The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc 1 of 3ocIr-O,-2CiP 03:52PM FROM- 206-321-0512 T-794 P.001/006 5-725 ATTN: NANCY THOMPSON (425) 430-6523 Re: LUA-09-060, ECF, SA -MI, SA-H OCT-01-2n29 0SI M FROM- 206-521-0512 T-794 P.002/006 F-725 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA M, SA-H } SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S individual and citizen of Renton, ) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Petitioners: } Y. INTRODUCTION The Applicant asks the Examiner to reconsider several portions of his decision, and remove several conditions. SEGB responds only to arguments raised regarding stormwater and protection of May Creek and Lake Washington_ The motion should be denied because the Applicant either provides no basis for r=asideration, or erroneously argues that the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose conditions, II. ARGUMENT A. The A hcant Fails to Identify a Basis for Reconsideration. The Applicant argues that the Examiner erred as a matter of fact in Conclusions 5 and 9 when imposing conditions on stormwater management, because there was no basis to believe that the "the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King GENDLER & MANN, LLP RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S 1424 Seams w 96 Ric 1415 P MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Fax, c2� 621-M125 RCT-01-2O9 03:52PM FROM- 216-621-0512 T-794 P-003/006 F-725 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 IU it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington." Applicant's Motion at p. 3 of 5. But the Examiner did not conclude that the Applicant's as -yet wu-idisclosed plan would cause harm, and there is no requirement that a showing of harm be made prior to the Examiner imposing conditions to protect the eavironment. In this Case, the Applicant has pointedly refused to complete a stormwater plan, The Applicant points to no section of Renton's code requiring any finding; of harm; requiring a finding of harm when the conditions merely guide the creation of an as -yet uncompleted plan would be absurd. There was no error of fact, because there is ao plan to factually consider. B, The Examiner has Jurisdiction to Impose Conditions on Stormwater Mana ement. The Applicant next argues, in a confusing smorgasbord of concepts and without citation to any legal authority, that the Examiner had no jurisdiction to require that May Creek and Lake 'Washington be protected from harm, or to require Best Available Science rather than just the 2005 Stormwater Manual. But in reviewing a Master Site Plan and Site Plan, the Examiner has jurisdiction to "review and act upon' site plan reviews requiring a public hearing. RMC 4-5-070(H)(1)(n). In reviewing and acting upon a master site plan, the Examiner is required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)to ensure: a Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan., conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations c. Mitigation of impacts w surrounding properties and use RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOT10N FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 UNDLER & MANN, LLF 1424 Fourth Avonuo, $who 1016 $eatde, WA 98101 Phone: l2081 621-8868 Fax: (task 021--0612 QCT-Of-7.99 03:52PM FROM- Z06-621-0512 T-794 P 004/M F-725 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The Applicant's argument — that because the code requires compliance with the Stormwater Manual the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose any additional requirements — would write out of existence the Examiner's authority to require mitigation of impacts under RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(c-d), and instead make the Examiner merely a rubber stamp checking to see if the code's minimum requirements were met. Similarly, the Applicant's argument that the Examiner's order to not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington "would establish a new, nonregulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality" is absurd. Motion for Reconsideration at p. 4 of 5, Renton's Code provides that the purpose of the Critical Areas Regulations is to " [m]anage development activities to protect environmental duality." RMC 4-3-050(A)(1)(a). The Examiner's statement properly summarizes this intent section of the Code; the requirement in the Examiner's order to use BAS provides the regulatory means to do so. If the Applicant is seriously arguing that they should be allowed to jeopardize May Creek and Lake Washington with their hotel, then perhaps the City should reconsider the decision to approve these plans at all. Dated this 1st day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By; --. Keith P. Scully, WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants LS%nh Fnd Givns Sjck(Den)\F-r on6c to Motion 10 0109 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 28 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S 1424 Fourth Avenue, sane iois saAraa, ww ss 101 F MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fox; E� 9210512s XT-0,1'2 os 03:52Pm FROM- 206-621-0512 T-794 P 005/006 F-725 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) S EGB, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) ) Petitioners, ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) 55. COUNTY OF KING ) Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLE'Y, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, der_lare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Response to Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration to be served on - DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 GENGLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Founh Avenue, Swilu 1Q16 Soatdo, WA 98141 Phonk' 12Q61 E21$868 Fan: {246) 621.4612 -ACT-Gi-N-19 03:52PM FROM- 206-621-0512 7-794 P-006/006 F-725 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2".J Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen&entonwa-gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [xJ By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), iessica@nth eattle.com DATED this. I f day of oe--T- Pat` , 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington- 0 A COAKLEY �Sauih Paid Givca Buckk1Den)1Dec sere DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 CaEN ER &. MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avanua. Suito 1415 5ear0a, WA 96101 Phone: (2061621-08" Fax: €206) a21-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant asks the Examiner to reconsider several portions of his decision, and remove several conditions. SEGB responds only to arguments raised regarding stormwater and protection of May Creek and Lake Washington. The motion should be denied because the Applicant either provides no basis for reconsideration, or erroneously argues that the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose conditions. II. ARGUMENT A. The Avylicant Fails to Identify a Basis for Reconsideration. The Applicant argues that the Examiner erred as a matter of fact in Conclusions 5 and 9 when imposing conditions on stormwater management, because there was no basis to believe that the "the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 Icing GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 0 P MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Fax: 1206i 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creels or Lake Washington." Applicant's Motion at p. 3 of 5. But the Examiner did not conclude that the Applicant's as -yet undisclosed plan would cause harm, and there is no requirement that a showing of harm be made prior to the Examiner imposing conditions to protect the environment. In this case, the Applicant has pointedly refused to complete a stormwater plan. The Applicant points to no section of Renton's code requiring any finding of harm; requiring a finding of harm when the conditions merely guide the creation of an as -yet uncompleted plan would be absurd. There was no error of fact, because there is no plan to factually consider, B. The Examiner has Jurisdiction to Impose Conditions on Stormwater Management. The Applicant next argues, in a confusing smorgasbord of concepts and without citation to any legal authority, that the Examiner had no jurisdiction to require that May Creek and Lake Washington be protected from harm, or to require Best Available Science rather than just the 2005 Stonnwater Manual. But in reviewing a Master Site Plan and Site Plan, the Examiner has jurisdiction to "review and act upon" site plan reviews requiring a public hearing. RMC 4-8-070(H)(1)(n). In reviewing and acting upon a master site plan, the Examiner is required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)to ensure: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and use 28 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLi' 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206i 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The Applicant's argument — that because the code requires compliance with the Stormwater Manual the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose any additional requirements — would write out of existence the Examiner's authority to require mitigation of impacts under RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(c-d), and instead make the Examiner merely a rubber stamp checking to see if the code's minimum requirements were met. Similarly, the Applicant's argument that the Examiner's order to not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington "would establish a new, nonregulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality" is absurd. Motion for Reconsideration at p. 4 of S. Renton's code provides that the purpose of the Critical Areas Regulations is to "[m)anage development activities to protect environmental quality." RMC 4-3-050(A)(1)(a), The Examiner's statement properly summarizes this intent section of the Code-, the requirement in the Examiner's order to use BAS provides the regulatory means to do so. If the Applicant is seriously arguing that they should be allowed to jeopardize May Creek and Lake Washington with their hotel, then perhaps the City should reconsider the decision to approve these plans at all. Dated this 1 st day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: e Keith P. Scully, WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Gives Back(Don)Response to Motion 10 01 09 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seatde, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax:12061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } individual and citizen of Renton, } ) Petitioners, } ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } ss. COUNTY OF KING } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Response to Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 (CoFly GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206)621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen i4entonwa.gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), 'essica mhseattle.com DATED this 1 4r day of �G—rG , 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington. u � O ITA COAKLEY 1South End Gives Back(Dcn)\Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: {2W 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1. INTRODUCTION The Applicant urges the Examiner to strike the Second Declaration of Joel Massman, and deny the motion for reconsideration.] For the reasons noted herein, the motion to strike should be denied, and the motion for reconsideration granted. II. ARGUMENT A. The Applicant Misunderstands the Motion for Reconsideration. The Applicant correctly notes that the facts presented in the application (that the buildings on site would be deconstructed and the area hydroseeded), and at hearing (that 1 The City, evidently forgetting its duty to remain impartial, joins with the Applicant in the Applicant's request to the Hearing Examiner to write out of RMC 4-9- 200(E)(1) the Examiner's authority to mitigate impacts, yet objects to SEGB's request to have a complete record. Because the City adds only hyperbole to the Applicant's arguments, the City's briefing is not separately addressed herein. GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101', REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 RECONSIDERATION - 1 Phone: Fax: 12066621-05128 ORIGNAL. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 impervious surface would remain) were vastly different, and that SEGB had to re-evaluate its concerns. The Applicant then mistakenly argues that SEGB is now "assert[ing] a completely opposite argument." Response at 3. The Applicant misunderstands SEGB's motion for reconsideration. Groundwater infiltration throughout the site as SEGB believed would occur prior to the hearing, would lead to increased groundwater flow to Quendall Terminals. But what has been proposed as BAS is a detention facility on the side of the property opposite Quendall Terminals, constructed so that stormwater infiltrates the ground and flows to May Creek, rather than the current proposal, which uses a malfunctioning ditch and leads to groundwater infiltration on the Quendall Terminals side of the property. See Second Massman Dec. B. The Information About the Malfunctioning Ditch was not Reasonably Information should be admitted after a hearing if it "could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." RMC 4-8-100(g), In this case, the information about the malfunctioning ditch was only discovered as a result of comments made by City Staff at the hearing regarding the presence of "orange scum" standing in the ditch. SEGB is a citizen's group with limited resources. The Applicant, by contrast, has conducted numerous studies on the site, and presented a range of information regarding the site and the Applicant's construction plans. SEGB reasonably relied on the application, which claims that the water would flow through the ditch, and thence to May Creek. Technical Information Report, at 7. The application is inaccurate — as subsequent investigation determined, the ditch does not "convey[] the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek" as claimed. TIR at 7; contrast Second Massman Dec. GENDLEA & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 RECONSIDERATION - 2 Fax: (2061 621-0512 r, W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Applicant's contention that it is too late to rectify the misinformation presented in its own application because it was only discovered during the hearing process is disingenuous; the precise reason a motion for reconsideration exists is to manage situations like this one. The Applicant's argument that because the information was uncovered "at the prior hearing" we were free to present rebuttal evidence is similarly disingenuous. The hearing lasted one day. There was no opportunity for Dr. Massman to visit the site. Moreover, presenting the information at this juncture allows the Applicant time to evaluate and respond, rather than presenting it at the hearing without any notice. Tellingly, the Applicant has no factual response to Dr. Massman's conclusions, but instead argues only that the Examiner must "see no evil" and ignore the actual condition of the ditch. C. The Examiner Must Consider the Project's Location Next to a Superfund Site. The Applicant argues that, because they assert that stormwater flow will not be changed, they are exempt from SEPA review. Response, at 5. First, stormwater flow may increase, because the Applicant is now re -grading the site to cause all water to flow to a lined ditch (the Applicant's "rain garden") and thence to the ground via the malfunctioning ditch. Second, SEPA requires consideration of the impacts of a project on the environment if there are adverse environmental consequences, even if the project only maintains the status quo. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979); WAC 197-11-752, The Applicant inexplicably argues that "the ASARCO case was decided before the SEPA regulations were enacted," but fails to explain why this matters. Response at 5. ASARCO is a SEPA case, and has not been overruled by either statute or the courts. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 P REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 P RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fez: (206j621-05128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, the Applicant's citation to WAC 197-11-752 does not aid its case. The "effect or consequences" of the project action, in this case, is to continue the harmful flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals. WAC 197-11-752 and ASARCO are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Applicant's passing reference to Dolan v, City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) is inapposite. Response at 5. Dolan is a takings case. SEGB is not arguing that the Applicant must clean up Quendall Terminals, or dedicate its entire site to the public good. But the Applicant wants to develop a location right next to a Superfund site. The impacts of development must be studied in an EIS, just as if the Applicant had purchased a site next to a steep slope and was proposing activity that might destabilize (or continue to destabilize) the area. The EIS will tell the decisionmaker whether this development should be approved at all, and what can be done to minimize impacts on the downslope toxins. Arguments about Dolan come later. Dated this 5th day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By:,,, Keith P. Scul ry WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \South End Gives Back (Den)\Reply to Applic Response 10 05 09 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 707E Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12W 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0612 1 2 3 4I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON } COUNTY OF KING } Mx11 Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply to Applicant's Response to Motion for Reconsideration to be served on - DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 ORIGINAL GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2'd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen rentonwa.gov DATED this -6"* day of o�T lSouth End Gives Back(Den)1Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), j es si caamhseattle. cam 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, } SA-H SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE individual and citizen of Renton, ) TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Petitioners, I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant urges the Examiner to strike the Second Declaration of Joel Massman, and deny the motion for reconsideration.' For the reasons noted herein, the motion to strike should be denied, and the motion for reconsideration granted. II. ARGUMENT A. The Applicant Misunderstands the Motion for Reconsideration. The Applicant correctly notes that the facts presented in the application (that the buildings on site would be deconstructed and the area hydroseeded), and at hearing (that 1 The City, evidently forgetting its duty to remain impartial, joins with the Applicant in the Applicant's request to the Hearing Examiner to write out of RMC 4-9- 200(E)(1) the Examiner's authority to mitigate impacts, yet objects to SEGB's request to have a complete record. Because the City adds only hyperbole to the Applicant's arguments, the City's briefing is not separately addressed herein. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: RECONSIDERATION - 1 Fax: 12066$ 621--0512 Q .J i� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 impervious surface would remain) were vastly different, and that SEGB had to re-evaluate its concerns. The Applicant then mistakenly argues that SEGB is now "assert[ing] a completely opposite argument." Response at 3. The Applicant misunderstands SEGB's motion for reconsideration. Groundwater infiltration throughout the site as SEGB believed would occur prior to the hearing, would lead to increased groundwater flow to Quendall Terminals. But what has been proposed as BAS is a detention facility on the side of the property opposite Quendall Terminals, constructed so that stormwater infiltrates the ground and flows to May Creek, rather than the current proposal, which uses a malfunctioning ditch and leads to groundwater infiltration on the Quendall Terminals side of the property. See Second Massman Dec. B. The Information About the Malfunctioning Ditch was notReasonably Discoverable. Information should be admitted after a hearing if it "could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." RMC 4-8-100(g). In this case, the information about the malfunctioning ditch was only discovered as a result of comments made by City Staff at the hearing regarding the presence of "orange scum" standing in the ditch. SEGB is a citizen's group with limited resources. The Applicant, by contrast, has conducted numerous studies on the site, and presented a range of information regarding the site and the Applicant's construction plans. SEGB reasonably relied on the application, which claims that the water would flow through the ditch, and thence to May Creek. Technical Information Report, at 7. The application is inaccurate — as subsequent investigation determined, the ditch does not "convey[] the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek" as claimed. TIR at 7; contrast Second Massman Dec. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 RECONSIDERATION - 2 Phone: {206} 621-8868 Fax: (2061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13i 14 15 16i 1711 18 19 20 21! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Applicant's contention that it is too late to rectify the misinformation presented in its own application because it was only discovered during the hearing process is disingenuous; the precise reason a motion for reconsideration exists is to manage situations like this one. The Applicant's argument that because the information was uncovered "at the prior hearing" we were free to present rebuttal evidence is similarly disingenuous. The hearing lasted one day. There was no opportunity for Dr. Massman to visit the site. Moreover, presenting the information at this juncture allows the Applicant time to evaluate and respond, rather than presenting it at the hearing without any notice. Tellingly, the Applicant has no factual response to Dr. Massman's conclusions, but instead argues only that the Examiner must "see no evil" and ignore the actual condition of the ditch. C. The Examiner Must Consider the Project's Location Next to a Superfund Site. The Applicant argues that, because they assert that stormwater flow will not be changed, they are exempt from SEPA review. Response, at 5. First, stormwater flow may increase, because the Applicant is now re -grading the site to cause all water to flow to a lined ditch (the Applicant's "rain garden") and thence to the ground via the malfiunctioning ditch. Second, SEPA requires consideration of the impacts of a project on the environment if there are adverse environmental consequences, even if the project only maintains the status quo. ASARCO Inc, v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn,2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979); WAC 197-11-752, The Applicant inexplicably argues that "the ASARCO case was decided before the SEPA regulations were enacted," but fails to explain why this matters. Response at 5. ASARCO is a SEPA case, and has not been overruled by either statute or the courts. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Phone; RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fax; 1206662?8 0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 277 28 Further, the Applicant's citation to WAC 197-11-752 does not aid its case. The "effect or consequences" of the project action, in this case, is to continue the harmful flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals, WAG 197-11-752 and ASARCO are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Applicant's passing reference to Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) is inapposite. Response at 5. Dolan is a takings case. SEGB is not arguing that the Applicant must clean up Quendall Terminals, or dedicate its entire site to the public good. But the Applicant wants to develop a location right next to a Superfund site. The impacts of development must be studied in an EIS, just as if the Applicant had purchased a site next to a steep slope and was proposing activity that might destabilize (or continue to destabilize) the area. The EIS will tell the decisionmaker whether this development should be approved at all, and what can be done to minimize impacts on the downslope toxins. Arguments about Dolan come later. Dated this 5th day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants 15ottth End Gives Back (Den)IReply to Applic Response 10 05 09 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1011 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-886 8 Fax: (2061 621.0512 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON } } COUNTY OF KING ) ss. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein, On the date and in the mariner indicated below, I caused the Reply to Applicant's Response to Motion for Reconsideration to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2"' Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen@,rentonwa. ov DATED this day of ac—T 1Svu(h End Gives $ack(Dcn)\Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), Jessica &nihseattle.com 200 , at Seattle, Washington. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, } SA-H } SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S individual and citizen of Renton, } MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Petitioners, } I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant asks the Examiner to reconsider several portions of his decision, and remove several conditions. SEGB responds only to arguments raised regarding stormwater and protection of May Creek and Lake Washington. The motion should be denied because the Applicant either provides no basis for reconsideration, or erroneously argues that the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose conditions. II. ARGUMENT A. The A licant Fails to Identify a Basis for Reconsideration. The Applicant argues that the Examiner erred as a matter of fact in Conclusions 5 and 9 when imposing conditions on stormwater management, because there was no basis to believe that the "the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply with the 2005 King GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 (' Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington." Applicant's Motion at p. 3 of 5. But the Examiner did not conclude that the Applicant's as -yet undisclosed plan would cause harm, and there is no requirement that a showing of harm be made prior to the Examiner imposing conditions to protect the environment. In this case, the Applicant has pointedly refused to complete a stormwater plan. The Applicant points to no section of Renton's code requiring any finding of harm; requiring a finding of harm when the conditions merely guide the creation of an as -yet uncompleted plan would be absurd. There was no error of fact, because there is no plan to factually consider. B. The Examiner has Jurisdiction to Impose Conditions on Stormwater Management. The Applicant next argues, in a confusing smorgasbord of concepts and without citation to any legal authority, that the Examiner had no jurisdiction to require that May Creek and Lake Washington be protected from harm, or to require Best Available Science rather than just the 2005 Stormwater Manual. But in reviewing a Master Site Plan and Site Plan, the Examiner has jurisdiction to "review and act upon" site plan reviews requiring a public hearing. RMC 4-8-070(H)(1)(n). In reviewing and acting upon a master site plan, the Examiner is required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(l)to ensure: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and use RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 GENnLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax:(206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site The Applicant's argument — that because the code requires compliance with the Stormwater Manual the Examiner has no jurisdiction to impose any additional requirements — would write out of existence the Examiner's authority to require mitigation of impacts under RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(c-d), and instead make the Examiner merely a rubber stamp checking to see if the code's minimum requirements were met. Similarly, the Applicant's argument that the Examiner's order to not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington "would establish a new, nonregulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality" is absurd. Motion for Reconsideration at p. 4 of 5. Renton's code provides that the purpose of the Critical Areas Regulations is to "[m]anage development activities to protect environmental quality." RMC 4-3-050(A)(1)(a). The Examiner's statement properly summarizes this intent section of the Code, the requirement in the Examiner's order to use BAS provides the regulatory means to do so. If the Applicant is seriously arguing that they should be allowed to jeopardize May Creek and Lake Washington with their hotel, then perhaps the City should reconsider the decision to approve these plans at all. Dated this 1 st day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: - Keith P. Scully, WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \south End Gives Back(Den)\Response to Motion 10 01 09 RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, } SA-H SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } individual and citizen of Renton, ) DECLARATION OF SERVICE Petitioners, ) STATE OF WASHINGTON } } ss. COUNTY OF KING ) I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Response to Applicant's Motion for Reconsideration to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I npmimAt. GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206► 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2"d Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen(&rentonwa.gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), iessica@mhscattle.com DATED this I"- day of �� - , 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington. c� c7 O ITA COAKL %South End Gives Back(Den)%Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 GENTLER & IIMANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITYOFRENTOA; 5 �' 3 O C 1 0 1 2009 C CITY CLERKI SEOFFICE BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H SEGB and BRAD NICHOLSON APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE ANI RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR from a decision of the Department of Community RECONSIDERATION and Economic Development I. INTRODUCTION South End Gives Back ("SEGB") and Brad Nicholson (collectively,"Appellant") have filed a Motion with the Hearing Examiner for reconsideration of his decision to deny the Appellant's SEPA appeal, and to approve the Site Plan and Master Plan applications. The Appellant's motion should be denied. II. ARGUMENT A. The Massman Declaration is outside of the record and must be stricken. The Appellant is attempting to submit new evidence (the Declaration of Joel Massman) into the record. The Declaration should not be allowed into the record. As stated below, the APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO MgQLL[iUGH Haj— PS APPEUANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 701 Fift Avenue, Suite 7220 Pagel of b Seattle, Washington 98104 2D6.812.3388 206.812.3389 fix 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 stormwater system was fully explained both prior to and during the hearing. The Appellant was free to visit the site prior to the hearing to look at the existing ditch, and present these facts at the hearing. It chose not to do so, and the post -hearing submission of the Massman Declaration is untimely. It must not be allowed into the hearing record. B. The Motion is an attempt by the Appellant to flip-flop its arguments after its previous arguments were without evidentiary support and were rejected by the Examiner. The Appellant bases its Motion for Reconsideration upon "new information regarding water flow on the subject property." Appellant's Motion, p. 1. The Appellant alleges that this "new information" was uncovered as a result of hearing evidence and "subsequent investigation." In fact, this "new information" was not only presented at the hearing, but was available to the Appellant prior to the hearing. The Motion is simply the Appellant's attempt insert new arguments post -hearing, now that its previous arguments have been shown to be without evidentiary support, and have been wholly rejected by the Examiner. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. As the Examiner remembers, the Appellant's arguments regarding stormwater were based on an erroneous assumption that the entire site would be converted from pervious surface to impervious surface. Hearing Examiner's Decision, pp. 3-4. This assumption was found to be untrue; the pervious surfaces of the site will remain pervious. Hearing Examiner's Decision, p. 5 (Testimony of D. Mitzel). The Appellant argued at the appeal (without doing studies or basing the arguments upon any facts in the record) that infiltration of on -site groundwater would "likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington." First Massman Declaration, p. 3. APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO —M-UGH EiI[J.. PS APPLLLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Page 2 of 6 Se+ude, Washington 98104 206,812-3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 ►s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Now, the Appellant is attempting to assert a completely opposite argument: that infiltration of groundwater actually constitutes "best available science." (See Second Massman Declaration, p. 3: a "groundwater infiltration facility... would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site." Not only is this the exact opposite of what the Appellant previously argued, it is a new argument being made post -hearing, based on evidence that was readily available both before and during the hearing. The Hearing Examiner must disregard this new argument, and must deny the Motion for Reconsideration. RMC 4-8-1OO.G.4 allows an interested person to make a Motion for Reconsideration based on "the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." (emphasis added). Here, the Appellant admits that it learned that the stormwater system would convey water to the roadside ditch "at the hearing." Appellant's Motion, p. 4. See also Hearing Examiner Derision, p. 7 (Testimony of P. Severin). Both the Appellant and Dr. Massman were present for the hearing, and were fi-ee to present evidence and make arguments regarding the stormwater conveyance system. The fact that stormwater is conveyed to the roadside ditch was also stated in the stormwater report submitted to the City (See Technical Information Report, p. 6), which was made available to the Appellant prior to the hearing. Thus, this is not "new information" under RMC 4-8-100.G.4, as the Appellant knew this information both prior to the hearing and at the hearing itself The Appellant may not make new arguments on "old" evidence, after the hearing has been closed. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 3 of 6 MCCULLOUGH HILL. )PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.8123389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 1a 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. The Appellant has not proven significant adverse impacts that would require the preparation of an ELS. Even if the Massman Declaration could be allowed into the record, its inclusion does not constitute affirmative evidence that the proposal will have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact which would require the preparation of an EIS. The Appellant's motion must be denied. As stated in the Applicant's previous briefing to the Examiner, the Appellant bore the burden of producing affirmative evidence of significant adverse impacts on the environment. Mere complaints are insufficient to satisfy an appellant's burden of proof in a SEPA appeal as a matter of law. Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 719-720 (2002); Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wa. App. 6, 31 P.3d 703 (2001). The Massman Declaration and the Motion for Reconsideration wrongly stage that uncontroverted testimony establishes the groundwater patterns in the area. In fact, the First and Second Massman Declarations were not based on any actual studies of the site's groundwater by Dr. Massman himself, which is what is required by the law. Boehm, I t I Wn. App. at 719; Mass, 109 Wn. App. at 6. Dr. Massman himself admits that the declarations were not based on any study, but were instead based on estimates, assumptions, and inferences (Second Massman Declaration, Para. 7; First Massman declaration, Para. 11). Thus, the declarations are insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof in this SEPA appeal. The Examiner's decision did not constitute an error of law. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied. APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO APPELCANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Page 4 of 6 MCCULLOUGH HWI RS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seartk, Washington 98104 206.812-3388 206.8123389 fax z 3 4 5 6 7 >t 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. All evidence in the record shows no impact to the environment. The Appellant argues that SEPA requires reversal of "ecological damage already done." Appellant's Motion, P. 5. The Appellant's argument is not supported by the law) SEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when a proposal has been determined to have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. RCW 43.21C.031(1). An "impact" is defined as the effect or consequences of the project action. WAC 197-11-752_ In this case, the stormwater system will have no impact to the environment, as it will convey the storm runoff to the same location that it ends up in today. All testimony and evidence in the record shows that the shows that the on -site stormwater currently flows from the site into the roadside ditch. After development, stormwater from the site will be filtered through a "rain garden" system, and a pipe "conveys it to the same drainage ditch that has been conveying stormwater from the site in the past... [snaking) the conclusions of the Massman declaration inconsequential." Hearing Examiner's Decision, p. 16. Thus, all evidence in the record shows no change to the ultimate water flow, and therefore no significant adverse impact to the environment as a result of the stormwater system! To state that the project should somehow be responsible to rectify conditions that are not a result of the project's impacts is not supported by the law (see Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1994)). The Motion for Reconsideration is not supported by the law. It mast be denied. 1 The Appellant cites to the ASAARCO case in support of this allegation. The ASARCO case was decided before the SEPA regulations were enacted. In addition, Mr. Scully stated at the hearing that "the goal of SEPA is not to make things slightly better than they used to be..." (Hearing Examiner Decision, p. 4). APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO MCCULLOTJOH Hlt>':I., PS APPLLLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 72M Page 5 of 6 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812,3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V. CONCLUSION The Appellant has attempted to assert new arguments and new evidence into the closed record to support its Motion. for Reconsideration. The Appellant has failed to show any errors of fact or judgment on the part of the Examiner, and has failed to show that any information relied upon now was not reasonably available at the hearing. There is no evidence in the record showing that the proposal will create significant adverse impacts on the environment. The Motion for Reconsideration must be denied, and the Examiner's decisions must be upheld. DATED this � day of October, 2009. McCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. Jo cCulTough; WSBA #12740 J M. Clawson, WSBA #36901 Att M. for Applicant Alpert International 2 The stormwater system will improve the quality of runoff, however. The project must comply with the 2005 Icing County Surface Water Design Manual. MCQJ1 wyGH HILL. PS APPLICANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND RESPONSE TO 701 Fib Avcnuc� Suite 7220 APPLLLANT'S MOTION .FOR RECONSIDERATION Seattle, Wash*Bt°n 98104 Page 6 of 6 206,812.3388 206.812.3389 fax MCCU LLOUG H HILL, PS September 24, 2009 CITYOF RENTON Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Applicant's appeal to City Council/request for reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear City Clerk: SEP 2 4 2009 CITY CLERKS OFFICE Enclosed with this letter is a request for reconsideration, as well as an appeal to City Council, along with the $75.00 appeal fee, for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. We are simultaneously filing the request for reconsideration and the appeal to City Council, because the Renton Municipal Code is not clear as to whether filing a request for reconsideration tolls the time period for filing an appeal to the City Council. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, 66-- jes a M. Clawson 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseanle.com cc -- Fk d kaU Rr,r,x" MCCULLOUGH H 1 LL, Ps CITY Or RENTON September 24, 2009 SEP 2 4 2009 CITY C ENN s a°FFICE The Honorable Fred J. Kaufman City of Renton Hearing Examiner Renton Cite Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Applicant's request for reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear Mr. Examiner: We are writing on behalf of the applicant for Hawk's Landing Hotel to respectfully request reconsideration of two conditions placed on the Master Site Plan and Site Plan Review approvals granted by you on September 10, 2009. RMC 4-8-100 allows an interested person to make a written application for reconsideration of the Examiner's decision when the person feels that the decision is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing. The Hearing Examiner's conclusions and conditions regarding landscaping were a result of an rror of law, fact, and judgment. The applicant requests reconsideration of the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject site_ While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. Therefore, the remaining acreage should be incorporated at least minimally. The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as on the north frontage." Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, the applicant should plant additional street trees along the 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 - Fax 206,812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com Page 2of5 remaining Lake Washington Boulevard frontage at the same ratio and species as is planted along the north frontage." the applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and this condition because: • The applicant is already significantly improving the site by redeveloping it and landscaping it. See Conclusion 12: "Redevelopment of the site will counter the neighborhood deterioration and blight that the current site represents." The property to which this condition applies lies outside the boundaries of the subject master site plan and site plan application, and the applicant has proposed no development on this section of the site. Therefore, this condition is not within the scope of the application and may not properly be imposed under this application. When the applicant proposes development in this portion of the site as part of a site plan and master site plan approval for the remainder of the larger property, street trees would be required by code. In addition, requiring street trees along Lake Washington Boulevard when there is no plan for redevelopment may interfere with the future redevelopment of this portion of the site trees may need to be removed or relocated in order to accommodate the future development (construction access, sidewalks, driveways, etc.)_ The City of Renton has received an appropriation from the State of Washington for improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard associated with the redevelopment of the entire area (including the Hawk's Landing site, the Barbee Mills site, the Quendall Terminals site, and the Seahawks site). These facts were not reasonably- available at the time of hearing as the appropriation was still in process at the time. It is our understanding that the appropriation includes funds for street trees and other street improvements on the southern portion of the Hawk's Landing site. As the City has already taken responsibility for this improvement, the improvement cannot be part of this approval. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10 should be revised to read: Conclusion 6: "The Master Plan process does include `master planning' for the entire subject site. While the applicant is trying to confine its footprint, the spare nature of the remaining site will detract from what appears to be a quality image. , the t-emkiRl"I., The Master Plan cannot escape that there is a much larger site that suffers from old, deteriorating buildings that will reflect on the current proposal. This office believes that the applicant and staff can work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. Additionally, Future redevelol2ment of the southern Vortion of the site not 12rol2osed for development with this application will require consistency with City- of Renton landscaping requirements, including the planting of street trees." Page 3 of 5 Condition 10: "The applicant and staff shall work on a plan that accommodates additional landscaping within the boundaries of the current site plan application, even temporary landscaping in planter boxes with some larger trees to screen or breakup the view of the background unsightly portions of the site east and west of the parking areas. The Hearing Exminer's conclusions and conditions regarding stormwater were a result of an error of law, fact, and judgment. The applicant requests reconsideration and clarification of the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9: Conclusion 5: "Those waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant should use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. There is no reason to jeopardize May creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." Condition 9: "The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. The stormwater shall be treated by whatever means including water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature in order to reduce pollution entering the ditch and then May Creek. The development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas." The applicant requests reconsideration of this conclusion and condition because: • The City of Renton has not adopted "best available science" as a standard for stormwater treatment. The Hearing Examiner is therefore without jurisdiction to impose such a standard. The City of Renton has adopted the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual as its accepted method for treatment of stormwater, which includes the use of "best management practices (BMPs)". The applicant will comply with these standards, including the use of best management practices in its stormwater system design. The City of Renton has determined, through adoption of this manual, that compliance ,with the manual is sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, compliance with these adopted standards will ensure that "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas. M The factual record, including the Hearing Examiner's own findings of fact, does not support this conclusion or condition. There was no evidence submitted into the record for the Site Plan/Master Plan hearing showing that the applicant's stormwater plan, or its plan to comply,with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, would result in harm to May Creek or Lake Washington (see hearing record page 12—no evidence was submitted into this application's record by Mr. Scully showing any stormwater impacts warranting the Page 4of5 use of best available science). The Hearing Examiner found that "The proposal will not be exacerbating any issues with pollutants from the Quendall Terminals site discharging into Lake Washington_ The applicant will be governed by City, State, and Federal regulations regarding discharge ftorn the subject site." (Site Plan approval, Finding 27). In addition, the Hearing Examiner concluded as part of the SEPA appeal that the stormwater "will not travel the downhill gradient toward and to bake Washington. It will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from the contaminated soils into the lake." (SEPA Appeal, conclusion 6). As such, the facts of the case do not support conclusion 5 or condition 9. • The conclusion and condition are vague and may be implied to establish a new, non - regulatory standard for stormwater discharge quality (i.e., that the "development shall not jeopardize May Creek and/or Lake Washington with pollutants created or collected on this site's paved or treated landscaping areas").. No impacts are shown to warrant such a new standard, and the Hearing Examiner does not have authority to create or impose such a standard in the absence of such impacts. The law presumes that compliance with the City's applicable stormwater regulations will adequately address issues of stormwater quality, so this regulatory standard should suffice. We assume that it was not the Hearing Examiner's intention to establish a new standard for water quality separate and apart from the City's stormwater regulations, so we are seeking reconsideration and clarification of this issue. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 should be revised to read: Conclusion 5: "Those watets should be handled with respect and appropriately- treated by whatever water retention, detention, or "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant must com 1., with the Ci , of Renton's standards regarding stormwater the 2005 Ding County Surface Water Design Manual There is no evidence in the record that would suggest May Creek or Lake Washington would be jeopardized as a result of the application. ire Condition 9: "The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual use best ---aAable seienein treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. iirftin )l f " Schedule for response We understand that the other party involved with this matter, Brad Nicholson, may respond to our request for clarification. We have spoken with Mr. Nicholson's attorney, Keith Scully, and have settled upon the following response schedule: Page 5 of 5 Response due: September 30 Reply due: October 5 We hope that this schedule is acceptable to the Hearing Examiner. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this request for reconsideration. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or requests for additional information. Sincerely, n C. McCullough CC' Ann Nielsen, Renton City Attorney Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson cit}' oof l October 1, 2009 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 CITY OF RENTON O C T 0 1 2000 CITY CLER 5 OFFICE City of Renton's Response to Applicant and Appellant's Request for Reconsideration Dear Mr. Examiner: On September 24, 2009, both Applicant Alpert International, LLC ("Applicant") and Appellant Brad Nicholson ("Appellant") filed respective requests for reconsideration of the Examiner's Report and Decision in the Lawks Landing case, LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, dated September 10, 2009 ("Decision") . The City of Renton ("City") hereby submits its response to the specific issues raised in both Applicant and Appellant's respective submissions. City's Response to Applicant's Reconsideration/Clarification Request The City concurs with Applicant's request to modify the language of Conclusion 6 and Condition 10 of the Decision and in particular, agrees with the two bulleted reasons (as set forth in page 2 of Applicant's Request for Reconsideration) for this request. It further joins in Applicant's proposed modifications to the language of Conclusion 6 and Conclusion 10. The City further concurs with Applicant's request to modify the language of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 of the Decision with one modification. Where Applicant seeks to eliminate the term "best available science", the City proposes replacing that term with "best management practice" in Condition 9 so that it reads: "The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual and use best management practices in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch." The City otherwise, has no objection to the proposed changes to Condition 5 and Condition 9. City's Response to Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration As to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Appellant, the City objects and moves to strike the September 23, 2009, Second Declaration of Joel Massman ("Second Massman Ded"). The City submits that Appellant's motion is procedurally deficient and is nothing other than an attempt to pad the now closed record. City's Response to Reconsideration October 1, 2009 Page 2 In submitting a motion for reconsideration, Appellant seeks to enter into the record, another declaration from their expert, Massman. Appellant cites to RMC 4-8-100G.4 claiming that there was "discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing" to wit, information regarding the impermeable liner in the proposed rain garden. Appellant's motion raises objections to the project's stormwater drainage plans and in doing so, alleges that Appellant first heard of Applicant's intent to place "an impermeable liner" in the "rain garden" so that "no infiltration would occur onsite." Based on this supposed new information gleaned at the hearing, Appellant now contends that he is entitled to submit a new second declaration from Massman, their purported expert. Massman's Second Decl. is nothing other inadmissible new evidence which is untimely and should be precluded from the record. It is disingenuous for Appellant to now argue that the use of an impermeable liner constitutes "new evidence" when the crux of his entire SEPA appeal hinged on stormwater drainage issues. The primary focus of Appellant's SEPA appeal focused on infiltration issues and thus, the lining of a rain garden is hardly new or novel to merit new consideration. Appellant seeks to distinguish the infiltration issue into the rain garden's impermeable liner versus the ditch pond. The distinction is hardly discernable. An appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision would go to the Renton City Council under RMC 4-8-110E.8. in the rules governing the City Council review of that appeal, the code clearly states in relevant part, that "No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner." RMC4-8- 110F.1.5. As Appellant is likely looking to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council, this reconsideration motion is a last ditch attempt to pad the record with extraneous information which should be precluded. The Second Massman Decl is nothing other than an untimely critique of information that was not only readily available, but presented and discussed at both the SEPA appeal and site plan hearing. In fact, most of the information in paragraphs 1 through 10 is recitations or restatements of general information or facts that was presented at the hearing. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are nothing other than unsubstantiated opinions and point of view of Appellant's expert. Mr. Massman appeared at the SEPA hearing, and had an opportunity to comment and present whatever information and opinion, expert or otherwise. Having opted not to stay for the entire hearing, he should not be permitted to reopen the record to now comment and offer his opinions. City's Response to Reconsideration October 1, 2009 Page 3 Accordingly, the City respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner grant the City's motion to strike the Second Declaration of Massman and further, deny Appellant's motion for reconsideration. Resp ctfully Submitted, sz4wq-- Ann Nielsen, Asst. City Attorney CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED MCCULLOUGH H1LL, PS Oct 52009 CITE OF TON HEAPIN13 EXAMINER October 5, 2009 The Honorable Fred J. Kauftnan City of Renton Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Applicant's reply for motion fox reconsideration LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Hawk's Landing Hotel Dear Mr. Examiner: We are writing to reply to SEGB and Brad Nicholson's ("Appellant's'� response to our notion for reconsideration. The Appellants responded only to our stormwater issues, implying that they do riot oppose out proposed changes regarding landscaping. Our reply is therefore limited to stormwater issues. The Annellant misunderstands the motion for reconsideration. The Appellant takes out motion for reconsideration of stormwater conditions to mean that we have argued that the Hearing Examiner has no authority to impose any conditions regarding stormwater management. This is not the case. Instead, the applicant is simply requesting reconsideration and clarification of a conclusion and condition that is unclear, and imports a new, undefined, and unadopted standard. The CM, of Renton has determined that the project will need to comply with the 2005 Ding County Surface Water Design Manual, which includes the use of defined "best management practices ("BMPs"). The City has determined that these standards are sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. There is no evidence in the record to show that these standards would not be sufficient to properly treat and convey stormwater. Thus, the applicant requests that Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 be revised to refer to an already -adopted standard into the Examiner's decision. Compliance with the manual will ensure the Hearing Examiner's goal of protecting the lake and the creek, ,while allowing certainty to the applicant when developing the project. Best available science is not a defined term. The Appellant would have the Examiner adopt an undefined term as a condition of approval. "Best available science" is not defined by the Renton Municipal Code. The Appellant would import this undefined tenn from critical areas regulations that do not govern stormwater. See RMC 4-3-050. It has not adopted critical areas regulations as a means of controlling stormwater, and has not adopted 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206-812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com Page 2 of 3 "best available science" as a standaxd for regulating stormwater. We therefore ask that the Hewing Examiner revise his decision to use a terra (Best Management Practices' that has already been adopted by the City of Renton for stormwater regulation, and is defined by the stormwater manual. Any condition requires a nexus. The Appellant wrongly states that "there is no requirement that a showing of harm be made prior to the Examiner imposing conditions to protect the environment." (Appellant's Response, p. 2). As we previously argued, there is no evidence in the record that the proposed project would cause the impacts alleged by the Appellant. All evidence in the record shows .no change to the ultimate water flow, and therefore no significant adverse impact to the environment as a result of the stormwater system. To state that the project should somehow be responsible to rectify conditions that are not a result of the project's impacts is not supported by the law. Dalrrji a Czy of Tiaid, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 23 09, 129 L. ed. 2d 304 (1994)). The Appellant's arguments regarding this matter are not valid, and are unsupported by the late and the facts of this matter. The applicant therefore requests that the following portions of Conclusion 5 and Condition 9 should be revised to read: Conclusion 5: `� hose waters should be handled with respect and appropriately treated by whatever water retention, detention, at "rain garden" feature is used. The applicant must comI21y,;Adffi-the City of Renton's standards reMding stormwater the 2005 King County Surface Water Design ManualL There is no evidence in the record that would suggest May Creek or Lake Washington would be jeopardized as a result of the apVLhcation. The Condition 9: "The applicant shall comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. , "rein ]) , ]f Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, 4jeca M. Clawson Page 3 of 3 cc: Ann Nielsen,, Renton City Attorney Keith Scully, Attorney for Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RECEIVED VCT 5 2000 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } } SEG13, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) Petitioners, ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } ss. COUNTY OF KING } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply to Applicant's Response to Motion for Reconsideration to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: {20B) 621.6868 Fax:12061621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S, 100 South 2" d Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsenC&,rentonwa.gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P,S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), iessica@mhseattle.com DATED this day of az—'T46-42�- 1South End Gives Bnok(Den)0ec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION L INTRODUCTION The Applicant urges the Examiner to strike the Second Declaration of Joel Massman, and deny the motion for reconsideration.' For the reasons noted herein, the motion to strike should be denied, and the motion for reconsideration granted. II. ARGUMENT A. The Applicant Misunderstands the Motion for Reconsideration. The Applicant correctly notes that the facts presented in the application (that the buildings on site would be deconstructed and the area hydroseeded), and at hearing (that 1 The City, evidently forgetting its duty to remain impartial, joins with the Applicant in the Applicant's request to the Hearing Examiner to write out of RMC 4-9- 200(E)(1) the Examiner's authority to mitigate impacts, yet objects to SEGB's request to have a complete record. Because the City adds only hyperbole to the Applicant's arguments, the City's briefing is not separately addressed herein. GENDLER & MANN. LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 101? REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Pg RECONSIDERATION - 1 Fax; 12061 621•0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 impervious surface would remain) were vastly different, and that SEGB had to re-evaluate its concerns. The Applicant then mistakenly argues that SEGB is now "assert[ing] a completely opposite argument." Response at 3, The Applicant misunderstands SEGB's motion for reconsideration. Groundwater infiltration throughout the site as SEGB believed would occur prior to the hearing, would lead to increased groundwater flow to Quendall Terminals. But what has been proposed as BAS is a detention facility on the side of the property opposite Quendall Terminals, constructed so that stormwater infiltrates the ground and flows to May Creek, rather than the current proposal, which uses a malfunctioning ditch and leads to groundwater infiltration on the Quendall Terminals side of the property. See Second Massman Dec. B. The Information About the Malfunctioning Ditch was not Reasonabl Discoverable. Information should be admitted after a hearing if it "could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing." RMC 4-8-100(g). In this case, the information about the malfunctioning ditch was only discovered as a result of comments made by City Staff at the hearing regarding the presence of "orange scum" standing in the ditch. SEGB is a citizen's group with limited resources. The Applicant, by contrast, has conducted numerous studies on the site, and presented a range of information regarding the site and the Applicant's construction plans. SEGB reasonably relied on the application, which claims that the water would flow through the ditch, and thence to May Creek. Technical Information Report, at 7. The application is inaccurate — as subsequent investigation determined, the ditch does not "convey[] the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek" as claimed, TIR at 7; contrast Second Massman Dec. GENDL£R & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101. REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: RECONSIDERATION - 2 Fax:4206fi8 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Applicant's contention that it is too late to rectify the misinformation presented in its own application because it was only discovered during the hearing process is disingenuous; the precise reason a motion for reconsideration exists is to manage situations like this one. The Applicant's argument that because the information was uncovered "at the prior hearing" we were free to present rebuttal evidence is similarly disingenuous. The hearing lasted one day. There was no opportunity for Dr. Massman to visit the site. Moreover, presenting the information at this juncture allows the Applicant time to evaluate and respond, rather than presenting it at the hearing without any notice. Tellingly, the Applicant has no factual response to Dr. Massman's conclusions, but instead argues only that the Examiner must "see no evil" and ignore the actual condition of the ditch. C. The Examiner Must Consider the Project's Location Next to a Su erftand Site. The Applicant argues that, because they assert that stormwater flow will not be changed, they are exempt from SEPA review. Response, at 5. First, stormwater flow may increase, because the Applicant is now re -grading the site to cause all water to flow to a lined ditch (the Applicant's "rain garden") and thence to the ground via the malfunctioning ditch. Second, SEPA requires consideration of the impacts of a project on the environment if there are adverse environmental consequences, even if the project only maintains the status quo. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979); WAC 197-11-752. The Applicant inexplicably argues that "the ASARCO case was decided before the SEPA regulations were enacted," but fails to explain why this matters. Response at 5. ASARCO is a SEPA case, and has not been overruled by either statute or the courts. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 E REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR Seattle, WA 98101 RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fox; (206) 6210512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, the Applicant's citation to WAC 197-11-752 does not aid its case, The "effect or consequences" of the project action, in this case, is to continue the harmful flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals. WAC 197-11-752 and ASARCO are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, Applicant's passing reference to Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) is inapposite. Response at 5. Dolan is a takings case. SEGB is not arguing that the Applicant must clean up Quendall Terminals, or dedicate its entire site to the public good. But the Applicant wants to develop a location right next to a Superfund site. The impacts of development must be studied in an EIS, just as if the Applicant had purchased a site next to a steep slope and was proposing activity that might destabilize (or continue to destabilize) the area. The EIS will tell the decisionmaker whether this development should be approved at all, and what can be donc to minimize impacts on the downslope toxins. Arguments about Dolan come later. Dated this 5th day of October, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scul y WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants \south End Gives Back (Den)\Reply to Applic Response 10 05 09 REPLY TO APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 88101 Phone: 12061 621-813fib Fax:[2061621.0512 GENDLER & MANN, LLP ATTORNEYS -AT -LAW Michael W. Gendler* David S. Mann Keith P. Scully Brendan W. Donckers *Also admitted in Oregon Clerk City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7' Floor Renton, WA 98057 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 1015 SEATTLF-WA 98101 September 24, 2009 RE: File No. LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal to the Renton City Council. CITY OF RENTON S E P 2 4 2009 7 RECEIVED CITY CLER K'S OFFICE (206) 621-8868 Fax (206) 621-0512 keith(ftendlermann. com www.gendiermann.com We are also filing today a Motion for Reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner. We respectfully request that no action be taken on the appeal until we've received a response to our motion. Very truly yours, GENDLER & MANN, LLP r Keith P. Scully KPS : den Enclosure cc: Client t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, CkTY OF RENTON SEP 2 4 2009 CITY CL HN S OFFICE Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. AGREED BRIEFING SCHEDULE The parties have conferred, and agree that any response shall be due by 5 p.m. on October 1, 2009, and any reply due by 5 p.m. on October 5, 2009. II. MOTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) move the Examiner to reconsider his decision denying the Appeal of SEPA Detennination, and approving the Master Site Plan and Site Plan in this matter based on new information regarding water flow on the subject property. This new information was uncovered as a result of testimony from the applicant and city staff at the hearing, and subsequent investigation, and was not reasonably available before the hearing. Because the site's design will concentrate all or virtually all of the site's surface water into a ditch, and information presented at the hearing GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA 98101 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and investigated by Appellant's expert after the hearing indicates that the ditch is an infiltration feature, the Examiner's decision is based on an error of fact. Moreover, the Examiner erred in law, with or without the new information, and erred in judgment in limiting stormwater treatment options to dumping water in to a ditch that fails to convey water offsite. III. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED - The September 23, 2009 Second Declaration of Joel Massman (Second Massman Dec.) (attached). - The files, pleadings, and evidence presented at the hearing in this matter. IV. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 1. The Hearing Examiner erred in finding as a matter of fact that: Water will be directed to a rain garden and then be conveyed to the drainage ditch along the west side of the subject site. The water will be treated in the rain garden and while the phrase "rain garden" may not have its normal meaning, infiltration will not follow treatment. The stormwater will be collected, channeled and conveyed to the offsite drainage ditch. It will not be left to percolate in to the underlying soils. HE Decision at p. 17, ¶ 6. 2. The Examiner erred in law by finding that: The appellants have not provided evidence that the ERC erred. The decision below is not clearly erroneous and the decision below should be affirmed. HE Decision at p. 17, T 6. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 GENDLER & MANN. LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 101! Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The Examiner erred in concluding as a matter of law that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, ¶ 6. 4. The Examiner erred in judgment by approving the Master Site Plan and Site Plan with the following condition: The applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch. Decision at p. 25, 110. V. ARGUMENT A. Standard for Reconsideration RMC 4-8-100(G) provides for reconsideration: Any interested person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written application for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered. 1. The Decision rests on an error of fact. At the hearing, Appellant SEGB presented expert testimony regarding potential groundwater infiltration on the site based upon the Applicant's description of its proposal in the application materials, which appeared to indicate that a significant portion of the site would be left as either bare earth or hydroseeded. The Applicant responded at the hearing by clarifying its plan, stating that it intended to leave the impervious surfaces throughout the site either intact or replace them with new impervious surfaces. The Applicant stated that it intended to grade the development area and route all water flow to a "rain garden," GENALER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101 i Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with water then flowing to a drainage ditch. New information presented at the hearing included a drawing of the "rain garden," which had an impermeable liner, meaning that no infiltration would occur onsite. This "rain garden" is simply a conveyance measure, not a treatment measure. Second Massman Dec. at ¶¶ 1-3, At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that the flow of water would be through the ditch and to May Creek. Although not reflected in the summary of testimony, City staff testified that the ditch had standing water and "orange scum" in it, and that City staff had difficulty or were unable to maintain it. A site visit by hydrogeologist Joel Massman revealed that there is water standing in the ditch, even though this is dry weather. Second Massman Dec. at ¶ 6. The design of the ditch includes a higher inlet elevation than the culvert, meaning that water flowing into the ditch will stand in a pond, rather than flow to May Creek. Id. Dr. Massman notes that: A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. Second Massman Dec. at 17 (emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly found, the City must conduct an EIS if there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts. Decision at p. 17, ¶ 4. The Examiner correctly noted that uncontroverted testimony established that groundwater flows from the development site to Quendall Terminals, and conveys pollutants to Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, ¶ 14; Second Massman Dec. at ¶ 11. The new information from the Applicant that all stormwater will MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone; (2061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 flow to the ditch, and from the City and Joel Massman that the ditch ponds, and thence infiltrates the ground, means that the same arguments raised regarding increased permeable surface apply to the use of a ditch that serves as an infiltration feature. Second Massman Dec. The appeal should be granted and an EIS must be ordered. 2. Denying the SEPA appeal rested on an error of law. In addition to the new information regarding groundwater infiltration, the Examiner's decision should be reversed because it rests on an error of law. The Examiner concluded that the ERC did not err in its review of the DNS because the project "will not exacerbate pollutants leaching from contaminated soils into the lake." Decision at p. 17, ¶ 6. But SEPA does not require that a project exacerbate environmental issues. The threshold determination for an EIS is whether the development proposal is "likely to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); RCW 43.21C.031; WAC 197-11-360. That the proposal causes new impacts is not dispositive of whether an EIS is required; nor is it necessary that the proposal increase environmental impacts. ASARCO Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501 (1979), In ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The court held that even though there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the action still required an EIS. As the ASARCO court noted, SEPA "aims not only to prevent further environmental degradation but to reverse, where possible, ecological damage already done." Id. In this case, uncontroverted evidence demonstrated that groundwater flow carries toxins from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. Decision at p. 15, ¶M 10-11. Infiltration MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 from the site will maintain or increase groundwater flow. Decision at p. 14, ¶ 15. Because the ditch does not convey all water offsite, but instead allows infiltration, the ongoing harm of toxin flow via groundwater provided from the site will be continued. Like ASARCO, an EIS is required to study the impacts and evaluate alternatives. An EIS would provide substantial information to the decisionmaker on how best to handle the project's impacts on the adjacent Superfund site. Unlike a threshold determination, an EIS requires consideration of alternatives. There are numerous options available for how stormwater is handled on the project. Some options, like the use of the infiltrating ditch, increase or at best maintain the flow of groundwater to Quendall Terminals. Another option, the BAS option, would be to channel the water the other way, towards May Creek, and thence to an infiltration feature on the other side of the property. Second Massman Dec. at ¶¶ 11-12. An EIS would quantify the impacts of the project as submitted, a no -action alternative, and other means of handling stormwater, and allow Renton to make an informed decision on whether to allow this project as proposed or require stormwater management more tailored to the unique circumstances of the site. 3. The Examiner erred in ordering that water be dumped in the ditch. The Examiner ordered that "[t]he applicant shall use best available science in treating stormwater before conveying it to the roadside ditch." Decision at p. 25, ¶ 9. But the new information regarding the infiltration of water from the ditch means that this condition will not prevent pollutants from entering Lake Washington. As Dr. Massman opines, the Best Available Science for handling stormwater on the site is not to use the ditch: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206► 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. Second Massman Dec. at ¶M 11-12. While undoubtedly well-intentioned, the Examiner's decision thus improperly limits the stormwater treatment options to a system that makes no sense, given the unique topography of the site and the presence of Quendall Terminals downslope from a "ditch" that actually serves as an infiltration pond. Dated this 24th day of September, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By. Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants 1South End Gives Back(Den)1Molion For Reconsideration FINAL 9 24 09 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7 GENULER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 101E Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621.8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: 1. I am a civil engineer and have been retained by Brad Nicholson and South End Gives Back to assist in addressing stormwater and other site development issues related to the proposed land use at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard. 2. I provided a previous declaration related to this project dated July 17, 2009. 3. My educational and work experiences are described in Items 1 through. 3 in my First Declaration, dated July 17, 2009. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 22°d day of September 2009, `�-- I 011�1� Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. ORIGINAL I have reviewed the Report and Decision from the Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton dated September 10, 2009. This document includes minutes from the August 25, 2009 hearing held in the Council Chambers of the Renton City Hall. These minutes include the following information that was not previously provided to me: 1. The portion of the site that is impervious will remain very similar to its present condition. There is no plan to change the existing square footage of impervious surface in the area related to the hotel development. 2. The rain gardens that have been proposed as a component of the stormwater plan for the site will be lined and will not be used to infiltrate storm water. 3. The applicant states that rain gardens are required, "per the King County Manual," to treat storm water from pollution generating impervious surfaces. Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of the September 10, 2009 Report and Decision and on my review of documents identified in my first declaration dated July 176, 2009 include the following: Rain gardens are listed in the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual as flow control best management practices (BMP's). They are not listed as a water quality treatment BMP or option. 2. The efficacy of rain gardens as a water quality treatment technology has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 3. The efficacy of rain gardens that are lined with impermeable liners has not been evaluated or described in the land use application or in the King County Design Manual. 4. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation and runoff from impervious surfaces, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces at the site may be in the range of 20 to 25 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. 6. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on -site storm system that discharges to the ditch. Based on information included in the April 28, 2009 report prepared by Sound Development Group LLC entitled "Technical Information Report for Hawk's Landing Crown Plaza Hotel," The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. 7. A significant portion of the stormwater runoff that is currently directed to the roadside ditch likely infiltrates into the subsurface and does not discharge into May Creek. Estimates of the amount of the runoff that infiltrates in this ditch have not been developed, but it would be reasonable to assume that the groundwater recharge from this ditch is significant. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. 9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 10. Groundwater recharge from the existing roadside ditch likely contributes to the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. 11. Directing the stormwater runoff from the 7.8 acre site to an infiltration facility constructed along the southern edge of the 7.8 acre site would have less negative impact in terms of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site. Groundwater recharge in this area would also improve stream flow in May Creek. 12. A groundwater infiltration facility along the 7.8 acre site would represent the best available science in terms of reducing contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminal site caused by groundwater infiltration from the existing roadside ditch and in terms of improving base flow to May Creek. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 1, KEITH P. SCULLY, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for petitioners/appellants SEGB and Brad Nicholson in the above -captioned action. I make this declaration in order to satisfy the requirements of GR 17(a)(2). 2. The document to be filed is the Second Declaration of Joel Massman. 3. I have examined the document, determined that it consists of five (5) pages, including this declaration and excluding exhibits, and that it is complete and legible. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - I GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this 241h day of September, 2009, at Seattle, Washington, KEITH P. SCULLY, WSBA No. 28677 \South End Gives Back(Den)lDec Scully FAX 9 24 09 DECLARATION OF KEITH P. SCULLY REGARDING FILING OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION - 2 GENDLER 6 MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) Petitioners, ) } STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } SS. COUNTY OF KING ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Motion for Reconsideration, and Second Declaration of Joel Massman to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 QRIGINAL GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: {2061621.3868 Fax: (206) 621 -OS 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen(r';rentonwa.gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), iessica(d-,mliseattle.com DATED this 29 ' " day of �� , 200 9 , at Seattle, Washington. -- rcc� TA COAKLEY \South End Gives Sack(Den)\Dec sm GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-8868 DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 241 L_ 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Bract Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, � EC EIV7D ^. Tv, CLERK'S OFF CL: L',Lt 116c 1LLi55•:�Jnr' Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant and City ask the Examiner to approve the City's decision to issue a mitigated Determination of Non -Significance rather than mandating an Environmental Impact Statement, but provide no evidence and little argument beyond broad citations to deference in support. The Applicant and City also correctly assert that the standard of review for the portion of the August 25, 2009 hearing on the Master Site Plan is de novo, rather than clear error, but fail to justify the City's failure to require a drainage plan, habitat management plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) as part of the Master Site Plan_ An EIS should be required, and the Master Site Plan application denied. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 1 ORIGINAL GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: [2061621-8868 Fax.- [206) 621.0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26' 27 28 I1, ARGUMENT A. The Applicant Should Be Precluded From Presenting Surprise Evidence at the Hearin In response to the notice of appeal and briefing of appellant SEGB, the Applicant has provided cursory briefing and a promise that the facts and argument "will be further established and supplemented by evidence presented at hearing." Applicant's Brief at 2. By contrast, SEGB's arguments have been developed and disclosed in advance of the hearing, to allow the panics and hearing examiner to fully consider them. The Applicant has had months if not years to compile and disclose data to the City. The Applicant and City should not be allowed to litigate by surprise through failing to disclose information in advance of the hearing. SEGB respectfully requests that the Applicant present all document and summaries of testimony in advance of the hearing, and that the Examiner allow SEGB to supplement the record in response to any previously undisclosed material, B. The Examiner has jurisdiction to review both the MDNS and the Master Site Plan Both the City and Applicant argue that the Hearing Examiner does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the Master Site Plan. Applicant's Brief at 9-10; City's Brief at 3-4. But the City has scheduled a joint hearing for both the Master Site Plan and the MDNS, with the same deadlines for appeal of the MDNS and public comment on the Master Site Plan. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to decide both- Applicant's theory that "[t]he only issue before the Examiner is whether the appellant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the City's issuance of the MDNS was clearly erroneous" is REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 2 GENIXER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 simply mistaken. Applicant's Brief at 4. While SEGB's filing perhaps would have been more completely captioned as "notice of appeal and public comment," SEGB has submitted arguments and evidence on both the MDNS and Master Site Plan, and the Examiner must consider these arguments in each part of the proceeding. C. Deference is Not Unlimited, and the Master Site Plan is reviewed de novo The applicant and City correctly note that the standard of review is different for an MDNS appeal and the Examiner's review of the Master Site Plan application. The MDNS is reviewed for clear error. RMC 4-8-110 (E)(7)(b); Norway Hill Preservation & .Protection Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 275, 552 P.2d 674, 679 (1976). The Master Site Plan is reviewed de novo, for whether the "proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable." RMC 4-9-200(E). The Applicant bears the burden of proof for the Master Site Plan review. RMC 4-9-200(F). As described in our notice of appeal, hearing brief, and herein, the MDNS should be reversed and the Master Site Plan denied, as neither complies with Renton's code. The Applicant correctly notes that the City is entitled to deference in issuing the MDNS. Applicant's Brief at 5. But deference stops when a clear error is discovered. Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 157 Wn.2d 488, 497, 139 P.3d 1096, 1100 (2006). In this case, the City failed to evaluate the unique topography of the site and its intimate relationship with the Superfund cleanup lying between it and Lake Washington in issuing an MDNS rather than requiring an EIS. The City's cursory handling of the environmental impacts failed to account for the fact that REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0612 1 2 a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2L4 25 26 27 28 increased groundwater flow will cause increased toxic contamination of Lake Washington; the failure to consider the unique attributes of the site and its probable significant adverse environmental impacts is clear error. There is no deference to the failure to require an SSDP, habitat management plan, and drainage plan; instead, the Examiner reviews de novo the Master Site Plan application. Part of the review is for whether the Site Plan is in "[cJonformance with existing land use regulations." RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(b). The SNIP, habitat management plan, and drainage plan requirements are all part of RMC Title 4, the City's land use Development Regulations. Thus, the Examiner must conclude that these plans were not required in order to approve the Master Site Plan. As the City has admitted, its failure to apply areas of its own code requiring a drainage plan, habitat management plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) as part of the Master Site Plan application is not entitled to any deference at all. City's Brief at 3. Those mistakes are reviewed de novo, and mean that the Master Site Plan application should be rejected. D. Probable Significant Adverse Impacts have been Shown The Applicant argues that SEGB's appeal must be rejected because it has not proven adverse environmental impacts. But SEGB does not have to prove that environmental impacts are occurring, or diagram their exact dimensions: that is the whole point of an EIS. Instead, SEGB must prove that significant adverse environmental impacts are probable. As the Washington Supreme Court has held, "an EIS should be prepared when significant adverse impacts on the environment are "probable," not when they are REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (246) 621-0512 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "inevitable." " King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd. for King County, 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). "Probable" means "likely to be or become true or real." Merriam -Webster Online Dictionary. The Applicant relies heavily on Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 719-20 (2002), and Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn, App. 6 (2001), in support of its argument that SEGB has not met its burden of proof in proving probable impacts. But these cases disprove Applicant's argument. In Boehm, appellants complained about a new gas station at a Fred Meyer, but identified "no specific impact" of the new station. Boehm, I I I Wn. App, at 714. Similarly, in Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, citizens argued that a large-scale development had "per se" environmental impacts, without identifying any specific concerns. In this case, SEGB has identified the specific impact of increased groundwater flow to Quendall Terminals leading to increased Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, and Xylene pollution of Lake Washington. See Notice of Appeal, § III(E) and supporting declarations. SEGB has further identified increased toxins flowing to May Creek from changing the use of the site from abandoned to an active hotel and parking lot with hundreds of cars, maintenance equipment, and human activities contributing nitrogen, pesticides, metals, and other contaminants. The Applicant argues that SEGB "does not point to any evidence, or site - related studies or analyses, demonstrating the project has probable significant adverse environmental impacts." Applicant's Brief at 7. The Applicant appears not to have read SEGB's notice of appeal and brief. Unlike Boehm and Moss, this is not a citizen's group arguing that something must be wrong without identifying any specific impact; SEGB REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hired a hydrogeologist, identified specific impacts, and has demonstrated that there are probable significant environmental impacts to the project. See Notice of Appeal, § I1I(E) and supporting declarations. E. There is no mitigation of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposal The Applicant argues that sufficient mitigating conditions are in effect because the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual. Applicant's Brief at 7-9. But the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual is not designed for the unique situation presented here. The Manual generally encourages increasing groundwater infiltration through rain gardens, vaults, detention ponds, and other measures, and does not account for the possibility that increased groundwater flow on this site will mean more toxins will be flushed from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. See Att. I to Notice of Appeal. This is not a "one size fits all" site, and the Applicant's desire to smack down a couple of rain gardens and some landscaping in defiance of the unique topography and poisons in the soil without adequate study of the impacts should be rejected. F. An SSDP is Required Although the Applicant alleges that an SSDP is not required because "no work will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline of May Creek," the documents it submitted in support of its application indicate otherwise. Applicant's Brief at 10. Tellingly, the Applicant cites to no document in support of its bald assertion. Id. In this case, although the hotel structure is planned for slightly farther than 200 feet from the OHWM, the existing site consists of "four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping." Att. A to Hearing Brief at 5; Figure A-7. Currently, buildings, debris, and GENDLER & (MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone_ 12061621-8868 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 6 Fax: (2061 621-0612 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 other impervious surface comes to within a few feet of May Creek. Att. A to Hearing Brief, T1R, Figure A-7; Ex. 16 to Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). During construction, the "existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/reused and removed from the site." Att. A to Hearing Brief, TIR, at 5; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. The Applicant fails to explain how "existing buildings will be dismantled" without working within 200 feet of the creek, and changing the nature of the land within the SMA- protected zone. Similarly, rather than seeking to disprove SEGB's allegations regarding development within 200 feet of the shoreline by referring to documents identified by SEGB, the City asks the Examiner to rubber-stamp its findings, noting merely that "the City reviewed Applicant's submission documents for compliance with both SMA and SMP, and found no "substantial development" within the 200 feet buffer to trigger a SSDP" City's Brief at 6. As described in our notice of appeal and Hearing Brief, the SMP requires that the Applicant apply for and receive an SSDP, because the development proposal extends to within 200 feet of May Creek. Although unclear, the Applicant may be arguing that because the actions they are taking within 200 feet of the shoreline (removing buildings and hydroseeding) are not construction, no SSDP is required. But the applicant cannot piecemeal a project in that way. A single improvement or project including and having an interrelated effect on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with the provisions of the shoreline management act. Merkel v. Brownsville 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973). Whether an SSDP will be granted will depend on the nature of the REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 7 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27I 281 impacts the entire project has on the shoreline. It is possible that an SSDP would be approved, requiring the applicant to modify its proposal only to stop destructive lawn grass seeding, requiring native plantings, and preventing any toxic flow to May Creek. But the issue before the examiner is solely whether the SMA is triggered, and an SSDP required, not speculation on whether an SSDP will ultimately be approved or what project changes might be required. The evidence demonstrates that the development proposal is one project, including constructing a hotel 200+ feet from the shoreline, but removing buildings and hydroseeding within 200 feet. Att. A to Hearing Brief An SSDP for this entire project is required. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein and in the Notice of Appeal and Hearing Brief, the MDNS should be reversed, and the Master Site Plan application denied. Dated this 2 1 " day of August, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants 1South End Gives Bavk(Den)IReply Brief'ofAppellattts 8 20 09 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 8 GENDLER & N ANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 f 1% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } } SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } individual and citizen of Renton, } Petitioners, } STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply Brief of Appellant to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 GENQLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen(cr rentonwa.gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), Eessica(a-),mliseattle.com DATED this.21'6T day of 4I T , 200_, at Seattle, Washington. %South End Gives Back(Den)%Dcc sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 e#ITACOA Y GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 El 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 221 23 24 2 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT I. INTRODUCTION The Applicant and City ask the Examiner to approve the City's decision to issue a mitigated Determination of Non-Significanee rather than mandating an Environmental Impact Statement, but provide no evidence and little argument beyond broad citations to deference in support. The Applicant and City also correctly assert that the standard of review for the portion of the August 25, 2009 hearing on the Master Site Plan is de novo, rather- than clear error, but fail to justify the City's failure to require a drainage plan, habitat management plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) as part of the Master Site Plan. An EIS should be required, and the Master Site Plan application denied. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - l coo Fly E GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 [) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 11, ARGUMENT A. The Applicant Should Be Precluded From Presenting Su rise Evidence at the Hearing In response to the notice of appeal and briefing of appellant SEGB, the Applicant has provided cursory briefing and a promise that the facts and argument "will be further established and supplemented by evidence presented at hearing." Applicant's Brief at 2. By contrast, SEGB's arguments have been developed and disclosed in advance of the hearing, to allow the parties and hearing examiner to fully consider them. The Applicant has had months if not years to compile and disclose data to the City. The Applicant and City should not be allowed to litigate by surprise through failing to disclose information in advance of the hearing, SEGB respectfully requests that the Applicant present all document and summaries of testimony in advance of the hearing, and that the Examiner allow SEGB to supplement the record in response to any previously undisclosed material. B. The Examiner has jurisdiction to review both the MDNS and the Master Site Plan Both the City and Applicant argue that the Hearing Examiner does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the Master Site Plan. Applicant's Brief at 9-10; City's Brief at 3-4. But the City has scheduled a joint hearing for both the Master Site Plan and the MDNS, with the same deadlines for appeal of the MDNS and public comment on the Master Site Plan. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to decide both. Applicant's theory that "[t]he only issue before the Examiner is whether the appellant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the City's issuance of the MDNS was clearly erroneous" is REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-aa68 Fax: (2061 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20I 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 simply mistaken. Applicant's Brief at 4, While SEGB's filing perhaps would have been more completely captioned as "notice of appeal and public comment," SEGB has submitted arguments and evidence on both the MDNS and Master Site Plan, and the Examiner must consider these arguments in each part of the proceeding. C. Deference is Nat Unlimited, and the Master Site Plan is reviewed de novo The applicant and City correctly note that the standard of review is different for an MDNS appeal and the Examiner's review of the Master Site Plan application. The MDNS is reviewed for clear error. RMC 4-8-110 (E)(7)(b); Norway dill Preservation & Protection Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 275, 552 P.2d 674, 679 (1976). 'rhe Master Site Plan is reviewed de novo, for whether the "proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable." RMC 4-9-200(E). The Applicant bears the burden of proof for the Master Site Plan review. RMC 4-9-200(F). As described in our notice of appeal, hearing brief, and herein, the MDNS should be reversed and the Master Site Plan denied, as neither complies with Renton's code. The Applicant correctly notes that the City is entitled to deference in issuing the MDNS. Applicant's Brief at 5. But deference stops when a clear error is discovered. Lewis County v. Western. Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 157 Wn.2d 488, 497, 139 P.3d 1096, 1100 (2006). In this case, the City failed to evaluate the unique topography of the site and its intimate relationship with the Superfund cleanup lying between it and Lake Washington in issuing an MDNS rather than requiring an EIS. The CAN'S cursory handling of the environmental impacts failed to account for the fact that REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax!(2061621-0512 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2l1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 increased groundwater now will cause increased toxic contamination of Lake Washington; the failure to consider the unique attributes of the site and its probable significant adverse environmental impacts is clear error. There is no deference to the failure to require an SSDP, habitat management plan, and drainage plan; instead, the Examiner reviews de novo the Master Site Plan application. Part of the review is for whether the Site Plan is in "[c]onformance with existing land use regulations." RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(b). The SMP, habitat management plan, and drainage plan requirements are all part of RMC Title 4, the City's land use Development Regulations. Thus, the Examiner must conclude that these plans were not required in order to approve the Master Site Plan, As the City has admitted, its failure to apply areas of its own code requiring a drainage plan, habitat management plan, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) as part of the Master Site Plan application is not entitled to any deference at all. City's Brief at 3. Those mistakes are reviewed de novo, and mean that the Master Site Plan application should be rejected. D. Probable Significant Adverse Impacts have been Shown The Applicant argues that SEGB's appeal must be rejected because it has not proven adverse enviroriniental impacts. But SEGB does not have to prove that environmental impacts are occurring, or diagram their exact dimensions: that is the whole point of an EIS, Instead, SEGB niust prove that significant adverse environmental impacts are probable. As the Washington Supreme Court has held, "an EIS should be prepared when significant adverse impacts on the environment are "probable," not when they are RF"I'[_Y BRIEF OF APPEI-LANT - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (205) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 u 7 28 "inevitable." " King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd. for King County, 122 Wn.2d 648, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). "Probable" means "likely to be or become true or real." Merriam -Webster Online Dictionary, The Applicant relies heavily on Boehm v. City of Vancouver, 111 Wn. App. 711, 719-20 (2002), and Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6 (2001), in support of its argument that SEGB has not met its burden of proof in proving probable impacts. But these cases disprove Applicant's argument. In Boehm, appellants complained about a new gas station at a Fred Meyer, but identified "no specific impact" of the new station. Boehm, I I I Wn. App. at 714. Similarly, inVoss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wn. App. 6, citizens argued that a large-scale development had "per se" environmental impacts, without identifying any specific concerns. In this case, SEGB has identified the specific impact of increased groundwater flow to Quendall Terminals leading to increased Polycyclic Aromatic Hvdrocarbons, Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, and Xylene pollution of Lake Washington. See Notice of Appeal, § III(E) and supporting declarations. SEGB has further identified increased toxins flowing to May Creek from changing the use of the site from abandoned to an active hotel and parking lot with hundreds of cars, maintenance equipment, and human activities contributing nitrogen, pesticides, metals, and other contaminants. The Applicant argues that SEGB "does not point to any evidence, or site - related studies or analyses, demonstrating the project has probable significant adverse environmental impacts." Applicant's Brief at 7. The Applicant appears not to have read SEGB's notice of appeal and brief. Unlike Boehm and Moss, this is not a citizen's group arguing that something must be wrong without identifying any specific impact; SEGB REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 r 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hired a hydrogeologist, identified specific impacts, and has demonstrated that there are probable significant environmental impacts to the project. See Notice of Appeal, § III(E) and supporting declarations. E. There is no mitigation of the probable.. significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposal The Applicant argues that sufficient mitigating conditions are in effect because the project must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual. Applicant's Brief at 7-9. But the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual is not designed for the unique situation presented here. The Manual generally encourages increasing groundwater infiltration through rain gardens, vaults, detention ponds, and other measures, and does not account for the possibility that increased groundwater flow on this site will mean more toxins will be flushed from Port Quendall into Lake Washington. See Att. I to Notice of Appeal. This is not a "one size fits all" site, and the Applicant's desire to smack down a couple of rain gardens and some landscaping in defiance of the unique topography and poi sons in the soil without adequate study of the impacts should be rejected. F. Ali S SDP is Required Although the Applicant alleges that an SSDP is not required because "no work will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline of May Creek," the documents it submitted in support of its application indicate otherwise. Applicant's Brief at 10. Tellingly, the Applicant cites to no document in support of its bald assertion. Id. In this case, although the hotel structure is planned for slightly farther than 200 feet from the OHWM, the existing site consists of "four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated Iauulscaping." Att. A to hearing Brief at 5; Figure A-7. Currently, buildings, debris, and GENDLRR & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 6 Phone: S2 1 21-05128 Fax: 12061 621-I}512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 26 27 other impervious surface comes to within a few feet of May Creek. Att. A to Hearing Brief, T1R, Figure A-7; Ex. 16 to Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). During construction, the "existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/reused and removed from the site." Att. A to Hearing Brief, TIR, at 5; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. The Applicant fails to explain how "existing buildings will be dismantled" without working within 200 feet of the creek, and changing the nature of the land within the SMA- protected zone. Similarly, rather than seeking to disprove SEGB's allegations regarding development within 200 feet of the shoreline by referring to documents identified by SEGB, the City asks the Examiner to rubber-stamp its findings, noting merely that "the City reviewed Applicant's submission documents for compliance with both SMA and SMP, and found no "substantial development" within the 200 feet buffer to trigger a SSDP." City's Brief at 6. As described in our notice of appeal and Hearing Brief, the SMP requires that the Applicant apply for and receive an SSDP, because the development proposal extends to within 200 feet of May Creek. Although unclear, the Applicant may be arguing that because the actions they are taking within 200 feet of the shoreline (removing buildings and hydroseeding) are not construction, no SSDP is required. But the applicant cannot piecemeal a project in that way. A single improvement or project including and having an interrelated effect on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with the provisions of the shoreline management act. Merkel v, Brownsville 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1.973). Whether an SSDP will be granted will depend on the nature of the REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 7 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (206)621-0512 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 20 21 22 2; 24 25 26 27 28 impacts the entire project has on the shoreline. It is possible that an SSDP would be approved, requiring the applicant to modify its proposal only to stop destructive lawn grass scedinl3, requiring native plantings, and preventing any toxic flow to May Creek. But the .issue before the examiner is solely whether the SMA is triggered, and an SSDP required, not speculation on whether an SSDP will ultimately be approved or what project changes might be required. The evidence demonstrates that the development proposal is one project, including constructing a hotel 200+ feet from the shoreline, but removing buildings and hydroseeding within 200 feet. Att. A to Hearing Brief. An SSDP for this entire project is required. