OF DR. ELIZABETH P. STEWART 1. 1 am the Museum Manager or Director of the Renton History Museum. 2. 1 have been the Museum Manager or Director since 2006. 3. Prior to the appointment of Museum Manager or Director I was the Research Historian for the Banneker-Douglass Museum from 2000 to 2006. 4. Before that I was the Curatorial Assistant/Researcher for the McKissick Museum from 1990 to 1996. Declaration of Dr. Elizabeth P. Stewart 1 5. 1 graduated from the University of South Carolina -Columbia with a Bachelor of Arts degree in American History in 1993. 1 earned a Ph.D. in History from American University in 2003. 6. As it relates to the above captioned matter, I have professional and personal knowledge of the buildings and pieces of art owned and maintained by the City of Renton. 7. The Liberty Park or Cedar River Library at 100 Mill.Avenue South, Renton, Washington, and the items within or around it are not currently designated as historic landmarks at the county, state, or federal level. 8. However, the items within or around the library that constitute art are generally the property of the City of Renton under the stewardship of the Renton Municipal Arts Commission and when these items are not on loan to King County Library System they are to be returned to the possession of the City of Renton. EXECUTED at Renton, Washington, this 26th day of July, 2013. 41"ttP_Sr�"�r Dr. Elizabeth P. Stewart Museum Manager or Director Renton History Museum Dedarotion of Dr, Elizabeth P. Stewart 2 Memorandum To: Terry Higashiyama, Administrator of Community Services, City of Renton CC: Aaron Oesting, Branch Manager, Renton Library From: Liz Stewart, Museum Director, Renton History Museum Date. 3/19/2010 Re: Pacific Northwest Collection, Renton Library During the library's transition from City of Renton to KCLS, questions were raised about the disposition of the library's significant collection of materials—books, periodicals, maps, pamphlets, and other ephemera—relating to the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest Collection is currently housed together in the northwest corner of the library, with a special numbering system. This memo provides an overview of the PNW Collection. The collection contains almost 6000 books and government publications. Nearly complete runs of useful periodicals such as Oregon Historical Quarterly, Washington Historical Quarterly, and Pacific Northwest Quarterly are also part of the collection. The collection includes a huge set of topographical maps, which are now widely available on-line from the USGS, and a smaller set of Renton -specific maps mainly from the 1940s – 1960s. There is also a vertical file of flyers and pamphlets organized by subject. The collection of books is wide-ranging, and includes everything from biographies of state figures to literary fiction on regional topics to flora/faunatnaturai histories to travel and recreation guides: Works relating to state and Iocal history comprise the largest single subject in the PNW Collection. For example, the collection includes six shelves of county, local, and city histories. exclusive of Seattle -related works; these are often self -published or published in small print. runs, and can be the hardest to find, if not technically "rare." The collection also includes 1 1/2 shelves of books relating to Boeing, probably the most extensive group available to the public in one place. Renton city directories from 1944 to 1991 are available; although the Renton History Museum has a more complete collection, these directories get fairly frequent use in the library. The collection also houses published government documents from the City of Renton such as budgets, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and Water System Plan, as well as some King County government publications, like Water Design Manual for King County. Again, past copies of these can be challenging to find for citizens interested in researching past policy history. Although volumes in the library's PNW Collection may not be "rare" in a technical sense and are available in other repositories, some are hard -to -find, because of age, limited March 19, 2010 publication, or high cost. Some of these are currently non -circulating; KCLS may want to evaluate whether more should be. Examples of older books include: a full set of Clarence Bagley's A History of King County (1929), a key research resource; W. H. Ruffner, A .Report on the Washington Territory (1889); three original copies of Ezra Meeker's Pioneer Reminiscences of Puget Sound (1995); Who's Who in Washington Mate (scattered copies between 1927 and 1962); and some early illustrated guidebooks like Puget Sound and Western Washington (1912). Hard -to -find books include Thom Hess's Dictionary of Puget Salish and other books relating to Coast Salish Native American language and culture, and a limited edition 1970 reprint of Lawrence Kay Hodges's Mining in the Pacific Northwest (I" pub. 1897), complete with maps. In addition, if a researcher is looking for information on a niche topic in Pacific Northwest history and life—such as shipwrecks or Bigfoot or railroading or the coal industry—it is here. Finally, useful reference works that are prohibitively expensive for many libraries are 5 volumes of the 1970 reprint of Edward Curtis's The North American Indian and six volumes of the Garland Publishing American Indian Ethnohistory (1970) series, both relating to Pacific Northwest Native Americans. Although now somewhat out-of-date, such reference collections can provide a useful jumping-off point for making sense of other print and digital resources. Because of the usefulness of this collection as a whole, I would recommend that it remain as a group within the downtown Renton branch. I know from :our work with genealogists, for example, that the helpfulness of having primary sources like city directories and Who's Who books in close proximity to secondary sources about local history is invaluable. (As a matter of fact, while I was doing my brief survey a Renton resident located a bio of his grandfather, a meriiber of the Madson family, in Bagley's History of King County, with a photograph, and was very excited to have so many other sources at hand to expand on his genealogical research.) The Branch Manager and Cluster Manager may want to re -assess which books they allow to circulate and which to hold back as references; although I did not see any that were in deteriorating condition, there are a few that would be impossible to replace should a patron fail to return them. I have no doubt that library staff are the best stewards of this collection as a whole and that the Pacific Northwest.Collection could be successfully promoted as a regional resource for those in South King County who want to research their family, town, city, locale, or state, and cannot make the trip to repositories in Seattle or Olympia - 2 M Vanessa Dolbee EXHIBIT 26 From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail_com> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 9:47 AM To: LarryWarren; Bonnie Walton; Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; 'DAVID KEYES; 'Beth Asher'; Nicola—rn@msn.com Cc: Garmon Newsom II Subject: RE: City's Motion for Summary Judgment - Renton Library - LUA 13-000255 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I did not in any way intend to imply that the City Attorney's Office had engaged in any act of sandbagging or otherwise acted inappropriately with its summary judgment motion. My concern was simply that practically speaking I could not give the SEPA appellants a fair opportunity to respond to the motion and also rule on it before the hearing without a continuance. Since a primary purpose of a summary judgment motion is to avoid unnecessary factual hearings, I thought it important to give the City and Applicant an opportunity to have the hearing continued in order to fully consider the merits of the motion. Motions to dismiss based upon narrow issues such as untimely appeal filings can certainly be addressed within the one week timeframe contemplated in RMC 4-8-110E.6, but motions addressing more complicated issues such as the motion filed this Tuesday need a little more time to accommodate the due process rights of all hearing participants_ The focus of the City's motion on "probable significant adverse environmental impacts" triggers a necessity on my part to clarify a point I made in my July 15, 2013 email order denying the request for a continuance. In that order I noted that "it is generally not sufficient to establish that environmental review is based upon incomplete information" (emphasis added). Below I am pasting a more detailed legal explanation of the basis of this statement that I wrote in the decision for another permit application. 1 am certainly open to any legal argument advocating a different conclusion. In summary, although the issue is repeatedly debated in SEPA appeal hearings, the courts do hold that the adequacy of environmental review is relevant to a SEPA appeal. However, to my knowledge, no Washington appellate court has ever overturned a SEPA threshold determination on the basis that inadequate information was considered. Court review on this issue is always extremely deferential. On a practical level, in order for a SEPA appellant to establish that significant information has not been considered, the appellant has to present the information that was overlooked at the hearing. Once that information has been presented, the city attorney will inevitably ask the SEPA responsible official if that additional information changes their determination and the answer is almost always that it does not. At that point the SEPA responsible official has considered the allegedly missing information and the issue of adequacy of environmental review becomes moot. This is why "generally" allegations of missing or incomplete information doesn't get very far in a SEPA appeal. However, as shown in the legal analysis pasted below, the adequacy of environmental review is relevant to a SEPA appeal so the arguments of the SEPA appellants on this issue will most likely be allowed at the July 30, 2013 hearing. Judicial Review Standard for Adequacy of Environmental Review: As recently as 2010, the courts have ruled that an agency's threshold determination is entitled to judicial deference, but the agency must make a showing that "environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to make a prima facie showing with the procedural requirements of SEPA," Chuckanut Conservancy v. Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources, 156 Wn. App, 274, 286-287, quoting Juanita Bay Valley Community Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73 (1973). In applying this adequacy standard, on several occasions the courts have examined hove thoroughly the responsible official reviewed environmental impacts in addition to assessing whether a proposal has probable significant adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g_, Boehm v. City of Vancouver, I I I Wn App. 711 (2002), Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001). In Moss, for example, the court recited the prima facie rule and then applied it as follows: The record indicates that the project received a great deal of review. The environmental checklist was apparently deemed insufficient, and therefore the SEPA official asked for additional information in the form of an EA. The City gathered extensive comments from agencies and the public, held numerous public meetings, and imposed additional For the benefit of the SEPA Appellants, who may not he familiar with a summary judgment motion: If summary judgment is granted in favor of the City prior to your appeal hearing, you will be precluded from litigating some or ali of your SEPA appeal issues. The gist of a summary judgment motion is "issues x, y and z are purely legal, we don't need to have a factual hearing on these issues as there are no material facts in dispute, and we request that you rule on these legal issues now". If the City prevails on its motion for summary judgment before your hearing and the motion encompasses all of the issues raised by your appeal, your appeal will be dismissed and you will have no opportunity to present evidence in an appeal hearing. I am assuming that the SEPA Appellants want to submit a written response to the City's summary judgment motion. I can't make a ruling on the motion without making that assumption unless I hear otherwise from the SEPA Appellants. if the SEPA appellants will not be submitting a response, please advise and I will issue a ruling forthwith. mitigation measures on the project before finally approving it. ,Notably, although appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite any facts or evidence in rhe record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS, 149 Wn. App. at 23 -24 - From: Larry Warren [mailto:LWarren@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:28 PM To: 'Phil Olbrechts'; Bonnie Walton; Chip Vincent; Vanessa Dolbee; 'DAVID KEYES'; 'Beth Asher'; Nioola_rn@msn.com Cc: Garman Newsom II Subject: RE: City's Motion for Summary Judgment - Renton Library - WA 13-000255 Mr. Olbrechts, the city wishes for the hearings to proceed on the 30tH Please accept our apologies if the motion caused any inconvenience, but the city has scheduled staff and outside witnesses for the 30tH By way of explanation, the references to CR 56 were to establish a standard of proof. The timing for filing the motion, we believe, is set by RMC 4--8-110E.6 which states in relevant part: The Hearing Examiner may dismiss an appeal without hearing when it is determined to be—without merit on its face... Any application to the Hearing Examiner for an order, unless made during a hearing, shall be in writing... Written motions shall be received at least five (5) business days in advance of the hearing. We submitted the motion within these timelines as they appear to be the only ones established by code, and to not appear to be "sandbagging" the appellants. In that vein, we have no objection to the Examiner allowing post hearing briefs as outlined in your email. Thank you for your consideration. From: Phil Olbrechts fmailto:olbrechtslawC&gmail.com], Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:09 PM To: Bonnie Walton; Chip Vincent; Larry Warren; Vanessa Dolbee; 'DAVID KEYES'; 'Beth Asher'; Nicola rn@msn.com Subject: City's Motion for Summary Judgment - Renton Library - LUA 13-000255 I'm in receipt of the City's Motion for Summary Judgment, which was emailed to me at the end of the day yesterday. Motions for summary judgment are certainly to be encouraged, as they can significantly reduce the time and expense in land use hearings. However, the timing of the motion for the library hearing is problematical. I clearly cannot rule on the motion for summary judgment without providing an opportunity to the SEPA appellants to respond. The SEPA appellants do not have a reasonable amount of time to respond prior to the hearing next Tuesday. It is somewhat ironic that the City states it is filing its motion pursuant to CR 56. CR 56 does not directly apply to this land use hearing. More important, CR 56 requires a motion for sum maryjudgment to be filed more than 28 days in advance of the hearing. The City's motion was filed only six days prior to the hearing. Since CR 56 does not apply to this hearing, we're not bound with the 28 days, although this time limit does give a sense of what is reasonable for this type of motion. Given that the City's motion is relatively short, a minimum of two weeks is an appropriate amount of time for a response. Given the situation, I will give the City and Applicant a choice. If you both waive your objection to a continuance of the hearing, I will continue the July 30 hearing to August 13, 2013, The SEPA appellant response will be due August 6 and the reply from the City August 8. Upon waiver, we can consider the issue of whether or not to continue the permit hearing along with the SEPA appeal portion of the July 30 hearing. If the City and Appellant do not waive objection, the hearing will still be held on July 30 and the hearing will be left open for the August 6 and 8 response and reply. k ,r « _ _ ,,,A. y ....,..,.,.� :.: TZ m o 7Ln D. N CD z O D r+ r -F rD C CL C Q CD ED O QCL O r+ N --+., CL m �. zT LA rD n� r+ Z3 r+ O rD CL Ln LA CD D r+ --% Z3 D- u' r+ r rD ZT rD C Z3. CU Z3 rD M D� 3 n +� r+ N. z �c k ,r « _ _ ,,,A. y ....,..,.,.� :.: mI F-1- (A a) CT CL Ov v p :+ � —i V) 0 -0 —1 0 -% �, C CD C -0C Q Q� T --h CU = [n O M. (p rD 0- cr �D o 3 m m 0 .i m N � p m ay vi r+ C m cr fD C C o O O C r�i O Ql �• pta CL O cL �' r+ � O (D C! f — = Ln f7 r+ O 0 h =r ~? n T N fD o C a) p 3 �' pq ,*-0 fD CD n r+ r+ Q ,..r fD V �_ O C(D C CD Q . h - a) N fD O N nrD =r cu ,4 V (DD M fD 0- rD 0'q n Oo CCD Ln a rrrD Ln O v Im on 51 mmj� cl U) 0 D n � � O L O �a O O n Q CT �. a �. O a (a Q X --h n O C CO {D O ET rD 0 C!' ice' n� rD un rD O a O Ln n Im Mh MI 13 0 c i u G v Ln rD 3 n' 3 - ti v v v ti Ln c rn n 0 .0 0 m 3 r_r v CD r+ D cn rD � 3 �`�..� O L^`! �. rD r -t rtn-f � � Q 3 CT v � Ln 0*Q r+ C � 3 CD 0- rD C: n � rD �. 0 n Q nQ 3 r=+ -0 oLn' n 3- ra (D 0- E: E a� m M CT Ln C. 3 Q 0 �. 3 rD n O � C Ln m 7. 3 3 � F* n r -r W 0 (-+ D O 3 r Q 3 rD r+ 3 fD rD 3 3 rD Q C 3 n O -n r+ rD 3 3'D O cn 3 rD —. 3 30 (n 3 3 CD O rD C 3 rD Ln rD 1-+—• `O M O rD v 0- Q v r.+ rD CD 3- m 0- rD n O LA. rD I Q r+ cr IIJ rD ,r Im Mh m (D o o CD CL o o Ln LA LA Ol CL m m v rD o � 70 4y QJ �. n Z CD C' ,C � � 2 �• �� o o CL 3 � o � Im on M. m Q U) 0 04 0=■ ME a T r coZ) O O C �. aj O -O D' C O E: 7 f 1 O O f n (D f I C O_ f ! O CD D (D �--f ,--r O l fD CD I i O I I O I CL iI O � I f I � I I O O I! CL I I l i � I cn � ♦ r+ Iii P �� CSD r + y V) Im on M. m Q U) 0 04 0=■ ME a : .o t n Q� (D� ro CL CL rD u o cn a o f 3 3� In o n �� �' CL :3n' rt -0 v r+ CD M fD r N � --I =$ =r Q �D o CL m �. O CD O ro• * � -c ,* oa rD M- O O cn 3 q�q n cr o •C 3 rD ,C -a-1 CL r+ W. 3 CCD D = zF v 0r C 3 % 3 =r � sv cD cD O �. r.+ fD p r4+ m m n X cn 3 O. N �- �' m �_ 3 L CD �• r+cr �� 3 O cn CSDr-r Q fD -s O Qr n r -r CL -0 En --h `C OX w n=- O r+ o OCL 3 0 O W v r-1. ' (D — �, mMINOR • PRO `° o M M AL W Ln cD r* �j 3 •N w * e --h o 3� C0 CL- o ♦ S. n - D 3 O Cr v� /�� � S. /wry :3 to CD M sv CD CD ° _0O -r r_ o C n O ° , < C 3 r ° o 3 `� ° o 3 3� = 3 o°m < � 3 3 . aj CD 0 w �-* to cD fD p o C � Q O — � _. e w Drm ma � r CL C m r+ _, n• �? 7Acn a O r+ to 3 m Lnn O O -1 rD -0 C • O_ m m Lnn [� -% C CD S CA' eW+ ;U M OCL < 0- o � = ria O 0 to CD �, O 3 w F -I om O r+� ... CD f% 0 3 CD 3 to W v Cl., n Q �! CD Cep 'rt cid Ln rD °� �. r+ ry=3� 1 CD :3_ N C (D p _3 n C 3 � r+ 2 -C 6.3 � !■�' 3 2 p _. to Cn aj Q � CD mil o c,, O O r., 06) - °' CL w (D : 0 0 :IL 0 rD W CL (DD �C ora CL tom H rD C: CL =3 • ora o — 3 rD 0 LA � o rD � rDrD � � o — • ora A • - 0 0 s 3 � rD _. rD o 0 -0 aq o -• n o n V) o _. 3 n � o �+ o (D0 — o V o 3 CD rD o S -0 rD o L• C -• rD � — o v � L' c � 0 -. (D .. o rD rD �• C FD W ME 0 0 �I *A Jill. • r � � � e �• CL L �. CL m O 0 Q O(D Mn O X � n � cna-0 Q0 �� -hcam :E Qo fD � =3 sz D- (D _� ' O 3 r -r CQ r..F 0 O rr+ O rD 0 O Z3 -• O m W ME 0 0 ,} . {\ r I al$: f I •YA ,_ n P. er r •• � n �+ �—y O to m - m 00 % v l..F — ee-t X. fU =3 n to W CL CL) � r+ 5 N C) m as 0 LA r. C oa -- = -, C_. 3 X �� 3 ftp CL :3r+ n rn (D a) O_ 5. -1v v r* u ra — -% =' -%n C r+ O � v � r+ IL 0 �� =r, 0 o � p m f�D jCL cr `r+ ° !*► :3 m — CL ora � 'r �p u) flu LnV) a)cn D (D T -0 r+ T = =r (D n O �- C) OIQ (D �' ::3 (D a `D O 3 aq Ln n O �� as �' a — —. rte+ _ c Cu CD 0 Ln Ln o n O a� o�q o ro co � r+ aq N Clq OCrq {p m D r�r C* r�r CSD r+ _ � � r+ {U � c�D O p Om-+ CD 0 0 _. o rD r+ rD w rD Q _ a rD _S rD OO ~' a C C. W Ln 0 00 -� _ r+ `C fD �. O 3► C: epi• � � � �• O LnIh O �3 rD IL O Ln 00 N CL 0,q POIL W o 70 ►—� N CD o M r CD O 3 CL CL n :3 N a CD cn �' fD Z 'D Vn Ln x rt CD 3 � CL r+ r+ M =raq Orq -oo o cu e 11 (D 3 CD —. rCL + n (DD CD r+ 3 n77 —. C m r+ p o �. rt � fD � � CD � • r�-r r+ �_ CD �D cn V) to CD CD � � cn cn Ln f D cn fU r -r fi o. rD o ) s� _0o 0 0 f D c C Co � � Z �C ML m v 70 0 CD 3 I° rD rD o (D a. Ln M Q O LA em+ a =3(D C)_u, L". a) OQ Q � L O_ rt O • a U)y� m■ r� 0 0 PIL v x N O D p v cn ZF � cr O ma „ (D 0 rD CL 0 �• �. n C cn � — n r -r r 0 rr C(D r -r �- 0 N Ln Ln cn 0rD (D Ln 3 n c'D CL 3 0 fl] - � _ O �' o r+ v Q: o Q CL [D _. fD�' m M 0r �• �+ n v C: �' (D D CD 3 ::3 C(D vii 3 Q .� cn (D � n < �• cm 3' mo 3 FD" ,c• -- o- p ,C Q. CL CD r+ cu - n r+fD fD Q N fD r -r � zr cr Ln 0 r aQ 0 � v — :3°_ � ' rD CL r+ Ln cra �. o CT rD • cD o� ♦ �a ■ t rh 3 0 ■ �• r C -c� TI a cD n , O �] �...f. C. 1 Ll ° �. aGrq a 3W. � o as �a cu Q Q ip C to Cr Q cn to O� C �D L M CD cn cr M -0 p cn Q W fD _ a to V) _. �. 3 ° o a � �D � n cr v M CL C• =7- CLa ♦ n r+ n �� zr C' — IIL� CD M t rh 3 0 ■ r+ -00 �. Ln 70 `" n' - :3 * R„ - (a o � r+ — a � r* a) 3 � rn v CL C OL) (D ra =^• 3, CL O � ^C C C, rD O) h rD v (D :33 v :3 (D CL ncn ra -i -i r -0 � C n I-' v + o Q L — -� r+ r+ ° Z c vria � r*• cin N 0 n a - �� Ln � Q (' r+0 r+0 (I s r+ o (DrD r) � (D rD rte+ M ° o PIL 0. ° o -0 rnrD L ° N 0 =3N n Cl 3 3 a� � a -h rD r -r m � fD m 0 a70 r+ o Ln 3 � -fi rp Qy cn .' n r+ m (D r cn rmlpL ' o r� CL �(A as � MO o C- 0 a rmpl -Mk �� a s M m 0 Cl) a r* r.L� -m— MLjj a � � a o �rMIL cD o cD C � a do CIVIL ACTION No. LUA 13-000255, ECF, SM, SA -H Date: July 29th 2013. WRITTEN RECORD OF TESTIMONY BY PHONE: Testifier: David Arthur Johnston. Principal Architect. Johnston & Campanella. cm Current address: 244 Schoolhouse Point Lane, NH Sequim, WA 98382. H i Phone: 1 (360)683-2298 Uj We designed many buildings in Renton. The library was one of the most important buildings I have designed. My partner Terry Murakami worked on the building, I did the negotiations. It was a building that was very controversial from the beginning. We were successful and got it through all [of] the challenges. The historic importance of designing such a building, well — in considering the design we knew it would be a first. I was pretty excited about designing a library that spans the river. Out of all the buildings we designed, it was the one closest to my heart. It was an accomplishment, [because] it was pretty difficult to do with the people that were fighting it. In the end it was very successful. As a[n] [architectural] group, [to us] it was a pretty important building. Our office building was on Wells Ave, which fronted on the River Road, and because our office building was on the river too, we paid a lot of attention to the library building. The salmon spawned there. We would watch them digging [into the river bed] with their tails, and a fisherman caught a steel head right under the library, we watched him land it. It was an active place, it was great. We were concerned about the environment, [and concerned about] when you walked into the building what you would see. To have the entrance on land and [to] not [have it] working with the river would seem to be poor [design]. It was important to see the river and experience that at the same time. I built some other libraries and I don't know of any other that was as active with the environment. By placing the entrance on the bridge, [it] allowed people to experience the river. The bridge acted as a connection and a point of access to the park and parking lot, and also [allowed access to] the entrance of the library. The bridge was a means of access to the park, as well as the library. We saw the river as an asset for the library in terms of people getting out [of the library] into the fresh air and [being able to] see the river. Not like walking [out] into a parking lot but [instead] walking out into nature as it is. We had a great admiration for the library and we followed its activities over the years. Record created by: Nicola Robinson. July 29th 2013. Treasurer. Citizens to Save the Cedar River Library —Again. 3110 SE 5th St, Renton. WA 98058 425 255-5160 Project name: Renton Library at Liberty Park EXHIBIT 30 Project number: LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM I have lived in Renton 29 years, and was on the City of Renton Library Board approximately 10 years beginning in 1989. We live closer to the Highlands Library, but our 4 children asked to go to the Cedar River Library. It was always a happily anticipated event to visit the library over the river, to stand on the bridge, watch the fish and birds, and see the twigs and leaves moving along in the flow, then go inside, refreshed and quieted, ready for books and Storytime. The kids were eager library users, encouraged by the inviting entrance on the river. Various trees and rhododendrons line the banks, beautiful in their seasons. People of all ages and generations enjoy stopping and viewing as they enter and leave the library. This entrance and connection to nature and the site has a powerful impact: a friend visiting from Monroe years ago recently told me she still remembers "the beautiful entrance". Losing this entrance and having only a parking lot entrance would compromise child safety, as children often bolt out the door: right now they are bolting to the observation deck, not a parking lot. Losing this entrance with its unavoidable connection to natural sights would turn a highly enjoyable visit to this particular library into just one more library errand. Losing this entrance would mean losing a connection to the site and nature and green spaces, so important in urbanized areas: The Center for Disease Control cites studies showing decreased blood pressure, better cognitive function, especially in seniors, and improvement in ADHD symptoms as benefits. Community action happens here. People have gathered here to collect signatures for local petitions and state initiatives and to hand out flyers because there is high pedestrian traffic in and out of this library. The bridge deck has space for educational signage on fish habitat, as well as signage that highlights current library activities and acts as an invitation to draw people in from the parking lot side as well as the Liberty Park side. Losing this entrance means losing direct access into the library from the bridge deck. Finally, we would lose established patterns of public use. Judy Milligan library statement I am :.nii, g to you tcday because I am , nebfe io make it :o the meeting. hui I Want to have the ou:?crunit', to exs;r&s8 niv opininr: ahrout removing the Iib*ry ,nirance from the bridge- I tires-: LIP asking my rnorr� ;o ;ake n,e to the librnr;;. and !t tacame a central part of grov;ing LIP in Remon. From hours spent there during tf,e summer reacting ;I ,rough a. n, took I could get rry hands on. to aiemantary school outings at Liberty Parr, tie itabl; c"Irr;natina in s:ar ng at the river fro.r the observation deck entrance. to finaih :ork ng there as e Page daring high School, I have saen it eveave manic into the act of vwallkinn to the iibrary. From a child's eye. I still -arnsmber the mys_ que Of crossing the bridge and cr=eating tha: Uiii$I�SS excerienre. No'.: that i am older.::hat I ':mink of rtoti'r is ho,-: Lha: bridge :;as never meant to just %:galls across. ii ..as r,2ari 'o to an int_grai part ct the 11,rdry, a multifunctional Piece of concrat6 and rehar that simul;anecusiy r_rrad to provide a=.cess across the ri•,er bt;! also tG proper and wide us to ?aaminge. I re: andy gr aouatsd from 'he Uni�-er sit= of v'Vas:ningior. %•with honors in chaniical sx3ineerin j and a second dear=_e in tiar-osourc= -v guieering, so I an, :.,ell a;:are of tha im _=_ct ?1;ia liwrary' baa^ I;ad on As ste::aras of this ion it r.. I dor3't understand ho:a yaa can't recognize its lr_rrtage and V:hy;'ou crouse not tc;;rWtec; its fo:ure. its homage is shared througnout the cemn3unit;, and its intiire res:=_ in ?uniting tnat sp-wk o' Curiosity. •. � r rt r F ti 't i • 410 �P a t 4 _ E in i L� ; ON I '� Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fIlI ION CDC iii: 7 SCJ' ing i ives Pro t,_,C--t r 9 op7 c ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Mental Health The effects of the community design choices we make and the opportunities those choices afford or deny us are only just now beginning to be understood. Such effects not only can influence community members' physical health but their mental health as well. Effects on mental health can include both increased stress and cognitive impairment, which in turn can have physical health implications. Some of this increased stress can be caused by long and taxing daily commutes necessitated by development patterns that separate our work or school locations from our homes. This increased commuting -related stress may be related to the perceived increases in the rates of "road rage." In addition, researchers have discovered that when some people who are injured or ill are exposed to open, undeveloped land, also known as green space, they recover faster than others who were not exposed. In another study, researchers examined the cognitive functions of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to determine the effect that the children's surroundings had on learning and their ability to concentrate. The researchers found that exposure to parks and other green spaces improved the children's ability to focus and concentrate. Although the link between land use and mental health is not yet completely understood, it is clearly a topic that can affect the overall health of a community. For more information about mental health and community design, refer to the following resources: University f Illinoi Urbana-Chainpaign Lands=e and Human Health Laborato h www.lhhl.uiu e u h www v her i t imer html The Landscape and Human Health Laboratory (LHHL) is a multidisciplinary research laboratory dedicated to studying the connection between greenery and human health. Sullivan WC, Chang CY. Mental health and the built environment. In: Dannenberg Al, Frumkin H, Jackson RL. Making healthy places: designing and building for health, well-being, and sustainability. Washington DC: Island Press, 2011. Evans GW. The built environment and mental health' [PDF-118KBI (http: f /embi.bjmu.edu.en/news/report/20041Urban/view/ ,X.pdf) d? Shttn://www.cdc.gov/Other/disdaimer.htmi) . Journal of Urban Health. 80(4):536-555, 2003. Matsuoka, R& Sullivan, WC. (2011). Urban nature:Hum-an 12sy-c—hological and gommunityhealth �. [PDF - 6.31 MBI (httn:flwillsull.net/William Sullivan/Publications files /Matsuoka%20%26%2oSullivan%202osl.ndfl 1' (htti)-://www.ede.gov/Otherldi,sciaimer.btml). In Douglas, I. & Goode, D., Houck, M., & Wang, R. (Eds), The Routledge handbook of urban ecology, Taylor and Francis, Oxford. P. 4o8-423. Sullivan, WC. (2005). Nature at home: An evolutionaryhers en ctiYe_- LPDF -1.8 MBI h t will ull.net 1" ihv n Publicafi n fil s ulliva o n 1 e. 1§' (http:l/www.cdc.gov/Other/disclairne.r.html). In P. Barlett (Ed.), Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World. Boston, MIT Press. p. 237-252. Faber Taylor, A, Kuo, FE, & Sullivan, WC (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children – [PDF - 324 KBl htt : "rillsull.net William Sullivan ZPublications files Ta for %2oKuo %2 o Sullivan %2 0 20 02. d 6' (http://ww,w.ede.goy/Other/disclaimer.htmi). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63• Kuo, FE, & Sullivan, WC. (2000. Environment and crimen the inner ciMvegetation reduce crime? – IPDF -136 KBl httwillsull.net William Sullivan Publications files Kuo %2o ullivan%2020o1%20crime. d 19 (http://w,r v.ede.gov/Other/disclairner.html) . Environment & Behavior, 33(3),343-367. Taylor, AF, Kuo, FE & Sullivan, WC (2001). Coping with ADD: The suEprisingconnection to green my settings - f PDF - 19 3 KB1 (http./Iwillsull.net/William Sullivan/Publications files Taylor,%2oKuo.%2oSullivan%2o2oo1a.ndfl E' (http:ll.w--w—w.ede.gov/Qtherldisclaimer.htmll. Environment & Behavior, 33(l),54-77. Additional information on mental health and related topics can be found in the Additional Resource (lhealthxplaces/resources.htm) section. References Dora C, Phillips M, editors. World Health Organization (WHO). Transport, environment, and health. WHO Regional Publications, European Series 2000; No. 89 http:llwww.euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/abstra-cu/transport,- - - 1 (http://ww",.euro.who.int/en,/what-we_publish/abstractsltransport.-environin nit-and-health)_[P (http://www.edc.goy/Other/disclaimer.html) Taylor AF, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC. Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environ Behav 2001, 33: 54-77• Ulrich RS. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984;224:420-1. ......... ...... ._....................... ................................................. -.......... _............................ ............................... ............................... _.......... ......................................................................................................................................................... Page last reviewed: October 15, 2009 Page last updated: December 31, 2012 Content source: National Center for Environmental Health Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, DSA ,f Bao -CDC -INFO (800-232-4636) TW: (888) 232-6348 - Contact CDC-INFOUSOvj Government Made Easy .', EXHIBIT 31 Testimony for Civil Action LUA 13-0011255, ECF, SA -H, SM Hello my name is Richard Bray --I have lived in Renton for 22 years. My wife Geri and I have raised five kids in this community. One day after purchasing our home, we stumbled upon our Cedar River Library and its entrance over the River: we were awestruck with the beauty of nature as you entered and exited the library. Over the years we have seen that entry way off the bridge is a connector for a variety of people in the community. Health -mind folks running/walking along the Cedar River Trail, families visiting Liberty Park, seniors and those in wheel chairs coming, and even our homeless neighbors all connecting over the bridge. Each having the opportunity to stop: look down in the river and marvel at the scenic beauty, grab a quick book, look up some information on a computer, or sit down and read a magazine or check out some movies—and connecting inside and outside. Through the years, we have enjoyed the wonder of seeing our kids' eyes and voices delight in the magnificent sight of salmon migrating in the fall and learning about their lifecycle. We enjoyed being able to get out of the hustle and bustle of the city and our busy lives for at least a few quiet and peaceful moments. We would stop, pause, and look at the river and its beautiful tree -lined banks. It settles your spirit, encourages appreciation for the environment and prepares us to go into the library. Every visit was an adventure. My kids always wanted to go the Cedar River Library, even though we lived closer to the Highlands branch. The railing outside the Cedar River Library entrance was also an imagination station. One of my kids said it felt like being on a ship and looking out to the sea. And funny things were imagined: wtiat would it be like if someone tripped and all the books went over railing: instead of salmon going upstream --books floating downstream. Many years our trips to the library were weekly. When our youngest played baseball in the Renton Parks summer league, in between innings, some of us would cross over that bridge that connects Liberty Park and hunt for some books in the library and enjoy viewing our Cedar River below. During Renton River lay festivals the library entrance celebrated the festival. Rotary Club often sold rubber ducks for the big race, Friends of Library book sales happened, the annual quilt contest invited people into the library to cast a vote—all this and more happened at the connection point over the river that invited everyone in. a In 2001, Renton celebrated its 100th year anniversary. My two oldest kids had parts in the original musical Centennial Play--Rentennial--all about the history of Renton. The scene of the city council voting to establish our library over the river was one of the funniest parts of the production. And a verse from the play's lead song has always stayed with our family "The Ceclor River runs right through the Heart cif Renton Town. " Likewise, to us, the entrance over the Cedar River Library has been at the heart of the Library. Renton continues to need a location which connects a diverse community, exposes people to the natural environment and provides opportunities to build close family ties. No other library in our region or in our nation has the special historical or cultural aspects of our Cedar River Library. What would be impact if the current KCLS design without mitigation is implemented? Our hearts would ache for the loss of the cultural and historic patterns and all the special moments that will cease, if the bridge entrance is taken away from us. A South parking lot -only entrance will eliminate the immediate exposure not only to the beautiful Cedar River environment but also to the inviting playful and athletic areas of Liberty Park and the Cedar River Trail. It will be rush in. Rush out. Gone forever will be the connecting point where people stopped, gazed and explored. KCLS and Renton City administration how can you say there are no cultural or historical aspects here? Allyson Brooks, Washington State Preservation. Officer, in the front page story on July 16. 201 Seattle Times (BPA transmission line headed through historical, cultural sites) stated; "Ones of the reasons Mese are pnbllc processes is do pe0ple get a X aj: what the impact is. it iS nf�t a unilateral decision. Thal is dL'mocrUCV. The saying "it's a crying Shame" will never he more true ifKCI.S and the City ofRtnton .Administration continue to reject Renton citizens right to demand accountability and our voice for the cultural and historic aspects of our Cedar River Library. No longer will our city authentically be able to say that Renton is "ahead of the curve." And most sadly, my future grandchildren will never experience such delights, encounters, imagination and unique learning over our river as they come and go from the library—"a crying shame" indeed! Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Richard Bray Renton, WA Civil Action No. LUA 13-000255, ECF,SM,SA-H Appeal Hearing July 30th EXCERPTS FROM CITY OF RENTON SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN D. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Applicability: This Section shall apply to all use and development activities within the shoreline. Items included here will not necessarily be repeated in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations, and shall be used in the evaluation of all shoreline permits. Renton Municipal Code provisions in Title IV, Development Regulations, Chapter 4, City-wide Property Development Standards (chapter 444 RMC) contain regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. Such provisions shall apply within shoreline jurisdictions unless there is a conflict with the standards set forth by the Shoreline Master Program. In case of conflict, the standards set forth in the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2. Environmental Effects: a. No Net Loss of Ecological Functions: i. No Net Loss Required: Shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use. Permitted uses are designed and conducted to minimize, in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment (RCW 90.58.020). Shoreline ecological functions that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, and water temperature maintenance_ Shoreline processes that shall be protected include, but are not limited to, water flow; erosion and accretion; infiltration; groundwater recharge and discharge; sediment delivery, transport, and storage; large woody debris recruitment; organic matter input; nutrient and pathogen removal; and stream channel formation/maintenance. ii_ Impact Evaluation Required: In assessing the potential for net loss of ecological functions or processes, project -specific and cumulative impacts shall be considered and mitigated on- or off-site. iii. Evaluation of Mitigation Sequencing Required: An application for any permit or approval shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions_ Mitigation shall occur in the following prioritized order: (a) Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action. (b) Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. (c) Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. b. Burden on Applicant: Applicants for permits have the burden of proving that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria set forth in the Shoreline Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, including demonstrating all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions. 4. Public Access: a. Physical or Visual Access Required for New Development: Physical or visual access to shorelines shall be incorporated in all new development when the development would either generate a demand for one or more forms of such access, would impair existing legal access opportunities or rights, or is required to meet the specific policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program. A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Policy SH -31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach Element, Policy SH -31 with provisions for public access, including off-site facilities designated in the table Public Access Requirements by Reach in subsection D4f of this Section. b. Public Access Required: Public access shall be provided for the following development, subject to the criteria in subsection D4d of this Section. i. Water -dependent uses and developments that increase public use of the shorelines and public aquatic lands, or that would impair existing legal access opportunities, or that utilize public harbor lands or aquatic lands, or that are developed with public funding or other public resources. ii. Non -water -dependent development and uses shall provide community and/or public access consistent with the specific use standards in subsection E of this Section, Use Regulations, unless ecological restoration is provided. iii. Developments of more than ten (10) single family residential lots or single family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned parcel are required to provide public access. Developments of more than four (4) but less than ten (10) single family residential lots or single family dwelling units, including subdivision, within a proposal or a contiguously owned parcel are required to provide community access. iv. Development of any non -single-family residential development or use consistent with the specific use standards in subsection E9 of this Section, Residential Development_ v_ Any use of public aquatic lands, except as related to single family residential use of the shoreline, including docks accessory to single family residential use. vi. Publicly financed or subsidized flood control or shoreline stabilization shall not restrict public access to the shoreline and shall include provisions for new public access to the maximum extent feasible_ vii. Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way shall not be diminished by any public or private development or use (RCW 35.79.035 and RCW 36.87.130). c. Criteria for Modification of Public Access Requirements: The requirements for public access may be modified as a shoreline conditional use for any application in which the following criteria are demonstrated to be met in addition to the general criteria for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. In cases where a Substantial Development Permit is not required, use of this waiver or modification may take place only through a shoreline variance. It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria are met. As a condition of modification of access requirements, contribution to an off-site public access site shall be required. i. Unavoidable health or safety hazards to the public exist that cannot be prevented by any practical means. ii. Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions. iii_ The cost of providing the access, or mitigating the impacts of public access, is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long-term development and operational cost over the life -span of the proposed development. iv. Significant environmental impacts will result from the public access that cannot be mitigated_ v. Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. vi. Prior to determining that public access is not required, all reasonable altematives must be pursued, including but not limited to: (a) Regulating access by such means as maintaining a gate and/or limiting hours of use; (b) Designing separation of uses and activities (e.g., fences, terracing, use of one-way glazing, hedges, landscaping, etc.); and (c) Providing for specific facilities for public visual access, including viewing platforms that may be physically separated from the waters edge, but only if access adjacent to the water is precluded. d. Design Criteria for Public Access Sites: Public access shall incorporate the following location and design criteria: i. Walkways or Trails Required in Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites where vegetated open space is provided along the shoreline shall consist of a public pedestrian walkway parallel to the OHWM of the property. The walkway shall be buffered from sensitive ecological features, may be set back from the water's edge, and may provide limited and controlled access to sensitive features and the water's edge where appropriate. Fencing may be provided to control damage to plants and other sensitive ecological features and where appropriate. Trails shall be constructed of permeable materials and limited to four feet (4') to six feet (6') in width to reduce impacts to ecologically sensitive resources. ii. Access Requirements for Sites Without Vegetated Open Space: Public access on sites or portions of sites not including vegetated open space shall be not less than ten percent (10%) of the developed area within shoreline jurisdiction or three thousand (3,000) square feet, whichever is greater, on developments including non -water -dependent uses. For water -dependent uses, the amount and location may be varied in accordance with the criteria in subsection F3 of this Section. Public access facilities shall extend along the entire water frontage, unless such facilities interfere with the functions of water -dependent uses. The minimum width of public access facilities shall be ten feet (10') and shall be constructed of materials consistent with the design of the development; provided, that facilities addressed in the Renton Bicycle and Trails Master Plan shall be developed in accordance with the standards of that plan. iii. Access Requirements for Over -Water Structures: Public access on over -water structures on public aquatic lands, except for docks serving a single family residence, shall be provided and may include common use of walkway areas. Moorage facilities serving five (5) or more vessels shall provide a publicly accessible area of at least ten feet (10') at or near the end of the structure. Public marinas serving twenty (20) or more vessels may restrict access to specific moorage areas for security purposes as long as an area of at least ten percent (10%) of the over -water structure is available for public access and an area of at least twenty (20) square feet is provided at or near the end of the structure. Public access areas may be used in common by other users, but may not include adjacent moorage that obstructs public access to the edge of the water or obstructs views of the water. iv. Resolution of Different Standards: Where City trail or transportation plans and development standards specify dimensions that differ from those in subsections D4di, D4dii, or D4diii of this Section, the standard that best serves public access, while recognizing constraints of protection and enhancement of ecological functions, shall prevail. v. Access Requirements Determined by Reach: A coordinated program for public access for specified shoreline reaches is established in the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Element, Policy SH -31 Table of Public Access Objectives by Reach and in subsection D4f of this Section, Table of Public Access Requirements by Reach: (a) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in applying these provisions to individual development sites. (b) The City shall utilize the reach policies for public access as guidance in planning and implementing public projects. vi. Fund for Off -Site Public Access: The City shall provide a fund for off-site public access and may assess charges to new development that do not meet all or part of their public access requirements. Such a fund and charges may be part of or coordinated with park impact fees. Off-site public access shall be developed in accordance with the reach policies for public access. e. Public Access Development Standards: Public access facilities shall incorporate the following design and other features: i. Relation to Other Facilities: (a) Preferred Location: Public access shall be located adjacent to other public areas, accesses, and connecting trails, connected to the nearest public street, and include provisions for handicapped and physically impaired persons, where feasible. (b) Parking Requirements: Where public access is within four hundred feet (400') of a public street, on -street public parking shall be provided, where feasible. For private developments required to provide more than twenty (20) parking spaces, public parking may be required in addition to the required parking for the development at a ratio of one space per one thousand (1,000) square feet of public access area up to three (3) spaces and at one space per five thousand (5,000) square feet of public access area for more than three (3) spaces. Parking for public access shall include the parking spaces nearest to the public access area and may include handicapped parking if the public access area is handicapped accessible. (c) Planned Trails to Be Provided: Where public trails are indicated on the City's transportation, park, or other plans, construction of trails shall be provided within shoreline and non -shoreline areas of a site. ii. Design: (a) General: Design of public access shall provide the general public with opportunity to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations and shall be as close horizontally and vertically to the shoreline's edge as feasible; provided, that public access does not adversely affect sensitive ecological features or lead to an unmitigated reduction in ecological functions. (b) Privacy: Design shall minimize intrusions on privacy of adjacent use by avoiding locations adjacent to residential windows and/or outdoor private residential open spaces or by screening or other separation techniques_ iii. Use and Maintenance: (a) Public Access Required for Occupancy: Required public access sites shall be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy of the use or activity or in accordance with other provisions for guaranteeing installation through a monetary performance assurance. (b) Maintenance of Public Access Required: Public access facilities shall be maintained over the life of the use or development. Future actions by successors in interest or other parties shall not diminish the usefulness or value of required public access areas and associated improvements. (c) Public Access Must Be Legally Recorded: Public access provisions on private land shall run with the land and be recorded via a legal instrument such as an easement, or as a dedication on the face of a plat or short plat. Such legal instruments shall be recorded prior to the time of building occupancy or plat recordation, whichever comes first. (d) Maintenance Responsibility: Maintenance of the public access facility shall be the responsibility of the owner unless otherwise accepted by a public or nonprofit agency through a formal recorded agreement. (e) Hours of Access: Public access facilities shall be available to the public twenty four (24) hours per day unless an alternate arrangement is granted though the initial shoreline permitting process for the project. Changes in access hours proposed after initial permit approval shall be processed as a shoreline conditional use. (f) Signage Required: The standard State -approved logo or other approved signs that indicate the public's right of access and hours of access shall be installed and maintained by the owner. Such signs shall be posted in conspicuous locations at public access sites and at the nearest connection to an off-site public right -of -way - f. Public Access Requirements by Reach: The following table identifies the performance standards for public access within the shoreline, and shall be applied if required by the use regulations or development standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Cedar River Cedar Public physical access from a trail parallel to the water should be provided if the Renton Municipal River A Airport redevelops in the future, balanced with goals of ecological restoration. Cedar Public access should generally be provided within the corridor of public lands adjacent to the river; River B however, adjacent private parcels not separated by public streets should provide active open space and other facilities to provide gathering places to enjoy the shoreline environment, together with water - oriented uses. Revisions to the existing trail to relocate further from the waters edge to allow revegetation should be considered in the future as part of public park and river maintenance plans_ Cedar Public/community access along the waterfront should be provided as private lands on the north side of River C the river redevelop, considered along with the goal of restoration of ecological functions. Public or community access shall be provided when residential development occurs consistent with standards of the Shoreline Master Program. Cedar The primary goal for management of this reach should be ecological enhancement_ Additional public River D access to the water's edge may be provided if consistent with ecological functions. Public access shall be provided when residential lots are subdivided consistent with standards of this Section. S. Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources: a. Detailed Cultural Assessments May Be Required: The City will work with tribal, State, Federal, and other local governments as appropriate to identify significant local historical, cultural, and archaeological sites in observance of applicable State and Federal laws protecting such information from general public disclosure. Detailed cultural assessments may be required in areas with undocumented resources based on the probability of the presence of cultural resources. b. Coordination Encouraged: Owners of property containing identified or probable historical, cultural, or archaeological sites are encouraged to coordinate well in advance of application for development to assure that appropriate agencies such as the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups have ample time to assess the site and identify the potential for cultural resources. c. Detailed Cultural Assessments Required: Upon receipt of application for a development in an area of known or probable cultural resources, the City shall require a site assessment by a qualified professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional and ensure review by qualified parties including the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, affected tribes, and historic preservation groups. d. Work to Stop Upon Discovery: If historical, cultural, or archaeological sites or artifacts are discovered in the process of development, work on that portion of the site shall be stopped immediately, the site secured, and the find reported as soon as possible to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. Upon notification of such find, the property owner shall notify the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and affected tribes. The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee shall provide for a site investigation by a qualified professional and may provide for avoidance, or conservation of the resources, in coordination with appropriate agencies. e. Access for Educational Purposes Encouraged: Land owners are encouraged to provide access to qualified professionals and the general public if appropriate for the purpose of public education related to a cultural resource identified on a property. July 30, 2013 Testimony Before City of Renton Hearing Examiner Regarding Proposed Alterations to the Renton Library at Liberty Park Civil Action: LUA 13-000255, ECF,SA-H,SM Good Morning. My name is Dennis Ossenkop. I have been a resident of the City of Renton for over 40 years. I am here to make the Hearing Examiner aware of what I consider to be an inappropriate public comment process associated with the SEPA and Master Land Use Application findings regarding the proposed alteration of the Renton Library at Liberty Park. Perhaps a thumbnail history of my professional background will help you understand my concern. For 26 years I was the Regional Environmental Specialist covering 7 states in the Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. I was responsible for seeing Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, and their decision documents met applicable Federal regulations and processes. Additionally, I assisted in the defense of those documents in court situations. Now to my specific concern regarding the inappropriate public comment process and a remedy. The City of Renton prepared and sent out a Master Land Use Application data package to state, local, and Federal agencies for comment. I understand that several "special agencies" were given advance information and met with City of Renton and King County Library System representatives to discuss the material before the City of Renton mailed the data package to other agencies. "Non -special agencies", those not receiving advance information or attending any meetings, where limited to a 15 day comment period on the data package. One of these "non -special agencies" was the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Other "non -special agencies" may have offered significant comments on Historic and Cultural Preservation and or suggestions for the project. However, they were limited to the 15 day comment period or never received the data package. Local citizens requested participation in the comment period but did not receive the materials the City of Renton claims to have sent. Page 1 of 2 To me, such preferential treatment gave those "special agencies" far more time to develop comments and suggestions than the 15 day comment period provided the bulk of the agencies. All recipients of the Master Land Use Application data package should have been invited to participate in meetings offered to the "special agencies". It is my opinion that the unequal time to comment on the proposed alterations to the Renton Library at Liberty Park is a serious breach of the purpose and intent the SEPA process. It has been my long experience that unequal treatment of agencies and comment periods within the Federal environmental process is absolutely forbidden. Such unequal treatment of agencies and comment periods should not be tolerated within the SEPA and Master Land Use Application processes. I have a suggestion to cure this failure to fulfill both the SEPA and Master Land Use Application requirements to properly research and address potential significant impacts to Historic and Cultural issues. Re -open the comment period, to all agencies, for a period of 21 calendar days for the specific purpose of identifying any Historic and Cultural issues associated with the proposed action. This time, allow all agencies the same amount of time to consider potential impacts and comment appropriately. Thank you. Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 35 PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division E r}r;f=� e MSion 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 MAP, -I 2913 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: n The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmenal— agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of.the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to Delp the agency decide whether an EIS is required_ INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). me 4.1.2013 %Xmhfi1es21Projects4Renton Ubrary at L34erty ParidDocuments104_Ageridesl 002 Land Use Applicatlons113-0510 Land Use R"uhm1tls141 Ws10 Land Use RE-SUSMTrAODS- envie rirnental cdeddist.doc For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: RENTON LIBRARY at LIBERTY PARK 2. Name of applicant: KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM in conjunction with CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact. person: Greg Smith King County Library System Service Center 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 425.369.3237 Peter Renner City of Renton Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.6605 4. Date checklist prepared: May 10, 2013 5. Agency requesting checklist: 0 7 Administrative Site Plan Review: COR Planning Division Environmental (SEPA) Review: COR Planning Division Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: GOR Planning Division Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): We would like the submittals expedited as promptly as possible. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Not at this time. -2- 4.1.2013 klmhfilW%RrojedslRenton Ubrary at Liberty Parkld0cur1ents104_A9-desl_002 Land Use ApplicaGons113-0510 Land Uss ReSuhnl ttal113-0510 Sand Use RESUBMITTALW - environmental chocklistdoc 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Regulated Materials Survey Report dated 6.25.2012, prepared by URS Stream Study and Habitat Data Report dated 5.10.2013, prepared byTalasaea Consultants, Inc. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain_ There are no other pending proposals for this site. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Administrative Site Plan Review, City of menton Environmental (SEPA) Review, City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, City of Renton Demolition Permit, City of Renton Building Permit, City of Renton Hydraulic Project Approval, WA Department of Fish & Wildlife 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site_ The project, Renton Library at Liberty Park, is a renovation of an existing 22,400 SF library into a 19,680 (gross) SF library. The site address is 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057. The project affects three parcels, the total limit of work is 37,630 SF. Proposed improvements include seismic upgrades to the existing structure, demolition of existing building envelope, installation of new envelope and building systems, as well as site improvements as a result of seismically -required below -grade concrete abutments. This project proposes the demolition of under -performing portions of the existing building. First any asbestos -containing materials identified in the Regulated Materials Survey will be removed by Certified Asbestos Workers. Then the contractor will dismantle, demolish, and remove: interior partitions, ceilings and finishes, mechanical and electrical systems, portions of the existing roof and roof sheathing, portions of the roof structure, the exterior envelope including glazing, frames, masonry, portions of the concrete topping slab, and portions of the concrete structure. On the site, one tree will be removed in order to excavate for the required seismic upgrades to the concrete structure. The existing asphalt parking lot west of the building will remain in place. INI 4.1.2013 "mhf11es2%PrajedSNRentm Library at Liberty ParkLDowmentS104 Agendasl_002 Land Use Applicatims113^0510 Land Use Re-SuhmftW%13-051 p Land Use RESUBMr r7ALX05 - SaMranmental checkiist.dac n of the ibrary This project further proposes s �� full concreotestructure lwith b wotbelowlgrade includes the seismic upgrade concrete pile caps at the banks of the Cedar River, with auger cast piles as ground improvements. The roof structure will be braced for seismic with steel brace frames in both directions. The building envelope will be replaced with a high -performing curtainwall system with transparent glazing and a metal panel wall assembly. New systems infrastructure will be part of the project including mechanical, lighting, electrical, data, plumbing, fire suppression, and fire alarm. Site improvements include replacement of the existing sanitary side sewer pipe from the building connection to the connection at the city main in Mill Avenue S due to the current poor condition of the,pipe. 12. Location of the proposal.project, including a street address, if any, and section, precise 1 precise location of your proposed proccur over a range area, provide oject, township, and range if known. 1f a proosal rovwould fe vide a egaidescr description, site plan, vicinity map, and range or boundaries of the site(s) topographic map, if reasonably availa You should mit any agency, you are not required to duplicate maps .Ieor detailed plans submitted o ted with any perm lans required by tht applications related to this checklist. Library Address: 100 Mill Avenue South Renton WA 98057 Quarter -Section -Township -Range: NW -17-23-5 Parking Lot Parcel: Plat Lot / Unit Number: Address: 768500-0010 1 thru 6 1100 S 2nd St Renton, WA 98055 Liberty Park Comm Bldg Parcel: 172305-9011 Address: 1119 Bronson Way N Renton, WA 98055 Renton Library & Skateboard Park Parcel: 172305-9043 Address: 200 Mill Ave 5 Renton, WA 98055 4.1.2013 -4- WnhfilssAProjedslRenton Library at Liberty ParklDacuments104 Agendesl 002 land Use ApprIWdOns"3-0516 Lind Use Re-Submlttall' 3-0510 Land Use RE-SUBMITTAL105 - en+Arunmantai chBcklist.dOr 1. EARTH a_ General description of the site (circle one); flat, FelliAg, hilly, steep slopes, ominous, other: The site is generally flat except where the Cedar River runs through it. The Cedar River flows through a generally steep -sided, artificially - constructed channel in a north -northwesterly direction_ b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) There is 50% slope at the river banks, however no work will occur within this area. 3% slope is the steepest within the construction site area. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soil types encountered on the project site consisted of undocumented fill and recent alluvium deposits. Fill soils were encountered in each of the explorations completed and consisted of loose to medium dense/very soft to soft silty sand/silt with variable gravel and cobble content, and organics. The fill extended to depths of 15 feet below existing grades. Recent alluvium deposits were observed below the fill and consisted of medium dense to very dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and medium dense to dense gravel with varying amounts of silt and sand. The recent alluvium deposits extended to the depth explored. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. No surface expression of instability was noted. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 900 cubic yards of soil will have to be excavated for the installation of the below -grade concrete abutments. After the concrete is poured, approximately 360 cubic yards will be filled on site above the abutments. Material will be imported from WSDOT approved pits as needed. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion is not likely. Any exposed soils will be covered with an all- weather construction surface prior to construction. - 5 - 4.1.2013 11mhSes25Projec1s%Renton Library at Liberty ParKDocumentsIO4_Agenciesl_OQ2 Land Use App5cadcnaM-0510 Land Use Re.Submitta1113-0510 Land Use RE-SUBMITTAM5 - environmental checkllst.doc g_ About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 91% of the site area will be covered by impervious surfaces. (This represents a 1% reduction of impervious surfaces) Note: The site area for this project is the area within the limit of work as shown in the civil site plan (37,630 SF). Note: The project will reduce the footprint of the existing building that spans the Cedar River by approximately 7%. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Existing asphalt will be maintained within the parking lot reducing the amount of exposed soils on site. Exposed existing soils will be covered with an all-weather construction surface, likely crushed rock or rip rap prior to construction, which will protect the soils from rain water and wind. Soil stock piles will be covered with plastic as needed during construction. During dry summer months, a water truck may be utilized to prevent wind-blown dust. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? if any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known_ Exhaust from diesel- and gasoline -powered equipment is likely during construction. Dust from the use of construction equipment on dry soil is possible. Dust from cutting or removal of concrete is also possible. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. There are no known off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect the proposed project. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Exhaust emissions will be limited when practicable byturning off equipment if it will be idling for an extended period of time. Emissions of dust will be prevented by measures such as wetting of soil where heavy equipment will be travelling, and by best management practices during concrete demolition. -6- 4_'1.2013 %whfiles2►ProjeclsVRenton Library at liberty Park\Documents504—Agenciesl_002 Land use Applieations113-0510 Land Use Re_suhmtttal113-0510 Land Use RE-SUBMfTTAL195 - environmental cheddiadoe 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Cedar River runs through the project site. The Cedar River is a Class 1 Stream and a Shoreline of the State. All lands within 200' of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River are considered State Shorelands and are subject to the regulations of the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. The Cedar River is also designated as Critical Habitat by the City of Renton and contains anadromous salmonids, including species Federally -listed as threatened or endangered, The Cedar River flows into Lake Washington approximately 1.5 river miles downstream of the project site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and. attach available plans. Yes. The project includes the renovation of an existing building that spans the Cedar River. Work will be performed on the building itself over the river as well as within a work area within the 200 -foot shoreline zone on either side of the river (this work area will extend approximately 60 feet beyond the OHWM on both banks of the river). No work will occur below the OHWM or below the 100 -year Base Flood Elevation (+39.62' NAVD88) 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands. No work will occur below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No removal of surface water will result from the proposed project. S) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Portions of the library building are located over the 100 -year floodplain. However, all proposed work will be above the 100 -year Base Flood Elevation, determined to be +39.62' NAVD88 for this site. -7- 4.1.2013 1Vnhfi1B&ZPProjecftyARenton Libraryat liberty Park1Onarma ftW _Agenclesl_002 Land Use Applications113-0510 Land Use Re-SubmipaR13-051D Land Use RESUBMITTAL105 - eW ronmerte! cfieck W.doc 6) Does the pro#�el',nvaliandanticipated volume of amaterials discharge. surface waters? if so, describetype ofwaste No discharge of waste materials will occur during construction or after project completion. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water bedisch an d Coif grouknownd Give general description, purpose,pp Withdrawal of groundwater should not be a necessary part of this project. Seismic stabilization work near the building's outer footings will involve the use of auger cast piles and will likely not require dewatering during construction. No water will be discharged into the ground as a result of the proposed project. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems) are expected to serve. None. C. Water Runoff (including storm water); 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. Storm water runoff from the building's roof after the renovation will be routed through permanent below ground pipes to the existing drainage system which currently discharges into the Cedar River below the building. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. No. Construction storm water will be captured and treated prior to discharge to the existing below grade piped storm drainage system. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm water will be captured on site and conveyed to the existing below grade piped storm drainage system. No ground water will be collected or discharged as part of this project. 4.1.2013 -8- 11mhtlles7WrajedslRentoa Library at Liberty ParklUocument X04_Agwc!es� 00 3 2 Land Use Applicatians110510 end Use Re•Sub-MA13-0510 Land Use RE-SUBMr TAL105 - errvirnnmentai checklistdoc 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? One Cherry Tree, 12" caliper, is proposed for removal. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The planting palette will include native and non-native adapted/drought tolerant species. Plantings will include trees, shrubs, groundcovers and restoration of existing turf areas. S. ANIMALS a- Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, "erGn, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, heave other Fish. bass, salmon, trout, heFFi g, shellfi--J , other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. The reach of the Cedar River that includes the project site has known runs of Puget Sound fall Chinook, Puget Sound winter steelhead, and bull trout. Also present are Puget Sound coho, which are a Federally -listed species of concern. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain The Cedar River is a migration route for Chinook, coho, sockeye and steelhead, as well as bull trout and coastal resident cutthroat trout- The project site is also within the Pacificflyway for migratory birds. -9- 4.1.2013 1lmhfi19&2lProsec1sRenton Library at Liberty Pa*\Documents"_Agenciesl 402 Land Use ApplicaUans113-0510 Land Use Rr SubmMA13-0510 Land Use RE-SUEINIMMU05 - awAru imental checklisLdac Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The project proposes to contribute to a vegetation conservation fund maintained by the City of Renton for the purpose of enhancing the lower reach of the Cedar River_ This fund is currently in development. Several potential sites on the Cedar River have been located within the City of Renton that could be enhanced for the benefit of Federally -listed threatened or endangered species of salmonids. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural gas will be used for gas heating_ Grid electrical energy will be used for other building needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. This project should not affect the potential use of solar power by adjacent properties. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Electrical Conservation features: We will use LED, fluorescent, and ceramic metal halide lamps, which are the most energy efficient lighting options available. We are targeting a 10% or better below energy code for lighting. We will have daylight dimming controls in all daylight zones and occupancy sensors in non-active rooms. Mechanical Conservation features: The building will use an efficient natural gas condensing boiler for heating. Ductwork and piping will be sized to reduce pumping and fan energy. Cooling equipment will be specified with efficiencies exceeding code. Thermal Conservation features: The existing building is poorly insulated and has low -performance glazing systems. The proposed new building envelope will significantly improve thermal performance of the existing building. It will consist of high performance fenestration systems, opaque wall systems, and roof assemblies that meet or exceed current Washington State Energy Code requirements. _10. 4.1.2013 UmhfilesAProjectsWanton LlbrM at Liberty ParlAt7ocuments" Agenciesl_002 Land Use Applicoons113-0510 Land Use ReSuhmittal113-0510 Land Use RE-SUBMiTTAM5 - environmental chaWsLADc 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a_ Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. We do not anticipate exposure to toxic chemicals or other environmental health hazards as a part of this proposal. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. We do not anticipate any special emergency services being required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not Applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Nearby traffic noise does exist at Bronson Way N, however we do not anticipate that it will adversely affect this project. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During construction, a temporary increase in noise in the vicinity is anticipated due to construction activities and the use of machines such as earth movers, compactors, trucks, and other typical construction equipment. The hours of construction activity are anticipated to be limited to between 7:00 a -m. and 7:00 p.m. and will not exceed the maximum permissible noise levels, as determined by WAC Chapter 173- 60. The library's general hours of operation are anticipated to be as follows: Monday — Thursday 10am -- 9pm Friday loam — 6pm Saturday loam — 5pm Sunday fpm — 5pm Additionally, a range of vehicles will make deliveries to the library. Noise impacts to neighboring uses are not anticipated as a result of the library and associated activities. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Although noise impacts are not anticipated and the project is not required to implement noise mitigation, the proposed library is planned to be constructed with sound.insulation or other means to achieve a day/night average interior noise level of 45 Ldn. -11- 4.1.2013 tlmhfl1es2V>"adalRenton Library at Liberty ParkMocuments104_Agendesl_002 Land Use Appiications03-0510 Land Use ReSubmittaN13-051 D Land Use RESUBMITTALW5-environmental checkliatdoc 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The existing building is currently in use as a library_ Adjacent to the project site are the following uses: • Northeast: public park • Southeast: Cedar River • Southwest: parking lot & office building • Northwest: Cedar River with Bronson Way bridge Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. C. describe any structures on the site. The site consists of three parcels, totaling 305,958 SF. These parcels include several structures that will not be affected by this project. The unaffected structures are Liberty Park Community Building (per King County Assessor), Old City Hail/200 Mill Building (per COR GIS), and several Parks and Recreation structures: skate board park, shelter, Utility building, and Basketball court. The area of the limit of proposed work is 37,630 SF. It includes the existing Renton Library, which spans the Cedar River and is the focus of this proposal. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The project proposes to remodel the existing Renton Library. This will include some demolition work. First any asbestos -containing materials identified in the Regulated Materials Survey will be removed by Certified Asbestos Workers. Then the contractor will dismantle/demolish and remove: interior partitions, ceilings and finishes, mechanical and electrical systems, portions of the existing roof and roof sheathing, portions of the roof structure, the exterior envelope including glazing/frames and masonry, and portions of the concrete topping slab. On the site one tree will be removed in order to excavate for the required seismic upgrades to the concrete structure. The existing asphalt parking lot at the West end of the site will remain in place. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CD — Center Downtown f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? UC -D (Urban Center Downtown) NFIX 4.4.2013 1lmhG1es21ProjectslRentan Library at Liberty PaMoowments%o4 Agencic l_M2 Land Use Applicatiens113-M510 [Arid Use Re-SubmittaK13-059a Land Use RE-SUBMITTALT5 - environmental checKst.doc g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The Cedar River is a Class 1 Stream and a Shoreline of the State. All lands within 200' of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the Cedar River are considered State Shorelands and are subject to the regulations of the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program. The Cedar River is also designated as Critical Habitat by the City of Renton and contains anadromous salmonids, including species that are Federally -listen as threatened or endangered. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. The library site includes the Cedar River and portions of its associated shorelands and buffer, which are environmentally sensitive areas. No other environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, lakes, or streams, are on the site. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Full time staff at any one time would be between 5-7 employees. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Documents being submitted describe measures being taken to ensure compatibility with land use code. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. - 13 4.1.2013 1lmhfiles25ProjectS Renton Ubrary at Libarry PFidd0ocuments\04 Agendas\ 002 Land Use ApprticabGns.M-0510 Land Use Re-Submlttat113-0510 Land Use RESUBMITTALIUS - envirornnental checkli"oc 10. AESTHETIC5 a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The proposed remodel will not increase the height of the existing building, approximately 19'-0" above grade. The required screening at the rooftop mechanical units will add approximately another 10'-0" in one specific location, in the middle of the roof, towards the northeast corner. The existing rooftop mechanical unit is approximately the same size as the proposed and currently not screened. The building envelope will consist mainly of aluminum curtainwall frames with transparent glazing and a metal panel wall assembly. b_ What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Views to the Cedar River from within the building will be enhanced. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Because this is a renovation, the aesthetics of the existing building will largely determine the final design expression. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a- What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The lighting for this project will be controlled to reduce or eliminate any potential for glare. Downlights with excellent shielding and cutoff will be incorporated into all spaces; interior and exterior. Placement of exterior fixtures in the plaza will contain the light to the plaza and will not impact the river or night sky. All lighting will be reduced to minimal security lighting during night hours_ b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Light and glare are not anticipated to be a safety hazard or interfere with views. All outdoor luminaires would be well shielded and directed downward so light is contained to the plaza but not beyond the plaza to the river below. All but safety and security lighting will be automatically shut off at a designated time to further reduce nighttime presence. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No offsite light sources are anticipated to affect this proposal. -14- 4.1.2013 1Wh iles2NProjectslRentcn Library of Liberty PatkV)=ments104 Agenclesl_002 Land Use ApplicaUons113-0510 Land Use ReSubmittal113-0510Land Use RE-SUBMITTAL105 - environmental checklist.due d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Light levels will meet but not exceed Illuminating Engineering Society (IES — produces lighting standards for the lighting industry) recommendations to provide the industry standard amount of light and minimize over lighting the space. Any outdoor luminaires would be directed downward to illuminate the intended surface and minimize glare. Automatic controls will be implemented to turn off non-critical lighting after-hours to further reduce light impact. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Public Park with basketball, tennis, baseball, park shelter, the river b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Not applicable. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N o. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 4.1.2013 Urnh51es21PrnjectsWWon Ubraryat Uberty ParklDowments)04 Agendesl_002 Land Use, 4pplications113-0510 Land Use Re-SubmittaR13-051U Land Use RESUBWTALW5 - environmental checklist.doo 14. TRANSPORTATION Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Mill Avenue South Bronson Way North South 2nd Street The parking lot included in the site is accessed from Mill Avenue South. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. The sidewalk on Mill Ave S directly adjacent to the parking lot has a bus stop that serves lines 105, 110, 143, 167, 240, 342, 907, 908, and 909. One block south, a bus stop serves lines 101, 148, and 153_ How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed project has (70) stalls. The project would eliminate (4) parking stalls. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No new roads or streets are required. e. Will the project use for occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Because this project maintains an existing use, the number of vehicular trips should not deviate from the current amount of trips to the building. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Not applicable. -16- 4.1.2013 llmhhles2lProj&cWRenlnn Library at Liberty ParklDouanents104_Agenriesl_002 Land Use Appficabons113-0510 Land Use R Ljbrn ttaRl3-0510 Land Use RE-SuBmf rTAL105 - emirmmental checklisLdoc IS. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any, Not applicable. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, Witie system, other: communications fiber. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The City of Renton provides domestic water service and sanitary sewer service for the site. Sanitary side sewer replacement is proposed. The existing domestic water service has been recently replaced and will be maintained. Electric service provided by PSE, and communications & telephone service provided by King County IN ET.are proposed. Minor modifications to the existing private storm conveyance system within the parking lot on site are proposed. C. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent Signature: r� Name Printed: Maaike Post Date: 05.10.2013 4.1.2013 %VnhMesZlPn4actz%Renton Library at LibertyPaii OMWMAntz1U4_4genclesl_002Land Use ANAcstans193-0510 Land Uw Re-SubF i hl3-M10 Land Use RE-SUBMrrTAL1U5 - errvirommntal chedcfst.doc C,) UUW NV -Id 3JJS ! 2\\Eg 'C��6 vm. NolNsij I H.Lnos imwaAv Tim oo §M3 w )4NVd jUH3BnLV L) AH"EIII NOINM I ;gl — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — z 0 t > ME IL LIU — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — z Renton Library RE: IN CML ACTION No. LUA 13-000285, ECF, SA -H, SM dated: July 29, 2013 am a native son of Renton. Born here in 1950. 1 have lived here almost my entire life. My family's history in Renton dates back over 110 years when my Great Grandmother Celine Boulanger Longville Delaurenti came here as a widow with her 4 children. As a child I spent many hours at the old Carnegie Library. I can testify to the immense difference the new Library over the River made to our city. It's completion created an entirely new way of enjoying the area as a campus. I raised my children here and we spent many wonderful hours at the library. k is a centerpiece for much of what is special and unique in our city. Without question the draw for all children who grew up here is the special experience of arriving and departure. The main entrance on the bridge deck provides a one of a kind direct overview of the river and its wildlife inhabitants. The Johnston and Campanella Architects created a first class building that has been enjoyed by all and has stood the test of time for its vision and purpose. Why isn't KCLS wanting to honor and/or celebrate that? I've witnessed the use and enjoyment by young and old as they come and go from the library since it was built. To change the main entrance on the bridge deck over the river would destroy it's iconic feature. I have had hundreds of conversations with people across the United States, Canada, and beyond through my social networks online. If they know anything of Renton, Washington, they know about the Library over the River. Sincerely, Rene Fabre 1305 S Puget Dr. #B-12 Renton, WA 98055 425-749-9296 King County Library System Board of Trustees Meeting March 19, 2013 Citizens Testify to Renton's Iconic Library and EntrV over the Cedar River CD Directory 06:30 Board of Trustees Welcomes Testimony 07:22 Chris Clifford 09:01 Moving Library Entrance 11:15 Paul -Cost overruns 15:45 Nick -Presents Printed testimony 17:21 Marilyn, a grandmother Losses due to demolition Loss of entry over the river Loss of Northwest Collection 19:49 Dana -Iconic architecture from designers Perspective; library patrons use of library 22:38 Judy Mulligan, Library Board Member for 11 years 26:00 Kerrick, Library patrons perspective on losses 29:01 David Beedon, Keep the floor size Keep the entry over the river 33:06 Judy Tabak, speaking for wheelchair patrons Patrons appreciate river entry and 22,500 sq. ft. size Loss of oak study desks for ease in library use 34:15 Richard Bray -Compares Seattle's Pike Place Market To Renton's Iconic library over the river; what loss of entry Over the river means to Renton citizens and shrinking library space 37:45 Nicola Robinson -quotes KCLS staff at City of Renton City Council Retreat "stop diddling around", "libraries are our business" KCLS plan to demolish 30% of current library over the river and Remove entry over the river 42:01 John -Remodeling vs demolition Stewardship of taxpayer dollars 44:30 Marci Palmer, Renton City Council Member speaking as a Private citizen; 76% voted to keep the library location on the river "Cedar River Library is Renton's Icon "Embrace the treasure you have stewardship over" Children's concern for loss "Interactive learning experience" 48:08 Tom -Population facts and library size; keep the size 51:13 Kathie -keep the size, keep the entry over the river Historic significance to the citizens of Renton and the Nation Use of entry over the river by children Loss of spacious children's section 2009-2013 Washington State Governor's Goals for Historic Preservation and Value to Communities who follow this path CD Directory PaAe_Two 56:08 David Keyes -Land Use Review and Design Process Requests oversight by KCLS Board of Trustees Drawings presented to Renton City Council threaten our resource with demolition 1:02:30 Beth Asher -Avoid demolition over the river No sign critical citizen input has been received by KCLS Design Team KCLS overcharging design costs -SAO notified 1:05:30 Audience Questions Mr. Ptacek and Greg Smith of KCLS statements 1:08:32 Asking Board of Trustees for oversight Board of Trustees confirm communication with Citizens by email and some questions will be answered At March 29 Public Meeting 1:13:04 Robin, Board of Trustee -recognizes disconnect with community, Annexation was by only 53 votes 1:15:00 Board of Trustee "I have heard the word iconic structure from you tonight, I understand the concept of sacred structure in a community, Your dissatisfaction is very clear 1:17:20 David Keyes -open process is described but open process is controlled From citizen observations 1:19:00 Board of Trustees requests citizen contact information 1:19:30Testimony, Audience Questions and Response from Board of Trustees closes -b}-� -,3 v 7/2Ki2013 PROJECT NAME: Renton Library at Liberty Park PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM Staterrrerai in the rlpjpeal letter of ,Jul , 5, ?01.3 Grossly inaccurate and incorrect answers submitted by KCLS and their architectural consultant, The Miller Hull Partnership LLP, to Question 13 "Historic and Cultural Preservation" within the Environmental Checklist dated 05.10.2013 and signed by Maaike Post. In this case, the The fallowing are, fr-om sialernenis in the SEEPA documents: a. Site Design: (pg 9) 1. Intent: ...building orientation.... encourage pedestrian activity. (acces.s. froni Liberty Park) b. Building Orientation (pg 9) 1. Building shall enhance relationship.... with roads, open space and pedestrian amenities.... to create a pedestrian oriented environment. 2. Standard: Building oriented.... with clear connection to sidewalk. c. Building Entries (pg 9) 1. Intent:...to ensure that building entries further pedestrian nature...and urban character of the district. (hridge walkivay, fi-orn Liberty Park) 2. Primary entry shall be ....the prominent entry. Pedestrian access ....from sidewalk and other areas shall be provided. (no entry,f•orn bridge walk►way and Liberty Pork is provided) 3. Standard: Primary entrance... shall be.... connected by walkway to public sidewalk. 4. Standard: Building entries from parking lot shall be..., subordinate to those related to the street. (bridge walk -way is a primary access from Liberty Park) 5. Standard: ... entries and lobbies.. —shall be oriented to ....pedestrian -oriented space. tPedestricin-oriented space from Liberty Park is fi-orn bridge walkw' y) d. Transition to surrounding Development (pg 1o) 1. Intent:....... shape project so that .....the value of Renton's long-established existing neighborhoods are preserved. (Preserve historical access to and fi-orn Liberq, Park) e. OFF SITE IMPACTS: (pg 1 8 ) 1. Structure: .... The existing building would remain compatible with civic center ... at Liberty Park. (However no direct access is prov ded from the bridge access) 2. Circulation: Provide desirable.... linkages between uses... and adjacent properties. Walkways... would provide linkages...to Liberty Park and Cedar River... (However no direct entry and access_ from Liberty- park is provided) 3. Views: Recognize.... public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural feature. Pedestrian crossing...to remain.... adds accessibility to Cedar River (Does not provide direct access to the river views without a direct entry to building) f. ON --SITE IMPACT (pg t9) 1. Structure placement: ... building placement... ....Applicant.... not proposed any changes ... (contrary,the inclusion of concrete deck at wedge ' connectiag bridge to the building slab at entry area. (see dti179 LL 00 Site Plan)) Data/OE/Library/7.30.13 SEEPA appeal notes Pg] of 2 7/28/2013 g. ACCESS (pg 20) 1. Location....: Provide access points... and consolidate ingress and egress... ... Building could be accessed via Liberty Park.... r170W �V?, 170 tiirec•f I tc°cc,,s s t< 1. m), hric: ties is provided) 2. Internal circulation: Promote ... Oficient ... pedestrian access points.... ...Pedestrian bridge would remain the same... to provide access ...to Liberty Park .... to main entrance....lLanclsccrping cls°g.s include concrete deck at to building slab cat entry, area, bid no direct eaatry to vestibule (see cit g L1. 00 Site flan)) h_ OPEN SPACE: (pg 20) incorporate open space... project focal point.... ...entry plaza serves as project focal point.....via pedestrian bridge... access to Liberty Park....Cedar river.. ...(no direct entry and access to bridge to Lihert_ti= park is provided) CONCLUSION-- (pg 22) 6. Access and circulation has not been changed.... existing access operated efficiently at existing site ... (Aece.s.s to Library.fi•otn liberty Park and Parking Lot iva.s proti iclecl frcrrrt they existing brick),e at center span. for nearly 50 years) Incompatibili(y between submitted drawings cis part of'the intake documents: 1. Arch Site Plan G-003: (Exhibit 3): (.shmi,s the Playa area ending at Parking; Lot .sidewalk) II. Civil Site Plan C-300: (Exhibit 5): (.Docs not shoat, the 'ii edge 'concrete igfill, rather an indication of open to t-vater help t••) III. Landscaping dwgs L1.00 & L5.00 (Exhibit 6 & 7): ('ith a clear inclusion o fcuncrete deck pavement at 'wedge ' it fall connecting pedestrian bridge to building •slab at enir_v area plaza, but no direct entry to vcstihlde) IV Arch Floor Plan A-101: (Exhibit ]o); (Does not shot) any indication of the concrete 'i�!edge connecting hrio�,e to the braildirrg slab at entry Plaza) Recommended Mitigation for direct access to Library vestibule from existing bridge. I. Concrete deck pavement at `wedge' infill shown on Landscaping Dwg L 1.00 to remain. 11. Move interior vestibule wall to column `B' (See Arch Floor Plan A-101 & `Entry Location' dwg 04.I5.13) III. Add vestibule Entry adjacent to column `B' to clear structural bracing (see Arch Building Elevation A-201) Data/o.E/Library/7.30.13 SEEPA appeal notes pg2 of 2 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation R;ENTON LIBRARY Ar LIBERTY PARK LUA13-0002SS, ECF, SA -H, 5M Report of July 9, 2013 Rage 9 of 22 IIIc tfidl 7`ntent• To ensure allot burldMg ate- Oealel MM, a. iT� stet to �r [�f f (YtQr3 cern h2 (1r f# 7(4� e Srf �Ir�3fif� .Pr#IT�fp11T�?�?l�t� s(# 1 ]135r77me.sTefy (7r5r 1 [ ? pm.l?ri6lrari lits -n srr�rid rar 1 Burldirrg Location Gird Drlent[�ir�rp _ ': ;: Intent �o ensure+rsrbr7rty pf businesses trod to esin6l>sh uctrve, 7ruely arses along srtletvaits.rnd iedestrian pathways To Organize 6urldrrags for pedestrian use and sa. that natural (Iglat-1s'c7varltr6le to' other structures and open space To ensure an approprrpte aransrtran between lxurldngs, purk►rag areas„ ,anal atherlar�d-uses, and rrrcrease prrvc�,cy forresrdential-uses _ - urdel►nes 13evelopments shall enlaonce aIle rriufual relatrorrshlp of brfld►rigs w►th each oar, asuelX a �v►f l: rl a roans, open sl#acer and pedestrian amenities while Workrn: to crepte gar pedes`t#ic# orfenfed` ernnronn2errt lots sh:Qll he tanfigured to :encourage variety'and so that ngtural.liglxt fs' avprlatfe to.` brrrldlrags and perr_SptrCe Theprrvacyrof..rrlr ivrduals,rn:resident►al uses s(rallbe prrn�rd d frrr _ Standard: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures. Standard: Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. Standard: The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. Standard. Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be set back from the N/A sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10) and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building or have the ground floor residential uses raised above street level for residents privacy. dU►Idrng �ntrres� � i »aeroa fi t �7drrrgbl�d�d TanluaeM9,-ap��C 45 ertfrr`esurthetred+�claf jrir#grdevua�l#htarrcr r cra�Yra►yet' Gurdeflresi'rJr#ary entries shall Face tl streeir serve os a focal 'lZo�nt,d rrl�lakv spade far sacral isfteraetron Alf Entrrs shall �rxclude featuresha> make them easily` rdentrf_ 6Ie tylrrfe refect►rfg lite: Lirslutectural chriraclet orf tn'� 6urldrng 7`he-lsrrrrttrry e�iy sl�at� be•�� �c#St'Ylsupllyr p�f?r??rner�t �Ped�trran- ffccgss tome 6arrd#r1g frbrrx the s�tlewr�'Ifr,-perr�Cang�lt�ts� ar�.t�r �othet �relr� Shall be pr[tu�ded and shall e»hgirce the'-overfill.-g�aalraf th�per���1C1"�ah eiiperlettc� ark Lhe site Statrdard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street 'f shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements_ Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting_ Standard Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at feast four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide (illustration below). Buildings that are taller than thirty feet (30') in height shall also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground leve! Standard: Building entries from a parlong lot shall be subordinate to (hose related to the street HDC report 13-000255_doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Heafing E] OMIner Recommendation RENTONLIBRARYATLIBERTY PARK LUA13-0O0255, ECF, SA -H, SM Report of Jufy 9, 2013 Page 10 of 7-2 HEX report 13-000255.doc Standard. features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shalt be oriented to a street 'r or pedestrian -oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features should be incorporated. Standard. Multiple buildings on the same site shall direct views to building entries by NSA providing a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping. Standard: Ground floor residential units that are directly accessible from the street shall N/A include entries from front yards to provide transition space from the street or entries from an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street TrrmstrSirr rtrg hpme �. - lrrte]aty �a .sh[P r gent eeso - p �p °J �i ,#re �I o 0,4e4 �4¢ tidhr��f R�rktod � � v , existtrzg %6tt•#mraak prese rl v_ Gr�rdeJrnes Careful �rtsrtg and dergrr #reatment shad be used % ache a corrrpatrble transrtron where drew buildirrg#�fiffrfrQrxr sr�:nundrrg developm�lt� r>r ter�s.af turldingi3���g�t=bulktrrrd scale � .2 ... Standard. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses. (a) Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels, - (b) Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or (c) Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development Additionally, the administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards. - ' iR#er►t tea pvtetitra[ it au+e r►n eg pa+-tf"serv►ee,s {te,'wo reeepefe 1QAdrrig c�cics blcreatx�rr �+ rvrae g t3 job - t7 o�Ntrrotn high vcrfrlrxie pedestan grew.tt7t# scPeenrnr3 4.11e i,�!l!II�T,!' N�fity Vr4..1.5 - x Sy : 3 �trdefrnes•3er�ce(edler sha�it�ae cancr�traed at�c rte so that ►rripaeF� tp pedess ppnther gbu#trng uses gt�nalmrted T(ie ttr{pac#s of sel�v7ce(irints slral!eltQdvl`! lacafirrg atzd an ,..: .. _ enclosure yvith, fencr ural , rs?xrrafe of guehtyatrrals _ : :_ .... ,. __ Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts•on the 'r pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use. Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed an all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by.a wall or fence and have self-closing doors - V1, Staff Comment: The applicant has indicated that adding a roof to the refuse and recycling facility would increase the height of the structure to 9 feet from 6 feet, which would detract aesthetically from the main facade and begin to hinder sightlines. Clue to the location of the facility, the provided 6 -foot high screening and metal fence would meet the intent of reducing negative impact related to the service elements, Standard. Service enclosures shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three (3). Standard. If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility_ HEX report 13-000255.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation RENPON UBRARYATLisERTY PARK LUA132T255, ECF, SA -H, SM Report oflufy 9, 2013 Page 18 of 22 at this to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, other time significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork. Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular Unknown movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively at this or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior time On -Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or decorative lighting, right -of - way -lighting, etc.). d. PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE AND CONISTENCY; The proposal is not subject to a Planned Action or Development Agreement. e. OFF SiTE IMPACTS: Structures: Restricting overscole structures and overconcentratian of development on a particular portion of the site. The rehabilitated building would be located in the same location as the existing structure resulting in no change to the existing concentration of development at any particular location of the site. The updated building would remain compatible with the existing cirvic center located at Liberty Park, Circalatfon: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The proposed project would not impact any of the existing streets, with the exception of minor utility installation. The applicant would be required to restore any temporary construction impacts to the existing street and/or sidewalks_ The walkways located along the north and south side of the building would be restored following construction and would provide linkages between the building, public street, Liberty Park, and the Cedar River Trail. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties_ The existing parking areas are not proposed to change, however under existing conditions these areas are currently landscaped with mature vegetation. The applicant has indicated roof top equipment would be screened with a metal grating system (Exhibit 9). Also see Refuse and Recyclables discussion under Findings Sections 20.b. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features. The existing building is located over the Cedar River, which provides a significant public benefit by providing visual accessibility to this natural feature_ The two facades that span the river are designed with translucent glazing, which allows for visual access inside and outside the building. in addition, the existing pedestrian crossing is proposed to remain, which also adds visual accessibility to the Cedar River. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project See Landscaping discussion under Findings Section 20.b. Lighting: Designing and/or plocing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. New building and entry lighting would be included with the buildings rehabilitation. Lighting at the location needs to be balanced with the environmental considerations associated with the critical habitat provided in the Cedar River and the safety needs of a Dublic library Ac a Mart of tho c;:Dn HEX report I3-"255.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation RENTON Lf6RARYAT LIBERTY PARK tUA13-OW255, ECF, SA -H, SM Report of July 9, 2013 Page 19 of 22 Environmental Review, a mitigation measure was required that balanced the safety needs of lighting with the potential for impacts on the salmon. This mitigation measure requires shielding and cutoff of the lighting. A final lighting plan shall be submitted by the applicant as a condition of approval prior to building permit issuance_ f. ON -SRI: IMPACTS: Structum Placement: Provisions for Privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation. The applicant has not proposed to change the placement of the existing building. Structure Scale. Consideration of the scale of Proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs. There are no changes proposed to the overall scale of the structure and/or its relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs_ Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces. The existing site is currently vegetated with ornamental landscaping and lawn areas In the vicinity of the existing structure, Scattered around the site are deciduous and coniferous trees/shrubs (see Wildlife and Stream sections for riparian vegetation information). The existing site contains 15 trees of which all will be retained with the exception of one 12 -inch diameter Cherry tree located in the southeast corner of the site. The removed Cherry tree is proposed to be replaced with a 2 -inch caliper River Birch tree. In addition, to the 12 -inch Cherry tree, one street tree along Mill Ave. S is proposed to be removed. This is a result of the sanitary sewer line improvements required for the project. This tree would be replaced in the same location with a 2 -inch caliper Northern lied Oak. The applicant provided a Stream Study and Habitat Data Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants, Inc., dated February 29, 2013. The Stream Study concludes that there would be no direct impacts to the Cedar River, adjacent riparian habitat or State Shoreline area anticipated during or after construction, resulting in no net loss of ecological functions. This conclusion is based on the following reasons: 1) all work would occur within the footprint of the existing development for the library and would stay above the 100 -year flood plain and above the OHWM; 2) the footprint of the existing disturbed/developed area within the shoreline zone would not be expanded as a result of the project; 3) all existing shoreline vegetation would remain intact; 4) portions of the existing library structure would be demolished which would result in a net reduction of approximately 1,700 square feet or 7 percent of the library structure's building itself and adjacent pedestrian bridge; 5) Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to minimize temporary construction impacts to the aquatic environment; and 6) the project would comply with all applicable City ordinances including, but not limited to, stormwater management requirements, and those. related to traffic, noise and aesthetics during and after construction. The existing site topography consists of steep slopes along the north and south edges of the river channel. The grades of the river banks range from elevation 45 at the top of the slope to elevation 26 at the river bottom_ Beyond the river banks, the site grades to the north and south of the buildings is relatively flat. The proposed grading is primarily a result of the requirement to install the below - grade concrete abutments, which would require 900 cubic yards of excavation and 360 cubic yards of fill. The concrete abutments avoid impacts to the existing natural features and do not impact existing site topography. All areas disturbed during construction are proposed to be restored with new pathways, landscaping, and/or plaza space. HEX report 23-"255.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation RENTON LIBRARYATOBERTY PARK LUA23-Q00255, ECF, SA -H, SM Report of July 4, 2013 Page 20 of 22 Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. See discussion under Findings Section 20.b, Landscaping g. ACCESS: Location and Consolidation: providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties. The existing vehicular access and parking is not proposed to be changed. The current vehicular access to the site is via Mill Ave. S at two locations. Additionally, the building could be accessed via liberty Park. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways. See Location and Consolidation discussion above. The pedestrian bridge would remain as it exists today to provide access from the parking lot to Liberty Park and from Liberty Park to the new library's main entrance. Sidewalks are currently developed along Mill Ave. S. This public sidewalk is proposed to be updated as a part of a 2014 City of Renton sidewalk improvement project and would not be included in the scope of the project. The project would restore any disturbed pedestrian walkways as a result of the construction and installation of the concrete abutments. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas. No changes are proposed. Transit and Bicydes: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access. There is an existing Metro transit stop along Mill Ave. S. which is served by the following Metro bus routes: 1.05, 143, 167, 342, 908, 909, 907, 240,110. Bicycle parking facilities are provided in the form of bike racks nearthe main entrance of the building. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. The existing pedestrian facilities are primarily identified to remain. The small portion that would be disturbed during construction would be restored_ Under existing conditions pedestrian walkways connect the library to Mill Ave. S, Liberty Park, and the Cedar River Trail. The rehabilitated building would maintain all the existing connections. h. OPEN SPACE: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants%users of the site. The applicant has incorporated an entry plaza to the building, located on the south side near the main entrance. This entry plaza serves as a distinctive project focal point. The plaza is proposed to incorporate benches and landscaping to allow for passive activities. in addition, the existing library is located across the Cedar River which allows for visual access to this distinct feature via both the windows incorporated in the buildings architectural design, but also via the pedestrian bridge which provides access to Liberty Park_ Liberty Park provides both active and passive relational opportunities for the users of the library, Including a playground, skate park, baseball fields, and access to the Cedar River trail among other amenities. The combination of the upgraded plaza space, pedestrian beaches, landscaping, HEX report 13-000255.doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation RENTON UBRARYAT LIBERTY PARK LUA13-=255, ECF, SA -H, SM Report of July 9, 2013 Page 22 of 22 4. The proposed library use is anticipated to be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses as permitted in the CD zoning classification. 5. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings are appropriate for the site. 6. Access and circulation has not been changed as a part of the subject proposal. The existing access has operated efficiently and safely at the subject site. 7. Proposed open spaces serve as distinctive project focal points and provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the users of the proposed facility. 8. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 9. The proposed location is suited for the proposed use. 10. Parking for the proposed use has not proposed to be changed from the existing condition. 11. The proposed site plan ensures safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians. 12. New landscaping has been provided in all areas not occupied by buildings or paving -and proposed to be disturbed for the subject project. 13. The project complies with the critical areas regulations. 1. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan for the Renton Library at Liberty Park, File No_ LUA13-000255, ECF, SA -H, SM as depicted in Exhibits 3 through 1.3, subject to the following conditions: 1_ The applicant shall comply with the 3 mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated June 17, 2013 (Exhibit 14). 2. The applicant shall conduct a professional archaeological survey of the project area prior to any ground disturbing activities. Such survey shall be provided to the Planning Department and any recommendations which are included in the survey results shall be followed by the applicant. 3. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior, to building permit issuance. 4_ A detailed refuse and recycling plan shall be submitted with the building permit application identifying compliance with the minimum standards. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit issuance_ 5. The applicant shall submit a site lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building permit issuance. HEX report 13-000255.doc UCL Avmw sajm - .F NJ sm C7, Lo P 4 tV ICE RENTON LIBRARY G) 11 CAT LSBSM PARR CD 100W1.AVeACSWTHjWNtMWAWW W Z i SffE PLM'FWEV*- Sllami3 !,I(;::: . ............. ---------------- i all 9 a ■�yi 44 4, . •"fir -.� 'r� ' , r = "^`. � .� . � r � . R ! .13tir i Lq L:%//•�/ �� �" [2 ----------------- I �� k •y !? w _ Hill p - O 4 F =A■■ If tib I ISI SIN n # I RENTON LIBRARY w AT UBEMY PARK � dR w 1 1DO MGL AVENUE SOUTH I farrf.�tt wA 2awr iii (Do M. MIU AVF_ Rom r.f RENTON LIBRARY ill I v AT USOM PARK SITE PLAN REVWW UU-L AVE, S. 7� W o F,7 (D0 �- 0 4 Lama .0 RENTON LIBRARY CilMo n AT LIBERTY PARK a) M C) 190 NU AVENUE SDUM I ROMKWAMW fit SrM PLM REVIEW fill m -40 O h -0 4 LIBRARY ' -ATL13EMPAW ICO MLL A%SMX SOM F0fW WASWU Srrr- F&VIEW liar >RENTON CD J a E I RENTON LIBRARY p€ ,q 1 AT LIBERTY PARK 100 MILL AYEmm SOUTH I RENTON. WA 98057 L REVISED 1 0096 SCHEM�31C�F \ _ � - '�i 4.29.2073 - 41' 4; > m W ir?F 0 0 Im 41' 4; > m W ir?F 0 RENTON LIBRARY AT UBEM PARK 100 MILL AVENUE SOUTH I FZNTON. WA98057 REmm i00% scmmA-nc DES GN 429.2013 JEANNIE GREENE-CROOK 82 MOWEREYPLACENE RENTON, WA 98056-4033 PHONE- 425-255-3869 CELL. 425-358-0833 Email.• jeannr'ebydesign@tomcast net July 30th 2013 Hi, my name is Jeannie Greene -Crook. I am a long time Renton resident and local business owner. I am here to express my feelings and let you know why my family and I feel it is important to have access into the Cedar River Library on the bridge deck over the Cedar River. I am a Mother of 4, Grandmother of 13 and a Great Grandmother of 1. We have and are using this library thru these 3 generations. They love their books and have their own KCLS library cards. They would be here now if it weren't for their family vacation to Hawaii. I brought 3 pictures today of my family enjoying Liberty Park and the Big Green Bike on the library bridge deck taken on August 91h 2011. We use the library year round and come here during every season change to view the changing colors, salmon runs, rainy seasons with the high waters changes, to view the rivers flow and the special summer time. It's the most enjoyable as the library has lot of activities for the kids and when they are finished we make our way to the play area and picnic tables at the park. Since these pictures were taken we've added 2- more Granddaughters and 1- Great Granddaughter. These girls also will want to experience the library over the river in all its surreal beauty, wealth and special attractions of the natural surrounding habitat. My first concern lays in the fact that we have two parking lots with easy access to the bridge deck entrance. My husband and I are getting older and we are more aware of that fact. We feel it is very important for there to be a door located on the bridge deck for the equal accessibility for both sides of the handicap parking spaces. My second concern is the children and the parents that use our library and park (they also enter from both parking lots). They come from all over King County to make a day of going to our Iconic KCLS Library. They've packed a lunch and then they head to the park for their lunch and fun (KCLS should embrace this). Where else can you go and not spend a lot on money in these trying times. Page (1) JEANNIEb� DESIGN 'Lwc JEANNIE GREENE-CROOK 82 MONTEREY PLACE NE RENTON, WA 96056 IPHONE425-358-0833 FAX: 425-264-3178 JEANNIEBYDESIC.NC COMOAST.NET Page (2) This is what we do with our grandchildren. While at park, I have visited with some of the moms and dad and watched their children when their other child had to use to the bathroom. It was nice for them to look back at me and give me a nod of thanks, while being able to enter the library at mid deck. This has happened more than once, as in the past the park bathrooms have been locked, or say, we need to let one of the older (5-9) children go on their own, we are still able to have them in view. One parent or grandparent cannot do it all. I am so hoping we can finally put this behind us, as it is time to move on. We're getting a new beautiful library and we are so very thankful it is remaining over the Cedar River. When I was collecting signatures for this worthy cause my focus was on being able to keep our library as it is with all the artifacts and great historical things we have in our library, but now I realize that all things, are not possible. I would hope KCLS can and will find a way to let the entry remain on the bridge deck or a dual entry as David Keyes and his associates have requested and that KCLS will incorporate many of our Renton historical treasures to our new library_ Now is the time to make it right, we are at square one on the bottom floor. Thank You, Jeannie Greene -Crook 44 FA I . 0 &) I if h t blj q U Project Name: Renton Library at Liberty Park Project Number: LUA 13-000 256, ECF, SA -H, SM Testimony before Hearing Examiner July 30, 2013 Historic Significance of Renton's Library over the Cedar River Good Morning, to our Hearing Examiner, Audience and Citizens viewing from home. My name is Kathie Ossenkop, Renton resident for over 40 years. My concern today is our beloved Renton Library over the Cedar River and preserving its historic and cultural significance for the citizens, the community and the nation. During the Design Phase to "substantially renovate" Renton's Cedar River Library I attended the (KCLS) King County Library System Board of Trustees Meeting March 19, 2013. 1 explained the importance and value of historical preservation and the cultural use experience associated with the entry over the Cedar River. Thereafter, on March 26, 2013 1 attended the Renton City Council Meeting and again relayed the significance of this building and the value of historic preservation. am using the term "substantially renovate" because this is the term the City of Renton published in the August 7, 2012 Voters' Pamphlet. As a citizen of Renton I had no idea extensive demolition of the Renton Library over the Cedar River was a plan the City of Renton would accept and remove the iconic entry over the Cedar River that has served the citizens well for nearly half of a century. For the citizens of Renton this is a significant loss of our cultural use and history that can never be replaced. The KCLS proposal includes relocation of building entry to the west to face the existing parking lot. Citizens will no longer recognize the library entry. Citizens will no longer experience the familiar bridge path entering the library midway over the Cedar River. Three uses intersect in one space -the Cedar River water view, the library entry and the serene nature of Liberty Park. This one of a kind structure designed in the 1960's to be the anchor structure for Renton's Civic Campus at Liberty Park joins the north and south banks of the Cedar River to Liberty Park with entry to the library. People can only ask "Why is the City of Renton and KCLS disposing if this timeless attraction for citizens? This building is our asset. This building has historical significance to the citizens, the community and the nation, in case you didn't know. People come from around the world to visit this library. August 2012 1 spoke with a family from South America, they asked me to take their photo at the Renton Cedar River Library. May I suggest you review The Washington State Historic Preservation Plan 2009-2013 compiled during Governor Gregoire's administration? Goal VI speaks to ethnically diverse populations. "The future of preservation depends upon our ability to encourage the support and active participation of younger generations and socially, economically, and ethnically diverse populations." City residents of Renton incorporate ALL of these mentioned persons in our society and it is these residents who favor the preservation of our existing Cedar River Library built in the 1960's. The City of Renton is an ethnically diverse community. Parents of students in our schools speak 90 foreign languages. The library is centrally located. Immigrants utilize it on their path to citizenship. Furthermore, economic benefits flow Project Name: Renton Library at Liberty Park Page 2 of 3 from Historic Preservation as mentioned in The Washington State Historic Preservation Plan document. 1960's buildings mentioned in document are to be preserved. This library entry bridge over the river uniquely facilitates activity for today's children. Children today in our society are buckled down, tethered and helmeted. When a parent rolls into the parking lot, opens the car door, unbuckles a child they run up the ramp 20+feet ahead of their parent. This activity serves to dissipate energy. The air is rich with oxygen. Entering the building they settle down to the task of selecting a book. Leaving the building they bolt down the bridge with their book often touching the child statue at the base of the ramp. An observer will note, the finish on the top of the child statue's head has been worn off over the years by the hands of Renton's children. I wish you could have seen the young girl with long curls last summer bolt down the bridge, far ahead of her parent, cuddle up to the statue, open her book and read to the child statue. Arriving at vehicle, parent opens car door ready to buckle up child; only then child ceases reading to statue and arrives at vehicle to be buckled for transport. In summary, the definition of "substantially renovate" to include demolition, and entry relocation is EXCESSIVE and seems beyond the intent mentioned in the voter's pamphlet. Please listen to the citizens of Renton. Review their comments before the Renton City Council where they testified Feb. 25, March 4, March 11, March 25, April 15, and April 29 to keep the Cedar River Library entry over the River. Quotes from Renton City Council Minutes: Councilmember Palmer remarked that the feedback from the community indicates to her that residents would rather the library be left alone than have it be refurbished as proposed by KCLS. Councilman Taylor stated that KCLS needs to be present a proposal that justifies the reasons for scaling the building back. He remarked that he believes the building can be refurbished in its existing footprint and stay within budget. KCLS needs to address the City's issues and move forward with a design that is acceptable to the entire community. Mayor Law remarked that Council's remarks regarding the library proposal would be forwarded to KCLS. Council President Carman clarified that Council did not have the information because it was assumed that KCLS would work with citizens to develop an acceptable proposal. He noted that did not happen, and reiterated his expectation that KCLS must change direction so that consensus with the community can be achieved. Councilmember Persson stated that several people had talked about the library building being demolished. He pointed out that Council had never discussed anything but a full remodel of the building. He stated that he does not want to see the building demolished, he believed that KCLS will provide clarification. Quotes from Citizens: Colleen Mayor expressed concern that KCLS has proposed to move the entryway of the Cedar River library. She stated that having the entryway on the bridge encourages her children to engage in conservations about the Cedar River and the fish. She remarked that the location of the entrance is one of the things that makes the library an exciting place to visit. Project Name: Renton Library at Liberty Park Quotes from Citizens (continued) Page 3 of 3 Larry Brosman stated that he was a former City Planning Commissioner, and he believes moving the entrance and reducing the size of the Cedar River library is not beneficial for the long-term good of Renton. Tom Reiter suggested retaining the entrance to the Cedar River library at its current location, and utilizing the full square footage of the existing structure to save aesthetics and construction costs_ Nicola Robinson stated that KCLS was not following their own principles in terms of valuing the communities they serve. She explained that if KCLS valued the concerns of Renton residents they would be building a library that reflects the desires of the community. Responding to Mayor Law's inquiry, Ms. Robinson stated that she had not attended a KCLS board meeting, and should consider doing so. (Note: see Ms. Robinson presentation before KCLS Board of Trustees Meeting March 19, 2013) March 25 City Council Meeting: 19 citizens commented on the Cedar River library "A majority of the voting population voted to keep the Cedar River library in its current location and in its existing form" "Voters do not want to have the downtown library demolished and reconstructed, the importance of the building's legacy for future residents of Renton;" "Maintain the building's current footprint, entry location, and overall size" Mayor Law added that Council and the administration have listened to citizens in regards to the libraries for several years and are well aware of the many concerns. Councilman Mr. Corman requested that a copy of the video of the audience comments segment of the 3/25113 regular Council meeting related to the library be forwarded to KCLS On b. 2 ,March, rchXth h 25 April 15, a ril 29 iti ns to led before Rento ity Council aying canc the libra entry av�the River to their fa lif Re n an e aneripaccess. How could the City of Renton officials and KCLS officials overlook theOnswer on SEPA Checklist Question Number 13 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION? During February, March and April of 2013 Renton citizens expressed the Renton Library at Liberty Park, located over the Cedar River is a landmark in the city, county, region and nation. This iconic structure with an entry over the Cedar River is one of a kind in the USA, treasured by citizens and located as a preference by citizens by a vote of 76% just one year ago. This site has served the citizens for nearly half of a century and is historically and culturally a significant landmark for preservation. Is it an absolute requirement to "substantially renovate" the Cedar River Library citizens must experience the permanent loss of our iconic Cedar River Library entry over the river as well as the near complete demolition of our building structure? Why have you overlooked The Washington State Historic Preservation Plan? Thank you for giving my information serious consideration. Kathie Ossenkop, RN, MN Recently Retired School Nurse Geotechnical Engineering Services Liberty Park Library Renton, Washington for King County Library System December 20, 2012 GMENGINEERS� 8410 15411, Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Engineering Services Liberty Park Library Renton, Washington File No. 1784-018-00 December 20, 2012 Prepared for: King County Library System o/o The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP 71 Columbia Street - 6th Floor Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Ruth Baleiko Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410154u) Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Heidi P. Disla Geotechnical Engineer Matthew W. Smith, PE Principal HPD:MWS:Pld Disclaimer: Anyelecimnlc farm, facs1mile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright@ 2012 by GeoEngineers, lac, All rights resewed, GWENGINEERS� Table of Contents INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................1 FieldExplorations...................................................................................................................................1 LaboratoryTesting ..................----................................................................................................1 SITECONDITIONS..........................................................................................................................................2 SurfaceConditions................................................................................................................................. 2 SubsurfaceConditions.......................................................................................................................... 2 GroundwaterConditions........................................................................................................................ 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................2 General................................................................................................................................................... 2 EarthquakeEngineering........................................................................................................................3 General............................................................................................................................................ 3 Liquefaction..................................................................................................................................... 3 LateralSpreading............................................................................................................................4 SurfaceFault Rupture.......................................................................................•. ......................4 2009 IBC Seismic Design Information...........................................................................................4 FoundationSupport ...............................................................................................................................5 General............................................................................................................................................ 5 GroundImprovement.............................................................................................................................5 General............................................................................................................................................ 5 AugercastPiles................................................................................................................................6 Earthwork............................................................................................................................................... 6 Clearing and Site Preparation........................................................................................................ 6 SubgradePreparation.....................................................................................................................7 StructuralFill...................................................................................................................................7 Weather Considerations.................................................................................................................8 TemporarySlopes...........................................................................................................................8 UtilityTrenches............................................................ :................................................................... 9 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services...............................................................................9 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................9 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................10 GEoENGINEER� December 20, 2012 1 Page File No. 1784-018-00 Table of Contents (Continued) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 and A-3 - Log of Borings Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Figure B-1 - Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Page ii December20, 2012 Geo Engineers, Inc. File No. 1784 -Dib -00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services in support of the proposed renovation to the King County Library System (KCLS) Downtown Renton Library located adjacent to Liberty Park in Renton, Washington. The library address is 100 Mill Avenue South. The site is located in downtown Renton and consists of a one-story building that spans over the Cedar River. The property is bounded by Liberty Park to the north, Cedar River to the east and west, and a paved surface parking lot (associated with the library) to the south. The site is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site Plan (Figure 2). The purpose of this study is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned improvements to the library. GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services were completed in general accordance with our services agreement executed on October 3, 2012. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GeoEngineers' project understanding is based on information provided by The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP, the project architect, and Coughlin Porter Lundeen (CPL), the project structural engineer. The existing library building is constructed similar to a three -span bridge structure with girders spanning between foundations located on the river banks and two interior piers that are located within the river. We understand that KCLS is planning to complete extensive renovation of the existing building including upgrading structural systems for current seismic code requirements, and reconstruction of much of the library structure located above the girders/foundation elements. The renovated building will consist of a single level building with no below grade levels, and will have a similar or smaller footprint as the existing library building. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations GeoEngineers evaluated the subsurface conditions at the site by completing two borings, GEI-1 and GEI-2, on October 22, 2012. The borings were completed to depths of 511/2 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration program and the boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory Testing Soil samples were obtained from the explorations and were taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of fines content, moisture content, and sieve analyses. A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. GEoENGINEERDecember20,2012 Pagel Fife Na. 1784 018-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions A reinforced concrete/masonry building currently occupies the site. The existing building has an associated paved surface parking lot that occupies the south portion of the site. The site topography slopes steeply down to the Cedar River on both the north and south sides of the building with grades ranging from approximate Elevation 45 feet at the top of the slopes, to Elevation 26 feet at the river bottom. Site grades to the north and south of the building and outside of the river banks are relatively level. Buried utilities consisting of sanitary sewer, storm drain, fiber optic, telecommunications, water, and others are present in the site vicinity. The site is presently vegetated with ornamental landscaping and lawn areas in the vicinity of the existing structure, and scattered deciduous and coniferous trees/shrubs. Subsurface Conditions In general, soil types encountered in the explorations completed in the vicinity of the Liberty Park Library (GEI-1 and GEI-2) consisted of undocumented fill and recent alluvium deposits. Fill soils were encountered in each of the explorations completed and consisted of loose to medium dense/very soft to soft silty sand/silt with variable gravel and cobble content, and organics. The fill extended to depths of 15 feet below existing grades. Additional fill is anticipated in areas where buried utilities are present. The fill may contain debris, concrete, organics and/or cobbles and boulders. Recent alluvium deposits were observed below the fill in borings GEI-1 and GEI-2. The alluvium deposits consist of medium dense to very dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and medium dense to dense gravel with varying amounts of silt and sand. The recent alluvium deposits extended to the depth explored. Occasional cobbles are anticipated to be present in the alluvium deposits. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in both of the borings at an approximate depth of 20V2 feet below site grades during drilling. Groundwater levels at the site are expected fluctuate in response to water levels in the Cedar River, and will vary as a function of season, precipitation and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. Is The results of our site investigation and geotechnical analyses indicate that portions of the fill and alluvium deposits present below the groundwater table are potentially liquefiable during a Page 2 December 20, 2012 GeoEngineers, Inc. File Na. 1789 -018 -DO LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington design level earthquake. The potentially liquefiable soils present a risk to the existing building through loss of foundation support, potential foundation settlement, and lateral deformation of soils towards the Cedar River. ■ Due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soils, the use of ground improvement is recommended to meet seismic settlement and building performance tolerances. Through discussions with the project team, the preferred ground improvement option is the use of a ground improvement system comprised of closely spaced augercast piles to mitigate the liquefaction potential at the Cedar River banks on the north and south sides of the building. We understand the augercast piles, in conjunction with a concrete pile cap, will also be used to provide anchorage to the building to help resist seismic lateral forces. ■ Because the site is underlain by potentially liquefiable soils, the site is designated as seismic Soil Profile Type F per the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). Given that the planned structure is expected to have a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds, a site response analysis is not required to determine the spectral accelerations and the Site Class can be determined in accordance with Section of 20.3 of ASCE 7. Per ASCE 7, the site is best characterized as Site Class D. ■ The near surface soils are soft/loose and have a high silt content. As a result, the near surface soils are anticipated to be highly moisture sensitive and will require specific subgrade preparation in pavement/hardscape areas. Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. Earthquake Engineering General GeoEngineers evaluated the site for seismic hazards including liquefaction. Our analyses indicate that the site has a moderate to high risk of liquefaction induced settlement during a design level earthquake. The liquefaction hazard and building code site coefficients are discussed in detail below. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soils experience a rapid loss of internal strength as pore water pressures increase in response to strong ground shaking. The increased pore water pressure may temporarily meet or exceed soil overburden pressures to produce conditions that allow soil and water to flow, deform, or erupt from the ground surface. Ground settlement, lateral spreading and/or sand boils may result from soil liquefaction. Structures, such as buildings, supported on or within liquefied soils may suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that can be damaging to the buildings. The evaluation of liquefaction potential is a complex procedure and is dependent on numerous site parameters, including soil grain size, soil density, site geometry, static stresses, and the design ground acceleration. Typically, the liquefaction potential of a site is evaluated by comparing the cyclic shear stress ratio (the ratio of the cyclic shear stress to the initial effective overburden stress) induced by an earthquake to the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction. Estimation of the cyclic shear stress required to initiate liquefaction and the cyclic shear stress GEoENGIMEERS December 20, 2012 Page Elle No. 1784-018-66 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington initiated by a design earthquake was completed using empirical methods. The cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction at the site was estimated using empirical procedures Lased on correlations from the standard penetration tests (SPTs). Estimated ground settlement resulting from earthquake -induced liquefaction was analyzed using an empirical procedure that relates settlement to average SPT N -values. This analysis assumes a level ground surface. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction at this site include very loose to medium dense fill soils and recent alluvium deposits (sands and gravels) that are below the groundwater table. Based on our analyses, the site soils are moderately to highly susceptible to liquefaction under the design earthquake event. Given the slopes located along the banks of the Cedar River, should the soils located in the vicinity of the building foundations bearing on the river banks experience liquefaction and loss strength, both settlement and lateral deformation of these foundation elements (towards the Cedar River) may occur. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer liquefies. Lateral spreading can occur on near -level ground as blocks of surface soils are displaced relative to adjacent blocks. Lateral spreading also occurs as blocks of surface soils are displaced toward a nearby slope or free -face by movement of the underlying liquefied soil. The Cedar River banks to the north and south sides of the building represent a free -face condition. In the case of the Liberty Park Library site, lateral spreading could occur during earthquakes resulting in the movement of soil towards the Cedar River and excessive foundation deformation Surface Fault Rupture Because of the anticipated infrequent recurrence of earthquake events and the project site's location with respect to the nearest known fault, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site resulting from surface faulting is low. 2009 IBC Seismic Design Information Because the site is underlain by potentially liquefiable soils, the site is designated as seismic Soil Profile Type F per the 2009 IBC. Given that the planned structure is expected to have a fundamental period of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 seconds, a site response analysis is not required to determine the spectral accelerations and the Site Class can be determined in accordance with Section of 20.3 of ASCE 7. Per ASCE 7, the site is best characterized as Site Class D. We recommend the use of the following 2009 IBC parameters for Site Class, short period spectral response acceleration (Ss), 1 -second period spectral response acceleration (Si) and seismic coefficients for the project site. Page4 December20, 2012 GeoEngineers, Inc. He No. 1764.016.00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington 2009 IBC Parameter Recommended Value Site Class D Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss (percent g) 142.8 1 -Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, St (percent g) 48.8 Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.51 Foundation Support General The existing foundations are considered to have sufficient capacity for static loading conditions; however, given the presence of potentially liquefiable soils, seismic stability and foundation bearing for the foundation located on the river banks are considered to be insufficient. As a result, mitigation of the liquefiable soils is recommended. Through discussions with CPL, the preferred mitigation alternative consists of creating a zone of improved ground immediately outside the building foundations located on each bank of the river. The purpose of the ground improvement is to provide a 'block' of improved soil that will resist seismic lateral earth pressures acting towards the river and to provide improved bearing for the spread footings currently located on the river banks. Our analyses/explorations indicate that the soils located below the river bottom elevation have a low risk of liquefaction, therefore, no additional improvement of the interior piers is considered to be necessary. Several ground improvement alternatives were explored, such as compaction grouting, driven piles, soil mixing, and stone columns. However, these options were not selected as the preferred ground improvement solution due to the proximity to the river, vibrations, and/or the cost of these methods. Through discussions with CPL, the preferred ground improvement system recommended to mitigate the liquefaction hazard consists of tightly spaced augercast piles connected at the top of pile elevation by a structural slab. This system will be connected to the existing building foundations located on the river banks to provide both lateral and vertical support. More detailed recommendations are presented below for the augercast pile ground improvement system. Ground Improvement General Due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soils in the planned improvements area, the use of ground improvement is recommended to meet seismic settlement and lateral deformation tolerances. For the Liberty Park Library site, the purposes of ground improvement are twofold: the ground improvement will: (1) mitigate potential liquefaction hazards in the immediate vicinity of the foundation elements located on the river banks and (2) provide anchorage to the building to help resist seismic lateral forces. The benefits of ground improvement for this site include: ■ Ground improvement will mitigate the liquefaction potential in the improved zone and as a result, will minimize the lateral spreading potential and lateral loading on the structure. w Ground improvement at the river banks will essentially work as abutments to anchor the building concrete base for resisting seismic forces. GEoENGINEERDecennber20, 2012 Page 5 File No. 1784-018-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington Augercast Piles Augercast piles extending into the dense/competent soils with a thick concrete pile cap have been selected as the preferred ground improvement technique for the Liberty Park Library site. Preliminary estimates indicate that an 18- to 24 -inch -diameter augercast pile embedded 5 to 10 feet into the dense/competent soils should provide sufficient capacity to resist seismic forces, while mitigating the potential for liquefaction. GeoEngineers will develop full design recommendations for augercast piles, the details of which will be presented under separate cover. Augercast piles are constructed using a continuous flight hollow stem auger attached to a set of leads supported by a crane. The first step in the pile casting process consists of drilling the auger into the ground to the specified tip elevation of the pile. Grout is then pumped through the hollow stem auger upon steady withdrawal of the auger and replaces the soils on the flights of the auger. The final step is to install a steel reinforcing cage and typically a center bar into the column of fresh grout. One benefit of using augercast piles is that the auger provides support for the soils during the pile installation process, thus eliminating the need for temporary casing or drilling fluid. Detailed recommendations for the augercast piles, including pile capacities, recommended diameter and length, and construction considerations will be provided in GeoEngineers' ground improvement design report, to be provided under separate cover. Earthwork Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered in the borings, we expect the soils at the site may be excavated using conventional heavy duty construction equipment. The materials we encountered include fill and recent alluvium deposits. The fill and alluvium soils often contain cobbles and boulders that may be encountered during excavation. Asphalt, concrete, and debris from the previous development on the site may also be encountered. The on-site fill soils contain significant fines (material passing the U.S. standard No. 200 sieve) and will be highly moisture -sensitive and susceptible to disturbance, especially when wet. Ideally, earthwork should be undertaken during extended periods of dry weather when the surficiai soils will be less susceptible to disturbance and provide better support for construction equipment. Trafficability on the site may be difficult, even during dry weather conditions, due to the loose, silty fill that will be exposed during excavation activities. If exposed, the soils will be especially susceptible to disturbance from construction equipment during wet weather conditions and pumping and rutting of the exposed soils under equipment loads may occur. The contractor should be prepared to protect the site and prevent subgrade soils from deteriorating in wet weather conditions. Clearing and Site Preparation Construction of the proposed improvements will require demolition of existing structures, pavement, and other appurtenant structures. Concrete and asphalt may be recycled and reused as structural fill in limited areas; otherwise it should be removed from the site along with other construction debris. All existing utilities should be removed from the ground improvement areas and rerouted if needed. page 6 December20, 2012 Gee Engineers, Inc. File No. 1784-018-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington Subgrade Preparation Prior to placing new fills, pavement or hardscape base course materials, subgrade areas should be proof rolled to locate any soft or pumping soils. Proof rolling can be completed using a piece of heavy tire -mounted equipment such as a loaded dump truck. During wet weather, the exposed subgrade areas should be probed to determine the extent of soft soils. If soft or pumping soils are observed, they should be removed and replaced with structural fill meeting the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17, City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. Structural Fill All fill supporting pavement/hardscape, foundations, or placed against retaining walls or in utility trenches should meet the criteria for structural fill presented below. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill depends on its gradation and moisture content. MATERIALS Fill placed to support structures, placed behind retaining structures, and placed below pavements and sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: ■ If structural fill is necessary beneath or adjacent to building foundations, the structural fill should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. ■ Structural fill placed behind retaining walls should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. ■ Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. ■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (11/4 -inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. REUSE OF ON-SITE SOILS The on-site soils are moisture -sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and will not be suitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, most of the fill soils required for the project have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meet these gradation requirements. Therefore, imported structural fill meeting the requirements described above should be used where structural fill is necessary. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION CRITERIA Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non -yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: ■ Structural fill placed in building areas (around foundations or below slab -on -grade floors) and in pavement and sidewalk areas (including utility trench backfill) should be compacted to at GEoENGINEERS December20,2012 Pagel File No. 1784.018.00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Rerrton, Washington least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. ■ Structural fill placed against subgrade walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid overcompaction and hence overstressing the walls. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present during probing of the exposed subgrade soils in building and pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture -density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. Weather Considerations During wet weather, some of the exposed soils could become muddy and unstable. If so affected, we recommend that: ■ The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed to a sump or discharge location. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. ■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. m The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficiai soils by rolling with a smooth -drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. ■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes may be used around the site to facilitate installation of the augercast piles. We recommend that temporary slopes constructed in the fill and near surface soils be inclined at 11l2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: ■ No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; ■ Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; ■ Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ Surface water be diverted away from the slope; and In The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Page$ December20, 2012 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 1784-018.00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Shoring and temporary slopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. Utility Trenches Trench excavation, pipe bedding, and trench backfilling should be completed using the general procedures described in the 2012 Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications or other suitable procedures specified by the project civil engineer. The silts and fill soils encountered at the site are generally of low corrosivity based on our experience in the Puget Sound area. Utility trench backfill should consist of structural fill and should be placed in lifts of 1 foot or less (loose thickness) such that adequate compaction can be achieved throughout the lift. Each lift must be compacted prior to placing the subsequent lift. Prior to compaction, the backfill should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content, if necessary. The backfill should be compacted in accordance with the criteria discussed above. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services GeoEngineers will submit a ground improvement design report for the recommended ground improvement system under separate cover. Following completion of the structural design, GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. During construction, GeoEngineers should observe the installation of the augercast plies, evaluate the suitability of subgrades, evaluate structural backfill, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix C, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of KCLS, The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP, and CPL for the Liberty Park Library project in Renton, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix G titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. GEOENGINEERS December20,2012 Page9 File No. 1784018-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington We appreciate the opportunity to participate on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this report or if we can be of additional service, please call. REFERENCES City of Seattle, 2011, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." International Code Council, 2009, "International Building Code." Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." Tokimatsu K., Seed H.B., 1987. "Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1987, vol. 113, pp. 861-878. Youd, et al., "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, October 2001, pp. 817-833. U.S. Geological Survey. (2009) "Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.9a-10/21/2009." Page 10 Decernber20, 2012 Geo Engineers, Inc. File No. 1784-018.00 0 X E i � it1161 _ - s+K 1ppsl � }H.nto^YIIIJ✓r. Pl. P4. R4. Q N Syr j3U S1 a - p. St] aL s lie sr Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri s $YO,a„ sr e A A��o .y�jr Japan, METI,a Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (,JTha Iafid,),eTomTom, 2012 a Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEn Ineers, Inc. co 9 9� L can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. J 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for _S personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps Projection. NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet �N►.� wE S 2,000 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Liberty Park Library Project Renton, Washington GEoENGINEER f=igure 1 a s Project rt L r..a FE 1111 PI 9r1 3112635a S 115Th 3t i N2nd at 3 Site 3f 6 y•{rt a .N< 1`.Ih SI 3101—Sr 'A 10 P$2ntl Sr U�t^g S t131h AI e' d] nq y LParYr � 5 sr]N, gr � 3 rtrm s1 d r r^der � .r.n�yT rr � ' - SlliPiPl iWM N56t� `wS HE Sth Pf ? a ... ..._ -_-..700 11ntl3ri p P" Y]nd iV 3 712 sr ; CI Ne rrh 3r { a I I1%n31 1 i NLa 6'4 WW s x ^ _ H a,f1 51 NE ad, Sr �l 3nk S q a�,PI NE 1M y]rd Al 5 w •k MF rfh hY y S 121.r SI M SIC' St f sNe - 3 Sp g P1 - SE3, _ A 55th 51 - I•emn gye '- NC 7a, PI I 1231 A! Mugcg.l m 'a d1h s1 Rantgn 0 i H Stlr$r-.. .. - s ern Sr- • i NE ts5 K sf 51238151 NE sd1 r1 P Fb 5 iy13t f3 a Ate 4 a M 3T 31hL 4 P iY=r _BA131 fl e F e F �' d*W[h39a1 9� 3 i s496 v'* 3 1. sr 4 ,pl1 1 I'ark F—d4'M It 0 X E i � it1161 _ - s+K 1ppsl � }H.nto^YIIIJ✓r. Pl. P4. R4. Q N Syr j3U S1 a - p. St] aL s lie sr Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri s $YO,a„ sr e A A��o .y�jr Japan, METI,a Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (,JTha Iafid,),eTomTom, 2012 a Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEn Ineers, Inc. co 9 9� L can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. J 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for _S personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps Projection. NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet �N►.� wE S 2,000 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Liberty Park Library Project Renton, Washington GEoENGINEER f=igure 1 s Project rt r..a 9r1 3112635a - 7882n811 .. Alww,y -. i N2nd at 3 Site 3f 3101—Sr P$2ntl Sr U�t^g 61aMa Sl e' d] nq y LParYr � 5 sr]N, gr � ga d r r^der � .r.n�yT rr � ' M 4 iWM 4 % a ... ..._ -_-..700 11ntl3ri P" Y]nd iV CI ^� 3E Srd Sr ^ {p 4 y]rd Al 5 w •k 4L � y 6 M SIC' St f - 3 P1 - SE3, 55th 51 - _ Rantgn 0 i - s ern Sr- ts5 K sf q, I P Fb 5 iy13t f3 a Ate a P iY=r _BA131 fl s496 v'* 3 1. sr 4 0 X E i � it1161 _ - s+K 1ppsl � }H.nto^YIIIJ✓r. Pl. P4. R4. Q N Syr j3U S1 a - p. St] aL s lie sr Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri s $YO,a„ sr e A A��o .y�jr Japan, METI,a Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (,JTha Iafid,),eTomTom, 2012 a Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEn Ineers, Inc. co 9 9� L can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. J 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for _S personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps Projection. NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet �N►.� wE S 2,000 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Liberty Park Library Project Renton, Washington GEoENGINEER f=igure 1 W:iReonaxaSPiLwxcTsi1117B401B4005CAU117B441B-60 Fla 2 SITe PL".ws%TAB LANDSCAPE ewl.Ieo ST Tl.i Pw aN Nov 12, 2BI; - 16 5? N APPENDix A Field Explorations LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS General Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling two borings (GEI-1 and GEI-2). The borings were completed to depths of about 511/2 feet below the existing ground surface. Subsurface exploration services were provided by Geologic Drill Exploration Inc. on October 22, 2012. The locations of the explorations were estimated by taping/pacing from existing site features. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Borings were completed using trailer -mounted continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger drilling equipment. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical representative from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were generally sampled at 21/2- or 5 -foot vertical intervals with a 2 -inch outside diameter split -barrel standard penetration test (SPT). The samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with either a 140 -pound hammer hammer with a rope and cathead free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count ("N -value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N -value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions preclude driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A-1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A-1. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 and A-3. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils and groundwater conditions encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions encountered. Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling. The groundwater conditions encountered during drilling are presented on the boring logs. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling represent a short-term condition and may or may not be representative of the long-term groundwater conditions at the site. Groundwater conditions observed during drilling should be considered approximate. GMENGINEERS.�g December120,2012 PageA-1 File No. 1784.018-00 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS AC 0 CS Perched water observed at time of _ CLEAN 'o GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES _ GRAVEL GRAVELS MD Graphic Log Contact CR AND o D 0 PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Quarry Spalls GRAVELLY LITTLE OR NO FINES) O OGP PPM POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, SA SOILS 0 O O Forest Duff/Sod GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES COARSE GRAVELS WITH I GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND GRAINED MORE THAN SO% of COARSE FINES NS -SILT MIXTURES SOILS FRACTION GAC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - HIS RETAINED ON NO. ip RECInBLE MIOONT 4 SIEVE NT OF FlNesl SAND -CLAY MIXTURES ELL -GRADED SANDS. WGRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS `SW SANDS MORE THAN 50% SAND +'1 RETAINED DN No. AND (LITTLE °R NO FINES) 200 SIEVE SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS. SANDY - GRAVELLY SAND SOILS SANDS WITH SM MORE THAN Su% SILTY SANDS, SAND- SILT OF COARSE FRACTION FINES MIXTURES PAS&NG NO.4 SIEVE (ARPREcIAULEwOuNT5. �. CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY OF FINES] MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, ML CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT - PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS LIQUID LIMIT CAL MEDILM PLASTIC CITY, GRAVELLY FINE AND LESS THAN so CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY GRAINED CLAYS CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS I ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW SOILS PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% 1 L f INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS MH PASSING NO. 2100 OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY I SIEVE I! SOILS SILTS LIQUID uMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CH AND GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4 -inch I.D. split barrel JI Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube ® Piston Direct -Push ® Bulk or grab Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS groundwater level in TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER Groundwater observed at time of AC Asphalt Concrete CS Perched water observed at time of _ exploration CC Cement Concrete _ piezometer MD Graphic Log Contact CR Crushed Rock/ PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Quarry Spalls Pocket penetrometer PPM Topsoil/ SA TS Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact TMeasured groundwater level in _ exploration, well, or piezometer CA Groundwater observed at time of _ exploration CS Perched water observed at time of _ exploration HA Measured free product in well or _ piezometer MD Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Material Description Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units _ _ _ — Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Laboratory / Field Tests %F Percent fines AL Atterberg limits CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS Consolidation test DS Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content MD Moisture content and dry density OC Organic content PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity PP Pocket penetrometer PPM Parts per million SA Sieve analysis TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Sheen Classification NS No Visible Sheen SS Slight Sheen MS Moderate Sheen HIS Heavy Sheen NT Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the togs Of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GWENGINEER� FIGURE A-1 $tild F -n d Total51.5 G M E N G I N E E RS Logged By SCG Driller Geologic Drill. Inc. Drilling HSA Drilled 1012212012 1012212012 Depth (ft} Checked By HPD -J 0 m Method Surface Elevation (ft) 45 o Hammer Automatic Drilling Diedrich D50 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Data 140 (lbs) 130 (in) Drop Equipment Easting (X) 0 " Vi o System �, C GrcWndygtgr L Northing (Y) C w= Datum Date Measured Depth to Water M Elevation (ft) m Notes: F 3:5 10122/2012 20.5 24.5 Log of Boring B-1 FIELD DATA G M E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 1784-018-00 Sheet 1 of 2 V o m _ QE -J 0 m MATERIAL REMARKS o 2 az 9 DESCRIPTION o 41 v a 0 " Vi o _ V m Ew �, C L C6 Vj oro C w= o_ a'r lL ❑ m K m 0 F 3:5 00 m U in n 0 SOD Sodlgrass ML Brown sandy sift with organics (fine roots) (very e 1 Soft to soft, moist) (fig) 18 2 2 0 5 Gravels at 4.5 feet, per driller a 3 3 12 3 a SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional fine gravel and oxidation staining (very loose, moist) 10 e a s With occasional organics (fine roots) (very loose to loose, mast) Gravels at 11.5 feet SP -SM Orange brovm fine to medium sand with sift and i 5 7 gravel (medium dense, moist) 15 0 GP Brown finto e coarse gravel with sand (medium � 20 8 27 � 0 dense, wet) t4 %F = 4 9$F 0 0 C Gravels at 21.5 feet 0 xs i 2 29 n 0 o o with sift 10 SA; %F = 5 0 0 0 ho 30 4 25 14 a a10 2 feet of heave at 30 feet, added mud %F 3 C %F = 3 0 0 0 °Q 351 0 0 L Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring B-1 Project: Liberty Park Library G M E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 1784-018-00 Sheet 1 of 2 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. REMARKS Log of Boring B-1 (continued) FIELD DATA Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 1784-018-00 Sheet 2 of 2 d a A S a MATERIAL o w w DESCRIPTION .0 o, fG 2 v liA C1 it m U I- } (D 0 U 5 U ❑ °- 35 3 29 a 0 o 0 0 ? 40 3 33 12 0 D 0 ° c 0 0 Becomes dense y 45—H 12 114 13 6 0 D 0 0 a 0 Becomes very dense 50-A 0 3 60 14 0 0 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. REMARKS Log of Boring B-1 (continued) Project: Liberty Park Library G M E N G 1 N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-2 Project Number: 1784-018-00 Sheet 2 of 2 1. a@_rl Drilled 14!2212012 End 1012212012 Total 51.5Logged Depth (ft)Checked G Ea E N G I N E S RS By By SCG HPD DriFer Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Method HSA Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 45 NAVD88 Hammer Data Automatic 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment Diedrich D50 Easting (X) Northing (Y) System Datum —�_ Groundwater Date Measured Depth to Water iR1 Elevation M Notes: a I J 10/2212012 20-5 24-5 Log of Boring B-2 FIELD DATA G Ea E N G I N E S RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 1784-018-00 Sheet 11 of 2 a EMATERIAL a W 8 a I J U DESCRIPTIQN o z REMARKS y m IF- n W O Y C0 m n U N C'r 20 (7 LJ EU ❑ a AC 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement fi 1 SP -SM Gray rine to medium sand Wth silt and gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) 3 8 2 SP -SM Orange t)rOwn fine t0 Coarse Sand With SIIC and gravel (loose, moist) 0 5 8 S 3 t2 28 4 SP -SM Black fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel (medium dense, moist) (old topsoil) �� 10 12 10 5 Grades to gray with concrete fragments 18 e 3 21 7 0 GP Gray sandy fine to coarse gravel (medium dense, 0 moist) 0 O GP -GM Brown poorty graded gravel with silt and sand do 2l) 12 30 s i 0 0 (medium dense to dense, wet)B SA; %F = 7 a 0 0 SF Brown fine to coarse sand with gravel (medium dense, wet) 25 3 8 Added mud after driving sampler 8 21 %F %F = 4 0 GP Brown fine to coarse gravel with sand (medium ^y so B 24 n 0 dense, wet) 7 %F = 1 %F 0 O O 35 0 0 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbds, Log of Boring B-2 Project: Liberty Park Library G Ea E N G I N E S RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 1784-018-00 Sheet 11 of 2 45 I V 6 1 56 1 13 S0_-■ 3 1 se I 14 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. REMARKS c v a r i U ❑ Q - Log of Boring B-2 (continued) FIELD DATA Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 1784-018-40 Sheet 2 of 2 a n u a A v o MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i a v 2 a m 3 o vv E ym a N O t4 (Das o 35 8 27 %F ❑ 0 0 0 0 h 40 2 49 12 GM Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (dense, wet) 45 I V 6 1 56 1 13 S0_-■ 3 1 se I 14 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. REMARKS c v a r i U ❑ Q - Log of Boring B-2 (continued) Project: Liberty Park Library G Eo E N G I N E E RS Project Location: Renton, Washington Figure A-3 Project Number: 1784-018-40 Sheet 2 of 2 APPENDix B Laboratory Testing LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers' laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing to determine the moisture content and percent fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve). The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. The results of the moisture content and percent fines determinations are presented at the respective sample depths on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse- and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depths. Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422 to determine the sample grain size distribution. The wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and are presented in Figure B-1. GEoENGINEER� December20,2012 Page B-1 File No. 1784-018-00 ve 3Nnsid S1,inS3m SISA'lVNV 3A31S m C r M X �c m r m U z m 5'p-SH33NION303 E) PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT j s N W A U7 O v 00 co O o O o O O o a O a O O C) O O 0 O O 0 O O 11®_®1■_ 1■1 110 1 Pool101 s•�w���w�■rs �ii��� A�Q !!!!!llii�rii 11��11■ i�� •E/wlwwl������ ■■iii !!�■n[ »a�lww! ��■■■r.a■ r■ ■11®1111 zs MISME II�IINI®11■ _I_ _ mm -mm- mmmmmm II�IIIII�INII A D O D sZ3 0 N m C m U) F74 0 0 0 0 0 Y n N 1p 0 to cn ❑* O r" m z� m co 0 r m m� �Q z C7 No cn m -u r 0 Sa C 4 rn CD CL O rn r- Y Co -n a� O N z m � C a CL „ O � G7 � m C r M X �c m r m U z m 5'p-SH33NION303 E) PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT j s N W A U7 O v 00 co O o O o O O o a O a O O C) O O 0 O O 0 O O 11®_®1■_ 1■1 110 1 Pool101 s•�w���w�■rs �ii��� A�Q !!!!!llii�rii 11��11■ i�� •E/wlwwl������ ■■iii !!�■n[ »a�lww! ��■■■r.a■ r■ ■11®1111 zs MISME II�IINI®11■ _I_ _ mm -mm- mmmmmm II�IIIII�INII A D O D sZ3 0 N m C m U) F74 0 0 0 0 0 Y n N 1p 0 to I �,�- • •- - - ����� APPENDIX C Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use LIBERTY PARA LIBRARY Renton, Washington APPENDIX C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' - This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of King County Library System and other project team members for the Liberty Park Library project. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other parry may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project -specific Factors This report has been prepared for the Liberty Park Library project in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you; ■ not prepared for your project; ■ not prepared for the specific site explored; or ■ completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: a the function of the proposed structure; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; • composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www-asfe-org . GEOENGINEER D"ember20,2012 PageC-1 File No. 1784.018-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Page C-2 December20, 2012 GeoEngineers, lnc. File No. 1784-038-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. December 20, 2012 Page C-3 GEOENGINEER� McN0.1704-026-00 LIBERTY PARK LIBRARY Renton, Washington Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. Page C-4 December20, 2012 Geo Engineers, Inc. File No. 1184 -018 -DO Have we delivered World Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www. geoengineers.com/feedback. GEOENGINEER� U� 1 Panning Division REVISEDe Date ' /U 1' Z3 C.p �4 '40NA1, E��l ENGINEERING REPORT Technical Information Report Renton Library at Liberty Park Site Plan Review Submittal May 10th, 2013 PREPARED FOR: City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425) 430-6400 City U# 11e, -Mg 1)tvi PREPARED THROUGH: The Miller Hull Partnership, LLP 71 Columbia Street, Sixth Floor Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 682.6837 Contact: Ruth Baleiko PREPARED BY: COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN 413 Pine Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98101 P: 206/343-0460 Contact: Bart Balko, P.E. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT AND HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Renton Library at Liberty Park Coughlin Porter Lundeen Project No. C120026-02 March 101h, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................................... 1 ExISTINGCONDI iom.................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSEDDRAINAGE SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Ii. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................... 2 KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL CORE REQUIREMENTS :............................................ 2 SPECIAI. REQUIREMENTS: .................................................................................................................................................. 2 PROJECT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS:................................................................................................................................... 3 III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................... 4 TASK 1 - STUDY AREA DEFINmoN AND MAPS................................................................................................................. 4 TASK2 - RESOURCE REVIEW............................................................................................................................................. 4 TASK 3 - FIELD INSPECTION................................................................................................................... 4 TASK 4 - DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRRTIONS...................................................................... 4 UPSTREAMANALYSIS ...................................... ................. .................................................. .......................... I—- ............. 1.4 DOWNSTREAMANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................. 4 TASK 5 - MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS......................................................................................... 4 IV. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..............................5 EXISTINGSITE HYDRowGY (PART A).............................................................................................................................. 5 DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY (PART B) ....................... ... ...... ........................................................................................ 5 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND FL.Ow CONTROL SYSTEM (PARTS C AND D)............................................................... 5 WATERQUALITY SYSTEM (PART E).................................................................................................................................. 5 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................................................... 5 SPILLCONTROL.................................................................................................................................................................. 5 V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN.................................................................................... 6 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS (BASED ON KCSWDM AND SAO): ........................................................................... ____ 7 ON'SriE CONVEYANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES................................................................................................................. S VII. OTHER PERMITS................................................................................................................................................. 9 V111. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN............................................................................................................10 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................................................................. 10 IDL BOND QUANTITY, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT ....................11 X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL...........................................................................................12 STANDARD MAINTENANCE ................................................. ............................................................................................. 12 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 1 Renton Washington Figure 1 - TIR Worksheet Figure 2 - Parcel Conditions Figure 3 - Site Location Figure 4 - Storm GIS Layout Figure 5 - Drainage Basin Map Figure 6 - Flow Control Map Figure 7 - King County iMAP Figure 8 - City of Renton Soil Survey Map Figure 9 - Drainage Complaints Map LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Table 1- Existing Site Conditions Area Breakdown..................................................................................................... 5 Table 2 - Developed Site Conditions Area Breakdown................................................................................................ 5 COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park jl Renton Washington L PROTECT OVERVIEW General Description The following Technical Information Report (T1R) provides the technical information and design analysis required for developing the Drainage and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESC) for the Renton Library at Liberty Park. The stormwater design for the project was based on the requirements set forth in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) (See Figure 1 - Technical Information Report Worksheet) and the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM. Renton Library at Liberty Park is located within the City of Renton, located at 100 Mill Avenue South (See Figure 2 - Site Location). The site is in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/A and the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian. The library site is unique as it is essentially a building on a bridge structure spanning the Cedar River. The building and associated developed property spans three parcels as indicated by the King County parcel viewer and records. The project is a redevelopment of the existing library at the subject location. A complete renovation of the existing building, including some structural seismic upgrades and exterior architecture is proposed. The site will receive minor upgrades at the building entrances and some minor parking lot revisions associated with the main building entrance revision. The area to be redeveloped is approximately 0.864 acres. The existing site consists of 0.793 -acre impervious area and 0.071 -acre pervious area; while the proposed conditions will consist of 0.788 -acre impervious and 0.076 -acre pervious. Soils for the area were mapped using the King County Soil Survey maps (See Figure 6 - SCS Soil Survey). Runoff from the site will be conveyed to existing storm systems in the parking lot and the park area to the north. Roof drainage from the library will continue to utilize existing outfalls to the Cedar River. Existing Conditions The existing site consists of a library building constructed on a bridge structure over the Cedar River. The main parking lot for the library is located to the southwest of the building and access is from Mill Avenue to the west. A park property is located to the north of the building, and several connecting concrete paths exist. (See Figures 4 and 5) Proposed Drainage System The site will remain relatively unchanged as the project is largely a building renovation project. Portions of the existing drainage system onsite will be removed to make room for the new library entrance improvements. Runoff from the building will be connected to existing outfalls to the Cedar River. A small amount of new catch basins and conveyance piping will be installed in the parking lot to convey runoff to the existing system to the south. Pollution generating surfaces will be basically unchanged; therefore, no water quality mitigation will be installed as a part of this project. Please refer to Section III for a full downstream analysis and Section IV for a Flow Control analysis. COUGHLINPORTRLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 1 Renton Washington King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner: King County Library System Address: '960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: 425-369-3200 Project Engineer: Bart Balko, P.E. -Company: Cou hlin Porter Lundeen Address/Phone: 413 Pine Street, Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98101 206 343-0460 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Subdivison ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Grading ❑ Commercial ® Other: SPR Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Name: Renton Downtown Library Location Township: 23N Range: 5E Section: 17 Part4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline Management ❑ COE 404 ❑ Rockery ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Vaults ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ Other ❑ COE Wetlands Groundwater Recharge Part5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community: Drainage Basin: Cedar River Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ® River Cedar ❑ Floodplain ❑ Stream ❑ Wetlands ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Depressions/Swales ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Lake 0 Groundwater Recharge ❑ Steep Slopes ® Other Existing Building is a Bridge over Cedar River Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velcoties Soft clay and Clayey 0-5% Silt Alluvial sand deposits ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part S DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE Ch.4 — Downstream Analysis ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ❑ Sedimentation Facilities ® Stabilized Construction Entrance ® Perimeter Runoff Control ® Clearing and Graing Restrictions ® Cover Practices ® Construction Sequence ❑ Other LIMITATIONISITE CONSTRAINT MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Stabilize Exposed Surface ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ® Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space preservation areas ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Grass Lined ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel ❑ Vault ❑ Depression ® Pipe System ❑ Energy Dissapator ❑ Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigati ❑ Open Channel ❑ Wetland ❑ Waiver on of Eliminated Site ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Stream ❑Regional Storage ❑ Wet Pond Detention Brief Description of System Operation Building roof to discharge directly to existing Cedar River pipe outfalls, matching existing building drainage patterns. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part 12 EASEMENTSfTRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Access Easement ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Tract ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision my supervision have visited the site_ Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Z/a s I I kg King County King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 7685000010 Parcel number 7685000010 Drainage Lower Cedar River Address 1100 S 2ND Basin does not apply Sewer district ST Watershed Cedar River 1 Lake Jurisdiction Renton district Washinctton Zipcode 98057 WRIA Cedar-5ammamish (8) Kroll Map page 328 PLSS NW - 17 - 23 - 5 Thomas Guide 656 Latitude 47.48128 page does not apply Longitude -122.20287 Electoral Districts Voting district King County Council district Congressional district Legislative district School district RNT 37-0965 District 5, Julia Patterson (206) 296-1005 al 9 37 t1AA'2 Seattle school board district does not apply (not in Seattle) District Court electoral district Southeast Fire district does not apply Water district does not apply Sewer district does not apply Water & Sewer district does not apply Parks & Recreation does not apply district apply Hospital district Public Hospital District No. 1 Rural library district Rural King County Library Comprehensive Plan System King County planning and critical areas designations Kinq County zoning NA, check with Water service planning area does not jurisdiction apply Development conditions None Roads MPS zone 112 Comprehensive Plan does not apply Transportation Concurrency does not Urban Growth Area Urban Management apply Unincorporated Area Council does not apply Forest Production district? No Community, Planning Area Green River Valley Agricultural Production district? No Coal mine hazards? None mapped Rural clearing limits apply? No Erosion hazards? None mapped Critical aquifer recharge area? None mapped Landslide hazards? None mapped 100 -year flood plain? Yes Seismic hazards? None mapped Wetlands at this parcel? None mapped This report was generated on 2/25/2013 4:41:17 PM Contact us at ascenter(d)kingcounty.gov. © 2010 King County 6 zi Nit Pat'Way�$ -Renton '' N-�nd St ==gym iOu1nXm70 �! ll- ' + i ►f , A* *WNW 20 w A Ta n.St S-Tabi_n,8#' "fo it SL=�- • • �RerilonAve S ` �. VO��� f_ � _ • F • t , � - .,. ' r 'i ��,� r REntop, Renton �� , Ir ^t, , W17.#r .- tnd Si S 2nd `StVIK NR ds Y Vinay quote . , _ UOwntvwn Shape Cerite� "'-, ' RentonITar#a' y-, ;► �' `''--=S 3rd St a MF�f •� � '4 Jt 4 m.;r)&e Grill a t qV co r r40 .� 3' � r _ Sth S1 _ � �S 5t St .t4llplP 3 :� g Lr .- . f. � -' Y � r .. `.. a �• _ Y� � !!!� � �r'l r- a 6th -St i i Jus sw-7tFi•St' RaadhDtise � . _.. '' �••-s.-* r �..�� � Sa 's Club 0 ! KI Legend C. Storm MH Storm Pipe 2 -Ft Contours Property Lines 84 789" 52 0 6.1 6G -.. 0 ez 71 IN 0. '6 62 9q 4p 84 '0 .98 '92 104 Renton Library Liberty Park -7-T-� Renton, WA 0 so Jon 200 Feel 1 inch = 100 feet Figure 4 - Storm GIS Layout d^ r% I Ir UI I KI Dr1 D-rr— D 1 1 I KI M C C KI d Cedar River Basin I Figure 5 '04 Basin Locations 0 05 1 Wes Suftce Vwxbw Why C.wwmtwfm" PW Pnrftd l3riaor-ON oo r r Nwar CzPp . b -n Raw" ft'MMOM 4"A MMA plkv :LAITw :.Am noVqw EM Lift "Walom Amem M -K 5m crm II. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY This section will address the requirements set forth by the Core and Special Requirements listed in Chapter 1 of the KCSWDM. King County Surface Water Management Design Manual Core Requirements: 1. Discharge at the Natural Location (1.2.1): All developed flows will be conveyed to the existing closed conveyance system on the site and directly to the Cedar River. 2. Off-site Analysis (1.2.2): Refer to Sections III and IV. A Level 1 downstream analysis has been performed 3. Flow Control (1.2.3): Refer to Section IV. As the threshold discharge area in which target surfaces subject to flow control will not generate no more than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site condition's 100 -year peak flow, detention is not required. 4. Conveyance System (1.2.4): Refer to Section V. Closed pipe systems have been provided for on-site stormwater conveyance. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control (1.2.5): Refer to Section IX. The project will construct a series of sediment controls to address the specific conditions at the site. 6. Maintenance and Operations (1.2.6): Refer to Section XI. The proposed storm drainage system will be owned, operated and maintained by the owner. 7. Financial Guarantees and Liability (1.2.7): The owner and contractor will obtain all necessary permits prior to the beginning of construction. The City of Renton/King County Library System (KCLS) will be responsible for required bonds. S. Water Qua lite (1.2.8): Refer to Section W.E. Water quality treatment is not required as part of this development because no pollution generating surfaces are being added or replaced and the project is under the threshold. Special Requirements: Special Requirement #1. Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements Section 1.3.2 • Critical Drainage Areas (LDAs): Not Applicable • Master Drainage Pians (MDPs): There are no known master drainage plans covering this project site. • Basin Plans (BPs): The project is located within the Cedar River River Basin Plan. • Lake Management Plans(LMPs): Not Applicable • Shared Facility Drainage Plans(SFDPs): Not Applicable Special Requirement #2. Flood Hazard Area Delineation, Section 1.3.2: See Figure 7 for 100 -yr flood zone. No work affecting the flood storage will take place within the 100 -yr flood zone. Special Requirement #3. Flood Protection Facilities, Section 1.3.3: Not Applicable Special Requirement #4. Source Controls, Section 1.3.4: See attached Activity Worksheet and Required BMP's. Special Requirement #5. Oil Control Minimal traffic is anticipated in this area. No oil control is required. COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at liberty Park 2 Renton Washington Project Specific Requirements: There are no additional requirements for this portion of the project. Design and construction will abide by requirements set forth in these documents and King County. COUGH LINPORTERLUNGEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 3 Renton Washington Reference 11-A SSW 1951 p 3 Z3rd Sl = xS w SE 16W ut 101 E m 75otq PIN 1 Ya_ Y 4 7 F d ,i. F- - J - 5 .} �:• BE 170tt 932nd Stoma' LL t ' ffi S 34th - vt �-L.. IS 3fit?, Pi -il Costco 1 W S at ? E SE 1801hS g 5: 1 51 SE 184th 5 SE 105th 5t�1"hPl. . 6 88th St BE 16711, St 7 y 1 Roth, is 190th1, - .ai •' hWay .. �fy S 1881[13[ I,., ✓:. 5 1, -180! m 5 551}5 $t rn E 191 EF v r m 2 19711, ....`r N N m N - v c' - �S� y St 43E §fFFs PI SE r,7 { , n w m leirtQ_ Rd d C $ ---9L c 3}0 SE i et- CI'� 5E 20411, 1 Flow Control Application Map Printed 111412010 (-ity cr! / 0 1 2 1 Miles e Flow Control Standards n s esm St "1 7R a = w Peak Rate Flow Control Standard (Existing Site Conditions) F." L SE 7214 PI m ,: SE 72, Flow Control Duration Standard (6dsbng Site Condlhon3) Flaw Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) a Renton City Limits si E 82 SI . `+ Potentia! Annexation Area 1 r th 51 __ . a Bl0& �Y S m _ t 2eth St -N€ 2ft St 1. y - 1 . 24e 5t NE 2nt^ PI � 1 . �' •, A.� SE' .�:, �•�•\ S 11311, St • Sit 113[ 1 5 � 1611, 51 I� SE 116 bt =- y BE 120th "Im th all ,- 4thsca i w St ; sE 121et PI s. sL '7.�-�_S�- SE h23rA Pl-.. ` 411,'+ c - ._ _, 11 5 W W ` 3 t 32n S[ ¢' - BE 12 581 - � � - Nr 2,e St 132n St 1 2 81 t. T11 U SSW 1951 p 3 Z3rd Sl = xS w SE 16W ut 101 E m 75otq PIN 1 Ya_ Y 4 7 F d ,i. F- - J - 5 .} �:• BE 170tt 932nd Stoma' LL t ' ffi S 34th - vt �-L.. IS 3fit?, Pi -il Costco 1 W S at ? E SE 1801hS g 5: 1 51 SE 184th 5 SE 105th 5t�1"hPl. . 6 88th St BE 16711, St 7 y 1 Roth, is 190th1, - .ai •' hWay .. �fy S 1881[13[ I,., ✓:. 5 1, -180! m 5 551}5 $t rn E 191 EF v r m 2 19711, ....`r N N m N - v c' - �S� y St 43E §fFFs PI SE r,7 { , n w m leirtQ_ Rd d C $ ---9L c 3}0 SE i et- CI'� 5E 20411, 1 Flow Control Application Map Printed 111412010 (-ity cr! / 0 1 2 1 Miles e WAP p Mercer Island :r 41e N a 5 CLOVERDALE ST N Qik - 'S 5 HkNL)I R'3CN Seattle ,Newcastle S-ROXBURY $I' % Lake Washingltan N wrH s1 _- Nf �— M1:27TH8i -\ `,._�� i tid} O K 1 A -o s BMGOR Sir h r� _ may, -K� y _ M�rzta 1 ",RK 9R f1+�. u, �_�\ �. I. w ➢. _ N 87 Sr t 7- S7 ST I # Z $ v S z S 'QG,P 7sO N3H tc s NE 4jj1 � �_ r S tANGS.TON RS-'17tH Sr -`z 1 U5r S 193RD S �y — { - yLF� - 5 •:11) s rM1N pis 0 Ogf! NE S T �I .-..... ..-� ] 1 tI N ',b �Try Tukwila ° S1s - ynrHst z 03ie'1ee SW 7TH 51 \ �• " Project 4 spOelraa9a Site 1 Y F.P Sfw-'51MSI n -\ SIM 4fF! ryCeMTFk B7 D T _ 4D +' 321ST ST S-v'IFI Si R >C Z-ti;c S1M 1.7 H ST O 9 Mfg 169TH S } �p MrHrcrEN rl�vu ! , _L.ST L Renton 1,701H SI r GRT3 a} �G SE ')6r M.Sr SE PEr ROVITSKY R7 _cRr,3� I sw fro sT1 sasHn sr SeaTac _;'-Kent cl solow Cou.t ! _ Legend Hydrogauges Streets King County Water Resource 12: Cir.nni Inventory Areas ACTNE Hrgtrwar Mature Artersaes ' S: S41Maguamcll lof County Boundary L..W -.-' 7: Snah—ft y Mountain Peaks 100 Year Floodplain $ Ced—S-1—h Highways Lakes and Large Rivers 9. D.—resin -Cion King County Drainage ^ Streams ro: taulrabup Ywtlrte Basins .! Incorporated Area t1 : Nasquafy 1' Icontl iha information inducted on this map has hien compiletl by %19 Cou11ry s1,a1,1,* om a vanery al sourcas antl Is subject to change without notice I6rp Caunry makes no r.p—ntritiens or wanenties, egress or impied, as to acneaty, completeness, timeYness, nts M the use of s uch inrormauon- Thia document Isnot Intended ror use ae a survey product, Ring La1e,ry shall not t» liable br any pe—A. apodal, Indirect, Incidanlel, or wnseyuential damages Induding. but not ended to, lost revenues or loot predts resulting hom Vie use or misuse of me V E'` information eontamed en [Ms map. Any sale of this map or infarmsoon on tYds map Is prohlGMed exrepi by written permksion of lire Coumy. Ding County 6st.. SM2g111 Source. K -g County MAP - Hydrograptec Intarmatlon (httplm.vw.melrokc.gwlG1GAMAPJ Reference 11-C 't KPC f�RSE R IwP D Ak Ew, 9 er A� n r,Fc rod wee L.� c inc Jr Ern . U.E,' 1 BeC '�F Evn M Mn BeC '� Evc l\{) M HTS r.^ 0.0 ..- BaOPrm Tu 9eG PM.f". IMF PFMFF ali •_ Vlo Oe { I. PAF % U M µF eeG ��hft o Mn Pc fes' 1 P� YG % AQ_ AVC 5 _ ,y nn S, i # w ny] n,.s a !f j jA.�C AP hd Mo L I.. AkF A. rr M$ Y City of Renton Soil Survey Map o Pret�WnA aB-dary Public Works AgierwProleWnnAreaZone Surface Water Utility�;, i] {], 5 j AQOf Pnm--Um Area Zone 1 Nodfied��A r f r %mon city �inft G. Del Rosario !y L4 12!2212009 — �J tUlilPcKI ff! r�#Bn G r"Ok"ME8- E ro '� c 1 eRn AWE9 y41 6 sN n 3-"ECAAVE Sa 2 Naw y i Le �' 2;•m LWO AVE Sod r. AtiiE S SrEvB A ftw 0 Z � �1(t. 92 4 � ll16 MiF MN 4 Q ._.:: RL a a V TAV" ASE H Aft/E Al'E MARS( AVE MW b 45 i w S���a3 g3�r LAKLMA 6: E P ]VSAT I uc m kvk F, Cz m o S3A7i K]fS11YN6 W W .r s $ �� W�CRIN r14L 5 WHIfWUflIH AYE S [� K M � y �t LOGAN S y AVE o,a CIO �' &A6TT AVL S. AC�pHA nr an MUTAMS AVE 6 `gyp L BJhMETf AVL 4 HUkkt� i AS R, 3 �4 Q4 Ras *k °' - WEDS ga AVES P_LIq�,iSAYE Ir Hcr MAI N AVE 5 O gF' WELL$ AYE ry In z 0 A41 Ai.Es uLL AVE PE31.44JFN ►_ S �� 1^ `rQ i�� 1 aCEDAR ALES PARK AVE N _. -= s ry w TCNA4f8 RENT(w ALES v a GARS]EN AVE 14 A GAM T AVS 9 MbWOV4 AVE N W W q' wP -MGM AVEA g rN, FACTO/IY AvF„ wq>� 0 e �ko� p uarrea�vtier� 1 r � i f • M b— l o� rg s a 3 A q F � 0 M FL ws W 0 h III. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS Task 1 - Study Area Definition and Maps The Renton drainage basin map was used to verify that the site was fully in the Cedar River drainage basin (See Figure 5 - Drainage Basin Map). Task 2 - Resource Review a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) j) k) 1) Adopted Basin Plans Floodplain/floodway (FEMA) Maps Figure 7) Off-site Analysis Reports Sensitive Areas Folio Drainage Complaints and Studies Road Drainage Problems King County Soils Survey: Wetland Inventory Maps: Migrating Rivers Study DOE's Section 303d List of Polluted Waters KC Designated Water Quality Problems Critical Drainage Area Maps: Task 3 - Field Inspection Cedar River Drainage Basin Site is above the 100 -yr floodplain elevation (39.62 feet) (See None available See Figures 7 - King County iMAP See Figure 9 None Available See Figure S - City of Renton Soil Survey Map No Wetlands None Available No WQ Problems Aquifer protection zone 1. Site visits have been made to gather information including an analysis of the discharge from the site. This field visit took place January 15, 2013. Please refer to Task 4, Downstream Analysis below for more information. Task 4 - Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The existing site has three distinct areas with different drainage patterns. The existing library building roof runoff discharges directly to the Cedar River through piped outfalls. The parking lot to the south is collected in onsite catch basins and is routed to river outfalls in the near vicinity of the site. The park property within the site work limits to the north discharges to existing piped outfalls to the River. Upstream Analysis The site is within the Cedar River Basin. No known drainage enters the site from upstream. Downstream Analysis The existing site has three distinct areas with different drainage patterns. The existing library building roof runoff discharges directly to the Cedar River through piped outfalls. The parking lot to the south is collected in onsite catch basins and is routed to river outfalls in the near vicinity of the site. The park property within the site work limits to the north discharges to existing piped outfalls to the River. No know drainage complaints are within a 1/4 mile of the site (see Figure 9). The storm system is part of the Cedar River Basin. Task 5 - Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems The site discharges directly to the River and to an existing storm system. There are no known problems drainage complaints downstream of the site (See Figure 9). No mitigation is proposed. COUGH LINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 4 Renton Washington N. FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Existing Site Hydrology (Part A) The existing site totals 0.895 acres and consists of an existing library building, parking lot, park and the portion of the Cedar River which passes through. The site slopes in a southwesterly direction with drainage described in Section III Downstream Analysis. These conditions are summarized in Table 1 below. Table I - Existing Site Conditions Area Breakdown Land Cover Area Description Impervious Area 0.793 acres Building roof, parking lot, and concrete walkways Pervious& Landscape 0.071 acres Associated landscaping Total Project Area 0.864 acres Total site area Percentage of Impervious Area 92% Developed Site Hydrology (Part B) The developed site hydrology will slightly decrease the amount of impervious area by 0.068 acres. A summary of the basin information is shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Developed Site Conditions Area Breakdown Land Cover Area Description Impervious Area 0.788 acres Building roof and concrete walkways Pervious& Landscape 0.076 acres Associated landscaping Total Project Area 0.864 acres Total site area Percentage of Impervious Area 91% Performance Standards and Flow Control System (Parts C and D) Per Figure 6 the Site is governed by Peak Rate flow Control Standards. As the threshold discharge area in which target surfaces subject to flow control for this site will not generate no more than a 0.1 cfs increase in the existing site condition's 100 -year peak flow, detention is not required as the site meets exception #1 on page 1- 34 of the Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM. Water Quality System (Part E) Standard Requirements Under core requirement #8 a project must add or replace over 5000sf of PGIS before water quality treatment is required. Because 5,000sf of PGIS is not being replaced or added the site is exempt from providing water quality for the proposed redevelopment. Spill Control Spill control is required for projects constructing or replacing onsite pipe systems that receive runoff from pollution -generating surfaces such as parking lots (1.2.4-G). The project will be removing a small portion of the conveyance system and asphalt from the existing parking lot, but as the parking lot (4,500 sf) does not receive COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 5 Renton Washington runoff from the 5,000 sf threshold, Spill Control is not proposed at this time. Considering the proximity of the project to the Cedar River, special considerations will be made during construction to ensure spill control practices are utilized. COUGHLINPaRTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 6 Renton Washington V. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section discusses the criteria that will be used to analyze and design the proposed storm conveyance system. Standard Requirements (based on KCSWDM and SAO): 1. Facilities must convey the 100 -year flow without overtopping the crown of the roadway, flooding buildings, and if sheet flow occurs it must pass through a drainage easement. The existing drainage facilities are not being altered and have no known overtopping issues. See Figure 9 2. New pipe systems and culverts must convey the 25 -year flow with at least 0.5 feet of freeboard. (1.2.4-1). The new pipe systems were designed to convey the 25 -year flow with at least 0.5 feet of freeboard. 3. Bridges must convey the 100 -year flow and provide a minimum of two fee4 varying up to six feet, of clearance based on 25% of the mean channel width. (1.2.4-2)(4.3.5-6). It has been shown that the existing library bridge structure has adequate clearance between bottom of structure and 100 -year flow elevation. 4. Drainage ditches must convey the 25 -year flow with 0.5 feet of freeboard and the 100 -year flow without overtopping. (1.2.4-2). N/A This project does not propose a drainage ditch. 5. Floodplain Crossings must not increase the base flood elevation by more than 0.01 feet [41(83.01 and shall not reduce the flood storage volume [37(82.A)]. Piers shall not be constructed in the FEMA floodway. [41(83.F.1)]. No work is being proposed within the base flood elevation or within the FEMA floodway. Special consideration of design has been made to ensure that no alteration within these zones occurs. 6. Stream Crossings shall require a bridge for class 1 streams that does not disturb or banks. For type 2 and type 3 steams, open bottom culverts or other method may be used that will not harm the stream or inhibit fish passage. [600501. There are no new stream (river) crossings associated with the construction of this project. 7. Discharge at natural location is required and must produce no significant impacts to the downstream property (1.2.1-1). The project will discharge to the existing storm system. On-site Conveyance Existing Conditions: Runoff from the existing building is discharged directly to the Cedar River through pipe outfalls. Parking lot and site areas are collected by onsite storm structures and conveyed to the existing City of Renton storm systems or discharged to the River directly. Developed Storm system description: Conveyance systems onsite will be adjusted as needed for the modifications to the building entrances and minor parking revisions. Roof runoff will be collected and conveyed in a similar fashion to the existing condition and discharged to the existing pipe outfalls to the River. Therefore, no additional conveyance calculations have been completed at this time. COUGHLiNPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 7 Renton Washington VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Geotechnical Engineering Services Report, Liberty Park Library Renton, Washington. Prepared by GeoFngineers on Decernber 20, 2012. (This report is included with the SPR application submittal as a separate standalone document at this time. COUGHLINPORTERLUNbEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 8 Renton Washington VII. OTHER PERMITS This project will require building and demolition permits from the City of Renton and an NPDES permit from the Department of Ecology. The NPDES will include a SWPPP and a spill prevention and cleanup report (included in the SWPPP). See Section 8 for the SWPPP (not included at this time). COUGHLINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 9 Renton Washington VIII. CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This section lists the requirements that will be used when designing the TESC plan for this site. A copy of the Draft SWPPP has not been included at this time as the SVVPPP will be finalized after a contractor is brought on board. Standard Requirements Erosion/Sedimentation Plan shall include the following. 1. Facilities required include. Catch basin filter socks. (1.2.5-1). The project will provide sediment protection at the existing catch basins and maintain existing hardscaped areas until areas will be re -paved 2. Timing - For the period between November I through March 1 disturbed areas greater than 5,000 square feet left undisturbed for more than 12 hours must be covered with mulch, sodding, or plastic covering. A construction phasing plan shall be provided to ensure that erosion control measures are installed prior to clearing and grading. (1.2.5-1). Notes addressing each of these items have been placed on the civil engineering plans. 3. Planning - Plan shall limit tributary drainage to an area to be cleared and graded. Delineate dimension, stake and flag clearing limits (1.2.5-1). The clearing limits have been indicated on the TESC plan. Notes addressing this item have been placed on the civil engineering plans. 4. Revegetation - Revegetate areas to be cleared as soon as practicable aftergrading. (1.2.5-1). Notes addressing this item have been placed on the civil engineering plans. COUGH LINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 10 Renton Washington IX. BOND QUANTITY, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet is not included at this time. A Facilities Summaries Sheet has not been included in this section because there are no water quality or flow control devices being installed as part of this project. A Declaration of Covenant has not been included in this section because there are no water quality or floor control devices being installed as part of this project. COUGH LINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 71 Renton Washington X. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Standard Maintenance Per standards set forth in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, the owner will maintain facilities. Sections of the King County Storm Water Management Design Manual outlining the Operations and Maintenance of these facilities have been included in this section on the following pages. COUGH LINPORTERLUNDEEN Renton Library at Liberty Park 12 Renton Washington MAINTENANCE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATELY MAINTAINED DRAINAGE FACILITIES AT RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK NO.1 - CATCH BASINS Corner of frame extends more than 3/4 Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected When Component Needed Maintenance is Top Slab performed General Trash & Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic No Trash or debris Debris foot which is located immediately in located immediately in (Includes front of the catch basin opening or is front of catch basin Sediment) blocking capacity of the basin by more opening. than 10% Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds No trash or debris in the top slab. 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to catch basin. invert the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or outlet pipe Inlet and outlet pipes blocking more than 1/3 of its height. free of trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could No dead animals or generate odors that could cause vegetation present complaints or dangerous gases (e.g., within the catch basin. methane). Deposits of garbage exceeding 1 cubic No condition present foot in volume which would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodents. Structure Corner of frame extends more than 3/4 Frame is even with curb. Damage to inch past curb face into the street (If Frame and/or applicable). Top Slab Top slab has holes larger than 2 square Top slab is free of holes inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch and cracks. (intent is to make sure all material is running into basin). Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., Frame is sitting flush on separation of more than 3/4 inch of the top slab. frame from the top slab. NO.1 - CATCH BASINS (CONTINUED) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected Components Needed When Maintenance is Performed. Cracks in Basin Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer Basin replaced or Walls/ Bottom than 3 feet, any evidence of soil repaired to design particles entering catch basin through standards. cracks, or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer No cracks more than than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/ 1/4 inch wide at the outlet pipe or any evidence of soil joint of inlet/outlet particles entering catch basin through pipe. cracks. Sediment/ Basin has settled more than 1 inch or Misalignment has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment. Fire Hazard Vegetation Pollution Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and gasoline. Vegetation growing across and blocking more than 10% of the basin opening. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. No flammable chemicals present. No vegetation blocking opening to basin. Vegetation growing in inlet/outlet pipe No vegetation or root joints that is more than six inches tall growth present. and less than six inches apart. Nonflammable chemicals of more than No pollution present 1/2 cubic foot per three feet of basin other than surface film. length_ Catch Basin Cover Not in Cover is missing or only partially in Catch basin cover is Cover Place place. Any open catch basin requires closed maintenance. Locking Mechanism cannot be opened by on Mechanism opens with Mechanism maintenance person with proper tools. proper tools. Not Working Bolts into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult One maintenance person cannot Cover can be removed to Remove remove lid after applying 80 lbs. of lift; by one maintenance intent is keep cover from sealing off person. access to maintenance. Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs, Unsafe misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges. Metal Grates (If Applicable) Trash and Debris Damaged or Missing. 12 [01WISANqul c7 Maintenance Defect Components General Wire Fences Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Trash and debris that is blocking more than 20% of grate surface. Ladder meets design standards and allows maintenance person safe access. Grate opening meets design standards. Grate free of trash and debris. Grate missing or broken member(s) of Grate is in place and the grate. meets design standards. Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected When Needed Maintenance is Performed Missing or Any defect in the fence that permits Parts in place to provide Broken Parts easy entry to a facility. adequate security. Erosion Damaged Parts Deteriorated Paint or Protective Coating Erosion more than 4 inches high and No opening under the 12-18 inches wide permitting an fence that exceeds 4 opening under a fence. inches in height. Post out of plumb more than 6 inches. Post plumb to within 1- 1/2 inches. Top rails bent more than 6 inches. Top rail free of bends greater than 1 inch. Any part of fence (including post, top Fence is aligned and rails) more than 1 foot out of design meets design standards. alignment. Missing or loose tension wire. Extension arm missing, broken, or bent out of shape more than 11/2 inches. Part or parts that have a rusting or scaling condition that has affected structural adequacy. Tension wire in place and holding fabric. Extension arm in place with no bends larger than 3/4 inch. Structurally adequate posts or parts with a uniform protective coating. r - NO.4 - GATES Maintenance Defect Component General Damaged or Missing Members Openings in Fabric Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected Needed When Maintenance is Performed Missing gate or locking devices- Gates and Locking devices in place. Broken or missing hinges such that Hinges intact and gate cannot be easily opened and lubed. Gate is working closed by a maintenance person. freely. Gate is out of plumb more than 6 inches and more than 1 foot out of design alignment. Missing stretcher bar, stretcher bands, and ties. See "Fencing' Standard No. 7 NO.5 - CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (PIPES & DITCHES) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Component Needed Pipes Sediment & Accumulated sediment that exceeds Debris 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through pipes. Damaged Protective coating is damaged; rust is causing more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe - Open Ditches Trash & Debris Sediment Vegetation Any dent that decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20%. Gate is aligned and vertical. Stretcher bar, bands and ties in place. See "Fencing' Standard No. 7 Results Expected When Maintenance is Performed Pipe cleaned of all sediment and debris. All vegetation removed so water flows freely through pipes. Pipe repaired or replaced. Pipe repaired or replaced. Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot Trash and debris per 1,000 square feet of ditch and cleared from ditches. slopes. Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20 % of the design depth. Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through ditches. Ditch cleaned/ flushed of all sediment and debris so that it matches design. Water flows freely through ditches. Erosion See "Rain gardens" Standard No.1 See "Rain gardens" Damage to Standard No.1 Slopes Rock Lining Maintenance person can see native Replace rocks to design Out of Place or soil beneath the rock lining. standards. Missing (If Applicable). Catch Basins See "Catch Basins: Standard No. 4 See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 4 Debris See "Debris Barriers" Standard No.5 See "Debris Barriers" Barriers (e.g., Standard No. 5 Trash Rack) NO. 6 - GROUNDS (LANDSCAPING) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Results Expected When Component Needed Maintenance is Performed General Weeds Weeds growing in more than 20% of Weeds present in less (Nonpoisonou the landscaped area (trees and shrubs than 5% of the S) only). landscaped area. Safety Hazard Any presence of poison ivy or other No poisonous poisonous vegetation. vegetation present in landscaped area. Trash or Litter Paper, cans, bottles, totaling more than Area clear of litter. 1 cubic foot within a landscaped area (trees and shrubs only) of 1,000 square feet. Trees and Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that Trees and shrubs with Shrubs are split or broken which affect more less than 5% of total than 25% of the total foliage of the tree foliage with split or or shrub. broken limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or knocked over. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported or are leaning over, causing exposure of the roots. Tree or shrub in place free of injury. Tree or shrub in place and adequately supported; remove any dead or diseased trees. NO.7 - ACCESS ROADS/ EASEMENTS Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Results Expected Component Needed When Maintenance is Performed General Trash and Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic Roadway free of debris Debris foot per 1,000 square feet i.e., trash which could damage and debris would fill up one tires. standards size garbage can. Blocked Debris which could damage vehicle Roadway free of debris Roadway tires (glass or metal). which could damage tires. Any obstruction which reduces Roadway overhead clearance above road surface to less clear to 14 feet high. than 14 feet. Any obstruction restricting the Obstruction removed access to a 10 to 12 foot width for a to allow at least a 12 distance of more than 12 feet or any foot access. point restricting access to less than a 10 foot width. Road Surface Settlement, When any surface defect exceeds 6 Road surface Potholes, inches in depth and 6 square feet in uniformly smooth Mush Spots, area. In general, any surface defect with no evidence of Ruts which hinders or prevents settlement, potholes, maintenance access. mush spots, or ruts. Vegetation in Weeds growing in the road surface Road surface free of Road Surface that are more than 6 inches tall and weeds taller than 2 less than 6 inches tall and less than inches. 6 inches apart within a 400 -square foot area. STREAM STUDY AND HABITAT DATA REPORT RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Planning Division DEVISED Date—sl/0213, W Prepared For: KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM Issaquah, Washington Prepared By: TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Woodinville, Washington 28 February 2013 Revised 10 May 2013 Stream Study and Habitat Data Report Renton Library at Liberty Park Renton, Washington Prepared for: King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 (425) 462-9600 Prepared by: Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 15020 Bear Creek Road NE Woodinville, Washington 98077 (425) 861-7550 28 February 2013 Revised 10 May 2013 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Renton Library at Liberty Park REPORT TYPE: Stream Study and Habitat Data Report SITE LOCATION: 100 Mill Avenue South in Renton, Washington CLIENT: King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Contact: Gregory Smith, Director of Facilities Management PROJECT STAFF: Bill Shiels, Principal; Ann Olsen, Senior Project Manager; David R. Teesdale, Senior Wetland Ecologist; Lisa Rogers, Ecologist; Adam DeWolfe, Mitigation Designer/Project Planner PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project would include demolition of the existing building facade, full renovation of the interior and exterior of the building, utility upgrades, and installation of new below - grade concrete abutments outside the 100 -year floodplain to upgrade the existing structure to current code -required seismic standards. The renovation would reduce the size of the library structure (building plus pedestrian bridge) from approximately 25,243 square feet (sf) to 23,506 sf. All work would occur within the area of existing development on site. Public access would be maintained off of Mill Avenue South. FIELD INVESTIGATION: Conducted on 9 July and 2 November 2012 by David Teesdale, Senior Ecologist CRITICAL AREAS: The project site is within a Shoreline of the State, City of Renton Aquifer Protection Zone 1, and contains a portion of the Cedar River 100 -year flood plain. HABITAT DATA: The riparian habitat in the vicinity of the library building is very narrow (20-50 feet max), and is adjacent to urban impervious surfaces on the left bank and a baseball field/City park on the right bank. The riparian habitat is dominated by invasive species, including: reed canarygrass, Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan blackberry. Tree species include: sycamore, black cottonwood, and horse chestnut. The upstream riparian habitat is similarly dominated by Himalayan blackberry, with slightly improved habitat on the left upstream bank dominated by salmonberry. STREAM STUDY: The library spans Reach B of the Cedar River, a Class 1 water located in the Cedar-Sammamish WRIA 8 watershed. Within the Site, the Cedar River is approximately 100 feet wide. Water depth at the Site was recorded in 2012 to have been approximately 18 inches in the summer and approximately 3 feet in the fall. 10 May 2013 Copyright @) Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page i 1 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report The in -stream substrate consists of clean gravel and cobble. No natural pools, woody debris, or other fish habitat features were observed in the vicinity of the project. FEDERALISTATE LISTED Within the vicinity of the project, the Cedar River is known to SPECIES: support Federally -listed -as -threatened Chinook salmon and steelhead trout; coho salmon, a Federally -listed Candidate species; and sockeye salmon, a State Candidate species. Bull trout and coast resident cutthroat are listed in the PHS database as species of commercial and recreational interest. CRITICAL AREAS IMPACTS: No direct impacts to the Cedar River or adjacent riparian habitat are anticipated during or after construction, thus no net loss of ecological functions is anticipated as a result of project development. All work will be contained within the area of existing development, and the existing disturbed/developed area within the shoreline zone will not be expanded. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to ensure adequate protection of water quality and the aquatic environment. Talasaea reviewed available research and information on the potential effects of light and shade on salmonid predation. The existing information and available research indicates that the area under the library may provide a refuge for salmonids because predation would be higher upstream and downstream of the library where the river is always illuminated by sunlight and the lights of the surrounding urban area. Given the general lack of natural shade along the Cedar River the shadow of the library across the river is likely to have a beneficial effect, if any at all. PROPOSED MITIGATION: In order to fulfill the mitigation required by RMC§4-3-095(F), the KCLS will contribute $22,700 to a vegetation conservation fund administered by the City of Renton. Money from the fund will be applied to fund riparian habitat restoration/enhancement projects along the Cedar River within the City of Renton jurisdiction. The City of Renton will be responsible for administering the fund and prioritizing and coordinating the implementation of appropriate projects. 1 10 May 2013 Copyright© Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAI -1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page ii Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction............................................................................................................1 ' Chapter 2. Description of Project Site and Proposed Project..................................................1 Chapter 3. Analysis of existing information............................................................................. 2 ' 3.1 National Wetlands Inventory ..........................................................................2 3.2 King County GIS Database (iMAP)................................................................2 3.3 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Database............................................2 ' 3.4 WDFW Salmonscape and StreamNet............................................................3 Chapter 4. Regulatory Review ...............................................................................................3 4.1 City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations RMC 4-3-050 3 ' 4.2 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC §4-3-090)....... 4 4.3 City of Renton Submittal Requirements - Specific to Application Type (RMC§4-8-120)..............................................................................................4 ' 4.4 FEMA Floodplain Regulations........................................................................4 4.5 Federal Endangered Species Act...................................................................4 4.6 Hydraulic Project Approval.............................................................................4 ' Chapter 5. Habitat Assessment..............................................................................................5 5.1 Characterization of Habitat within the Project Site.........................................5 5.2 Wildlife Expected to Occur within the Project Site..........................................5 ' 5.3 Ecological Function and Value of the Riparian Habitat..................................5 5.4 Potential Impacts to the Riparian Habitat.......................................................5 Chapter 6. Stream Study.........................................................................................................6 ' 6.1 Cedar River....................................................................................................6 6.2 Cedar River within the Project Site ................. 6.3 Cedar River Anadromous Fish.......................................................................6 ' 6.3.1 Puget Sound Fall Chinook Salmon................................................................6 6.3.2 Puget Sound Coho Salmon............................................................................7 6-3.3 Puget Sound Sockeye....................................................................................7 ' 6.3.4 Bull Trout........................................................................................................8 6.3.5 Puget Sound Winter Steelhead...................................................................... 8 6.3.6 Coast Resident Cutthroat...............................................................................8 6.4 Ecological Functions of the Cedar River at the Site.......................................8 6.5 Potential Stream Impacts................... ............. ............................................ ...9 Chapter 7. Pre-existing effects on salmonids..........................................................................9 ' Chapter 8. Construction BMPs..............................................................................................10 Chapter9. Mitigation.........................................................................................................11 9.1 Mitigation Sequencing and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions ................11 ' 9.2 Mitigation Required for Major Alterations in a Shoreline Zone .....................12 9.3 Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat................................................15 ' Chapter 10. Summary.............................................................................................................16 Chapter11. References..........................................................................................................18 ' 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page iii Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Aerial Site Overview Map Figure 3: Shoreline Environments Map Figure 4: Existing Conditions Photos LIST OF TABLES Table 1. PHS Cedar River Salmonids Table 2. Salmonscape/StreamNet Cedar River Salmonids Table 3. Average Water Temperature (Celsius) (200712008) Table 4. Average Flow Velocity in Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) (1946-2008) Table 5. Assessment of Suitability for Salmonids APPENDICES Appendix A: Full -Size Plan Sheets (24"x36") Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Improvements Plan 10 May 2013 Copyright © Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page iv Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a stream study and habitat assessment conducted for the Renton Library at Liberty Park (referred to hereinafter as the Project Site or Site) located in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). This report has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations) and RMC Chapter 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program). The purpose of this report is to identify and describe streams, critical species, and habitat on or adjacent to the Site, provide a regulatory review of applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, and describe proposed mitigation for impacts to critical areas or habitat. The Project Site is the location of a proposed rehabilitation project for the King County Library System (KCLS) Renton branch library at Liberty Park. The Renton Library at Liberty Park spans the Cedar River, which is a Shoreline of the State. The rehabilitation will involve work on the library structure above the river only; no work will occur within the regulatory floodplain (100 - year FEMA floodplain) or below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The purpose of the rehabilitation project is to install seismic upgrades and remodel the library building. CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SITE AND PROPOSED PROJECT KCLS plans to rehabilitate the existing Liberty Park branch library which was constructed across the Cedar River between 1965 and 1966. The library is located at 100 Mill Avenue South in Renton, Washington. The Site is bounded by Liberty Park to the northeast and downtown Renton to the south and west. The library's existing main entrance is along the east side of the building over the river and the parking lot is on the left bank of the river south of the building. The building is partially located in and associated with King County Tax Parcel number 768500- 0010 (on the left bank of the river, contains the parking lot), but the building is also partially located within two other parcels across the river associated with Liberty Park. The Public Land Survey System of the Site is the SE'/ of the NW '/ of Section 17, Township 23N, Range 5E, Willamette Meridian. An aerial view of the Site and surroundings from King County iMap is shown on Figure 2. The project proposes renovating the existing library building for continued use as a library. The scope of work would entail the following: • Demolition of existing masonry and glass envelope, • Retention of existing concrete structure, roof framing, and site work, • Installation of new aluminum window system and metal panel envelope (on metal stud framing), • Demolition of portions of existing roof framing and replacement at a lower height and reduced footprint, + New mechanical, electrical, and lighting systems within the building, • Adding insulation, sheathing, and roofing onto existing roof assembly, • Relocating building entry to face existing parking lot, • Seismic upgrades required by code including concrete below -grade abutments on either side of the building, steel braced frames, and interior shear walls, • New hardscape, utility routing, and vegetation to address new entry location as well as repairs associated with concrete abutment installation, • Sandblasting of existing structural concrete to remove painted finish, and 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 1 IRenton Library at Liberty Park 1 Stream Study and Habitat Data Report Re-routing of existing under -slab mounted utility piping to address new utility penetrations. The renovation would reduce the size of the library building from approximately 22,400 sf to approximately 19,680 sf, All work would occur within the area of existing development on site. Public access would be maintained off of Mill Avenue South. CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING INFORMATION Talasaea conducted a review of background information prior to visiting the Site. The results are presented in the following paragraphs. Background information reviewed prior to field investigations included: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetland Inventory) (http:llwetiandsfws.er.usgs,gov/wtlnds/launch.html) + King County GIS database (King County, 2006); Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Database, WFDW 2013; and, • Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) StreamNet (www.streamnet.org) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) SalmonScape databases (http://wdfw.wa.gov/ma2ping/salmonscape/databases). 3.1 National Wetlands Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows the Cedar River as a deepwater habitat classified as riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, and excavated (R2UBHx) (Cowardin et al., 1979). No other aquatic resources are identified by the NWI within at least one mile of the Site. 3.2 King County GIS Database (iMAP) Similar to the NWI, the King County GIS database does not show any wetlands within the vicinity of the Site. The Cedar River is the only aquatic resource in the vicinity of the Site. 3.3 WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Database The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database lists salmonids in the Cedar River as shown in Table 1. No other aquatic, avian, or terrestrial species are listed in the PHS database. 1 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. 1 TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 2 Renton Library at Liberty Park Table 1. PHS Cedar River Salmonids Stream Study and Habitat Data Re The PHS lists a biodiversity area and corridor upstream of the Site, east of 1-405. According to PHS, this area is Cedar River Valley open space, and due to steep, unstable slopes it is recommended in the PHS notes that the area be left uncleared. This area provides habitat for avian and terrestrial species and contains some riparian habitat directly adjacent to the Cedar River. 3.4 WDFW Salmonscape and StreamNet WDFW Salmonscape and StreamNet provide more specific information as shown in Table 2. The portion of the Cedar River within the Site is a documented spawning/rearing area for fall chinook (no presence of spring or summer chinook), coho, and sockeye, and is a documented rearing area for winter steelhead (no presence of summer steelhead). Bull trout are confirmed present and cutthroat trout are not documented by Salmonscape or StreamNet. Table 2. Salmonscape/StreamNet Cedar River Salmonids Common Name Use Type Fall Chinook Status' , Common Name Scientific Name Priority Area Federal State Coast Resident Oncorhynchus Occurrence/ None PHS Cutthroat clarki Migration Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus Breeding Area Federal State tshaw tscha Threatened Candidate Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus Breeding Area Federal None klsutch Threatened Bull Trout Salvelinus malma Occurrence/ Federal State Migration Threatened Candidate Sockeye Oncorhynchus Breeding Area None PHS nerka Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus Breeding Area Federal None m kiss Threatened The PHS lists a biodiversity area and corridor upstream of the Site, east of 1-405. According to PHS, this area is Cedar River Valley open space, and due to steep, unstable slopes it is recommended in the PHS notes that the area be left uncleared. This area provides habitat for avian and terrestrial species and contains some riparian habitat directly adjacent to the Cedar River. 3.4 WDFW Salmonscape and StreamNet WDFW Salmonscape and StreamNet provide more specific information as shown in Table 2. The portion of the Cedar River within the Site is a documented spawning/rearing area for fall chinook (no presence of spring or summer chinook), coho, and sockeye, and is a documented rearing area for winter steelhead (no presence of summer steelhead). Bull trout are confirmed present and cutthroat trout are not documented by Salmonscape or StreamNet. Table 2. Salmonscape/StreamNet Cedar River Salmonids Common Name Use Type Fall Chinook Known spawning/rearing Coho Known spawning/rearing Sockeye Known spawning/rearing Bull Trout Migration Winter Steelhead Known rearing/migration CHAPTER 4. REGULATORY REVIEW 4.1 City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations (RMC §4-3-050) The Cedar River is designated Critical Habitat based upon the presence of salmonid species per RMC §4-3-050(K)(1)(a) and is a "Class 1" water. Per RMC §43-050(L)(1)(a)(i), "Class 1 I (WDFW, 2013a) 10 May 2013 1 TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Copyright© Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 3 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report waters are perennial salmonid -bearing waters which are classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State." Pursuant to RMC §4-3-050(K)(2), a habitat/wildlife assessment is required for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat. 4.2 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC §4-3-090) The library is located over Reach B of the Cedar River, which is a Shoreline of the State, and a City of Renton Class 1 water, thus it is subject to all applicable requirements of RMC §4-3-090. The shoreline environmental designation of the library site is "High Intensity" per the City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (see Figure 3). 4.3 City of Renton Submittal Requirements — Specific to Application Type (RMC§4-8-120) A habitat assessment was conducted consistent with RMC §4-8-120(D)(8) to determine the extent, functions, values, and existing conditions of the critical habitat on site. A stream study was conducted consistent with RMC §4-8-120(D)(19) to determine the extent, functions, values, and existing conditions of the stream habitat on site. 4.4 FEMA Floodplain Regulations Whenever development is proposed within the FEMA -regulated floodplain (i.e.,100-year flood zone), the project proponent must obtain a floodplain development permit from the local jurisdiction_ A floodplain habitat assessment report is also required to ensure that floodplain development complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. No development is proposed on the project site within the FEMA floodplain. Thus, a floodplain development permit and floodplain habitat assessment report are not required. 4.5 Federal Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA), passed by Congress in 1973, recognized that our rich natural heritage is of "esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its people." It further expressed concern that many of our nation's native plants and animals were in danger of becoming extinct. The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commerce Department's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)_ The FWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine wildlife, including whales and anadromous fish such as salmon. Under the ESA, species may be listed as either endangered or threatened. "Endangered" means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "Threatened" means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for listing as endangered or threatened. For the purposes of the ESA, Congress defined species to include subspecies, varieties, and, for vertebrates, distinct population segments. Federally -listed species within the vicinity of the project include: Threatened chinook salmon and steelhead trout, and Candidate coho salmon. These anadromous fish are also protected under the City of Renton Critical Areas Code (RMC §4-3-050). 4.6 Hydraulic Project Approval In 1943, the Washington State Legislature recognized the need to protect fish and fish habitat from the impacts of hydraulic projects — any work that would use, divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any river or stream or utilize any waters of the state. The Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) statute (now codified in Chapter 77.55 RCW) remains the primary fish and shellfish habitat protection law in Washington State. WDFW is the state agency responsible for implementing the law and issuing HPAs, The Hydraulic Code requires that "in the event that any person or government agency desires to undertake a hydraulic project, the person or government agency shall, before commencing work thereon, secure the approval of 10 May 2013 Copyright © Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 4 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data the department in the form of a permit as to the adequacy of the means proposed for the protection of fish life." An HPA must be obtained from WDFW before work is conducted that uses, obstructs, diverts, or changes the natural flow or bed of state waters. The conditions of an HPA are designed to protect fish, shellfish, and their habitat. Regulated activities include bank protection, dredging, fish passage corrections, flow control structures, overwater structures and pilings, habitat and shoreline modifications, and other activities that affect waters of the State. The proposed project is not proposing any work that would alter, obstruct, or divert the flow of the Cedar River. All work will remain well above the OHWM as well as out of the floodplain. However, the existing library structure is an over -water structure, and any work on over water structures requires an HPA. Thus, an HPA permit will be obtained from WDFW prior to beginning any proposed work. CHAPTER 5. HABITAT ASSESSMENT Pursuant to RMC §4-3-050(K)(2), a habitat/wildlife assessment is required for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat. Taiasaea conducted field investigations within the Site on 9 July and 2 November 2012. A habitat assessment was conducted consistent with RMC §4-8-120(D)(8) to determine the extent, function, and value of the critical habitat. 5.1 Characterization of Habitat within the Project Site The area directly beneath the library does not receive direct sunlight and is mostly devoid of vegetation. The left bank between the library and Bronson Way N (downstream) contains reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) within the streambed and floodplain. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubes armeniacus) dominate the left and right bank slopes. Sycamore trees (Platanus occidentalis) are located on top of the left bank adjacent to the parking lot. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) and horse chestnut trees (Aesculus hippocastanum) are growing on the right bank. The upstream riparian habitat is similarly dominated by Himalayan blackberry, with slightly improved salmonberry (Rebus spectabilis) habitat located on the left upstream bank. Existing condition photos of the stream and riparian habitat are provided in Figure 4. 5.2 Wildlife Expected to Occur within the Project Site Due to the highly urbanized condition surrounding the Site, wildlife species typically found in urban and residential areas are expected to occur in this area. This would include birds and small and medium-sized mammals. Avian species expected to occur within the Site include: chickadee, towhee, winter wren, house sparrow, Steller's jay, common crow, and gulls. The Cedar River is a spawning, rearing, and migration habitat for anadromous salmonids as described further in Chapter 6. 5.3 Ecological Function and Value of the Riparian Habitat The riparian habitat adjacent to the Cedar River within the project Site is dominated by invasive plant species and provides only minimal shade over the river. The riparian corridor on either side of the Cedar River is relatively narrow (20-50 feet max) and is adjacent to urban impervious surfaces on the left bank and a baseball field and City park on the right bank. Thus, the riparian vegetation in the project area provides only minimal buffer for the fish -bearing Cedar River and is of relatively low value to the watershed as a whole. 5.4 Potential Impacts to the Riparian Habitat No direct impacts to the riparian habitat are anticipated during or after construction, thus no net loss of ecological functions is anticipated as a result of project development. All renovation work will be contained within the area of existing development. The footprint of existing disturbed/developed area within the shoreline zone will not be expanded, and existing shoreline 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 5 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report vegetation will remain intact. In fact, a portion of the library structure over the river will be demolished as part of the renovation work, which will result in a net reduction of the library footprint over the river, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to minimize temporary construction impacts to the aquatic environment, and the project will comply with all applicable City ordinances including, but not limited to, stormwater management, traffic, noise, and aesthetics during and after construction. CHAPTER 6. STREAM STUDY Talasaea conducted field investigations within the Site on 9 July and 2 November 2012. A stream study was conducted consistent with RMC §4-8-120(D)(19) to determine the extent, function, and value of the critical habitat. 6.1 Cedar River The Cedar River is the largest tributary to Lake Washington. It originates over 50 miles from south Lake Washington at an elevation of approximately 730 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (Tabor et al., 2004). The Cedar River drainage basin, which encompasses approximately 188 square miles, contributes 50% of the water to Lake Washington (BergerABAM, 2009), Water quality in the Cedar River is on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) list of impaired waters for exceeding temperature and fecal coliform standards (King County, 2008). The quantity of large woody debris (LWD) is below that typical of healthy riparian ecosystems, and this has contributed to a lack of pool formation (King County, 1993). 6.2 Cedar River within the Project Site The library spans the Cedar River in the Cedar-Sammamish watershed (WRIA 8). The Cedar River is designated as a Class 1 water (RMC §4-3-050(K)(1)). Based upon data from a U -S. Geological Survey flow station located on the left bank approximately 125 feet downstream of bridge on Mill Avenue, the mean flows for Water Years 1946-2008 range between 192 cubic feet per second (cfs) in August and 1,095 cfs in January. Average water temperature ranged between 3.5°C (38°F) and 19.0°C (66°F) during the 2007/2008 water year (USGS, 2008). Within the Site, the Cedar River is approximately 100 feet wide, with the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) generally associated with the 34 -foot (above mean sea level; amsl) contour line. The 100 -year FEMA floodplain is located at an elevation of 39.62 feet amsl (Sheet W1.0). Water depth in the Site was observed to be approximately 18 inches in the summer of 2012 and approximately 3 feet in the fall of 2012. The streambed substrate consists of clean gravel and cobble. No natural pools, woody debris, or other fish habitat features were observed in the vicinity of the project. Streambank vegetation was described in Chapter 5. 6.3 Cedar River Anadromous Fish The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has listed the Puget Sound fall Chinook and Puget Sound coho populations as Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU), which makes these populations of fish distinct for conservation purposes. As shown in Tables 1 and 2 above, the portion of the Cedar River that crosses the site is documented breeding area for fall chinook, coho, and sockeye. Bull trout and winter steelhead are confirmed present, and coast resident cutthroat are listed in the PHS database as a species of commercial and recreational interest. 