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein and in the Notice of Appeal and Hearing Brief, the MDNS should be reversed, and the Master Site Plan application denied. Dated this 2 1 " day of August, 2009, Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants ISuuth Fnd Oivus Back(ben)IReply Bnef of Appellants 8 20 09 REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 8 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON } COUNTY OF KING ) } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, } SA-H } } } DECLARATION OF SERVICE } ss. 1, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply Brief of Appellant to be sen ed on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen@rentonwa. gov Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 f ] By United States Mail f x] By Legal Messenger f ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), Jessica @inhseattle.corn DATED this.21'r day of -6 T , 200-, at Seattle, Washington. \South End Gives Back(Den)IDec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Sealtle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE I. NOTICE South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this notice and attachments of additional evidence to be introduced at the hearing in this matter. The evidence consists of five newspaper articles discussing Quendall Terminals, and is offered in support of Section III (B) and (E) of SEGB's Notice of Appeal. Dated this 41h day of August, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE -I C(DO[Dpyx:(2061621-0512 ATTACHMENT A L A Chemical Stew That Has Been Brewing For Years By Keith Ervin Seattle Times lrasiside Bureau The most extensive contamination at Port Quendall is on the Quendall Terminals property where, from 1916 to 1969, Reilly Tar and Chemical barged in wastes from the Lake Union gas works and converted them into creosote and tar for roofing and paving. Residues from chemical vats were routinely dumped on the ground, and a 1937 barge spill reportedly sent more than 30,000 gallons of cancer -causing chemicals into the sediments of Lake Washington. In 1955, J.H. Baxter & Co. set up shop next door. For the next 26 years, the Baxter plant used creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat wood products. In addition to the chemicals spilled at the Reilly properly, contaminants at the Baxter site include an extremely toxic group of PCP byproducts Known as dioxins and furans (but apparently not the worst dioxin of all, 2,3,7,8,- TCDD). In the most -polluted lake sediments at the Baxter property, scientists found one kind of sponge in unusual numbers - and an abnormally low number of other invertebrate species. When researchers exposed shrimplike amphipods to the polluted muck, all of the animals died. Although ground water continues to carry toxic chemicals into Lake Washington, state Department of Ecology officials believe the site can be cleaned up enough to ensure the safety of humans and of fish and other species in the lake. The department classifies Port Quendall in the most -hazardous category of contaminated industrial sites. Cleanup could entail removing some of the most -contaminated material to a hazardous -waste landfill, covering other pollutants and treating polluted ground water. Allen's environmental consultants have told Ecology officials they hope to limit cleanup costs to $12 million by doing "twofers" - two -for -one measures that isolate chemicals in the course of doing paving or landscaping that would enhance development. fit" ,ii t j tint a;e �tiie i.imes Company ATTACHMENT B .=1v � ;r,,7 1t�! l��ctf; t��t71-'.C: �i� ,�'•il1�i El E !nail oracle (5 Print view Paul Allen's Renton Deal: A Familiar Style And Scope By James Vesely Times Associate Editorial Page Editor PAUL Allen's other large project is still a fallow field on the shores of Lake Washington, close to southbound 405 as the land slopes to the water that forms the channel between Renton and Mercer Island. This place has the perfect imagery for a novelist or historian. On one of the last local sites where Northwest logs are boomed together and floated to market, Allen is planning a $500 million office campus for the region's high-technology boom. On 60 acres, partially occupied by the Barbee Lumber Company of Renton, Allen's planning and development companies are scoping out Port Quendall, where - if things mesh - 8,000 people will go to work each day. Lots of obstacles can make the project stall - lack of government road money, lack of environmental permitting, lack of time and cooperation from a covey of departments and agencies. A preliminary EIS by the city of Renton partially funded by Allen is not on schedule; in fact, it's at least six weeks behind. But the Allen group has the perseverance of lava. The project also has all the earmarks of an Allen endeavor, in some ways the Eastside equivalent to the Seahawks stadium project. If the scale is different, the methodology is much the same_ For those not acquainted with the Eastside's introduction to the Allen vision, Port Quendall is a plan for a modular office complex which will be the home hive for a variety of Allen companies. One easy Eastside reference is that Port Quendall will be three and half times larger than Kirkland's Carillon Point. Like Carillon Point, Port Quendall will have a central plaza and buildings terraced down to the water's edge overlooking a small marina. It's an expression of current Northwest workstyle - a place where it's hard to distinguish between a work office and office at home. Where now the waters lap at log booms the size of helicopter pads, the shoreline will be returned to pedestrians and May Creek restored to salmon runs. The Reilly Tar and Chemical Co. which operated from 1900 to 1970 is being replaced by the information age. Hard work will be done here, but no more by calloused hands. The development plan calls for over two million square feet of rentable office space, accommodating 10,000 cars but with a relentless timetable. Allen's developers say they need to secure their land options by November, start construction by July of next year and occupancy in 1999. The real beauty of the plan is that parts of the site are hideously dirty. For decades, these quiet shores on Lake Washington have been awash in polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons left over from creosote, the stuff they use to coat railroad ties and telephone polls. In a less illuminated time, the tar residue from Seattle's gas works at the north end of Lake Union was shipped to Renton and there put on fresh logs and into the ground beneath them. Allen's role in Port Quendall becomes one of benefactor -developer, in many ways a mirror to his image as benefactor -buyer of the Seahawks. The posture of the Allen group toward the Renton development has the ring of recognition to it: enormous benefits in exchange for prompt governmental action. In the case of Port Quendall, somebody must improve the exits from 405 for $30 to $40 million and build a 50-foot high overpass crossing into the property. The Paul Allen companies are willing to pay a share, but right now, the state's Department of Transportation has no money set aside for its share. "The current transportation studies can lead to four or five funding sources, including the Paul Allen group," said Jeffrey Graves of Vulcan Northwest Inc. But no expedited transportation money means no development, no 8,000 jobs, no coal tar cleanup. Local governments have almost no resistance to such a message. Renton's economic development director Susan Carlson said Port Quendall "literally changes the face of Renton. It's pivotal." In hot pursuit, Renton is asking the state legislature to approve $500,000 for a study required before federal transportation funds start flowing. An increase in the state gas tax would also be extremely beneficial to the project, which adds to the momentum for the tax. To further make their point, Allen's group added a turn of the vise by buying 20 acres in Issaquah as a back-up site in case the permitting is unavailable in Renton. Perhaps this portrait casts Paul Allen and his managers in too cold a light. Without Allen, the Port Quendall piece of Lake Washington shoreline would remain a low -rung lumber operation condemned by environmental slime to a twilight of industrial use. Allen can fix that by infusing top-notch talent into planning and building a gem of a project. The Allen companies can, and do, present a product as friction free as anything produced by long -gone Reilly Tar. There is a smoothness to their presentations that calms all doubt. A walk across May Creek shows a clear -running stream with tire and other junk in the water. Alien's engineers will clean all that up, and are working with the Muckleshoots on salmon restoration for the tribe's fishing rights just offshore. It's always a case of a bird in the hand, isn't it? And if this bird should fly, Renton may never get its own Carillon Point. All it takes is to give Paul Allen the money. James Vesely's column focusing on Eastside issues appears Mondays on editorial pages of The Times. ,copyright (r,) 1997 wattle dimes Company, All Rights Reserved. ATTACHMENT C A Dream Site Or A Nightmare? -- Port Quendall Toxic Cleanup May Be Too Much, Even For Paul Allen By Keith Ervin Seattle Tirrles Eastside Business Reporter RENTON - In many ways, Port Quendall is a developer's dream. Nestled along a mile of shoreline, its 68 acres are zoned for just about everything - offices, homes, stores, hotels, a marina - on a big scale. But the largest developable property left on Lake Washington is also one of the most contaminated sites in the state, one that has dashed the dreams of a string of developers over the past 22 years, For more than six decades, the site was the center of creosote production, and residues from chemical vats were routinely dumped on the ground. Now, the latest and wealthiest developer - multibillionaire Paul Allen - may also walk away from the site. Allen's options to buy the land expire Nov. 4, and he is expected to decide soon whether to move ahead with his mega -project at Port Quendall or move his companies' headquarters to a more modest backup site in Issaquah. "It's going to be difficult for anybody to do it if he can't," says Renton's economic -development director, Sue Carlson. "We don't want it to sit for another 50 years spilling oil." If Allen walks, it would be a disappointment to Carlson and other city officials who view him as their best hope for developing this troubled property and transforming blue-collar Renton into a world -class technology center. It also would be a blow to the state Legislature and Department of Ecology, which have spent more than a decade streamlining procedures for cleaning up toxic wastes and redeveloping industrial "brownfields" like this. What a difference a year has made. Alien electrified Renton and neighboring Newcastle last year with the announcement that he had optioned four large properties in the Kennydale area for a corporate campus ranging from 2 million to 3 million square feet. His plans envisioned a $500 million to $700 million development with up to 10,000 workers in offices, a hotel and conference center, restaurants and stores, along with trails and public open space between Interstate 405 and Lake Washington. As the months passed, however, the difficulty of developing the land has become apparent once again. Alen's number crunchers determined the cost of environmental cleanup and road improvements was too higli to support the original plan. They went back to the drawing board to see if they could eliminate $40 million of new freeway interchanges by replacing many of the planned offices with multifamily housing. Allen could become the latest in a parade of developers who have walked away from the property. The Skinner Corp., which built Kirkland's tony Carillon Point, nearly bought the Port Quendall site in 1989 or 1990, but backed away because of uncertainties about what kind of environmental cleanup the Department of Ecology would require. "Not only could they not tell you what the cost would be, they couldn't tell you when they would know what the cost would be," says Judd Kirk, who developed Carillon Point in Kirkland for Skinner and who now is president of Port Blakely Communities. "That's a double whammy. When you invest that kind of money, you have to be able to project what your costs are." Kirk envisioned Port Quendall as "another Carillon Point," but much larger and with a mix of more homes and fewer offices. The vision of a large waterfront development dates to 1972, when the Cugini and Baxter families formed a partnership to buy the Quendall Terminals property, where the Reilly Tar and Chemical Co. had produced creosote for 63 years. Each family owned a property adjacent to Quendall Terminals. The Cuginis operate the Barbee Mil(, the last sawmill on Lake Washington, and sort logs on the former Reilly property. J.H. Baxter & Co. ran a wood -treatment plant on the other side of Reilly. Combining their three properties, the Cugini and Baxter families assembled a remarkable 60-acre tract of lakefront property zoned for a mix of uses. (Allen's plan would enlarge the property to 68 acres by adding the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property.) "It's a beautiful site," says Robert Cugini, vice president of the company and grandson of its founder. "There are not any like it in the area." With the property's panoramic view of boats in the Lake Washington East Channel, the forested hillsides of Mercer Island and the southern tip of Seattle, it's hard to argue with him. Two developers - Don Koll Northwest followed by James Schuler's Port Quendall Development - started working on plans for a megadevelopment in 1976. Schuler won approval from the Renton City Council in 1982. But the plan was stalled by the toxic -contamination problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn't decide until 1986 whether the cleanup would be supervised by the federal or state government. The state assumed jurisdiction, but contamination continued to be a stumbling block for developers. Carison's description of contaminants as "oil" is a charitable term. Two industrial plants operating between 1916 and 1981 left a legacy of cancer -causing chemicals in the soil, groundwater and lake sediments. After such a long history of failed development attempts, it's no surprise that state and city officials are eager to see the toxic mess cleaned up by a developer with pockets as deep as Paul Allen's, No one yet knows just how much it will cost to clean up the contamination or improve 1-405 access to the site. Nor is it known just how much public money might be thrown into the pot along with a developer's capital. Cost estimates range upward of $20 million to deal with the chemicals and $40 million to $84 million for road work and a transit center. The Legislature has tried to speed up redevelopment of industrial "brownfields" by allowing officials to strike deals with developers who, like Allen, don't yet own the property_ Cleaning up contaminated, idle land like the Reilly and Baxter parcels is exactly what the Legislature had in mind when it modified the Model Toxics Control Act's brownfields provisions last year, notes Assistant Attorney General Tanya Barnett. City officials likewise see opportunities for economic growth and transportation improvements. A development the size of Port Quendall would hasten construction of a regional -transit center and direct -access ramps to car-pool lanes on 1-405 - at far less cost than in fully developed areas, according to Renton's transportation planning manager, Lee Haro. The Port Quendall transportation plan also calls for bike and pedestrian trails along the waterfront, possible ferry service and shuttle buses around the campus. "We think this is an exciting regional opportunity to do a demonstration of land use and transportation working together to support the transit system," says Haro. It might seem that those most concerned about the possibility of an Allen pullout would be the property owners. Not so, according to Cugini. He would like Allen to develop the property. But if Allen doesn't, the Cugini and Baxter families are prepared to complete the environmental studies they've been funding for years - and then Cugini expects them to do the cleanup. "I've always envisioned, and it was always my plan," he says, "to slowly develop the site ourselves. Mr. Allen approached us, not the other way around." Publicity about Allen's project has brought other potential development partners to his door, Cugini says. With the valuable land already in hand, most of the environmental surveying completed, Ecology officials clearer about what they expect, a continuing revenue stream from the sawmill, and developers interested in the property, Cugini is biding his time. Robert Cugini figures Paul Allen's loss might just prove to be his family's gain. Keith Ervin's phone message number is 206-515-5632. His e-mail address is: kerv- new@seatimes.com----------------------------------------------------------------- Port Quendall: a difficult site to develop Eighty years of pollution to clean up Until now, efforts to redevelop the industrial site known as Port Quendall have failed because of the highly cost of cleaning up toxic_ Likely transportation improvements The latest would-be developer, Paul Allen, has found that transportation costs will be high if the site is developed. Among necessary changes, 1-405 would have to be widened to accommodate a transit stop and direct HOVE access. ATTACHMENT D EPA proposes Lake Washington shoreline in Renton for Superfund PLIC et Sound Business Journal ( Seattle) ■ Print • Email Rss Feeds • Comments Related News ■ Cordish partners with Blazers on Portland development • Seattle $m hop 's Schwarz chosen as 2009 First Citizen ■ Atigeeo_ names ex-Myspace, Vulcan execs to board • Paul Allen's philanthropic phflosophy is driven by intense interests in discoveg and learning. • Retailers sav interest remains strong in high -end stones; Costco sells $225,000 diamonds The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed adding Quendall Terminals, a former creosote formulating plant on the Lake Washington shoreline in Renton, to its Superfund National Priorities List. The list contains the nation's most seriously contaminated hazardous waste sites. The EPA said the listing proposal is designed to spur active cleanup of the site. "We believe Superfund is an effective legal tool in getting seriously contaminated property, cleaned up," said Dan Opalski, director of EPA's Superfund cleanup office in Seattle. "Experience has shown that by simply proposing or listing a site on the NPL, amazing progress can be made to move site cleanup forward." The EPA said preliminary investigations show extensive contamination of the soil, groundwater and nearby lake sediments with cancer -causing chemicals. The chemicals are concentrated "well above cleanup levels for both industrial and residential sites," the EPA said. "Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington -- a popular recreation spot for both residents and tourists -- are of particular concern." Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp, and its predecessors made creosote at the 23-acre site from 1917 to 1969. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals, a joint venture of J.H. Baxter and Co. and Altino Properties Inc. Ownership remains the same today, despite interest in recent years in redeveloping the site by the city of Renton and Vulcan Inc., Paul Allen's investment and development company. The EPA said a 6o-day public comment period has started and will end Nov. 14. After that, and assuming the site is listed, the agency's first step is to evaluate all previous environmental studies done at the site to determine whether an appropriate cleanup alternative is available. ATTACHMENT E Renton project may collapse amid squabbling By Luke Timmerman Seattle Times Eastside business reporter Paul Allen is used to doing pretty much as he wishes, but he has not been able to fulfill his vision for an immense office and residential development in Renton on Lake Washington's shore. After four years of studies and complex maneuvering, a Renton official and a key landowner say Allen's idea to build the $500 million mixed -use development at Port Quendall is in jeopardy. Allen's people don't use such bleak language, but a volatile situation clearly has emerged since June, That's when the city of Renton abandoned an option to buy and clean up a chunk of the site that's highly contaminated with industrial waste - a move that shifts liability for the estimated $20 million cleanup back onto the private landowners. Although the city still could end up paying for the cleanup through state or private grants and loans, it is now in a serious squabble with one of the current owners, the Cugini family. Tensions escalated further this week when the family, which owns the Barbee Mill on the site, sued the city for passing an emergency ordinance July 24 prohibiting the family from building on its 23-acre property without approval from adjoining landowners. Robert Cugini says the ordinance knocks millions of dollars of value off the property, assessed at $16 million. Renton economic -development administrator Sue Carlson says the emergency ordinance is just a technical clarification of a 7-year-old master -planning ordinance that encourages cooperative land -use planning. 