6.3.1 Puget Sound Fall Chinook Salmon The Puget Sound population of chinook salmon was Federally -listed as a threatened species on 16 March 1999. Fall chinook salmon migrate upstream beginning mid-August and spawn from mid-September through November (Myers, et al., 1998), and are the most abundant breeding 10 May 2013 Copyright © Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 6 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report and migrating salmonid in the region. Chinook salmon require gravel -bedded rivers and streams with clear, cold (42-58°F), well oxygenated waters. The streambed gravel needs to be ' relatively free from silts and fine sands to allow free flow of water and oxygen to eggs deposited in the gravel spaces. Eggs incubate for several weeks to months before hatching as "alevin S2" Critical habitat for Chinook salmon includes riparian zones adjacent to stream channels. Juvenile Chinook (fry) may remain in fresh water from a few days to three years (Wydowski and ' Whitney, 2003). Juveniles that remain in fresh water prefer to remain in main stem rivers and streams, generally seeking cover in pools and backwaters. ' Predatory fish account for 27% of loss to juvenile Chinook salmon produced in the Cedar River_ Steelhead (rainbow trout) and cutthroat trout accounted for 74% of the estimated predation loss in 1998 and 98% in 2000. Predation of chinook salmon by rainbow trout occurred primarily in large deep pools, whereas, predation by cutthroat trout occurred primarily in secondary pools (Tabor et al., 2004a). According to Tabor et al., rearing juvenile chinook salmon typically inhabit shallow, low-velocity areas along the river's edge and their rearing habitat does not usually overlap with rainbow trout. Chinook are most likely vulnerable to predation during migration. ' 6.3.2 Puget Sound Coho Salmon Coho salmon were listed as a Federal species of concern as of 15 April 2004. Most west coast ' coho salmon enter rivers in October, and spawn from November to December_ Coho spawn in the gravel of stream riffles. Eggs will hatch in approximately six to eight weeks as alevins. Fry emerge from the gravel and congregate in schools in stream pools and backwaters. Coho will ' live in fresh water for up to 15 months before migrating to the ocean. Peak ocean migration generally occurs in May, and the coho smolts4 migrate relatively quickly out to the open ocean where they live for up to two years before they return to fresh water as adult spawners (NOAH, 2012a). ' 6.3.3 Puget Sound Sockeye Sockeye are also known as "red salmon", and populations that have been landlocked and cannot access the ocean are called "kokanee" or "silver trout". In 1992, the WDFW and the western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes identified nine separate sockeye salmon stocks in the State. Lake Washington sockeye (3 stocks) and Columbia River sockeye (2 stocks) are the State's two largest runs of this species. Sockeye rear in lakes so they spawn only in rivers with ' access to lakes. Some sockeye stocks spawn along the shorelines of lakes. Sockeye spawn from August to October, and require extensive good -quality spawning riffles for optimum production. Successful egg and alevin survivals are dependent on clean spawning gravels and ' low to moderate winter stream flows. Sockeye eggs and fry can be negatively impacted by high flows during the fall and winter incubation period. The erosion and downstream movement of spawning gravels is a major cause of egg and alevin losses, and severe flooding can cause mortalities exceeding 90%. The sockeye fry migrate downstream to the deep waters of nursery lakes upon emergence from spawning sites from January through June, at a size of approximately 25 to 32 millimeters (1.0 to 1.25 inches). Juvenile sockeye rear for 1-2 years in a ' lake. Sockeye smolts emigrate to sea in spring at a length of approximately 4 to 6 inches (WDFW, 2013b). ' 2 ..Alevin" are newly hatched fish that derive their nourishment from the yolk sac of the egg from which they were born. Nourishment is provided by the yolk sac for several weeks. 3 "Fry" are tiny juvenile fish that feed on invertebrates. A "Smelting" is a physiological change which enables a fish to live in salt water and not absorb the salt into its blood stream. Once a fish becomes a smolt it may begin its migration down the river and into the ocean where it will spend ' the next phase of its life. 10 May 2013 Copyright 0 Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 7 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Repc ■ 6.3.4 Bull Trout Bull trout were Federally -listed throughout the conterminous United States as a threatened ■ species on 1 November 1999. Bull trout are part of the subgroup of the salmonid family known as "char". Char are found in lakes and rivers and sometimes, but not always, will migrate back and forth between fresh and saltwater. Bull trout and Dolly Varden are the only char native to ' Washington. Bull trout prefer deep pools in cold (40-55°F) rivers and lakes. Streams with abundant cover by cut banks and woody debris with clean gravel and cobble beds provide the best habitat. Bull trout and Doily Varden are opportunistic feeders, eating aquatic insects, shrimp, snails, leeches, fish eggs and fish. Anadromous (sea -going) and freshwater populations often journey long distances (tap to 115 miles) in summer and fall, migrating to the small headwater streams where they hatched, to spawn. Mature adults with these characteristics are generally four to seven years old and 18 to 22 inches in length when they ' make their first spawning run. While these char can jump remarkably well for fish their size, as much as seven or eight vertical feet under good conditions, they are just as likely to maneuver around a difficult spot. Newly -hatched fish emerge from the gravel the following spring. Those ■ that migrate down to the main rivers, reservoirs and saltwater normally leave the headwater areas as two -year-olds. Resident stream populations exhibit limited movements, living their entire lives in the same stretch of headwater stream. These fish may not mature until they are ■ seven to eight years old, and rarely reach sizes greater than 14 inches in length. Biologists have observed these local residents spawning side-by-side with their much larger anadromous kin (WDFW, 2013c). ' 6.3.5 Puget Sound Winter Steelhead Puget Sound steelhead were Federally -listed as a threatened species on 11 May 2007. Steelhead are large rainbow trout that go to sea. Winter steelhead are ocean -maturing ■ salmonids that enter freshwater between November and April, and spawn shortly thereafter. They are variable with respect to the time (1-7 years) they spend feeding in freshwater before migrating to the Pacific Ocean (Wydowski and Whitney, 2003), In Washington, they typically ■ become smolts between the ages of 2 and 3, and can remain at sea for up to 3 years before returning to freshwater to spawn. Unlike other Pacific salmonids, they can spawn more than one time (called iteroparity). Steelhead can survive in a wide range of water temperatures, but ■ require deep low-velocity pools for winter habitat. Gravel substrate free of excessive silt are optimum spawning habitat (NOAA, 2012b). 6.3.6 Coast Resident Cutthroat ■ Of the 13 subspecies of cutthroat trout indigenous to North America, only the coastal cutthroat trout is anadromous. Sea -run cutthroat spawn from winter through May. Optimum spawning habitat occurs in smaller streams with minimal flow and sandy substrate. Most cutthroat rear in streams for 2-3 years before migrating to salt water. Unlike other anadromous salmonids that feed in open ocean habitat, cutthroats remain within a few miles of their natal stream (WDFW, 2013d). 6.4 Ecological Functions of the Cedar River at the Site Spawning salmonids were observed in and around the Site during the field investigation conducted on 2 November 2012. The substrate consists of clean gravel and cobble that mostly lacks silts and fine sands. The substrate is ideal for spawning because the clean gravel and cobble allows free flow of water and oxygen to eggs deposited in the gravel spaces. The average water velocity would not normally displace eggs or alevin from July through October, thus the Site is most suited to Chinook and sockeye spawning. Coho may experience some mortality due to egg and alevin displacement during high flows. Tables 3-5 below provide data related to suitability of the Site for salmonid spawning based on water temperature and average flow. 10 May 2013 Copyright © Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 8 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report Table 3. Average Water Temperature (Celsius) (200712008) (USGS, 2008) OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 10.6 8.2 6.3 5.7 6.1 6.7 8.7 10.1 10.9 14.2 14.7 13.2 Table 4. Average Flow Velocity in Cubic Feet per Second (cfs) (1946-2008) (USGS, 2008) OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 360 756 1,050 1,095 1,036 871 770 701 623 299 192 228 Table 5. Assessment of Suitability for Salmonids Species Timing of Migration Timing of Spawning Temperature Requirement SubstratetTemperature Suitability for Spawning Chinook Mid -August Sept -Nov 5.6-14.4 (cold) Good Coho October Nov -Dec 5.6-14.4 (cold) High velocity may displace eggs Sockeye Mid -July Aug -Oct 5.6-14.4 (cold) Good Bull Trout Summer NIA 5.6-14.4 (cold) Not known to spawn Steelhead Nov -April N/A Wide range Need low velocity to spawn Coastal Cutthroat Winter/Spring N/A 5.6-14.4 (cold) Not known to spawn The suitability of the streambed substrate and the average monthly water temperatures of the Cedar River in the vicinity of the Site contribute to the function of the river as spawning habitat for salmonids. However, the riparian area adjacent to the river is narrow, of relatively low quality, and provides only minimal shade for the river_ The streambed lacks habitat features, such as woody debris, pools, and riffles. The river is a straight, man-made channel with engineered banks, and lacks sinuosity and other natural features. 6.5 Potential Stream Impacts No direct impacts to the Cedar River are anticipated during or after construction, thus no net loss of shoreline ecological functions is expected as a result of project development. All renovation work will be contained within the area of existing development. The footprint of existing disturbed/developed area within the shoreline zone will not be expanded, and existing shoreline vegetation will remain intact. In fact, portions of the library structure will be demolished as part of the renovation work, which will result in a net reduction of approximately 1,700 sf, or 7%, of the library structure's footprint over the river and within the shoreline buffer. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to ensure adequate protection of water quality and the aquatic environment. CHAPTER 7. PRE-EXISTING EFFECTS ON SALMONIDS ' Talasaea reviewed literature on the effects of light on salmonid predation (Tabor et al. 2004b; Mazur and Beauchamp 2003) to investigate the possible pre-existing effect that the library may be having on salmonid predation. Sculpin (Coffus sp.), cutthroat trout, and steelhead (rainbow ' trout) were the predators addressed in the studies_ Both studies found that predation is lowest 10 May 2013 Copyright D Tatasaea Consultants, Inc. 'TAI -1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 9 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report under dark conditions, and increases as light and visibility increases. Talasaea also contacted Hans Berge, the King County expert on fish and the Cedar River watershed. Mr. Berge relayed that shade does not contribute to increased predation, but that excess light does contribute to increased predation (Hans Berge, peas. comm. 2-21-13). This information indicates that the area under the library may provide a refuge for salmonids because predation would be higher upstream and downstream of the library where the river is always illuminated by sunlight and the lights of surrounding urban area. Given the general lack of natural shade along the reach of the Cedar River in the vicinity of the project site, the shadow of the library across the river is likely to have a beneficial effect, if any at all. CHAPTER S. CONSTRUCTION BMPS As stated previously, no direct impacts to the Cedar River or adjacent riparian habitat are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Best Management Practices (BMPS) will be employed during construction to ensure adequate protection of water quality and the aquatic and shoreline environment. The following general goals have been defined to guide construction activities and ensure adequate protection of the aquatic and shoreline environment. Suggested BMPs are listed after each goal. These BMPs are not exhaustive, and additional BMPs shall be implemented as needed to meet these goals. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to implement BMPs appropriate for the different phases and types of work being conducted on site. For example, concrete demolition work will require different methods for keeping debris out of the stream than sandblasting work. Goal 1: Trash, constructionldemolition debris, and other contaminants shall be kept out of the river and shoreline environment at all times during construction. This requirement shall be accomplished by the following measures: For over water work: A debris catch blanket shall be installed under the building at the start of the project and shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project until all over -water work on the exterior of the building is complete. The debris blanket shall extend outward from the work area a sufficient amount to collect all debris that may fall or be blown from the work area, and shall be of a material sufficiently strong to accommodate potential heavy debris such as concrete chunks. Fallen debris shall be cleaned off daily. For work on the shoreline: Temporary fencing shall be installed to prevent material from falling over or blowing across the tap -of -bank work area into the riparian buffer or the Cedar River. Silt fencing installed per the civil TESC plan may meet this requirement, depending on where it is installed. However, additional fencing may be needed. ' Materials storage and staging: All construction materials shall be stored and staged in such a manner that the potential for materials to fall, be blown by the wind, or washed into the river are minimized. This will include implementing measures such as: • Weighing down or otherwise securing or storing in an enclosed area lightweight ' materials that could be transported by wind, • Keeping stored materials away from the edges of the over -water structure or the top of banks as much as practicable, and ' 10 May 2013 Copyright© Talasaea Consultants, Inc. ' TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 10 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report Keeping materials, such as mortar, cement, or grouting materials, that could be washed into the river by runoff fully covered when not in use. For all demolition work: The contractor shall refer to the civil drawings for a detailed demolition plan, and all demolition work shall follow all notes and specifications per the civil plans. ' Goal 2: Dust control For construction and demolition activities that may generate airborne dust, such as concrete cutting, sandblasting, demolition of sheetrock, etc., special BMPs shall be implemented to ' minimize, contain, and collect the dust. This will include measures such as fully encasing the work area with plastic or other covering, or using methods such as wet -cutting of concrete, and wetting of debris piles and vehicular surfaces to keep down dust. ' Goal 3: General worksite management The worksite shall be kept clean and orderly at all times. This includes daily worksite cleanup ' and proper storage of materials and construction debris at the end of each work day. Goal 4: Work timing and scheduling Scheduling work for appropriate times may be necessary in order to prevent debris from ' entering the aquatic environment. This would include postponing over -water work during excessively windy or wet weather to prevent debris or construction materials from being blown or washed into the river or shoreline areas. In general, all exterior work shall be scheduled ' during the dry season to minimize the chance for harmful materials being blown or washed from the worksite into the aquatic environment. Goal 5: Stormwater management ' The proposed project will provide stormwater management BMPs designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the requirements set forth in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM. ' See the engineering Technical Information Report dated 1 March 2013 prepared by CPL and the temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan and details prepared by CPL for more information. The project does not meet the criteria that would trigger an NPDES permit_ However, due to the sensitive nature of the work site over and adjacent to the Cedar River, a ' stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which will include a spill prevention and cleanup report, will be prepared as part of the final construction documents. ' In addition, during demolition and construction activities, all runoff from the site that would normally drain directly into the river (the existing roof downspouts daylight into the river, for example) shall be diverted, collected, and treated with appropriate BMPs before being ' discharged into the river. These BMPs will be defined on the final TESC plan and in the SWPPP and may include Baker tanks, stormfilters, or similar systems. CHAPTER 9. MITIGATION 9.1 Mitigation Sequencing and No Net Loss of Ecological Functions RMC §4-3-090(D)(2)(a) states that "shoreline use and development shall be carried out in a ' manner that prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes in all development and use". RMC §4-3-090(D)(2)(a) also outlines the requirements for mitigation sequencing and states that "an application for any permit or approval ' shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to provide sufficient mitigation such that the activity does not result in net loss of ecological functions". Mitigation sequencing shall occur in the following prioritized order: 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 11 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report 1. Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or moving the action_ 2. Minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology and engineering, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. ' 3. Rectifying the adverse impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the adverse impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. ' 5. Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing similar substitute resources or environments and monitoring the adverse impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. ' Mitigation sequencing has been fully implemented pursuant to the sequencing steps described above. The project has avoided and minimized shoreline impacts per sequencing steps 1 and 2 ' above by limiting all proposed work to within the footprint of the existing development on the project site. No additional shoreline areas will be disturbed beyond existing conditions, all existing shoreline vegetation will remain intact, and no work will occur within either the floodplain ' or below the OHWM. Furthermore, as described in Chapter 8, BMPs will be implemented during the construction process to minimize temporary impacts from construction activities_ Because no adverse impacts will occur as a result of the project action, mitigation sequencing ' steps 3, 4, and 5 above do not apply. Because the project has avoided and minimized all adverse impacts, no net loss of shoreline or stream ecological functions is expected, as described previously in Sections 5.4 and 6.5. ' 9.2 Mitigation Required for Major Alterations in a Shoreline Zone The Renton Library is an existing non -conforming structure and use within the shoreline zone. ' The proposed renovation work equals more than 50% of the value of the existing structure and improvements, and thus defines the proposed project as a "major alteration" pursuant to RMC §4-10-095(F), Shoreline Master Program Nonconforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites. Pursuant to this same section, major alterations to existing nonconforming uses, activities, structures and sites within the shoreline zone are required to meet multiple compliance standards as follows: ' 1. Install site improvements that protect the ecological functions and processes of the shoreline, consisting of either: a. Full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC §4-3-090(F)(1), ' Vegetation Conservation, consisting of revegetation of a native plant community of the full required buffer, or 100% of the area between an existing building and the water's edge if the full buffer cannot be planted, or at least 10 ft., or b. An alternate mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would provide at least equal protection of ecological functions and processes as the full required setback and buffer. ' 2. Remove over water structures that do not provide public access, or do not serve water - dependent uses. 3. Piers and docks shall be required to replace any solid decking with light -penetrating ' surfacing materials. 4. Developments with existing shoreline stabilization shall mitigate for the impacts of shoreline stabilization in one of the following ways: 1 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAI -1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 12 1 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report a. Shoreline stabilization structures not conforming to, or otherwise permitted by, the provisions of this Code shall be reviewed and upgraded according to the ' standards of RMC §4-3-090F4aiii, Shoreline Stabilization Alternatives Hierarchy, or b. An alternative mitigation proposal prepared by a qualified professional and ' approved by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that would identify near shore mitigation to improve shoreline function or values on-site, or c. If the two alternatives above are infeasible, then the project proponent shall ' contribute to an off-site vegetation conservation fund, in accordance with RMC §4-3-090F1 k. ' Compliance Standards 1, 2, and 4 above apply to the proposed project. Compliance Standard 3 does not apply since there are no docks or piers on the site. The following is a description of how the proposed project complies with Standards 1, 2, and 4 above. ' Compliance Standard 1: The proposed project complies with Standard 1 using option "b", "alternate mitigation proposal". Option "a", "full compliance with Vegetation Conservation provisions of RMC §4-3-090(F)(1)" is ' not feasible on the project site. RMC §4-3-090(F)(1) requires a 100 -foot vegetated shoreline buffer within shoreline areas designated as "high intensity". Due to the non -conforming nature of the library building spanning the river, and the highly altered nature of the shoreline environment on both banks of the river within the project area, it is simply not possible or practicable to restore a 100 -foot vegetated buffer on the project site. The left bank of the river consists of parking and pedestrian pathways adjacent to the library building, and the right bank consists of a developed public park with walking paths, playing fields, and other site amenities. The existing vegetated buffer averages approximately 20 feet upstream and downstream of the library, and there is no opportunity to expand this (the vegetated buffer is zero where the library building itself spans the river, and also cannot be expanded here for obvious reasons). ' The alternate mitigation proposed consists of paying an "in -lieu -fee" to the City's Vegetation Conservation Fund, as defined in RMC §4-3-090(F)(1)(k). This section of code states that "expenditures from such a fund for provision of areas where the functions of shoreline vegetation conservation would be provided shall be in accordance with the restoration plan or other watershed and aquatic habitat conservation plans and shall be spent within the WRIA in which the assessed property is located". The City of Renton does not currently have a ' framework in place for determining in -lieu -fee amounts on a project by project basis. Therefore, the Applicant (KCLS) has been instructed by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development to propose an in -lieu -fee amount that is commensurate with the project scope and potential impacts to the shoreline environment, based on the habitat and stream assessment study prepared by Talasaea Consultants contained herein. The Applicant proposes a contribution of $22,700 to the City of Renton Vegetation Conservation ' Fund. This amount is commensurate with the project scope in that it has been calculated based on the actual area of shoreline buffer contained within the project limits. This includes any area landward of the OHWM within the project limits (project limits and OHWM are depicted on ' Sheet W1.0 in Appendix A). The total shoreline buffer area contained within the project limits is approximately 18,130 sf (10,780 sf on the left bank and 7,350 sf on the right bank). This area was then multiplied by a dollar amount of $1.25Isf. The intent here is to calculate an amount for ' what it would hypothetically cost to restore an area of shoreline buffer equal to the area within the project limits. This is hypothetical because the actual area within the project limits is not available for restoration since it is within the footprint of the library building and associated ' improvements. $1.25/sf was chosen on the basis of Talasaea's experience with buffer 10 May 2013 Copyright© Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 13 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report restoration/enhancement work on other projects. In our experience this cost covers typical buffer restoration/enhancement activities that include invasive species removal and planting enhancement with native trees and shrubs, This is the same type of work that is likely to be a part of off-site shoreline mitigation projects along the Cedar River that would be funded by the Vegetation Conservation Fund. $1.25/sf is also the rate that Snohomish Basin Mitigation Bank (SBMB) charges for buying buffer mitigation credits to compensate for buffer impacts. The buffer mitigation credit costs at SBMB have gone under extensive review and approval by multiple agencies, and so should be considered a good point of reference for assessing the "value" of buffer mitigation on a unit area basis. A variety of reports and studies have been prepared over the years evaluating restoration opportunities within WRIA 8 along the Cedar River and Lake Washington , The City of Renton Shoreline Master Program Update Final Restoration Plan (Parametrix 2010) references fifteen potential restoration projects roughly within Renton's jurisdiction. These projects were originally identified and described in the Final Lake WashingtonlCedarlSammamish Watershed (WRIA 8) Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan (King County 2005). Below are several examples of potential projects described in the above documents that are possible candidates for Vegetation Conservation Fund expenditures. These projects are all within the lower reach of the Cedar River within City of Renton jurisdiction: Proiect 0203, C204 Logan St. Bridge to 1-405 (Cedar River Reach B, RM 1-1.6): Explore options to add native riparian vegetation on left bank of river and for any needed restoration plantings on the right bank. If redevelopment occurs in this reach of river, explore possibility of setting back levees and restoring riparian buffer. Proiect C206 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Riparian restoration on right bank of industrial use area likely to be redeveloped in the near future, improve riparian ' habitat via easement purchase for buffer and removing bank hardening. Proiect C207 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.64.2): There is multifamily residential use on the right bank of the river; explore opportunities to remove impervious surface area and bank hardening on site, restore riparian buffer_ Proiect C208 1-405 to SR 169 Bridge (Reach C, RM 1.6-4.2): Maplewood neighborhood flood buyouts and floodplain restoration, explore options to restore floodplain. Proiect 0211 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4,2-4.7): The Cedar River Basin Plan includes a potential project to restore a side channel on the right bank of the river on property owned by Maplewood Height Home Owners Association and the City across from the golf course and downstream of the landslide. Channel restoration should include a flow-through channel reconnected to the Cedar River at the upper end for juvenile Chinook benefit. Proiect C212 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.2-4.7): Conifer underplanting within reach, particularly in Ron Regis Park near slide area. 10 May 2013 TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. Page 14 IRenton Library at Libertv Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report Project C213, C214 SR 169 Bridge to Upstream of Landslide (Reach D, RM 4.7): Protect existing riparian habitat and extensive LWD in reach. Explore using LWD and levee setback to prevent excessive erosion and flood damage to public lands associated with Ron Regis Park while protecting natural habitat forming processes. Project ' study should include lower Madsen Creek. It shall be ultimately up to the City of Renton to identify and prioritize appropriate shoreline restoration and/or enhancement projects along the Cedar River within WRIA 8 that will be ' funded by monies from the Vegetation Conservation Fund. Compliance Standard 2 ' The entire Renton Library building itself is an over -water structure which is not, by definition, a water -dependent use. However, it is an existing non -conforming shoreline structure that is allowed to remain per City of Renton shoreline regulations. As part of the proposed renovation work, the project does propose to remove unneeded portions of the structure. The current ' library structure is approximately 25,243 sf in area, which includes the building itself as well as the attached pedestrian bridge over the river that is part of the building superstructure. The project proposes to reduce the overall size of the structure by removing previous additions on the north and east sides of the existing library building. This will result in a post -construction structure footprint of approximately 23,506 sf. This equals a footprint reduction of approximately 1,700 sf, which equates to an approximately 7 percent reduction in overall size. A portion of this ' reduction will occur over the river itself and a portion will occur within the shoreline buffer on the right bank. The existing pedestrian bridge and associated entry court over the river will remain in place as is. Compliance Standard_4 The project area does contain shoreline stabilization structures. The left bank of the river contains gabion basket retaining walls under the library that extend upstream and downstream of the building. However, these gabion basket walls are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the river bank under and adjacent to the library structure_ No repair or replacement work is proposed for these walls as part of the proposed renovation project, and no work of any kind is proposed along the immediate shoreline. All work will remain well above the OHWM. The existing conditions of the shoreline will remain undisturbed, and any existing shoreline stabilization structures, including the gabion basket walls, will remain in place as is. RMC §4-3- 090(F)(4)(c) contains an allowance for existing shoreline structures to remain. Thus, no mitigation is required or proposed to meet Compliance Standard 4. 9.3 Development Standards for Aquatic Habitat RMC §4-3-090(D)(2)(e) defines general development standards for aquatic habitat. These are each listed below in italics, followed by a description of how the proposed project is meeting these standards: i. Stormwater Requirements: Development shall provide stormwater management facilities including water quality treatment designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the current stormwater management standards. Water quality treatment facilities shall be provided for moderate alteration of nonconforming structures, uses and sites as provided for in RMC § 4- 10-095. The proposed project will meet all stormwater management requirements set forth in the 2009 KCSWDM and the City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 KCSWDM. See the 10 May 2013 Copyright © Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 15 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report ' engineering Technical Information Report dated 1 March 2013 prepared by CPL for more information. ii. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements: Best management practices for control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines through ' approved temporary erosion and sediment control plan, or administrative conditions. The project will provide all required temporary erosion and sedimentation control BMPs. See the engineering Technical Information Report dated 1 March 2013 prepared by CPL ' and the TESC pian and details prepared by CPL for more information. iii. Lighting Requirements: Nighttime lighting shall be designed to avoid or minimize interference ' with aquatic life cycles through avoidance of light sources that shine directly onto the water. Exterior lighting fixtures shall include full cut off devices such that glare or direct illumination does not extend into water bodies. Lighting shall include timers or other switches to ensure that lights are extinguished when not in use. Required permanent site lighting shall be designed to comply with the above requirements, and shall direct light away from the river, or be shrouded in a manner that ' does not significantly increase light above ambient conditions within the aquatic environment adjacent to the project site. A detailed site lighting plan shall be included as part of the final construction plans. ' CHAPTER 10. SUMMARY ' This Stream Study and Habitat Data Report was prepared for the Renton Library at Liberty Park pursuant to the requirements of RMC Chapter 4-3-050 (Critical Areas Regulations) and RMC Chapter 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program) to identify and describe streams, critical species, and habitat on or adjacent to the Site, provide a regulatory review of applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, and propose mitigation for impacts to critical areas and habitat. The KCLS plans to rehabilitate the existing Liberty Park library which was constructed across the Cedar River between 1965 and 1966. The proposed project would include demolition of portions of the existing building, full interior and exterior renovation, and installation of new below -grade concrete abutments and piles to upgrade the existing structure to seismic standards. The renovation would reduce the size of the library structure from approximately 25,243 sf to approximately 23,506 sf. All work will occur within the footprint of existing development for the library. Public access will be maintained off of Mill Avenue South. The Cedar River is the only aquatic resource identified within or in the vicinity of the Site. The library spans Reach B of the Cedar River, located in the Cedar-Sammamish watershed (WRIA 8)_ The Cedar River is designated as a Class 1 water (RMC §4-3-050(K)(1)) and is a Shoreline of the State. Within the Site, the Cedar River is approximately 100 feet wide. Water depth at the Site was observed to be approximately 18 inches in the summer of 2012 and approximately 3 feet in the fall of 2012. The in -stream substrate consists of clean gravel and cobble. No natural pools, woody debris, or other fish habitat features were observed in the vicinity of the project. The shoreline riparian habitat in the vicinity of the library building is very narrow (30-50 feet max), and is adjacent to urban impervious surface on the left bank, and a baseball field/City ' park on the right bank. The downstream riparian habitat is dominated by invasive species including: reed canarygrass, Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan blackberry. Tree species within the existing riparian habitat include: sycamore, black cottonwood, and horse chestnut. 10 May 2013 Copyright© Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAI -1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 16 1 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report ' The upstream riparian habitat is similarly dominated by Himalayan blackberry, with slightly improved salmonberry habitat located on the left upstream bank. ' Within the vicinity of the project, the Cedar River is known to support Federally -listed (threatened) Chinook salmon and steeihead trout, along with coho salmon, a Federally -listed Candidate species, and sockeye salmon, a State Candidate species. Bull trout are listed in the ' PHS database as a species of commercial and recreational interest. These anadromous fish are protected under the City of Renton Critical Areas Code (RMC §4-3-050) and under the Federal Endangered Species Act. ' No direct impacts to the Cedar River, adjacent riparian habitat, or State Shoreline are anticipated during or after construction, thus no net toss of ecological functions is anticipated as a result of project construction. All work will occur within the footprint of existing development ' for the library and will stay outside of the 100 -year flood zone and above the 4HWM; the footprint of existing disturbed/developed area within the shoreline zone will not be expanded as a result of this project. In addition, all existing shoreline vegetation will remain intact. In fact, ' portions of the library structure will be demolished as part of the renovation work, which will result in a net reduction of approximately 1,700 sf, or 7 percent, of the library structure's footprint over the river and within the shoreline buffer (the library structure supports both the ' building itself and the adjacent pedestrian bridge). Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to minimize temporary construction impacts to the aquatic environment, and the project will comply with all applicable City ordinances including, but not ' limited to, stormwater management requirements, and those related to traffic, noise, and aesthetics during and after construction. 10 May 2013 Copyright Q Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAI -1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 17 IRenton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report CHAPTER 11. REFERENCES ' Berger ABAM Engineers, Inc. 2009. Biological Assessment for Cedar River Bank Protection at Jones Park. Prepared for: City of Renton Community Services Department/Parks Division. February 2009. ' Cowardin et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (as modified for the National Wetland Inventory Mapping Convention). King County. 1993. Cedar River Current and Future Conditions Report. King County ' Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division. King County GIS database (King County, 2006); ' King County. 2008. King County Stream and Water Quality Monitoring website. <http://green.kingcounty.gov[WLRIWaterres/StreamsData/WaterShedInfo.aspx?Locator =X438.> Accessed December 2008. ' Mazur, Michael M. and David A. Beauchamp. 2003. A comparison of Visual Prey Detection Among Species of Piscivorous Salmonids: Effects of Light and Low Turbidities. Environmental Biology of Fishes. Vol. 67, issue 4, pp 397-405. August 2003. Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grand, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA ' Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 p. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Resources. 2012a. Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). ' <http://www.nmfs_noaa_gov/pr/species/fish/cohosalmon.htm> updated September 11, 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Protected Resources. 2012b. Steeihead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/steelheadtrout.htm > updated December 19, 2012. Renton, City of. 2012. Renton Municipal Code current through Ordinance 5669. Chapter 4-3- 050 (Critical Areas Regulations); RMC Chapter 4-3-090 (Shoreline Master Program); RMC Chapter 4-8-120 (Submittal Requirements -Specific to Application Type); August 20, 2012. StreamNet, StreamNet Mapper, [online], Portland, OR: StreamNet, [accessed 5-12-2012]. http://map.streamnet_org/website/bluesnetmapper/viewer.htm Tabor, Roger A., Mark T. Celedonia, Francine Mejia, Rich M. Piaskowski, David L. Low, Brian Footen, and Linda Park. 2004a. Predation of Juvenile Chinook Salmon by Predatory Fishes in Three Areas of the Lake Washington Basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Conservation Biology Molecular Genetics Laboratory. February 2004. Tabor, Roger A., Gayle S. Brown, Victoria T. Luiting. 2004b. The Effect of Light Intensity on Sockeye Salmon Fry Migratory Behavior and Predation by Cottids in the Cedar River, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 24, Issue 1, 2004. U.S. Geologic Survey. 2008. Water -Data Report 2008. 12119000 Cedar River at Renton, WA, Puget Sound Basin, Lake Washington Subbasin, 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 18 Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. SalmonScape [online], Olympia, WA: [accessed 2-12-13]. <http//wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/index.html> Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Priority Habitats and Species Database [online], Olympia, WA. [accessed 2-12-13]. www.wdfw,wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013a. Washington State Species of Concern Lists. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/lists/search.php?searchby=AnimalType&se arch=Fish&orderby=ScientificName%20ASC accessed: 2-21-13. ' Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013b. Fishing and Shellfishing, Sockeye (Red) Salmon. < wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/sockeye> [accessed 2-13-131. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013c, Fishing and Shellfishing, Washington's Native Char. < wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/chary [accessed 2-13-13]. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013d. Fishing and Shellfishing, ' Recreational Salmon Fishing, Cutthroat Trout. < wdfw.wa.gov/salmon/cutthroat_html> [accessed 2-13-13]. ' Wydoski, Richard S, and Richard R Whitney. Inland Fishes of Washington. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003- 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Page 19 IRenton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Aerial Site Overview Map Figure 3: Shoreline Environments Map Figure 4: Existing Conditions Photos 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAI -1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).docx Figures ` K,- w rth j2 In ' -- N 51+' St `! 5,h St M pj m k� 5� c z - 5th P ?. y V 'a 2 z - 5tr- 51 q sti . D m d • �x � m C ro Z c - 04, $le�N Windsor Hills Park < a 2 z z h Sr s r; + .1rc SL N 4th St A% N 4!h 3. 3 z ' IV 0 T z 3ryS[ a c N 3rd St - t � c ' � t Z atwoy r?errmC.e*�n r 3^45t �! NZ3rdSt as TO:icutrl St a .Afire 4/ *4 V c�P > a amu} x +t! a TBCm St ' m �� s ` n Ntt gisvel m4 Renton m b ' mign School g N tb4 T[ t Cedar SC 2nd Pi mac S bd St W ,� ' Raver Park `) ,e S. 21d C1 Downtown Renton rn � ..8c� . � � SE 3rd Sr S 3rd S! S 3rd SI Renton S 3� S rd-a) SIS 'A ' S4;h5! FROJEGT SITE �L }tsar 4r � d" ! S 5th St m 5 St^ St a ? t � n � i� coD V, a S bN 5t � `n yam > <`+ 5 EDe SS ; ? c (I S ',n s: s 7th St 0 NORTH R SSS i <t d r P N o'hG d S 9th St I o �9. SE 817% MAP 50UiZGE: L*IYJW.MAP5.�00�LE.GOM 1 � DESIGN DRAWN PROJECT ' FIGURE I ABS 1420 TALA S AE A SCALE CONSULTANTS, INC. VIGINITY MAP NTS Resource k Environmental Planning DATE ' 15OLO Hear Creek Road Northeast RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK 2--28-2013 Woodinville, Washington 981177 Bus (125)861-7550 - Fax (425)881-7549 RENTON, AASHIN07ON REVISED ' O Copyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. 0 i A&. E- MAP MAP SOURr_E: <INO COUNTY IMAP IMAGE DATE: 2006 DESIGN DRAWN PROJECT � TALAS AE A SCALE B FIGURE 2 q5 1420 -' CONSULTANTS, INC. AERIAL SITE OVERVIEW MAP AS SHOWN Resource do Environmental Planning DATE oodinville, Washington 86677 Bear Creek Road Northeast WoadRENTON LIBR�4RY AT LIBERTY PARK 2-20-2013 :2 If Bus (425)861-7556 - Fax (425)861-7548 RENTON, WASHINGTON REVISED Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. . :1 Ate. Lr=6r=Nfl Shoreline Environment Designation Shoreline Jurisdiction Natural BRSC - Black Rtver/Spnngbrook Creek Reaches Shorehrre High Intensity CR - Cedar River Reaches SlIcreime Isolated High intensely OR - Green River Reaches 0 LD - Lake Desire Reaches HAP Urban Conservancy 0 Urban o serva cy LW . Lake Washington Reaches G TY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF tVIC - May Creek Reaches y GOMMUNITY AND EGONOMIG DEVELOPMENT FICURE 3 DESIGN I DRAWN PROTECT ABS 1420 TALASAEA SCALE CONSULTANTS, INC. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS MAP AS SHOWN Resource do Environmental Planning DATE Bear creek Road Northeast RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY FDARK 2-28-2013 Woodinville, Washington 98677 Bus (425)861-7550 - Fax (4z5)861-7549 RENTON, WASHINGTON REY1SEn C Copyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE LIBRARY FROM THE BRONSON HAY NORTH BRIDGE OUR I NG SUMMER FLOW LOOKING UPSTREAM AT THE LIBRARY FROM THE BRON50N WAY NORTH BRIDGE DURING SPRING FLOW FIGURE 4A DESIGN I DRAWN PROJECT TALASAEASCAU AB5 1420 CONSULTANTS, INC. EXISTING GONDfTION5 PHOTOS NTS Resource h Environmental Planning DATE Woodinville, Washington 96077 Bear creek Road Northeast et WoRENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK 2-2a-2013 Bus (425)861-7550 — Fax (425)061-7549 PENTON, WASHINGTON I REVISED Copyright - Talasaea Consultants, INC. 1 1 1 1 LOOKING UPSTREAM FROM THE EXISTING LIBRARY ENTRANGE TOWARDS 1-405 (SPRING FLOW) LOOKING UPSTREAM ALONG LEFT BANK UNDER LIBRARY STRUG TUBE (D TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC. Resource k Environmental Planning 15020 Bear Creek Road Narlheast Woodinville, Washington 98077 Bus (425)881-7550 — Fax (425)861-7549 LOOKING AT RIGHT BANK UNDER LIBRARY STRUCTURE DESIGN DPA" PROTECT FIG -URE 4B ABS 420 SCALE EXISTING CONDITIONS PHOTOS NTS DATE RENTON LIBRARY AT LIBERTY PARK 2-z8-20131415 RENTON, WASHINGTON REVISED C Copyright — Talasaea Consultants, INC. Renton Library at Liberty Park Stream Study and Habitat Data Report APPENDIX A Full -Size Plan Sheets (24"x36") Sheet W1.0: Existing Conditions Plan Sheet W1.1: Proposed Site Improvements Plan 10 May 2013 Copyright O Talasaea Consultants, Inc. TAL-1420 Stream and Habitat Report -2 (5-10-13).doex Appendix A ►^ REGULATED MATERIALS SURVEY REPORT RENTON LIBRARY 100 MILL AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98057 For KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM 960 NEWPORT WAY NW ISSAQUAH, WA URS JOB NUMBER: 33763607 JUNE 25, 2012 rt r �J June 25, 2012 Mr. Greg Smith Facilities Director King County Library System 960 Newport Way NW Issaquah, WA Report Regulated Materials Survey Renton Library 100 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98057 URS Job Number: 33763607 Dear Mr. Smith: URS Corporation (URS) has prepared this regulated materials survey report to support renovation of the Renton Library. Our report includes the results of a survey for asbestos -containing materials, lead - containing paints, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) caulk and light ballasts, and mercury light lamps/tubes in the library. This survey work was performed in accordance with our proposal dated April 13, 2012. We trust this report provides you with the information you require at this time. If you have any questions about the information presented within this report, please call us. Respectfully, URS CORPORATION Matthew McKibbin Environmental Scientist Russell J. Snyders, PE Principal Engineer URS Corporation 1501 41h Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101-1616 Tel: 206.438.2700 Fax: 206.438.2699 Z:'King County Lihrarie l\Downlnwn Renton - 3 3 7 6 3 60711 I ReponslKCLS -1)T Ronan - Sa vcy Repon.doe P TABLE OF CONTENTS 1,0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... I 1.1 OBJECTIVE................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK...................................................................................................... 1 1.3 L[MITING CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 1 1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT...................................................................2 2.0 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 ASBESTOS SURVEY.................................................................................................3 2.1.1 BULK SAMPLING......................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION..................................................................... 4 2.1.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS......................................................................... 4 2.2 LEAD SURVEY.......................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 PAINT CHIP SAMPLING.............................................................................. 4 2.2.2 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION..................................................................... 4 2.2.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS.........................................................................5 2.3 PCB CAULK SURVEY............................................................................................... 5 2.3.1 BULK SAMPLING........................................................................................ 5 2.3.2 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION..................................................................... 5 2.3.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS......................................................................... 5 2.4 PCB BALLAST AND MERCURY LIGHT TUBE SURVEY .................................... 5 3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIALS................................................................ 6 3.2 LEAD -CONTAINING PAINTS.................................................................................. 6 3.3 PCB CAULK................................................................................................................ 7 3.4 PCB BALLAST AND MERCURY LIGHT BULBS/LAMPS.. .................................. 7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ S 4.1 ASBESTOS-CONTATNTNG MATERIALS................................................................ S 4.2 LEAD -CONTAINING PAINTS.................................................................................. 