1 don't think this will stop anybody from developing; we just want to make sure it's done correctly," Carlson said. Cugini contends the city is trying to force him to acquiesce to Allen, who he said has offered him less than market value for his land. "This significantly reduces the value of our property," Cugini, vice president of Barbee Mill, said in a statement. "We feel it's an attempt to force us into a certain action." This latest round of saber -rattling around Port Quendall amplifies what had already been a delicate situation. The next steps are unclear. Cugini said he will still negotiate with Allen, and Allen's surrogates say they're continuing to work on the project for the "long term," white the city is still trying to shepherd the project along. Since June, city officials have told the landowners and Allen they want assurances before they pay for the cleanup. They want to be sure a development group such as Allen's will follow through on plans to build a $500 million gem of office, retail, residential and park space on 68 acres of Lake Washington shore. If the plans are fulfilled, the development could turn Renton from an industrial working-class town into a member of the Eastside glitterati. "Certainly the project we're envisioning is in jeopardy," said Jay Covington, chief administrative officer for the city of Renton. "From our standpoint, we're waiting for a good word, a unified commitment from the property owners. If that happened, we could pick up the baton." Whether that will Happen is questionable, as the varied Port Quendall interests haven't meshed for 30 years. Alter's vision generated some excitement in Renton four years ago, with plans for more than 1 million square feet of office space, hotels, more than 1,200 homes, and more than 650,000 square feet of retail space. To do that, Allen or another developer would need to purchase the remaining 40 acres of the 68- acre property currently owned by the Cuginis and J.H. Baxter & Co. But before any development can happen, the land needs a serious cleanup. The contamination in the soil stems from when it was home to Reilly Tar and Chemical from 1916 to 1969. In those years, the land was used for refining coal tar for paving and preserving logs. Former workers at the site have told Department of Ecology officials of massive spills, underground pipe leaks and dumping of chemical residue on the ground. Although state Department of Ecology officials have tried to get the polluters to clean up their mess, Reilly's attorneys have successfully used a sale agreement from the early 1970s as a shield from responsibility. The Baxter company and the Cugini family argue they shouldn't be held responsible because they didn't create the mess or know the extent of the contamination when they bought the land. Through the years since, numerous developers have flirted with projects, but none has ever put a shovel in the ground. Part of that is because of a tangled web of interests. The Cugini family wants what it considers fair market value for the land, assessed at $16 million, but in need of a $7 million cleanup. If the price isn't right, they say they have a smaller development of their own in mind. The city already has rejected an application for that development. Much bigger plans are on the minds at Allen's Vulcan Northwest and a consortium of other companies it is working with. But the group doesn't want to pay for the brunt of the cleanup, or too much for the land, or for a new freeway interchange at Northeast 44th Street that could cost $60 million to $80 million. On the public side, the city of Renton has said it wants Allen to develop the property, and it wants the mile of shoreline for a new park. It doesn't want to commit to a cleanup and then watch him back out and allow a lesser development to swoop in. The state Department of Ecology has wanted the property cleaned up for decades, but it doesn't want to keep holding money for it forever while denying other deserving projects. And the Legislature has been lobbied extensively by the city and by Allen's people for the expensive interchange, which may be a tough sell in the post -Initiative 695 era. Still, preliminary design work for the interchange is moving forward. Though no interested parties show signs of budging from their positions, Vulcan Northwest insists it will keep trying to make a deal happen, and it hasn't set any deadlines. "We want to provide more public access to the lake and a real mixed -use development in an urban area," said Larry Martin, vice president of real estate for Vulcan Northwest. "That is an appealing package of public and private benefits. Paul Allen and Vulcan Northwest are really motivated to make it happen," Some of that motivation could be seen in May, when Allen bought the northern 20 acres of the land, and agreed to pay for $6 million to $7 million for its cleanup. That move piqued some interest among Renton citizens, many of whom hadn't paid much attention since a series of public meetings four years ago. Neighbors who live near Port Quendall generally agree the place should be cleaned up --the state has given it a ranking as the highest risk to human health and the environment --but many are patient with the slow progress_ Cugini said talks likely will break out of a holding pattern by the end of this year. "It's like a big weight about to tilt," Cugini said. "All of the parties have had enough time to examine the issues. There's been a ton of work done. It will either go or fall apart, I think, sometime fairly soon." Luke Timmerman's phone message number is 206-515-5644. His email address is: lfimmerman@ seattle times. com. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING } ss. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE 1, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: 1 am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Notice of Supplemental Evidence: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 z: 1206) 621.0512 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. i 17 18i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2"d Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail Jessica Clawson McCullough Hilt, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail DATED this 4-'-" day of �44!5-7- , 200_L, at Seattle, Washington. O A COAKL \South End Gives Back(Den)\Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suiie 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621.0512 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON In re: Hawks Landing Mixed Use SEPA Appeal by SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton. :i T y ;3F '1�: N i-.'yj AUG CITY Ct.FRKS r"FFIL i NO. LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H CITY OF RENTON'S JOINDER WITH APPLICANT ALBERT INTERNATIONAL LLP'S RESPONSE BRIEF DATED AUGUST 17, 2009. COMES NOW, the CITY OF RENTON, and hereby joins in Applicant Albert International, LLP's Response Brief dated August 17, 2009. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of August, 2009. CITY OF RENTON: CITY OF RENTON'S JOINDER — Page 1 i By: Ann Nielsen, WSBA #31425 Assistant City Attorney Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON In re: Hawks Landing Mixed Use SEPA Appeal by SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton. NO. LUA 09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF 1. RELEVANT FACTS Applicant Albert International, LLP, submitted an application for development of a 5- story, 60-feet high, 122,000 square feet, 173-room hotel (which would include a restaurant, spa, fitness center and additional retail space) to be located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton. This subject site is bordered by 1-405 to the east, Lake Washington Boulevard to west and the access ramps to 1-405 to the north and an undeveloped parcel to the south. It is also located north of May Creek, a class 1 stream, and its associated 100 year floodplain, which are both part of a larger area identified to be within a seismic hazard area. The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes (which is non operational and CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 1 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 426.255.8678 Fax: 426.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 empty) and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. Applicant requested a SEPA Environmental Review along with a Master Site Plan and Site Plan review for the project. As part of their application submittal package, Applicants submitted a Wetland/Stream study, two Geotechnical Engineering Studies ("Geotech Studies"), and a Technical Information Report ("TIR"). The TIR included stormwater drainage information. For the SEPA review, the City's responsible SEPA official, the Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") reviewed the project and issued a Determination of Non -Significance, Mitigated, on June 29, 2009. The ten mitigation measures were set out in the ERC Report dated June 29, 2009, and included specific requirements to comply with recommendations found in both the Geotech Report and the Wetland/Stream study along with compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation and Brad Nicholson, in his individual capacity ("Appellants") filed a timely appeal of the City's SEPA determination. In their appeal, Appellants argue that the "MDNS should be reversed and an EIS required." Appellants' Notice of Appeal, pp. 18, In. 15. In this same appeal notice, Appellants challenge the Master Site Plan seeking its reversal "for completion of a stormwater drainage plan." Appellonts' Notice of Appeal, pp. 13, Ins. 3-4. CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 2 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 9 5 5 a g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The hearing regarding this SEPA appeal along with Applicant's Master site plan and site plan review is scheduled to be heard before the Hearing Examiner on August 25, 2009_ During this hearing, the City staff is expected to present the project in detail, including all aspects regarding the ERC conditions along with compliance with the City's development standards. The Applicant, along with any members of the public, including proponents and opponents will be given an opportunity to voice their concerns at this open record hearing. Although held together, the appeal of the SEPA determination and hearing on the Master site plan and site plan are two separate proceedings. II. ISSUES 1. Are the issues raised by Appellants regarding Master Site Plan and Site Plan premature and improper within the context of a SEPA appeal, when the Master Site Plan and Site Plan hearing has yet to occur? 2. Can the City waive a Habitat Assessment when there is no showing of habitat impacts? 3. Does the City require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ("SSDP") when there is no activity within 200 feet of the shoreline? 4. Was ERC able to sufficiently identify the necessary stormwater drainage impacts for SEPA review? III. ANALYSIS 1. The issues raised by Appellants regarding Master Site Plan and Site Plan are premature and improper within the context of a SEPA appeal, when the Master Site Plan and Site Plan hearing has yet to occur. CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 3 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone; 425.255.8678 Fax; 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RMC 4-9-200D states in relevant part: "A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner shall be required in the following cases:" and includes within this realm, master plans and site plans. RMC 4-9-200D.1 and 2. Within this same section, subsection G.12 notes that "the Hearing Examiner shall take action on the proposed site development plan following the hearing process..." Though they are two distinct proceedings with different standards and burdens of proof, per state statute and code requirements, one hearing will be for both the SEPA appeal and the Master site and site plan review. That hearing is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. So while Appellants raise issues regarding the Master Plan in their Notice of Appeal of the SEPA determination, those issues regarding the Master Plan are improper in the context of a SEPA appeal. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner can not reverse the Master Site Plan as Appellants request, prior to even having held a hearing regarding the same. Appellant Nicholson, as well as any other members of the public will be given an opportunity to testify during the public hearing portion regarding the Master site and site plan review. That is the proper forum to raise issues pertaining to the Master Site Plan. As such any issues relating to Master Site plan review should be precluded from the SEPA appeal. 1. The City properly waived a Habitat Assessment where there is no showing of impacts to habitats. RMC 4-3-050A.5 governs habitat conservation and establishes that "the primary I purpose of habitat conservation regulations is to minimize impacts to critical habitats and to restore and enhance degraded or lower quality habitat." As Appellants point out on page 17, CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 4 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 I Ins. 7-14 of their Notice of Appeal, RMC 4-3-050K.2 sets out the basis for requiring a Habitat 2 Assessment: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ...the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120D. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, on applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection DO of this Section. (emphasis added.) Appellants focus solely on the first half of that section and conveniently eschew the latter half of the provision. The evidence at the hearing will show that Applicants submitted sufficient information within its Wetland/Stream Study for the City to assess any potential significant impacts to a critical habitat. Having found none, the City properly waived the requirement. 3. The City does not require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ("SSDP") when there is no activity within 200 feet of the shoreline. The City is well aware of the applicable laws and regulations governing RCW 90.58, the Shoreline Management Act as well as its own RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"). Accordingly, the City reviews and evaluates all applications for conformance with both aspects. Having done so, the City does not dispute that May Creek is subject to the parameters of the SMP. RMC 4-3-090E.4. The City further concurs with Appellants that its SMP "requires an SSDP whenever substantial development is proposed within 200 feet..." Hearing Brief of Appellant, at pp. 2, Ins. 18-19. CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF— Page 5 Renton City Attorney 100 5 2nd 5t PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 426.256.8678 Fax: 425.255.6474 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 1� 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appellants draw snippets of general summary information from the City's ERC report and Applicant's TIR to insinuate that exacting detail and specification is lacking which must then imply that some sort of impact within the 200 feet must be inevitable. Nonetheless, the City reviewed Applicant's submission documents for compliance with both SMA and SMP, and Ifound no "substantial development" within the 200 feet buffer to trigger a SSDP. Therefore, the City has no basis to require a SSDP. 4. ERC was able to sufficiently identify the necessary stormwater drainage impacts for SEPA review. Applicant submitted all requisite documents as part of its SEPA review. Included among those documents was the TIR, which included stormwater drainage information. The City's ERC clearly contemplated the stormwater drainage issues in that the June 29, 2009 report contains ten (10) specific notes regarding "Plan Review -Storm Drainage" as well as a two (2) specific mitigation measures pertaining to stormwater management. See City's ERC Report, dated June 29, 2009, 'T. Mitigation Measures" No. 3 & 4 at pp. 4. These notes and specific requirement "to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual" (Mitigation Measure no. 3) contradict Appellants' assertion that the SEPA determination should be reversed due to stormwater drainage issues. IV. CONCLUSION The City will not belabor the points regarding burden of proof and standards of review j for overturning a SEPA determination. The Hearing Examiner is well aware of the applicable laws and standards governing such a review. Obviously, the Master Site Plan cannot be I CITY of RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF — Page 6 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St Po Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reversed prior to a hearing being held on the matter. As to the other issues raised by Appellants, they are either based on incomplete and incorrect information, or mere unsubstantiated allegations. In either respect, Appellants fall far short of their burden to show that the ERC determination of a mitigated DNS should be reversed. Accordingly, the City of Renton requests that the Hearing Examiner uphold the SEPA determination and affirm the mitigated DNS of Hawk's Landing. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 17th day of August, 2009. CITY OF RENTON: CITY OF RENTON'S RESPONSE BRIEF— Page 7 Ann Nielsen, WSBA #31425 Assistant City Attorney Renton City Attorney 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98067-0626 Phone: 425.255.8678 Fax: 425.255.5474 G tl N 1E."14 �,-)M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 10 11 12 13 I4 IS 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB and BRAD NICHOLSON from a decision of the Department of Community and Economic Development. 04-F.RK'S OF CC- Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF L INTRODUCTION There is one issue in this appeal: whether the City of Renton's decision ("City's decision") to issue a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") with conditions for the proposal under review was clearly erroneous and requires the preparation of a full environmental impact statement ("EIS"}, or requires remand back to the City for further study. The appellant, SEGB and Brad Nicholson ("appellant' j, faces a heavy burden in showing that the City's decision was clearly erroneous. The appellant must overcome the substantial weight that is accorded the City's decision. The appellant must prove with affirmative evidence that the proposal will have a probable, significant adverse environmental impact. The appellant APPUCANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 1 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seatde, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 14 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 j must prove that the City of Renton ("City") has the authority to mitigate or deny a proposal for any such impacts. And, the appellant must overcome the presumption that any adverse environmental impacts are sufficiently mitigated by applicable City regulations. As the evidence to be offered at the hearing will demonstrate, the appellant cannot meet its burden. The appellant's appeal must be denied, and the City's decision must be affirmed. Ill. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts contained in this section will bc further established and supplemented by evidence presented at hearing in this matter. On July 17, 2009, appellants South End Gives Back ("SEGB'l and Brad Nicholson filed an appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance C MDNS") issued by the City of Renton ("City") in connection with a Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review for a five - story, 122,000 square foot, i 73-room hotel ("project"). The project would include retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant. The project site, consisting of 3.07 acres, is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, the former site of the Pan Abode Cedar Homes. The site is located north of May Creek (outside its 200-foot shoreline buffer), west of I-405, south of an on -ramp to 1-405, and east of the Virginia Mason Athletic Center. The project would include 107 parking stalls in a parking structure below the hotel, and 124 surface parking spaces. The project proposes to demolish some portions of the existing buildings currently on the project site, which include storage sheds and large warehouse buildings. No construction or demolition will occur within 200 feet of May Creek. Access to the project would be provided from Lake Washington Boulevard at two locations. The main access to the site would be located approximately midpoint along the site's westerly property line. A secondary access would be from the existing Pan Abode driveway at the northerly property line of the project site kPPLICANT'S RESPONSES BRIEF - Page 2 of 11 701 YV% Avenue, Suitr 7220 Seatrle, Washi%too 98104 206.8M388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 U 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The project is located in the Commercial/Office/Residential C"COW') zone, and is within the Urban Design District "C" overlay. All development in a COR zone requires the submittal of I a Master Plan. RMC 4-9-200.B. Lb. Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site Plan approval. Id. The applicant decided to submit applications for both Master Plan and Site Plan approval. IBoth applications require a public hearing and approval by the Hearing Examiner. Approval by the Hearing Examiner for the Master Plan and Site Plan has not yet occurred. As part of the IMaster Plan and Site Plan applications, the applicant was required to submit, and did submit, the f following documents: Neighborhood detail map Existing conditions map • Hawk's Landing Master Site Plan • Hawk's Landing Site Plan • Site Dimension Plan • Tree Inventory Plan • Landscape Plan • Site Utility Plan • Grading Plan • East and South. Exterior Elevations and Graphics • West and North Exterior Elevations and Graphics • Hotel Floor Plans • Building Sections Wetland/Stream Study/Habitat Assessment • Geotechnical Study • Drainage Control Plan/Drainage Report • Traffic Impact Analysis • Construction Mitigation Description • Deed of Right -of -Way Dedication Density Worksheet • Environmental Checklist • Existing Covenants and Easements Flood Hazard Data • Conceptual and Detailed Grading Plaza • Irrigation Plan MG UGH Hffj, ES APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 3 of 11 701 Fftb Aymuc, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.8123388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Improvement Deferral • List of Surrounding Property Owners and Mailing Labels and Postage • Master Application Form • Assessor's Map and Legal Description • Monument Cards • Parking, Lot Coverage, and Landscaping Analysis • Plan Reductions • Preapplication Meeting Summary • Screening Detail • Street Profiles • Title Report • Topographical Map • Urban Center Design Report The project required environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"j. RMC 4-9-070.G.3 requires that the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") issue written comments for the City prior to the issuance of a threshold determination under SEPA. The ERC issued its written comments for the project on .tune 22, 2009. Among other things, the comments included a recommendation that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. On June 30, 2009, the City issued the MDNS for the project. The MDNS incorporated all of the ERC's conditions, including compliance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual_ III. ISSUE PRESENTED The only issue before the Examiner is whether the appellant has satisfied its burden to demonstrate that the City's issuance of the MDNS was clearly erroneous. IV. ARGUMENT A. The standard of review is deferential. SEPA and the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC"} require the Hearing Examiner to give MCCULLOUKGHITIIPS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 4 of 11 7o1 Fdffi Avenue, Suite 7= Seattie, Washing 99104 206,812.3388 206-812.3389 fax I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 �a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 f substantial weight to the City's decision to issue an MDNS. RCW 43.21 C.090; RMC 4-8- 110.E-7. The burden is on the appellant to overcome the deference that the City's decision must C be given. Brown v Tacoma, 30 Wn. App. 762, 764, 637 P.2d ID05 (1981). Courts have interpreted this statutory mandate to require the application of the clearly IIerroneous standard when reviewing are agency's decision to issue an MDNS. Marden Cove Preservation Assn. v Kitsap County, 41 Wn. App. 515, 523, 704 P.2d 1242 (1985); Cougar Mountain Assn. v. King County 111 Wn.2d 742, 747-749, 764 P.2d 264 (l 988); Indian Trail Property Owner's Assn. v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn. App. 430, 431, 886 P.2d 209 (1994). Under the clearly erroneous standard, reviewing bodies do not substitute their judgments for those of the agency and may invalidate the decision only when left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Cougar Mountain, supra, 111 Wn.2d at 747; Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 69, 578 P.2d 1309 (1978); Assn of Rural Residents V. Kitsap County, 141 