9 4.3 PCB CAULK.............................................................................................................. 10 4.4 PCB BALLASTS AND MERCURY LIGHT TUBES/LAMPS................................ 10 5.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................12 TABLES TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF ASBESTOS SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF LEAD SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF PCB CAULK SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS TABLE 4 - QUANTITIES OF PCB BALLASTS AND MERCURY LIGHT TUBES/LAMPS FIGURES FIGURE 1 - SAMPLE LOCATIONS - GROUND LEVEL FIGURE 2 - SAMPLE LOCATIONS - ROOF LEVEL APPENDICES APPENDIX A - BULK ASBESTOS ANALYSIS REPORTS AND CHATN-OF-CUSTODY FORMS APPENDIX B - LEAD ANALYSIS REPORTS AND CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY FORM APPENDIX C -- PCB ANALYSIS REPORT AND CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY FORM APPENDIX D - AHERA BUILDING INSPECTOR CERTIFICATE APPENDIX E - LABORATORY CERTIFICATIONS 33763607 URS CORPORATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION URS Corporation (URS) was retained by the King County Library System (KCLS) to conduct a regulated materials survey of the Renton Library (Project Area) to support renovation activities.. This report includes the results of a survey for asbestos -containing materials (ACM), lead -containing paints, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) caulk and light ballasts, and mercury -containing light tubes in the Project Area. This survey was conducted to support extensive renovation of the Project Area. 1.1 OBJECTIVE URS understands that the Project Area is scheduled for renovation. The objective of this survey was to identify materials that will require abatement prior to demolition or control during demolition. The survey activities described in this report were conducted to comply with: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • 40 CFR, Part 763: Asbestos Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) • WAC 296-62-077: Asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and actinolite • WAC 296-155-176: Lead • WAC 296-800-170: Employer Chemical Hazard Communication • WAC 296-841: Airborne Contaminants Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) • Regulation III, Article 4: Asbestos Control Standards 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for this regulated materials survey included, and was limited to, the following tasks: • Perform an asbestos survey to identify, locate, and quantify ACM in the Project Area • Perform a survey for lead -containing materials in the Project Area • Perform a survey for PCB caulk in the Project Area • Quantify fluorescent light fixtures in the Project Area and assess a representative number to quantify potential PCB ballasts and presumed mercury -containing fluorescent light tubes • Prepare a summary report that documents the findings of this survey 1.3 LIMITING CONDITIONS Our survey was limited to observation and limited destructive sampling and analysis of suspect regulated materials in accessible portions of the Project Area. However, common construction techniques render portions of any building inaccessible. As a result, additional regulated materials may 33763607 URS CORPORATION F be present in inaccessible areas of the building that were not observed during the survey. Inaccessible areas should be presumed to contain regulated materials until extensive destructive sampling is performed in those areas. 1.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT The conclusions of this report are the professional opinions of URS, based solely upon visual site observations and interpretations of laboratory analyses, as described in this report. The opinions presented herein apply to the site conditions existing at the time of our investigation and interpretation of current regulations pertaining to asbestos, lead and PCBs and mercury. Therefore, our opinions and recommendations may not apply to future conditions that may exist at the site which we have not had the opportunity to evaluate. All applicable state, Federal, and local regulations should always be verified prior to any work that will disturb materials containing asbestos, lead, PCBs and mercury. 33763607 2 URS CORPORATION 2.0 METHODOLOGY This regulated materials survey was conducted by Matthew McKibbin of URS on June 6, 2012. Mr. McKibbin has received the following relevant training: • Asbestos Building Inspector Certification in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 763, Subpart E, Appendix C: Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan • Lead Awareness Training in accordance with WAC 296-155-17625 (2) Supporting documentation for the referenced survey activities is provided in the tables and appendices at the end of this report. 2.1 ASBESTOS SURVEY In order to identify suspect ACM, URS conducted a walk-through survey of accessible portions of the Project Area. Limited destructive sampling was conducted to investigate concealed areas and suspect materials in the Project Area. However, not all concealed areas or sub -surface suspect materials may have been surveyed (see Limiting Conditions in Section 1.3). Our asbestos survey was performed in accordance with 40 CFR 763; PSCAA Regulation III, Article 4; and WAC 296-62-07721. Approximate quantities of suspect materials were estimated by field measurements. The condition (e.g., good, fair, poor) and friability (i.e., able to be readily crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure) of suspect ACM was noted for each functional space. Friability of each sampled material was determined by hand -touch. 2.1.1 BULK SAMPLING Suspect ACM were grouped into homogeneous sampling areas (HSA) and categorized as thermal system insulation (TSI), surfacing material, or miscellaneous material in accordance with 40 CFR 763. URS developed a sampling plan, which included the collection and analysis of samples as follows: Thermal System Insulation In a randomly distributive manner, a minimum of three (3) samples of each suspect material in each HSA (not already presumed to contain asbestos) were collected. At least one (1) bulk sample from each HSA of patched TSI was collected if the patch was less than six (6) square feet. Surfacing Material In a randomly distributive manner, a minimum of three (3) samples were collected from each HSA that was 1,000 square feet or less; a minimum of five (5) samples were collected from each HSA that was greater than 1,000 square feet, but less than or equal to 5,000 square feet; and a minimum of seven (7) samples were collected from each HSA that was greater than 5,000 square feet. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 3 } Miscellaneous Material Samples were collected in a randomly distributive manner as deemed sufficient by an accredited inspector. At least one (1) sample was collected of each suspect miscellaneous material not presumed to contain asbestos_ Samples were collected in a non-abrasive manner by carefully removing small portions of the suspect material with a sharp knife or other hand tool suitable to the material being sampled. Each sample was placed in a clean plastic bag immediately after collection for transportation to the laboratory. The sampling instrument was subsequently wiped with a clean moist cloth to decontaminate the tool, prevent the potential release of asbestos fibers, and prevent contamination of subsequent samples. 2.1.2 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION Samples were numbered in the order they were taken. Data pertinent to each sample (e.g., date, sample number, material description, material quantity, material condition) were recorded on a field data sheet. 2.1.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS All asbestos bulk samples and completed chain -of -custody sheets were delivered to NVL Laboratories, Inc. (NVL) in Seattle, Washington for asbestos analysis. NVL participates in the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) for quality control procedures (NVLAP Lab Code: 102063-0). As specified in 40 CFR 763.87, each sample was analyzed by polarized light microscopy (PLM) using EPA Method 600/R-931116. 2.2 LEAD SURVEY This lead survey was performed in order to comply with the L&i lead standard for the construction industry (WAC 296-155-176) during demolition. 2.2.1 PAINT CHIP SAMPLING URS collected representative chip samples from interior and exterior surfaces in the Project Area. Samples were collected in a non-abrasive manner by carefully removing small portions of the suspect paint with a sharp knife or other hand tool suitable to the material being sampled. Samples were collected from representative paint layers down to the substrate. If possible, samples were collected of loose materials or from materials with pre-existing damage. Each sample was placed in a clean plastic bag immediately after collection for transportation to the laboratory. 2.2.2 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION Samples were numbered in the order they were taken. Data pertinent to each sample (e.g., date, sample number, material description) were recorded on a field data sheet. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 4 t 2.2.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS All lead bulk samples and completed chain -of -custody sheets were delivered to NVL in Seattle, Washington for total lead analysis. NVL is accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and participates in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) program administered by the AIHA. Each sample was analyzed for total lead content using flame atomic absorption spectroscopy by EPA Method 7000B. 2.3 PCB CAULK SURVEY This PCB caulk survey was performed to facilitate compliance with EPA and Washington state disposal requirements. Sampling was performed on representative building materials throughout accessible portions of the Project Area. 2.3.1 BULK SAMPLING This PCB caulk survey was performed in conjunction with the asbestos and lead surveys. URS sampled suspect PCB caulk and sealants that may be impacted by the Project. Suspect materials included flashing sealant. Samples were taken from representative areas using a putty knife and placed into labeled plastic bags for laboratory analysis. 2.3.2 SAMPLE DOCUMENTATION Samples were numbered in the order they were taken. Data pertinent to each sample (c.g., date, sample number, paint description) were recorded on a field data sheet. 2.3.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS All caulking samples and completed chain -of -custody sheets were delivered to NVL in Seattle, Washington for PCB analysis. Each sample was analyzed for PCB's content using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry by EPA Method 8270D, 2.4 FCB BALLAST AND MERCURY LIGHT TUBE SURVEY This PCB ballast and mercury light tube survey was performed in conjunction with the asbestos and lead surveys. A visual inspection of fluorescent light fixtures observed in the Project Area was conducted to quantify fixtures and light tubes. A representative number of accessible fixtures were dismantled so that the component ballasts could be inspected. The manufacturer's label (if present) on each ballast was checked for statements concerning PCB content, In the event that the PCB content information was not present, the ballasts were assumed to contain PCBs. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 5 r 3.0 RESULTS The following sections detail the results of the regulated materials survey conducted to support renovation of the Renton Library. Sample locations are shown on Figures l and 2. 3.1 ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIALS The following ACM were identified in the Project Area during this survey Asbestos -Containing Material Material Location Quantity Gray sink undercoat Conference room sink t EA Columns and walls Throughout interior 10 SF (around plaster Roof vent and hood penetrations, access penetrations) 250 SF (on metal Silver paint hatch, and clerestory flashing at window frames clerestory flashing under windows) Black flashing sealant Bottom of lower clerestory window 250 LF frames at seal with metal flashing Window putty Interior window frame 8 LF Joint compound in gypsum wallboard system with non -asbestos Throughout Project Area 4,500 SF plaster skim coat Note: Asbestos -containing silver paint was observed on clerestory metal flashing with the asbestos - containing black flashing sealant along the lower window frame. Asbestos survey sample numbers, material descriptions, sample locations and analytical results are provided in Table 1. Copies of laboratory analysis reports and chain -of -custody documents are provided in Appendix A. Inspector and laboratory certifications are provided in Appendices D and E, respectively. 3.2 LEAD -CONTAINING PAINTS The following lead -containing paints were identified in the Project Area during this survey: Paint Color Substrate Surface Material Location White Concrete and Columns and walls Throughout interior plaster Lead survey sample numbers, material descriptions, sample locations and analytical results are provided in Table 2. Copies of laboratory analysis reports and chain -of -custody documents are provided in Appendix B. Laboratory certifications are provided in Appendix E. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 6 3.3 PCB CAULK The following caulks and sealants were found to contain regulated concentrations of PCBs: Material Material Location Estimated Quantity Black flashing sealant * Bottom of lower clerestory window frames at seal 250 LF 112 with metal flashing 388 0 * Note: Material also contains asbestos. PCB survey sample numbers, material descriptions, sample locations and analytical results are provided in Table 3. Copies of laboratory analysis reports and chain -of -custody documents are provided in Appendix C. Laboratory certifications are provided in Appendix E. 3.4 PCB BALLAST AND MERCURY LIGHT BULBS/LAMPS Fluorescent light ballasts and fluorescent light tubes were documented throughout the Project Area. The following quantities of these items were identified during this survey: Location Fluorescent Light Fixtures Fluorescent Light Tubes Light Ballasts Non -PCB PCB Main library floor 112 492 388 0 Office area 64 217 158 0 Total 176 709 546 0 Quantities of these items are also summarized in Table 3. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This regulated materials survey was performed to support renovation of the Renton Library. A copy of this report must be provided to any contractor bidding on work in the Project Area; the report must be provided to all contractors prior to bidding_ The selected contractor must have a copy of this report during any construction activities on site. Conclusions and recommendations are summarized below. 4.1 ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIALS Laboratory analysis revealed that building materials in the Project Area contains regulated quantities of asbestos (see Section 3.1 and Table 1). Inaccessible concealed spaces (e.g., wall and ceiling spaces enclosed by wallboard, etc.) have not been surveyed for ACM, and should be presumed to contain asbestos until destructive sampling is performed in those areas. ACM identified on site will be impacted by construction/demolition. These ACM should be removed and disposed prior to disturbance in accordance with WAC 296-62-077 and PSCAA Regulation III, Article 4. Asbestos abatement must be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. The joint compound in the wallboard/plaster system throughout the Project Area contains 2% asbestos. However, the joint compound makes up a minor fraction of the material in the wallboard system. Therefore, the asbestos content of the entire wallboard system in the Project Area is much less than 1%. Renovation or demolition projects impacting wallboard systems shown to contain less than I% asbestos are not considered asbestos projects by L&I as long as 1) the joint compound has not been sprayed or applied with a trowel across the full surface of the wall, and 2) work with the wallboard system does not involve sanding or grinding the wall surface and joint compound directly (per WISHA Regional Directive 23.30). As long as these guidelines are followed, the wallboard systems in the Project Area do not require removal by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to impact/demolition, but the basic asbestos work practice requirements outlined in WAC 296-62-17712, paragraph (2) must be followed during impact/demolition. These work practices include the use of wet, non-aggressive methods, prompt clean-up, and the use of vacuums equipped with high efficiency particulate air (NEPA) filters. Workers must have asbestos awareness and "hands-on" training as required by WAC 296-62-07722, paragraph (5) and WISHA Regional Directive 23.30. Workers must also wear appropriate respiratory protection until air monitoring results determine that worker exposure is below the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos. All work must be supervised by a competent person, as defined by WAC 296-62-07728. Contractors should use caution during construction even after asbestos abatement activities, as concealed ACM that has not previously been analyzed for asbestos may be encountered. ACM may be located between walls, above ceilings, in pipe chases, or other inaccessible areas. If suspect ACM are encountered during renovation/demolition, further sampling will be required to characterize those materials. 33763607 URS CORPORATION S 4.2 LEAD -CONTAINING PAINTS Laboratory analysis of paint chip samples revealed that paints present in the Project Area contain detectable quantities of lead (see Results Section 3.2 and Table 2). Inaccessible concealed spaces have not been surveyed for lead, and should be presumed to contain lead until destructive sampling is performed in those areas. Worker Protection Materials that have been shown to contain detectable levels of lead are regulated by L&I due to the potential for occupational exposure to lead if these materials are disturbed. Renovation/demolition will disturb the lead -containing paints in the Project Area, and may result in worker exposure to lead. Therefore, necessary precautions must be taken to prevent or minimize worker cxposure to lead, as outlined in WAC 296-155-176. For work on materials that contain lead, an exposure assessment must be conducted in accordance with WAC 296-155-176. Initial employee exposure monitoring must be conducted for each separate task involving the disturbance of materials that contain lead. If 8 -hour time -weighted average (TWA) exposures exceed the L&I action level for lead (see below), periodic air monitoring must be continued at specified intervals, and medical surveillance and comprehensive training programs must be instituted. If the 8 -hour TWA exposures exceed the L&I permissible exposure limit (PEL) for lead (see below), additional requirements must be implemented. These requirements may include engineering controls, respiratory protection, regulated work areas and warning signs. Action Level Metal a Source Lead (micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m �) WAC 296-155-176 Lead 30 WAC 296-155-176 If the 8 -hour TWA exposures exceed the L&I permissible exposure limit (PEL) for lead (see below), additional requirements must be implemented. These requirements may include engineering controls, respiratory protection, regulated work areas and warning signs. Based on the exposure assessment and previous similar work and exposure monitoring results, workers may have to be provided with any or all of the following: • Respiratory protection • Protective clothing • Clean change areas • Clean hand -washing facilities • Biological monitoring (e.g., blood sampling and analysis) • Hazard communication training All workers and supervisory personnel who will be at the job site must be informed of the presence of lead in the building. These individuals should be provided additional training concerning the health 33763607 URS CORPORATION 9 Permissible Exposure Limit Metal s (micrograms per cubic meter [pg/m ]) Source Lead 50 WAC 296-155-176 Based on the exposure assessment and previous similar work and exposure monitoring results, workers may have to be provided with any or all of the following: • Respiratory protection • Protective clothing • Clean change areas • Clean hand -washing facilities • Biological monitoring (e.g., blood sampling and analysis) • Hazard communication training All workers and supervisory personnel who will be at the job site must be informed of the presence of lead in the building. These individuals should be provided additional training concerning the health 33763607 URS CORPORATION 9 effects associated with exposure to lead, proper work methods, appropriate use of personnel protective equipment, housekeeping procedures, and regulations governing work practices where lead is present. Lead Waste Disposal The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) requires characterization of demolition wastes that contain metals to be characterized under the provisions of the Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires analysis of waste materials using the Toxicity Characterization Leaching Procedure (TCLP) to evaluate if demolition debris is a potential hazardous waste under RCRA. TCLP procedures evaluate the potential for wastes to leach toxic or hazardous materials following placement in a landfill. The TCLP testing procedure is to be performed on the actual wastes generated and would include a representative sampling of the entire waste stream. If leachable lead is detected in a given waste stream at or above the concentration listed below, the waste is designated as Dangerous Waste by Ecology and must be disposed at a licensed hazardous waste landfill. 4.3 PCB CAULK Laboratory analysis revealed that the black flashing sealants on the bottom of the clerestory window frames in the Project Area contain regulated quantities of PCBs (see Section 3.3 and Table 3). This material was also found to contain asbestos. Inaccessible concealed spaces (e -g., wall and ceiling spaces enclosed by wallboard, etc.) have not been surveyed for PCBs, and should be presumed to contain PCBs until destructive sampling is performed in those areas. PCB caulk must be removed and disposed prior to disturbance in accordance with the the EPA Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761) and Ecology's Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). Contractors should use caution during construction, as concealed materials that have not previously been analyzed for PCBs may be encountered. If suspect PCB -containing materials are encountered during construction activities, further sampling will be required to characterize those materials. 4.4 PCB BALLASTS AND MERCURY LIGHT TUBES/LAMPS Field observation revealed that fluorescent light ballasts and fluorescent light tubes are present throughout the Project Area (see Results Section 3.4 and Table 3). URS recommends that all light ballasts that will be impacted by construction be removed and inspected for "No PCBs" labeling prior to demolition. Ballasts without "No PCBs" labels should be considered to be PCB ballasts. Handling and disposal of PCB light ballasts must be in accordance with the EPA Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761) and Ecology's Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173- 303). Special precaution should be applied to prevent skin contact if leaking PCB ballasts are encountered during renovation. Leaky ballasts and the light fixtures affected by PCB oils must be handled in 33763607 URS CORPORATION l0 Maximum Concentration Metal Source (milligrams per liter[mg/LI) Lead 5.0 WAC 173-303-090 (8) 4.3 PCB CAULK Laboratory analysis revealed that the black flashing sealants on the bottom of the clerestory window frames in the Project Area contain regulated quantities of PCBs (see Section 3.3 and Table 3). This material was also found to contain asbestos. Inaccessible concealed spaces (e -g., wall and ceiling spaces enclosed by wallboard, etc.) have not been surveyed for PCBs, and should be presumed to contain PCBs until destructive sampling is performed in those areas. PCB caulk must be removed and disposed prior to disturbance in accordance with the the EPA Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761) and Ecology's Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173-303). Contractors should use caution during construction, as concealed materials that have not previously been analyzed for PCBs may be encountered. If suspect PCB -containing materials are encountered during construction activities, further sampling will be required to characterize those materials. 4.4 PCB BALLASTS AND MERCURY LIGHT TUBES/LAMPS Field observation revealed that fluorescent light ballasts and fluorescent light tubes are present throughout the Project Area (see Results Section 3.4 and Table 3). URS recommends that all light ballasts that will be impacted by construction be removed and inspected for "No PCBs" labeling prior to demolition. Ballasts without "No PCBs" labels should be considered to be PCB ballasts. Handling and disposal of PCB light ballasts must be in accordance with the EPA Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761) and Ecology's Dangerous Waste Regulations (WAC 173- 303). Special precaution should be applied to prevent skin contact if leaking PCB ballasts are encountered during renovation. Leaky ballasts and the light fixtures affected by PCB oils must be handled in 33763607 URS CORPORATION l0 accordance with EPA's PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761). Workers with 40 -hour hazardous waste training are required for removal or handling of leaking PCB ballasts. Fluorescent light tubes and other non -candescent lighting are typically considered Dangerous Waste (regulated by Ecology's Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303) due to their potential for containing mercury. URS recommends intact removal and recycling of all fluorescent light tubes that will be impacted by construction prior to demolition. Care should be taken to prevent breakage of the light tubes during removal. EPA recommends recycling of light tubes over the practice of disposal. Handling, storage, transportation and disposal of the lamps must be conducted per WAC 173-303. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 5.0 REFERENCES Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), 2003. Regulation III, Article 4: Asbestos Control Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 40 CFR Part 763: Asbestos. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M.• National Emission Standard for Asbestos_ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Lead -Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures, 40 CFR Part 745, Subpart L: Lead-based Paint Activities_ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), 40 CFR 761: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Mantt`acturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions. U.S_ Environmental Protcction Agency (EPA), 2005. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 261: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste. U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), 2006. Occupational Safety and Health Standards, 29 CFR 1910.1001: Asbestos. U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), 2006. Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR 1926.1101: Asbestos. U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), 2006. Occupational Safety and Health Standards, 29 CFR 1910.1025: Lead. U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), 2006. Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR 1926.62: Lead. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&i), 1999. General Occupational Health Standards, WAC Chapter 296-62-077: Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I), 1997. WAC Chapter 296-65: Asbestos, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I), 1993. Safety Standards for Construction Work, Occupational Health and Environmental Control, WAC 296-155-176: Lead. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), 2005. WAC 173-303: Dangerous Waste Regulations. 33763607 URS CORPORATION 12 TABLES 33763607 URS CORPORATION C ?� -moi -mss -mss 0 CD ^CD'+ n n CD n C-� C. m 4 a �7 �7 Cl b C) �C L7 C7 N q }' mT���� [ wD) a- cr ,`- y = N Gu rA UG UG �_ o-�.l O --i OQ R cn N pi r5 D3 O n A OD cr Lc CD d G H Q C S H � � `i O a• G. `B O C G G .� o � CD Q G a o y n o m o o 10 a 0 a c n 0 z z z z z z z z rJ 6 .41 4 �cr a� a r Ch kA iA "A con cn e c c e c e e wZ3 L e w w w ��. cu n,t N �' .. .. � o -K ro o -y co '.: n ro '..k y z to o -y cn eo o -y o -y to eo y o-'1 to to .q o -t to ..7 co to ti '.'t es •'t ca ^t cv �E o -R. C z� zzzzz zzz zzzz zzz zzze r=� o❑❑❑❑ v v v v v v v v v d a o a� a� z zx zx z� J T LA w N r C [D P w w w �n`n w w `C `[ `G • �C CD n •t fD K Z pT h n' n T ids ro .may n Q 0 23 .w~. t4 rL 7 h' �l ❑ ''� 'C ¢. 'tS `rJ •� C'S ei CL C6)"SCS AW n tno .n. CD fD n• = a' m w Cr p, 113 cr -Cy• 'G '� �• O P' w w a a� o R p p ! :z�. qG `C w Ln G p •C ,tn A O a. CDD w CL n _ _ w � CIJ a o 14 w �4n a. C fD fDn o o o a a o a a c. a. a Q p CL a o' a z z z d- iDPO(➢ CD CG A co a A co to Ob � N � O OLn O O O O B � � � `TJ 'z'I •x7 `s7 'rJ � rl ea `� C. r y w w w w m w w m w m ` ` m m `C c, .� m `C w w �` •t (D CD CD (DD !D D (D (D CD n n N {p n n fD n ❑ w N ddd dd dor do da did add z z z�l z7C z N V1 N irI] N Cr/l .a_ A W N O 40 30 A � w(D y � < m `C r➢ i9 CD a m n C9 tD � [� to n co w O rc n o cu w -M n N Ot Ln p. N a' CD CD CD w w C9 � Q w 0 v, R ,;' = n r. O• CD c� `C C n O `C C [nu �+ nt'� r '� T "6 m n W C � ° 0• tra o w n CD m � w CD CD r r m tz fnD C C D Tn 7wC' G °D C7' '�• "..�'''� CP n R O. O. a 5. G. CL ^: O 7 z z z z z z 2 a 0 6 U" c a- ar ro C n CD n e*� a a g a a3 Ir I cnso rrrA rr rrr rr rr rr rrr- �� ra n ro n ° w n -• ro n d •t ° �t n n rn n ti n 'z to ro n n cc n n {o n n � E Z z Z i Z Z Z z z z z z Z Z z z z Z Q FA Si W :o mo eD oa ^�S rp yrs rrn rn rrrr Mn n oo rrrrr�rrrr "Z •'1 h ��' Q {q "I r-1 it •l y ..t .y ..s ..t i.q .., "7 ^C{ N O O N., N.. wCL n x 0 (G b C to m w m a y as V 0 a y y � Y � c c w w- {gyp A CL rpS13 M � a n Z a ;; m a o o n ao o a r -� l4 00 Q ^s 0 D .., C7 ^ 0 e"D n C A a a. n C) M n n n n n n n n n n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a P- P. a d d 0. a Q 0. Cl. .^�+ 0 z z cr d m a cr arm eD n n 0 CD CD ;h a U. a w Q w o Q L^ Q mri M �rrl '� c Ln�rf '�x9 In Y rr t~rt-'rr rrrr-r z z 'z , ", z z z z o d d z zzzzz zzzz oa ddddd dddd Si W :o mo z7e 2!7~ z 7 z7: z7� S. s rt [t - rD r cD rD ca " " n r�mn m m • Q N .•-• N W N 7. •-• a w N ., N �, N �•+ '� n ° �• O fij O 0 C4 Vvfo Md .. ,'. D D D �• � ^h �. � O � A c m �. 0 m o co 0 o mO cr [Ia D O .+ DSI) IZ •� ew9 ..r o � cr ° nCL ^� nZ3 0ga A m s � T o n rD .� n C) n c� n 0 CL w_ '' o a D o oa a. CL a n. a. Fn ^. O z z z z z z z PTI Oil a � . Ta m 1� [9 [C [D [➢ rD fC A [.n Vi kAp tQ C N A '• m 11 a O 10,O SN 4 O LACd C rL AU, a VS 'r7 in 'h CA rin 0 O m h I? '1 s7 m 39 O y CL ` R m m > rr rr rlr'r rlrr-� r� � ; m wd le� a, w e I w w w m m m m -e 14 Z t�-I ^moi -1 q -01 d N �• N ••• W N -• � W N -• N A A N Q �,: 0 0 0 C -�nyn -�n •�n an �n 71 > a aacna L.A u, Ln Ln w CJI N t o I ill i O A z 4� 1 or -P�- 1 —j Ai O` � 1 ve x Z) m w w G7 n c nK O O N 7s O -mss `C 1C [u 7�C,CD � a o a c w m w D a x CL to "" CD C. 7 O Ln O cn O O CD o e'o o �r ,z o W w 7 n n O o .t G. 0 o cpo m ca coo m co W n .. CD „ h eD T 7r r+ �o a n a w n O O n c o o �, w m w G Q z z z z z z z z z a n M c cr � = n CD m -A �n o w w w 0 iA o po v� p p l� a O GD C O C °O C Ln Ln GO o cn AD m o. w w m w le w �c C G ❑ C d e � m n 7j a CL S O 9 � y H w n � m � CD A � n o � = m m x � A b 0 a r r r m r f 3 0 0 1 C ni l 1 0 b 0 0 z H r H n n m � O D ITI �•ra fb � m � T a H y 1 = -P:- N v c 7 Q9 S T z 0 o�-A OC � r bd Qa' Wk WkS FIGURES 33763607 URS CORPORATION 0 n 0 r r Jo cncno 3 Z Z a �Ti II !� rD v R am w. o' Ej N w a a N D P, 3 0 � n O j w L F — xs sack sxxs>Eac xx xxx_ co ! Z 2 2 2 22 2 A Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 1 N� Z cNir Z Z Z ti I r y D D D 3 D D D o D Y n n A o r r Tr z Z bb 00 14 n fiF E$7 ' x j r ti Ell 1 R w z -- �J a ,y Cn Cfl I zg z 2 i o n n cxr cxi P n n r 1 l T N N Crf] wf!1 U1 C. Z Z Z Z I� �• o 0 I j j 3 y b D v D 0 0 0 0 r � r o- mm I N mca rn 1 z lizi is f -4 P �I i i', ly I`i Aw Ir _ a �� '7 � { ISI TI _fl ' E^. i 6. Z 71 �I �, if Irl 71 LJ L1 z Z li {dI z n z i1 H m A fA vl m zza T,-� bD 0 it m 4t 1! u q �a 03 m m �+ n o m y 3 M 3 m n 0 m 90 o Q El99 WI 11K0J BULK ASBESTOS ANALYSIS REPORTS AND CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY FORMS 33763607 URS CORPORATION June 7, 2012 Russell Snyders, PE URS Corporation 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis, NVL Batch # 1208553.00 Dear Mr. Snyders, PE, Ihl\IL L A B S INDUSTRIAL H Y G I E N E S E R V I C E S Laboratory I Management I Training Enclosed please find test results for the bulk samples submitted to our laboratory for analysis. Examination of these samples was conducted for the presence of identifiable asbestos fibers using polarized light microscopy (PLM) with dispersion staining in accordance with U.S. EPA/604/M4-82-020 Test Method. For samples containing more than one separable layer of materials, the report will include findings for each layer (labeled Layer 1 and Layer 2, etc. for each individual layer). The asbestos concentration in the sample is determined by visual estimation. For those samples with asbestos concentrations between 1 and 10 percent based on visual estimation, the EPA recommends a procedure known as point counting (NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 61). Point counting is a statistically more accurate means of quantification for samples with low concentrations of asbestos. if you would like us to further refine the concentration estimates of asbestos in these samples using point counting, please let me know. This report is considered highly confidential and will not be released without your approval. Samples are archived for two weeks foilowing analysis. Samples that are not retrieved by the client are discarded after two weeks. Thank you for using our laboratory services. Please do not hesitate to call if there is anything further we can assist you with. 1.888.NVL.LASS Enc.: Sample Results 1X"89.(685.52?7! www.nvllabs.com HVR&f Lob Code-- 1020IL" r NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave N, Seattle, WA 98103 p 206,547.0100 l f 206.634.1935 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Te1:206.547.0100, Fax: 206.634.1936 www.nvllabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis _ www.nvllabs.com By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snydem, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Lab ID: 12050129 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A01 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Off-white ceramic file with gray surface Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Fine particles, CeramiclBinder None Detected ND Layer 2 of 3 Description: Gray brittle material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Cellulose 15% Layer 3 of 3 Description. Gray material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler None Detected ND Batch #: 1208553.00 Client Project #: Will Call Date Received: 06106/2012 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPA/600R-93/116 Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Lab ID: 12030130 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A02 Location. KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Off-white ceramic tile with gray surface Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Ceramic/Binder None Detected ND None Detected NO Layer 2 of 3 Description, Gray brittle material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Cellulose 25% None Detected ND Layer 3 of 3 Description: Gray material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type; % Calcareous particles, BindedFiller None Detected ND None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050131 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A03 Location: KCLS-Renton Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06107/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 r Note: It samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 600/M4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (196=03%, 5%=1-9%, 1096=3-15%, 20%=10-30%, 50%=40 -00%). This report relates only to the Rum tested. If sample was not colledad by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except In full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U5 Government. Pace 1 of 12 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 1020630 Te1:206.547.0100, Fax: 208.834.193$ www.nvllabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www.nvllabs.com By Polarized tight Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch #:120$553.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Client Project* Will Call Seattle, WA 98101 Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed. 30 Project Location: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA160OR-931116 Layer 1 of 2 Description: White brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Layer 2 of 2 Description: White chalky material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder, Mica Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% Cellulose 16W Glass fibers 4% Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Lab 10:12050132 Client Sample#: KCLS-RNT A04 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: White brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials. % Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Binder/Filler, Mineral grains None Detected ND None Detected NO Layer 2 of 2 Description: White chalky material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:°% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder, Mica Cellulose 12% None Detected NO Glass fibers 4°% Lala ID: 12050133 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A05 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Off-white woven fibrous material with mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:°% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, MasticlBinder Cellulose 68°% None Detected NO Layer 2 of 3 Description: Off-white fibrous material with mastic and foil Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, MasticlBinder, Metal foil Cellulose 30% None Detected NO Glass fibers 7% Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date:OV07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 NA i Jots. If samDles are not homooensous. then subsamolas of the comDonerb were analyzed separately. are analysed using PPA 600M -82-02D Method with the following rneasurament uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 5%-1-9%, 10%=5-15%. 20%-_1 i -W%, 50%=40 400%). This report relates only to the items tested. if sample was not cofieded by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and aculty of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Ina it shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Paae 2 of 12 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tel: 206.547,ww. Fax206.634.1936v�nwuv.nvllabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch #: 1208553.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Client Project #: Will Call Seattle, WA 98101 Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed: 30 Project Locabon: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA/600R-931116 Layer 3 of 3 Description: Yellow fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials. Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles Glass fibers 98°x6 None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050134 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A06 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 7 of 1 Description: White brittle material with trace paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Cellulose 6% None Detected ND Lab lfD: 12050135 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A0T Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: White brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Binder/Filler, Mineral grains None Detected ND None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description: White chalky material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder Cellulose 19% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050136 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNTAOB Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: White brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Binder/Filler, Mineral grains None Detected ND None Detected ND Layer 2 of 3 Description: White chalky material with: paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder, Mica Cellulose 14% None Detected ND Glass fibers 5% Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nide Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nick L Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsampies of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples aro analyzed using FPA 6001M4 -62-020 Method with the folkrMng measummat uncertaintles for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=l-9%, 10%^6-15%, 20% -l0 -30%,50%=Q -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample oollector. This report shall not be reproduced except In full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. it shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. panty :i nP 12 NVL Laboratories Jnc. NVUq 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tei: 206.541.0100, Fax: 206.634.1935 nvllabs.carn Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www. By Polarized Lignt Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch #: 1208553.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Client Project * Will Call Seattle, WA 98101 Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Attention; Mir. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed: 30 Project Location: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA/BOOR-93/116 Layer 3 of 3 Description: Gray hard brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Fine particles, BinderlFiller, Mineral grains None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected. ND Lab ID: 12050137 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A09 Location: KCLS-Renton Comments: Composite result for whole sample is less than 1% asbestos Layer 1 of 3 Description: Off-white thin compacted powdery material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler None Detected ND Chrysotile 2% Layer 2 of 3 Description: Off-white compacted powdery material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler Cellulose 45% Chrysotlle 2% Layer 3 of 3 Description: Off-white chalky material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder Cellulose 18% None Detected ND Glass fibers 3% Lab ID: 12050138 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A'IO Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Off-white compressed fibrous material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Glass beads, Paint Cellulose 15% None Detected ND Glass fibers 55% Lab ID: 12050139 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A71 Location: KCLS-Renton Comments: Composite result for whole sample is less than 1% asbestos Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date:0610712012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date:0610712012 rector Note: if samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components %sere analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 60OM4 42-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=G-3%, 5°%=1-9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%, 5096=40 -6096). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVIAP or any other agency of the US Government. Paas 4 of 12 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditatlon under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tei: 206.547. www. Fax:206.634.1936 www.nvllabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis 8y Voianzed Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch M 1208553.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 9400 Client Project #: Will Call Seattle, WA 98101 Date Received: 0610612012 Samples Received: 30 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed: 30 Project Location: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA160OR-931118 Layer 1 of 3 Description: White compacted powdery material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type. % Fine particles/Binder None Detected ND None Detected NO Layer 2 of 3 Description: Off-white compacted powdery material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler, Paint None Detected ND Chrysotile 3% Layer 3 of 3 Description: Off-white chalky material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder Cellulose 23% None Detected ND Glass fibers 4% Lab ID: 12060140 Client Sample M KCLS-RNT-Al2 Location. KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Layered beige woven fibrous material with mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder Cellulose 90% None Detected NO Layer 2 of 2 Description: Yellow fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles Glass fibers 98% None Detected NO Lab ID: 12060141 Client Sample#: KCLS-RNT413 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer i of 2 Description: Off-white woven fibrous material with white mastic and trace foil Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, MastiefBinder, Metal foil Cellulose 45°x6 None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description:. Yellow fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles Glass fibers 98% None Detected NO Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date:06/0712012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Dats:0610712012 Nic Note: If samples aro not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 6001144 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%-43%, 5%--1-9%. 109-5-15%, 20%=10-30%, 50°x6=40 -00%). This report relates only to the Items tested If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except In full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. it shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Pace 5 of 12 W NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accredltatlon under NVLAP Lab Code 102083-0 Te1:20B.547.www. Fax.com 34.1936 Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www.nvllabs.cam By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch #: 1208553.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Client Project #: Will Call Seattle, WA 98101 Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed: 30 Project Location: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA/600R-931116 Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06107/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nic Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 600/1414 -82-020 Method with the folkyMng measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%-0-3%, 5%=1 9%. 10%=5-15%. 20°%=10-30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shalt not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc, It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Govemment. Paas 6 of 12 Lab ID:12050142 Client Sample M KCLS-RNT-A14 Location: KCLS~Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Off-white woven fibrous material with white mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder Cellulose 85°% None Detected ND Layer 2 of 3 Description: Off-white fibrous material with mastic and foil Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: o% Fine particles, Mastic/Binder, Metal foil Cellulose 32°% None Detected ND Glass finers 8% Layer 3 of 3 Description: Yellow fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Fine particles Glass fibers 98% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050143 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A16 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Off-white hard material Non -Fibrous -Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler None Detected ND None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description: Tan /brown brittle mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % MasticlBinder Cellulose 7% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12060144 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A16 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Tan linoleum with trace paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Linoleum/Binder, Paint Cellulose 30% None Detected ND Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06107/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nic Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 600/1414 -82-020 Method with the folkyMng measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%-0-3%, 5%=1 9%. 10%=5-15%. 20°%=10-30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shalt not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc, It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Govemment. Paas 6 of 12 S NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Te1:206.547.0100, Fax.com 34.1936 www.nvllabsBulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 2 of 3 Description: Tan brittle mastic Batch #: 1208553.00 Client Project #: WIII Cali Date Received: 061OW012 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPA/600R-931116 Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder Cellulose 8% None Detected ND Layer 3 of 3 Description: Off-white chalky material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other f=ibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Gypsum/Binder Cellulose 4% None Detected ND Lab ID:12050145 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A17 Location: KCLS-Renton Comments: Unable to separate mastics for analysis Layer 1 of 1 Description: Tan brittle mastic with adhesive Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder, Adhesive/Binder Cellulose 6% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12054145 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-AIB Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Multi -color woven fibrous material with mastic Layer 2 of 3 Layer 3 of 3 Non -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, Mastic/Binder Other Fibrous Materials:% Synthetic fibers 95% Description: Light gray foamy material with thin mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Synthetic/Binder, Mastic/Binder None Detected ND Description: White/black fibrous material with yellow mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Fine particles, MasticJBinder Synthetic fibers 90% Lab ID: 12050147 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A19 Location: KCLS-Renton Comments: Unable to separate mastics for analysis Sampled by. Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Ni Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamplas of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 6001104 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 5941-9%, 104-5-15%, 20%=10.30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results Is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Govemmerd. Paas 7 of 12 M NVL Laboratories, Inc. a� 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lail Code 102063-0 Tek 206.547.0100, Fax: 206.634.1936 www.nvBabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www.nvllabs.com By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch M 1208553.00 Client Project M Will Call Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPAIBODR-931116 Layer 1 of 2 Description: Yellow /tan soft mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: °% Mastic/Binder Synthetic fibers <11% None Detected NO Layer 2 of 2 Description: Trace gray cementitious material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:°% Asbestos Type: °% Fine particles, Cement/Binder None Detected ND None Detected ND Lab ID:12050148 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A20 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 9 Description: Yellow /tan soft mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder None Detected ND None Detected NO Lab ID: 12050149 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A21 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Brown rubbery material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Rubber/Binder None Detected ND None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description: White soft mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:°% Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder None Detected ND None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050150 Client Sample M KCLS-RNTA22 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Green vinyl Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Calcareous particles, VinylIBinder None Detected ND Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06107/2012 Reviewed. by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Nota: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsomples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 6001M4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%fi () 3%, 5%=1.9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%-10-30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested_ if sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results Is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. para R of 12 NVL Laboratories, Inc. a� 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tel: 206.547.0100, Faxabs.co8.634,1938 Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www.nvilabs.com By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snydem, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208553.00 Client Project #: Will Calf Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPA/600R-931116 Layer 2 of 2 description: Tan soft and dark plum mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder None Detected ND None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050151 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A23 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description; Green rubbery material Non -Fibrous Materials: Rubber/Binder Layer 2 of 3 Description: Yellow soft mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Mastic/Binder Layer 3 of 3 Description: Dark red brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, Binder/Filler Lab ID: 12050152 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A24 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 6 Description: Off-white ceramic tile Non -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, CeramicJBinder Layer 2 of 6 Description: Tan brittle mastic Non -Fibrous Materials- Mastic/Binder Other Fibrous Materials:% L115117M til i1•:Ioil Other Fibrous Materials.% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Layer 3 of 6 Description: Off-white Compacted powdery material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler, Paint None Detected ND Asbestos Type; % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % Chrysotlle 2% Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/0712012 Nick L Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 600/M4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%03.3%, 5%=1-9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%--ID-30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Govemment. Pante a of 17 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98143 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102x63-0 7e1: 206.547.0100, b 06.834.1938 wvrw.nvllabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1504 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 4 of 6 Description: Black brittle mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder None Detected ND Layer 5 of 6 Description: Off-white compacted powdery material with paint Non -Fibrous Materiais: Other Fibrous Materials.% Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler, Paint Layer 6 of 6 Description: Off-white soft material Non -Fibrous Materials: Calcareous particles, BinderlFiller Lab ID: 12050153 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-425 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 4 Description: Light beige ceramic the Layer 2 of 4 Layer 3 of 4 Layer 4 of 4 Non -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, Ceramic/Binder Description: Light cream soft material Non -Fibrous Materials: Calcareous particles, Binder/Filler Description: Off-white hard brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Mica None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Description: White brittle material with trace yellow mastic and paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Fine. particles, Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Cellulose 20% Mastic/Binder Lab ID: 12050154 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A26 Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208553.00 Client Project #: Will Call Date Received: 06106/2042 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPA160OR-931116 Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND 0o I Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 a ctor Note: If samples are not homogeneous, than subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 600MM4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 5%-1-9%, 10%-5-15%, 20%--1G-30%,50%--40 -60%). This report relates only to the Items tested. If sample was not col acted by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shad not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Pace 10 of 12 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave_ N_, Seattle, WA 99103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 TBI: 206.547.x100, Fax.com 34.193& www_nvllabsBulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snydem, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208553.00 Client Project* Will Call Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPA1600R-93/116 Layer 1 of 2 Description: Dark pink rubbery material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Rubber/Binder None Detected ND None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description: Off-white/yellow soft mastic with trace paint Non-fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder, Paint None Detected ND None Detected NO Lab ID:12050155 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A27 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer i of 3 Description: Black rubbery material Non -Fibrous Materials: Layer 2 of 3 Layer 3 of 3 Rubber/Binder Description: Off-whitettan soft mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials.% None Detected ND Description: Off-white chalky material with paper and paint Mon -Fibrous Materials: Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder, Paint Lab ID: 12050156 Client Sample 0: KCLS-RNT-A28 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Tan soft/brittle mastic Non -Fibrous Materiais: Other Fibrous Materials:% Cellulose 60% Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Asbestos Type: % MastictBinder Synthetic fibers 1 % None Detected NO Lab ID: 12050167 Client Sample M KCLS-RNT-A29 Location: KCLS-Renton Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nic nit;al D' Note: If samples aro not homogeneous, then subsemples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are anshaed using EPA 600JMi4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%r-0-3%, 5%=1-9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not oollected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results Is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector_ This report shell not be reproduced except in full, without wfitten approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. it shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Pace 11 of 12 _NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4749 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tel: 206.547.0100, Fax: 34.1936 Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis w+nw.n►rllabs.com By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208553.00 Client Project #: will Call Date Received: 06/0612012 Samples Received: 30 Samples Analyzed: 30 Method: EPA/600R-931116 Layer 1 of 1 Description: Black asphaltic flaky material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials.% Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder None Detected ND None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050158 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A30 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer t of 1 description: Light gray brittle material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Fine particles, Binder/Filler, Paint Cellulose 25% Wollastonite 7% Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Nadezhda Prysyazhnyuk Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date:06/07/2012 Ni 10 Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subeampies of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 6001I6114 -82-020 Whod with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 596=1-9%, 10965-15%. 2096=10.30%, 50%=40 -60%)- This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample colladar. This report shall not be reproduced except In full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. it shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Govemment. Pace 12 of 12 ,NVL Laboratories Inc. - 4708 Aurora Ave N, Seattle, WA 98103 CHAIN Of CUSTODY BATCH ID Tel: 206.547.0100 Emerg.Ceil:206.914AW SAMPLE LOG 1208553.00 Fax: 206.634.1935 1.888.NVL.LASS (685.5227) Client URS Corporation NVL Batch Number _.. Street 1501 4th Ave. Suite 1400 Client Job Number Amaft U),Y/G!/ .. _....._ Seattle, WA 96701 _ Total Samples 55 _. Project Manager Mr. Russell Sn ders PE Turn Around Time ❑ 1-11r ❑ Mrs (02 Days ❑ 5 Days E,2-Hrs El12-MrsEJ3 Days ❑ 6-10 Day Prosect Location ❑ 4•Hrs ❑ 24-Hrs ❑ 4 Days �_..-._. Please call for TAT less than 24 Hrs Email address r' ssell.snydersgturs.com Phone: (206) 438-2700 Fax: (866) 495-5288 Cell: (206) 910-5365 (425) 338-3056 ❑ Asbestos Air ❑ PGM (NIOSH 7400) ❑ TEM (NIOSH 7402) ❑ TEM (AHERA) ❑ TEM (EPA Level ll) ❑ Other Asbestos Bulk PLM (EPAffi=;-93!116) 1:1PLM EPA Point Count) LJPLM (EPA Gravimetry) ElTEM BULK r ❑ Mold/Funats ❑ Mold Air ❑ Mold Bulk ❑ Rotomatar Calibration METALS ❑ Total Metals Det. Limit ❑ FAA (ppm: Matrix ❑ Air Filter ❑ soil RCRA Metals ❑Arsenic (As) ❑ All 8 ❑ Chromium (Cr ismer metals ❑ All 3 ❑ ❑ TCLP ❑ICP (RRm) ❑ Drinking water ❑ Paint Chips in % ❑ Barium (Ba) ❑ Lead (Pb) Copper(Cu) pp ( ❑ Cr 5 ❑ GFAA (PPP ❑ DusVWpe (Area) ❑ Paint Chips in cn ❑ Cadmium Cd ( ) ❑ Mercury H ry ( 9) ❑ Nickel (Ni) 5 ❑ Zinc (Zn) ❑ Other Types 10Fiberglass ❑ Sillca ❑ Nuisance Dust ❑ Respirable Dust ❑ Other (Specify) Condition of Package: ❑ Good ❑ Damaged (no spillage) ❑ Severe damage (soillaael Sag. # Lab ID Client Sample Number Comments (0.0 Sample are Sample Volume etc A/R 1 r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Orin+ Frnin•u 01— r—_ Special Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. V1 r Special Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. V1 June 7, 2012 Russell Snyders, PE URS Corporation 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis, NVL Batch # 1208555,00 Dear Mr. Snyders, PE, r L A B 5 INDUSTRIAL H Y G I E N E S E R V I C E S Laboratory I Management I Training Enclosed please find test results for the bulk samples submitted to our laboratory for analysis. Examination of these samples was conducted for the presence of identifiable asbestos fibers using polarized light microscopy (PLM) with dispersion staining in accordance with U.S. EPA/600/M4-82-020 Test Method. For samples containing more than one separable layer of materials, the report will include findings for each layer (labeled Layer 1 and Layer 2, etc. for each individual layer). The asbestos concentration in the sample is determined by visual estimation. For those samples with asbestos concentrations between 1 and 10 percent based on visual estimation, the EPA recommends a procedure known as point counting (NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 61). Point counlfng is a statistically more accurate means of quantification for samples with low concentrations of asbestos. If you would like us to further refine the concentration estimates of asbestos in these samples using point counting, please let me know. This report is considered highly confidential and will not be released without your approval. Samples are archived for two weeks following analysis. Samples that are not retrieved by the client are discarded after two weeks. Thank you for using our laboratory services. Please do not hesitate to call if there is anything further we can assist you with. 1,r 1,888.NVL.LABS Enc.. Sample Results 1.88,(6.5.! 22 J ) www.nvilabs.com I -VIEW Ln Af Lab Godo. 10208" NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave N, Seattle, WA 98103 p 206.547.0100 1 f 206.634.1936 NVL Laboratories, Inc, =_11i't 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 1020630 Tel: 2a6.547.www.nvllabs.cam Fax: 206.634.1936 Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www.nvilabs.com tsy Nolartzeo Ugnt Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch #: 1208555.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Client Project #: Will Call Seattle, WA 98101 Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received. 25 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed: 25 Project Location: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA160OR-931116 Lab ID: 12050169 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A31 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Gray flaky material Non -(Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials.% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Cellulose 3% Chrysotile 5% Lab ID: 12050160 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A32 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Clear soft mastic with foamy material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type= % MasticJBinder, Synthetic foam Cellulose 3% None Detected NO Lab I1):1 2050161 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A33 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Gray sandylbrittle material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Sand, Paint Cellulose 7% None Detected NO Layer 2 of 2 Description: Orange foamy material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Synthetic foam None Detected ND None Detected NO Lab ID: 12050162 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNTA34 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: White sandylbrittle material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Sand, Paint Cellulose 2% None Detected NO Lab ID: 12050163 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A35 Location: KCLS-Renton Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Norte: if samples are not homogeneous, than subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All buk samples are analyzed using EPA 6001M4 -x2-020 Method with the following measurement uncertalntles for the reported % Asbestos (1 %=a-3%, 5%=1-9%,10%--5-16%, 20%=10-30%,50%-40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. if sample was not collected try NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without wrban approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government_ Pace 1 of 7 M NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 182063-0 Tel: 206.547.0100, abs6.634.1936 www.nvllabs.c*m Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Co By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208555.00 Client Project* Will Cali Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 25 Samples Analyzed: 23 Method: EPA/600R-931116 Layer i of 1 Description: Gray sandy/brittle material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials,% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Sand Cellulose 12% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050164 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A36 Location. KCLS-Renton Layer t of i Description: Gray sandylbrittle material with paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Sand Cellulose 9% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050165 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A37 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer t of 2 Deacriptlon: Silver paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Metallic paint Cellulose 3% Chrysotile 2% Layer 2 of 2 Description: Black asphaltic material with gray paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Paint Cellulose 7% Chrysotile 4% Lab ID: 12050166 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A38 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Silver paint with traoe black asphaltic material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials-.% Asbestos Type: % Metallic paint, Asphalt/Binder Cellulose 5% Chrysotile 4% Layer 2 of 2 Description: Trace beige crumbly material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles Cellulose 3% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050167 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A39 Location: KCLS-Renton Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date: 06107/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nick Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples ars analyzed using EPA 600/W -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%6 0-3%, 5%=1-9%, 10%--5-15%, 20%=1a-30%, 50OA--40 -00%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results Is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector, This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. ft shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N_, Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Te1:206,547.Fax: 206.834.1936 www.nvllabs.corn Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis www.nvilabs.com By Polarized Lignt Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Batch #: 1208665.00 Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Client Project* Will Call Seat0e, WA 98101 Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 25 Attention. Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Samples Analyzed: 25 Project Location: KCLS-Renton Method: EPA/600R-931116 Layer 1 of 3 Description: Black asphaltic material with sand Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Sand Glass fibers 21 % None Detected ND Layer 2 of 3 Description: Yellow soft mastic with plastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder, Plastic Cellulose 5% None Detected ND Layer 3 of 3 Description: Black asphaltic fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Asphatt/Binder Glass fibers 52% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050168 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A40 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Black asphaltic material with sand Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % AsphalVBinder, Sand Synthetic fibers 24% None Detected ND Lab 10: 12050169 Client Sample M KCLS-RNT-A41 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 3 Description: Black asphaltic material with sand Non -Fibrous Materials. Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Sand Synthetic fibers 22% None Detected ND Layer 2 of 3 Description: Black asphaltic mastic Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type. % AsphaltBinder, Mastic/Binder Cellulose 3% None Detected ND Layer 3 of 3 Description: Black asphaltic fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder Glass fibers 53% None Detected ND Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 0&07/2012 Nobe: N samples are not homogeneous, then subeamplles of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 6001M4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 5%=1-9%, 10%-5-15%, 20%-10-30%, 50%z40 -00%). This report relates only to the Items tested. If sample was not oolleded by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc, It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Paae 2 of 7 NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tel: 206.547.0100, Fax206.634.1938 nvllabs.com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis vrww. By Polarized Ltgnt MICroscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1601 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattie, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snydem, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch M 1208555.00 Client Project #. Will Call Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 25 Samples Analyzed: 25 Method: EPA/600R-931116 Lab ID: 12050170 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A42 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Beige sandy/brittle material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:°% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Sand, Paint Cellulose 2°% None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description: Gray brittle material with woven fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains Glass fibers 18% None Detected ND Lab ID:12050171 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A43 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 2 Description: Beige sandy/brittle material Nan -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Binder/Filler, Sand Cellulose 3% Layer 2 of 2 Description: Gray brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% BinderlFiller, Mineral grains Cellulose 2% Lab ID: 12050172 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A44 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Gray brittle material with foamy material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:°% Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Synthetic foam Cellulose 2% Lab ID: 12050173 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A45 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: White softlelastic material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Paint Cellulose 3°% Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: °% None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date; 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06107/2012ector Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. NI bulk samples are analyzed using EPA &00IM4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (11%4-3%, 5%-1-9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%, 50%=40 -00%). This report relates only to the !tams tested, If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except In lull, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc, It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Pace 4 of 7 NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tel: 206.547.0100, Fax: 34.1936 vrww.nvllabsBulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention. Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Lab ID: 12050174 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT A46 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Descripdon: White hard brittle material with debris Non -Fibrous Materials: Binder/Filler, Fine particles Lab ID: 12050175 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-447 Location. KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Gray brittle material with debris Non -Fibrous Materials: Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Fine particles Lab ID: 12060176 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT4M Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Descrlpdon: Gray brittle material with debris Non -Fibrous Materials: BinderlFiller, Mineral grains, Fine particles Lab ID: 12050177 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A49 Location: KCLS-Renton Other Fibrous Materials:% None Detected ND Other Fibrous Materials:% Cellulose 2% Other Fibrous Materials:% Cellulose 4% Batch #: 1208555.00 Client Project #: Will Call Date Received: 06106!2012 Samples Received: 25 Samples Analyzed; 25 Method: EPA160OR-931116 Asbestos Type: °% None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Asbestos Type: % None Detected ND Layer 1 of 1 Descrlpdon: Gray crumbly material with paint Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Paint Cellulose 5% Chrysotile 3% Lab ID: 12050178 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A50 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer ,I of 2 Description: Orange sandylbrittle, material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Sand Cellulose 30A None Detected ND Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nick L L J Note: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately. All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 6OWM4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties. for the reported % Asbestos (I %=0-3%, 5%-I- %, 10%-5-15%, 20%=10-30%, 50%--40 -60%). Thls report relates only to the items bested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector_ This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government. Paas S of 7 0 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98143 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 Tek 2pf3.S47.0100, Fax., 634.193s www.nvll2bsBulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208555.00 Client Project* Will Call Date Received: 06/06/2012 Samples Received: 25 Samples Analyzed: 25 Method: EPAABOOR-931116 Layer 2 of 2 Description: Beige sandy/brittle material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials. % Asbestos Type: °% Binder/f=iller, Sand Cellulose 2% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050179 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A51 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Tan chalky material with trace paper Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: % Gypsum/Binder, Binder/Filler Cellulose 23% None Detected ND Glass fibers 3°% Lab ID. 12050180 Client Sample M KCLS-RNT-A52 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Gray soft material with debris Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials. % Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Fine partcles Cellulose 4°% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050181 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-A53 Location: KCLS-Renton Dyer 1 of 2 Description: White soft fibrous material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Asbestos Type: °% Binder/Filler, Fine particles Cellulose 38% None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description: Red softlelasbc material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials. % Asbestos Type: °% Binder/FUler, Fine particles Glass fibers 24% None Detected ND Lab ID: 12050182 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNT-AS4 Location: KCLS-Renton Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date: 06/07/2012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/07/2012 Nick Now if samples are not homogeneous, then subsemples of the components ware analyzed separately. All bulk samples aro anaryzed using EPA 800/M4 -82-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 5%=1-9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%-10-30%, 50%=40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. If sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Pane 6 of 7 NVL Laboratories Inc. 4708 Aurora Ave. N., Seattle, WA 98103 For the scope of accreditation under NVLAP Lab Code 102063-0 7e1:206.547.0100, Fax: 206.634.1936 www_nvllBbs.Com Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis By Polarized Light Microscopy Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention: Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 1 Description: Gray brittletfoamy material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials.% Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Synthetic foam Cellulose 2% Lab ID:12050183 Client Sample #: KCLS-RNTA55 Location: KCLS-Renton Layer 1 of 7 Description: Gray brittlelfoamy material Non -Fibrous Materials: Other Fibrous Materials:% Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Synthetic foam Cellulose 3% Batch #: 1208555.00 Client Project #: Will Call [date Received: 06106/2012 Samples Received: 25 Samples Analyzed: 23 Method: EPA1600R-931116 Asbestos Type: % None Deflected NO Asbestos Type: % None Detected NO Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Jessica Luedke Date: 06/0712012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date: 06/0712012 or Nob: If samples are not homogeneous, then subsompies of the components were analyzed separately- All bulk samples are analyzed using EPA 600/1444 -92-020 Method with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported % Asbestos (1%=0-3%, 5%=1-9%, 10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%, 50%�40 -60%). This report relates only to the items tested. 0 sample was not collected by NVL personnel, then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc, It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Gmmmment. Papa 7 of 7 NVL Laboratories, Inc. CHAIN of CUSTODY 4708 Aurora Ave N. Seattle, WA 98103 Tel: 206.547.0100 Emerg.Cell:206,914,4646 SAMPLE LOG Fax: 206.634.1936 1.888.NVL.LASS (685.5227) Client URS Corporation Stet 1501 4th Ave& -suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 project Manager Mr. Russell Sn dere PE Protect Location Phone: (206) 438-2700 Fax: (8661495-5288 BATCH !D M 1208555-00 NVL Batch Number Client Job Number Total Samples 0 Turn Around Time 0 lair Q 8 -Mrs 2 Days ❑ 5 Days ❑ 2-Hrs ❑ 12 -firs 3 Days ❑ 5-10 pay ❑ 4 -Firs ❑ 24-Hrs ❑ 4 Days Please call fnr TAT less than 24 Hra Email address russell.snydersOOurs.cam _ Call: (206) 910-5365 (4251338-3858 ❑ Asbestos Air ❑ PCM (NIOSH 7400) ❑ TEM (NIOSH 7402) ❑ TI=M AHERA) ❑ TEM EPA Level ll) ❑ Other Asbestos Bulk PLM EPA16OOIR-931116 ❑ PLM EPA Point Count) ❑ PLM EPA GraviM!n [I TEM BULK ❑ Moid/Funaus ❑ Mold Air ❑ Mold Bulk ❑ Rotometer Calibratlon METALS ❑ Total Metals Det. Limit [] FAA (ppm: Ustrix El Air Filter ❑ Soil RCRA Metals ❑ All 8 El Arsenic (As) ❑ Chromium (Cr other Metals All 3 El ❑ TCLP ❑ ICP {ppm) El water EJ Paint Chips In % 11 Barium (Ba) El Land (Pb) Copper (Cu) ❑ Cr B ❑ GFAA (RPI El ❑ Dusf/wi pe (Area) Q Paint Chips in cn El (Cd) Q Mercury (Hg) El Nickel (Ni) --[❑other 6 ❑ Zinc (Zn) Types ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Silica ❑ Nuisance Dust ❑ Respirable Dust ❑ Other (Specify) of Anal is Condition of Package: ❑ Good ❑ Damaged (no soillaael ❑ Severe damaae (soillaae) Seg. # Lab ID Client Sample Number Comments (e.g Sample areSample Volume etc AIR 1 " - _ . �f:� ■fir! LI 0 RIM, 2 # 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Print Flolf% w Cir.., net.,,,, n.,..,ra..., n.,ae r,.-- Speclal Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. " - _ . �f:� ■fir! LI 0 RIM, I ro,101 "01A y # Speclal Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. APPENDIX S LEAD ANALYSIS REPORT AND CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY FORM 33763607 URS CORPORATION June 7, 2012 Russell Snyders, PE URS Corporation 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Metals Analysis; NIVL Batch # 1208557.00 Dear Mr, Snyders, PE, iNv L I:�:DJSTiRIAL H7GIEf!c SERVICES L21*r-V*. f : V.n-ramLnt I Training Enclosed please find the test results for samples submitted to our laboratory for analysis. Preparation of these samples was conducted following protocol outlined in EPA Method SW 846-3051 unless stated otherwise. Analysis of these samples was performed using analytical instruments in accordance with U.S. EPA, NIOSH, OSHA and other ASTM methods. For matrix materials submitted as paint, dust wipe, soil or TCLP samples, analysis for the presence of total metals is conducted using published U.S. EPA Methods. Paint and soil results are usually expressed in mg/Kg which is equivalent to parts per million (ppm). Lead (Pb) in paint is usually expressed in mg/Kg (ppm) , Percent (%) or mgfemz by area. Dust wipe sample results are usually expressed in ug/wipe and uglfi?. TCLP samples are reported in mg/t_ (ppm). For air filter samples, analyses are conducted using NIOSH and OSHA Methods. Results are expressed in ug/filter and ugle. Other matrix materials are analyzed accordingly using published methods or specified by client. The reported test results pertain only to items tested. Lead test results are not blank corrected. For recent regulation updates pertaining to current regulatory levels or permissible exposure levels, please call your local regulatory agencies for more details. This report is considered highly confidential and will not be released without your approval. Samples are archived for two weeks following analysis. Samples that are not retrieved by the client are discarded after two weeks. Thank you for using our laboratory services. if you need further assistance please feel free to call us at 206-547-0100 or 1-888-NVLLABS. Sincerely, Nick Ly, Technical Director Enclosure: -' .LASS 4 >E'i'56'1. NVL L-�WreEtorie;, Inc. 4708 Aur-:ra Ave N, Sea*tla, WA 93103 P 235.547,01,00 t `"06.6:;4.1936 4 NVL Laboratories Inc.AlHK4708 ► Tel: 06r547 0100 Seattle, 703 HA IH # 101861 20 634$936 AI - CCA www.nvllabs.com Analysis Re ort WA - DOE # C1765 LABORATORY, Total Lead (Pb) Client: URS Corporation Address: 1501 4th Ave, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attentlon: Mr. Russell Snyders, PI_ Project Location: KCLS-Renton Batch #: 1208537.00 Matrix: Paint Chips Method: EPA 7000E Client Project* Will Call Date Received: 06106/2012 Samples Received: 4 Samples Analyzed: 4 Sample RL in Results Results in Lab ID Client Sample # Weight (g) mg/Kg in mg1Kg percent 12050185 KCLS-RNT-LO1 0.2004 46.0 79.0 0.0079 12050186 KCLS-RNT-LO2 0.2018 46.0 2500.0 0.2500 12050187 KCLS-RNT-L03 0.1984 47.0 < 47.0 < 0.0047 12050188 KrLS-Rrrr-Loa 0.1989 47.0 < 47.0 < 0.0047 Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Aaron Brown Date Analyzed: 0610712012 Reviewed by: Nick Ly Date Issued: 06/0712012 Erector mg/ Kg =Milligrams per kilogram RL = Reporting Limit Percent = Milligrams per kilogram 110000 '<' =Below the reporting Limit Note: Method QC results are acceptable unless stated otherwise. Unless otherwise indicated the condition of all samples was acceptable at time of receipt. n___w n.... %1-. o� nano n) PARP 1 of 1 NVL Laboratories, Inc. CHAIN of CUSTODY 4708 Aurora Ave N, Seattle, WA 98103 Tel: 206.547.0100 Emerg.Cell:206.914.4646 SAMPLE LOG Fax: 206.634.1936 1.888. NVL. LABS (685.5227) Client URS Corporation Street 1501 4th Ave; Suite 1400 . Seattle, WA 98101 Project Manager Mr. Russell_Snyders, PE Project Location ku-g Phone: (206) 438-2700 Fax: (8W) 495-5258 NVL Batch Number BATCH ID 1208557.00 1 Client Job Number 26MM L.U.Yl ❑ PCM (NIOSH 7400) ❑ TEM NIOSH 7402) ❑ TEM (AHERA) ❑ TEM (EPA Level II) ❑ Other Total Samples Y -- Turn Around Time ❑ 1 -Hr ❑ -Hrs Days El Days ❑ 2-Hra 0, 2-Hrs 3 Days ❑ 6-10 pay ❑ 4-Hrs ❑ 24-Hrs ❑ 4 Days Please call for TAT less than 24 Mrs Email address russell.snvdersAurs.com T Cell: (206) 910-5365 (425) 338-3058 ❑ Asbestos Air ❑ PCM (NIOSH 7400) ❑ TEM NIOSH 7402) ❑ TEM (AHERA) ❑ TEM (EPA Level II) ❑ Other ❑ Asbestos Bul ❑ PLM (EPA1600JR-931116) ❑ PLM (EPA Point Count) ❑ PLM (EPA Gravimetrv) ❑ TEM BULK ❑ Molffunaus ❑ Mold Air ❑ Mold Bulk 1 ❑ Rotometer Calibration Results Called b Det. Limit Matr v RCRA Metals [:1All 8 other Metals ❑ All 3 �E,TALs otal Metals ❑ FAA (ppm* ❑ Air Filter C'Soil ❑ Arsenic (As) ❑ Chromium (Cr ❑ TCLP ❑ ICP (ppm) ❑ Drinking water aint Chips in % ❑ Q Barium (Ba) ead (Pb) Copper (Cu) ❑ Nickel (No ❑ Cr 6 El GFAA (ppi Dust0wipe (Area) ❑ Paint Chips in Cn ❑ Cadmium (Cd) Mercury (Hg) ❑ Zinc (Zn) ❑ Other Types ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Silica ❑ Nuisance Dust ❑ Respirable Dust ❑ Other (Specify) of Analysis..__ 11 Condition of Package: ❑ Good ❑ Damaged (no spillage) ❑ Severe damage (spillage) Sag. 0 Lab ID Client Sample Number Comments (e.a Sample area Sample Volume etc AiR 1 r 2 1 1 jai - Results Called b 3 ,. , r " " Aja L St') 3: JS 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Print Below Sl n Balow Company Date Time Sampled by M&F aID Relin ulshed by ' ` + • L Received by, Ana ed by, 13A.,,,,.. N r s : ZO Results Called b Result6 y sxx v �'•^�•,, �, " " Aja L St') 3: JS Special Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. APPENDIX C PCB ANALYSIS REPORT AND CHAIN -OF -CUSTODY FORM 33763607 URS CORPORATION June 8, 2012 Mr. Russell Snyders URS Corporation 1501 a Ave., Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Organic Anallysts, NVL Batch 01208556.00 Dear Mr. Snyders, INImML). HAZARDOUS MATERIALS S E R V I C E S MAmAGF ANT I TRALHINO I LAS SUVIC a www.NVLLAM.com Enclosed please find test results for the samples submitted to our laboratory for analysis. Preparation and analysis of these samples were conducted for the presence of organic compounds using instruments specked in accordance with EPA, NIOSH other published methods. Test results for bulk sample are usually expressed in micrograms per sample (mgfKg) and/or parts per million (ppm). Air samples are usually reported in milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3). Dust wipe samples are expressed in micrograms per square foot (ug/ft2). The reported test results pertain only to items tested and are not blank corrected. For recent regulation updates pertaining to current regulatory levels or permissible exposure limits, please call your local regulatory agencies for more details. This report is considered highly confidential and will not be released without your approval. Samples are archived for two weeks following analysis. Samples that are not retrieved by the client are discarded after two weeks. Thank you for using our laboratory services. Please do not hesitate to call if there is anything further we can assist you with. Sincerely, Enc.: Sample Results Phone: 206 547.0100 I Fax; 206 634.1936 Toll Free: 1.888.NVL.LABS (685.5227) 4708 Aurora Avenue North ( Seattle, WA 98103-6516 NVL Laboratories, Inc. www.nNlaM.=n Client: URS Corporation Address: 1541 41h Ave; Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attention_ Mr. Russell Snyders, PE Project Location: KCLS-Renton Analysis Report Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) IN"YL L A B S i1AZARDaus MATERIALS S E R v I C E 5 NVL Batch No. 1208656.00 Method No. PPA 8270/GCMS Client Project#: Will Call Date Received: 6/6/2012 Samples Received: 1 Samples Analyzed: 1 Lab Sample ID: 12050184 Client Sample ID: KCLS-RNT-PCB01 Sample Description: NIA Sample Weight (g) 0.5471 PCB Type mg11Kg (ppm) Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Aroolor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1234 Aroclor 1260 ND ND ND ND ND ND 3.3 Total: PCB Concentration 3.3 Reporting Limit (RL); 0.4 Remarks: mg/Kg =Milligrams per lalograms ppm = Parts per million Sampled by: Client Analyzed by: Eric Choiniere Analysis Date: 6!912012 Reviewed bv: Nick Lv Reviewed Date: 61812012 ND = None Detected -4RL = Below the reporting limit of instrument Preparation and [natyais of these samples were conducted in accordance with published test meOads_ Unless stated of erwlee, the oond%w Df as Samples was acoeptaaae at time d racelpt Reported sample results am band on dry weight and mettod QC resuih are aaoeptsbb unless stated athwrwiae. If samples were nat coilacted by NVL personnel. than the accuracy of the results is limited by the nmOodology and acuity of the sampie colledar_ This report shalt riot be reproduced except in full, without wtlttan approaal of NVL Labors tarks Mc.. Responaibillty for hwpnrbWon of the reported data rests with the client Phone, 204 5"70100 1 Fax: 206 43h.1934 I Talc Free: 1.898.KVL.LABS (685,5227) 4708 Aurora Avwnu* North I Snaffle, WA 98103-4516 Page 1 of 1 NVL Laboratories, Inc. CHAIN of CUSTODY 4708 Aurora Ave N, Seattle, WA 98103 Tel: 206.547.0100 Emerg.Cell:206.914.4646 SAMPLE LOG Fax: 206.634.1936 1.888.NVL.LABS (685.5227) Client URS Corporation _ Street 1501 4th Ave: Suite 1400 -- _ Seattle, WA 98101 Protect Manager Mr. Russell Sn dere PE Prolect Location k-(-"—ReA&4 Phone: (206) 438-2700 Fax: (866) 495-5288 NVL Batch Number BATCH ID 1208556-00 CllentJob Number— Total Samples — Turn Around Time ❑ 1 -Hr ❑ 8-Hrs ays ❑ 5 Days ❑ 2-Hrs ❑ 12-11rs 113 Days 1116-10 Day ❑ 4-Hrs ❑ 24-Hrs ❑ 4 Days Please call for TAT less than 24 His Email address russeli.snydersiMurs.com Cell: (206) 910-5365 (425) 338-3058 ❑ Asbestos Air ❑ PCM (NIOSH 7400) ❑ TEM (NIOSH 7402) ❑ TEM (AHEM ❑ TEM (EPA Level Il) ❑ Other ❑ Asbestos Bul ❑ PLM (EPA/6WIR-931116) ❑ PLM (EPA Point Count) ❑ PLM (EPA Gravimeuv) ❑ TEM SULK ❑ Mold/Fun us ❑ Mold Air ❑ Mold Bulk JERotornetarCallbration METALS Det. Limit MatHy RCRA Metals 0A.118 Other Metals E] All 3 ❑ Total Metals ❑ FAA (ppm: F-1AirFilter El Soil El Arsenic (As) C1 Chromium (Cr ❑ Copper ElTCLP ❑IOP (PPM) El Drinking water El Paint Chips in % El Barium (Ba) ❑ Lead (Pb) (Cu) ❑ Nickel (Ni) ❑ Cr 6 ❑ GFAA (PPI ❑ Dust/wipe (Area) ❑ Paint Chips in cn ❑ Cadmium (Cd) ❑ Mercury (Hg) ❑ Zinc (Zn) erTypes ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Silica ❑ Nuisance Dust ❑ Respirable Dust ❑ Other(Speclfy) 5 ' of Anat sis Condition of Packaue: ❑ Good ❑ Damaued (no spillaue) ❑ Severe damage (spillage) Sea. # Lab ID Client Sam pie Number Comments (e.g Sample are Sample Volume etc AIR -W6, r- �j 2 sins, 3 IM- 4 5 -_ + ► ' ' � � . ■rte � . ► ���' � 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DAM 13.l,%— Cine Qd&lnu" 1,mmnnnv nate Tima Special Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. ki a -W6, �j sins, IM- . 4- � - � -_ + ► ' ' � � . ■rte � . ► ���' � Special Instructions: Unless requested in writing, all samples will be disposed of two (2) weeks after analysis. ki a r 33763607 APPENDIX D AHERA BUILDING INSPECTOR CERTIFICATE URS CORPORATION n 63 m M a -a D C O. n N Z 3 Q CDi C) 3 0' _ o palm Cl) Cl) CDs G W � o rD C s Gd c , a CD li D C) c N TI 2 �' }�• CD �. 7�AI�ad m -4 .-+ 0) o M M@= 3 -a P� c, =rn �� 0) C m3 cn a x D� 3 a co N Z W C N cn' CD N Z WWI CD 0 APPENDIX E LABORATORY CERTIFICATIONS 33763607 URS CORPORATION w 0 a Irl9 { y� do Cw IF "N National Voluntary � Q Laboratory Accreditation Program SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO IS01IEC 17025:2005 NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Avenue N. Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Nghiep Vi Ly Phone: 206-547-0100 Fax: 206-634-1936 E -Mail: uick.l@nvllabs.cam URL: http://www.nvUabs.com BULK ASBESTOS SER ANALYSIS OU%I) NVLAP Code 18/A0l NW AP LAB CODE 102053-0 Designadon /Description EPA -600/M4-82-020: Interim Method for the Detwmin%6on ofAsbastos in Bulk lnsulWon Samples 2011-10-01 through 2012-09-30 Effective dates Page 1 of 1 jz" A For the ATabonal InAU& of Standards and Techrldbgy NVLAP-01S (REV. 2005.05-t9) tip 1 D A� AD w krl lT1 Cr. :z7 CCD CD in ro w 0 w 0 N N N O O O w w w ci err% � l \N'_ cy i a n i CL I n � go E r it r AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION NVL Laboratories, Inc. Laboratory ID: 141861 4708 Aurora Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98103 Issue Date: 05/01/2011 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s) of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s) of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or revocation. A complete listing of currently accredited Industrial Hygiene laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP, LLC website at: http://www.aihaaccreditedlab,,,()rg Industrial Hygiene Laboratory Accreditation Program (IHLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 04/01/1997 Effective: 06123/2010 Scope_IHLAP_R5 Page I of 2 Technology Published Reference Method Description IHLAP Scope Field of Testing (FoT) sub -type/ Method/Title of In- or Analyte Category Detector house Method (for internal methods only) NIOSH 7024 NIOSH 7030 Atomic Absorption PAA NIOSH 7048 Spectrometry Core NIOSH 7082 Inductively -Coupled ICP/AES EPA SW -846 3051 NIOSH 7300 Plasma Asbestos/Fiber Phase Contrast NIOSH 74(X) Microscopy Core Microscopy (PCM) Miscellaneous Core Gravimetric NIOSH 05(X) NIOSH 0600 Effective: 06123/2010 Scope_IHLAP_R5 Page I of 2 AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC The laboratory participates in the following AIHA-LAP, LLC -approved proficiency testing programs: AIHA-PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Metals ❑ AIHA-PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Organic Solvents 11 AIHA-PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Silica ❑ AIHA-PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Diffusive Sampler (3M) ❑ AIHA-PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Diffusive Sampler (SKC) ❑ AIHA-PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Diffusive Sampler (AT) AIHA PAT Programs, LLC IHPAT Asbestos ❑ A[HA-PAT Programs, LLC Bulk Asbestos (BAPAT) ❑ A[HA-PAT Programs, LLC Beryllium (BePAT) ❑ 14SE Workplace Analytical Scheme for Proficiency (WASP) (Formaldehyde) ❑ HSE Workplace Analytical Scheme for Proficiency (WASP) (Thermal Desorption Tubes) ❑ Pharmaceutical Round Robin ❑ Compressed/Breathing Air Round Robin ❑ National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP - determined at the time of site assessment) ❑ New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH — PCM and TEM) ❑ ERA Air and Emissions standards for indoor air quality ❑ Institut fdr Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung (IFA, formerly BGIA) ❑ Institut de Recherche Robert-Sauve en Sante et en Securite du Travail (IRSST) Effective: 06/23/2010 Scope—IHLAP RS Page 2of2 A 1 = Laboratory Accreditation Programs: LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98103 Laboratory ID: 101861 Issue Date: 05/24/2011 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s) of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status For the particular field(s) of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or revocation. A complete listing of currently accredited Environmental Lead laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP, LLC website at: http://www_aihaacereditediabs.org The EPA recognizes the AIHA-LAP, LLC ELLAP program as meeting the requirements of the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) established under "title X of the Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 and includes paint, soil and dust wipe analysis. Air analysis is not included as part of the NLLAP. Environmental Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 02/07/1997 Field of Testing (FoT) Method Method Description or internal methods only) Paint 16 CFR Part 1303 CPSC-CH-E 1003-09) EPA SW -846 3051 EPA SW -846 70008 Soil EPA SW -846 3051 EPA SW -846 7000B Settled Dust by Wipe EPA SW -846 3051 EPA SW -846 7000B Airborne Dust EPA SW -846 3051 NIOSH 7082 The laboratory participates in the following AIIIA-LAP, LLC - approved proficiency testing programs: ✓ Paint ✓ Soil ✓ Settled Dust by Wipe r Airborne Bust Effective: 4/24/09 Scape_FL LA P_R4 Page 1 of 1 AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC AIHA Laboratory Accreditation Programs, LLC SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION NVL Laboratories, Inc. 4708 Aurora Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98I03 Laboratory ID: 101861 Issue Date: 05/01/2011 The laboratory is approved for those specific field(s) of testing/methods listed in the table below. Clients are urged to verify the laboratory's current accreditation status for the particular field(s) of testing/Methods, since these can change due to proficiency status, suspension and/or revocation. A complete listing of currently accredited Environmental Microbiology laboratories is available on the AIHA-LAP, LLC website at: httl2://www.uihuaccreditedlab,,.()rL, Environmental Microbiology Laboratory Accreditation Program (EMLAP) Initial Accreditation Date: 02/01/2007 EMLAP Category Field of Testing (FoT) Method Method Description (for internal methods only) Bulk - Direct SOP 12.130 In -House: Analysis of Bulk and Fungal Examination Surface for Fungi Surface - Direct SOP 12.130 In -House: Analysis of Bulk and Examination Surface for Fun i The laboratory participates in the following AIHA-LAP, LLC - approved proficiency testing programs: r4 Fungal Culturahle ❑ Bacterial Culturahle ❑ Fungal Direct Examination Effective: February 28, 2006 Scope_EMLAP_R5 Page 1 of I