'Wn.2d 185, 4 P.3d 115 (2000). B. The appellant must demonstrate that the project will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The appellant claims that the MDNS is inappropriate and a full EIS must be prepared, or the MDNS should be remanded for further study, because the project allegedly has significant adverse impacts on the environment. The appellant has thrown inconsistent claims at the applicant and at the City, hoping that one of its claims will stick. However, the appellant bears the burden of producing affirmative evidence of any such impacts. Boehm v. City of Vancouver, I l I Wn. App. 711, 719-720 (2002); Moss v. City ofBellinghmn, 109 Wn. App. 6,31 P.3d 703 (2001). In Boehm, the Court rejected a challenge to an MDNS for a gas station associated with a Fred Meyer store. The appellant in that case argued that the project had significant adverse GH HILL. PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 5 of 11 701 Fd& Aveoue, Suite 7220 Ses"k, Washington 98104 206.8123388 206.8123389 Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cumulative impacts. The Court rejected this claim, stating: "[w]hen the Boehms complain of a failure to adequately identify or mitigate adverse impacts, they have produced no evidence that such impacts exist." Thus, the Court found the claimed impacts to be speculative, and rejected the appellant's claim. Boehm, i 1 Wn. App. at 719-720. Similarly, in Moss, the Court upheld the issuance of a MNDS for a 79-acre, 172-lot subdivision. The Court emphasized the specific burden of proof borne by the appellants, stating that "[A]lthough appellants complain generally that the impacts were not adequately analyzed, they have failed to cite to any facts or evidence in the record demonstrating that the project as mitigated will cause significant environmental impacts warranting an EIS." 109 Wn. App. at 23- 24. Boehm and Moss require an appellant to present affnmative evidence demonstrating the existence of a probable significant adverse environmental impact Mere complaints are insufficient to satisfy an appellant's burden of proof in a SEPA appeal as a matter of law. As the evidence presented at the hearing will show, the appellant in this case cannot meet its burden. It cannot present affirmative evidence demonstrating the existence of a probable significant adverse environmental impact resulting from this Project. The appeal must therefore be denied and the City's decision must be affirmed. C. The appellant has failed to present affirmative evidence demonstrating the existence of a probable significant adverse environmental impact resulting from the project. The appellant claims that the MDNS should be reversed because impacts of the project will result in significant adverse stormwater and groundwater impacts. However, the appellant cannot cite to any evidence showing that such impacts will occur. Mere complaints or questions, without the production of affirmative evidence proving that the Hearing Examiner's Decision MCCCJLi.ouGH HILL. PS APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 6 of 11 701 Fs&h avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.8M388 206.912.3389 fax 1 11 was clearly erroneous, are insufficient to satisfy an appellant's burden of proof in a SEPA appeal 2 11 as a matter of law. Boehm, 11 Wn. App. at 719-720; Moss, 109 Wn. App. at 23-24 3 Appellant cannot satisfy burden. It does not pp fy its point to any evidence, or site -related 4 studies or analyses, demonstrating the project has probable significant adverse environmental 5 b impacts. Notice of Appeal, pp. 21-24. But merely raising questions about the City's review 7 11 does not constitute "evidence" or in any way demonstrate the likelihood of significant adverse 8 impacts from the project. 9 In this case, all substantial evidence contained in the record, and the supporting evidence 10 to be submitted by respondents at hearing, show that applicant demonstrated full compliance 11 12 with SEPA and the Renton Municipal Code. The City reviewed the technical studies submitted 13 by the applicant, and properly imposed conditions to mitigate any adverse environmental 14 impacts. At hearing it will remain clear that the project is not likely to result in significant 15 adverse impacts to groundwater or from stormwater runoff. The appellant will not be able to 16 meet its burden of proof. 17 D. Appellant must rebut the legal presumption that the projeces adverse 18 environmental impacts, if any, are already mitigated through compliance 19 with applicable provisions of City, state and federal law. 20 SEPA specifically permits a jurisdiction to rely on its development regulations, 21 11 developed under the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), to address impacts under SEPA. In 22 1995, the State Legislature gt passed the Integration of Growth Management Planning and 23 Environmental Review Act, Laws of 1995, ch. 437, recognizing GMA development regulations 24 25 could, and should, be used to mitigate potential environmental impacts that were previously 26 11 addressed through the SEPA process. This Act was intended to "avoid duplicative 27 environmental analysis and substantive mitigation of development projects by assigning SEPA a 28 McclaaDI GH HIU, PS APPLICAN7"S RESPONSE BRIEF -Page 7 of l 701 Fift Avenue, State 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3.188 206.812.3389 fax 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 secondary role to ... systematic ritigation of adverse environmental impacts through local development regulations and other local, state, and federal environmental laws." Richard L. Settle, The Washington State Environmental Policy Act: A Legal and Policy Analysis, App. E at 505 (2006). RCW 43.21C.240, as implemented by WAC 197-11-158, streamlines the environmental review process for cities and counties planning under the GMA by authorizing the SEPA official to rely on existing plans, laws, and regulations in meeting SEPA requirements: In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a threshold determination, a GMA county/city may, at its option, determine that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation measures in the GMA county/city's development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state or federal laws or rules, provide adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific adverse environmental impacts of the project. WAC 197-11-158(1). Similarly, the Local Project Review Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW, authorizes local governments to "determine that the requirements for environmental analysis and mitigation measures in development regulations and other applicable laws provide adequate mitigation for some or all of the project's specific adverse environmental impacts to which the requirements apply." RCW 36.70B.030. Thus, the Legislature has recognized it is sufficient, as a matter of law, for a SEPA document to rely on local, state or federal laws that address potential impacts. See Moss, 109 Wn. App. at 22. Here, several conditions mitigating environmental impacts require compliance with existing local laws and regulations that have been adopted to address environmental impacts MCCULLOUGH HUJ— PS kPPLICANT'S RESPONSE BR19F - Psge 8 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WadiiiWon 98104 206.817.3388 206.812.3389 tax 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relating to elements of the environment at issue in this appeal. In particular, the project is required to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual, which specifically addresses mitigating potential impacts regarding stormwater. Thus, not only must applicant demonstrate the project will have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment, but it must also overcome the legal presumption that applicable regulations are already sufficient to mitigate such impacts. Moss, 109 Wn. App. at 22. As will be demonstrated at the hearing, the appellant cannot meet this burden. E. Several issues briefed and presented by the appellant are not properly before the Examiner. The appellant has brought claims in this appeal that are not properly before the Examiner. The appellant has requested reversal of the "Master Site Plan" (Notice of Appeal, p. 13).' As the Examiner knows, the applications for a Master Plan and Site Plan Approval are considered by the Hearing Examiner following the close of the open record public hearing required for these applications. RMC 4-9-200.D. The only decision that has been appealed by the appellant is the issuance of the MDNS. Thus, any issues connected to the Master Plan or Site Plan Approval are not properly before the Examiner in this appeal and must be disregarded. In addition, the appellant has alleged that the applicant did not submit all of the items required for approval of a Master Plan or a Site Plan Approval (Notice of Appeal, pp. 13,16). Again, the appellant's claims regarding the Master Plan and Site Plan Approval are not relevant n this proceeding: no decision has been made on these applications, and the only decision under The appellant has mistakenly called the required application a "Mash Site Plan." In fact, individual applications or both a Master Plan and a Site Plan Approval have been submitted by the applicant, to be considered by the 'sxaminer following the close of the open record public hearing. MCCUMOUGH HVr 6 PS WPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 9 of 11 701 fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WaddVon 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 2 3 4 5 6 s 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 appeal here is the MDNS. Such issues must be disregarded by the Examiner. In fact, all evidence presented at the open record public hearing will show that the Master Plan and Site Plan Approval applications comply with all applicable approval criteria. F. Allegations regarding a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are not properly before the Examiner. The appellant has alleged that the project should have obtained a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ("SSDP"), because the project allegedly involves work within 200 feet of the shoreline of May Creek. This is simply not the case. All evidence to be presented at the hearing will show that no work will occur within 200 feet of the shoreline of May Creek. Nevertheless, whether an SSDP should be required is not an issue that is properly before the Examiner in this proceeding. The appellant alleges that the project fails to comply with Renton's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"). (Hearing Brief p. 1). However, the Hearing Examiner has no jurisdiction to consider this claim in this SEPA appeal proceeding. In this appeal proceeding, the only issue properly before the Examiner is the City's determination to issue a MDNS for the project In the event that the City requires an SSDP due to development in the shoreline (which I will not be necessary for this project since it is outside of the shoreline), the applicant must comply with the SMP. But compliance with the SMP is not at issue in this proceeding. In addition, if the built project does not comply with the SMP, the City of Renton has an established process to deal with such a scenario. If the City determines that a landowner has violated the SMP, an enforcement action may be initiated against a landowner. See RMC 4-9-190.P. 2 In addition, the applicant will show at the open record public hearing for the Master Plan and Site Plan Approval that it meets the approval criteria. McQumg-H APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 10 of 11 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812,3389 fax 1 2 3 4 b 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The SMP does not provide for citizen enforcement actions brought before the Hearing Examiner as part of an appeal of an MDNS. Thus, issues regarding the SMP are not properly before the Hearing Examiner in this proceeding. V. CONCLUSION The appellant has the burden of producing affirmative evidence demonstrating that as conditioned, the project will have significant adverse environmental impacts. The appellant is required to produce substantial evidence showing that the City's decision to issue the MDNS was clearly erroneous. The appellant cannot do so. Substantial evidence in the record proves that the City had sufficient information on which to base its decision, and it appropriately imposed SEPA conditions on the project that are reasonable and capable of being accomplished. As a result, the project will have no probable significant adverse environmental impacts. The appealmust be denied, and issues that are not properly before the Examiner in this SEPA appeal proceeding must be dismissed. DATED this day of August, 2009. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page I 1 of I I McCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. McCullough, WSBA #12740 M. Clawson, WSBA ##36901 ys for AppliQtmt Alpert International N&CULLouGH Hu.>.. PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, W1J1ingto0 98104 2.06.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB and BRAD NICHOLSON from a decision of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, LAURA COUNLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am employed with McCullough Hill, PS, attorneys for Alpert International, Applicant. On the date indicated below, I caused an executed copy of the APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to be served via hand delivery and electronic mail k on: Keith Scully Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth. Ave, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 keith@eendlermanmcom and via electronic mail on: CERTMCATE OF SERVICE - Page I of 2 CULLOUGH HILL, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.8123388 2K812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attomey Warren, Barber & Pontes, PS 100 South 2'' Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 aneilsen(a rentonwa.goy DATED this ) day of August 2009, at Seattle, Washington. La oulrey CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 2 of 2 LLOUGrt H l L . PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washiagton 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of } Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, } SA-H } SEGB, a Washington non-profit } Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL individual and citizen of Renton, } EVIDENCE } Petitioners, } I. NOTICE South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this notice and attachments of additional evidence to be introduced at the hearing in this matter. The evidence consists of five newspaper articles discussing Quendall Terminals, and is offered in support of Section III (B) and (E) of SEGB's Notice of Appeal. Dated this 4th day of August, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE - I Phone: Fax: 1206j621-0512s ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT A L A Chemical Stew That Has Been Brewing For Years By Keith Ervin Seattle Times Eastside Bureau The most extensive contamination at Port Quendall is on the Quendall Terminals property where, from 1916 to 1969, Reilly Tar and Chemical barged in wastes from the Lake Union gas works and converted them into creosote and tar for roofing and paving. Residues from chemical vats were routinely dumped on the ground, and a 1937 barge spill reportedly sent more than 30,000 gallons of cancer -causing chemicals into the sediments of Lake Washington. In 1955, J.H. Baxter & Co. set up shop next door. For the next 26 years, the Baxter plant used creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat wood products. In addition to the chemicals spilled at the Reilly property, contaminants at the Baxter site include an extremely toxic group of PCP byproducts known as dioxins and furans (but apparently not the worst dioxin of all, 2,3,7,8,- TCDD). In the most -polluted lake sediments at the Baxter property, scientists found one kind of sponge in unusual numbers - and an abnormally low number of other invertebrate species. When researchers exposed shrimplike amphipods to the polluted muck, all of the animals died. Although ground water continues to carry toxic chemicals into Lake Washington, state Department of Ecology officials believe the site can be cleaned up enough to ensure the safety of humans and of fish and other species in the lake. The department classifies Port Quendall in the most -hazardous category of contaminated industrial sites. Cleanup could entail removing some of the most -contaminated material to a hazardous -waste I andfill, covering other pollutants and treating polluted ground water, Allen's environmental consultants have told Ecology officials they hope to limit cleanup costs to $12 million by doing "twofers" - two -for -one measures that isolate chemicals in the course of doing paving or landscaping that would enhance development. 1r37 •` eattic Tirw3 Company ATTACHMENT B `.� ,7 _ P:3ys:." t!;)C!ai e-c x 12 -012 AM 0 E-mail ar,icle 5 Print view Paul Allen's Renton Deal: A Familiar Style And Scope By James Vesely Times Associate Editorial Page Editor PAUL Allen's other large project is still a fallow field on the shores of Lake Washington, close to southbound 405 as the land slopes to the water that forms the channel between Renton and Mercer Island. This place has the perfect imagery for a novelist or historian. On one of the last local sites where Northwest logs are boomed together and floated to market, Allen is planning a $500 million office campus for the region's high-technology boom. On 60 acres, partially occupied by the Barbee Lumber Company of Renton, Allen's planning and development companies are scoping out Port Quendall, where - if things mesh - 8,000 people will go to work each day. Lots of obstacles can make the project stall - lack of government road money, lack of environmental permitting, lack of time and cooperation from a covey of departments and agencies. A preliminary EIS by the city of Renton partially funded by Allen is not on schedule; in fact, it's at least six weeks behind. But the Allen group has the perseverance of lava. The project also has all the earmarks of an Allen endeavor, in some ways the Eastside equivalent to the Seahawks stadium project. If the scale is different, the methodology is much the same. For those not acquainted with the Eastside's introduction to the Allen vision, Port Quendall is a plan for a modular office complex which will be the home hive for a variety of Allen companies. One easy Eastside reference is that Port Quendall will be three and half times larger than Kirkland's Carillon Point. Like Carillon Point, Port Quendall will have a central plaza and buildings terraced down to the water's edge overlooking a small marina. It's an expression of current Northwest workstyle - a place where it's hard to distinguish between a work office and office at home. Where now the waters lap at log booms the size of helicopter pads, the shoreline will be returned to pedestrians and May Creek restored to salmon runs_ The Reilly Tar and Chemical Co. which operated from 1900 to 1970 is being replaced by the information age. Hard work will be done here, but no more by calloused hands. The deveiopment plan calls for over two million square feet of rentable office space, accommodating 10,000 cars but with a relentless timetable. Allen's developers say they need to secure their land options by November, start construction by July of next year and occupancy in 1999. The real beauty of the plan is that parts of the site are hideously dirty. For decades, these quiet shores on Lake Washington have been awash in polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons left over from creosote, the stuff they use to coat railroad ties and telephone polls. In a less illuminated time, the tar residue from Seattle's gas works at the north end of Lake Union was shipped to Renton and there put on fresh logs and into the ground beneath them. Allen's role in Port Quendall becomes one of benefactor -developer, in many ways a mirror to his image as benefactor -buyer of the Seahawks. The posture of the Allen group toward the Renton development has the ring of recognition to it: enormous benefits in exchange for prompt governmental action. In the case of Port Quendall, somebody must improve the exits from 405 for $30 to $40 million and build a 50-foot high overpass crossing into the property. The Paul Allen companies are willing to pay a share, but right now, the state's Department of Transportation has no money set aside for its share. "The current transportation studies can lead to four or five funding sources, including the Paul Allen group," said Jeffrey Graves of Vulcan Northwest Inc. But no expedited transportation money means no development, no 8,000 jobs, no coat tar cleanup. Local governments have almost no resistance to such a message. Renton's economic development director Susan Carlson said Port Quendall "literally changes the face of Renton. It's pivotal." In hot pursuit, Renton is asking the state legislature to approve $500,000 for a study required before federal transportation funds start flowing. An increase in the state gas tax would also be extremely beneficial to the project, which adds to the momentum for the tax. To further make their point, Allen's group added a turn of the vise by buying 20 acres in Issaquah as a back-up site in case the permitting is unavailable in Renton. Perhaps this portrait casts Paul Allen and his managers in too cold a light. Without Allen, the Port Quendall piece of Lake Washington shoreline would remain a low -rung lumber operation condemned by environmental slime to a twilight of industrial use. Allen can fix that by infusing top-notch talent into planning and building a gem of a project. The Allen companies can, and do, present a product as friction free as anything produced by long -gone Reilly Tar. There is a smoothness to their presentations that calms all doubt. A walk across May Creek shows a clear -running stream with tire and other junk in the water. Allen's engineers will clean all that up, and are working with the Muckleshoots on salmon restoration for the tribe's fishing rights just offshore_ It's always a case of a bird in the hand, isn't it? And if this bird should fly, Renton may never get its own Carillon Point. All it takes is to give Paul Allen the money. James Vesely's column focusing on Eastside issues appears Mondays on editorial pages of The Times_ opyright (c) 1 W Seattle Tines Company, All Rights Reserved_ ATTACHMENT C A Dream Site Or A Nightmare? -- Port Quendall Toxic Cleanup May Be Too Much, Even For Paul Allen By Keith Ervin Seattle Troes Eastside Business Reporter RENTQN - In many ways, Port Quendall is a developer's dream. Nestled along a mile of shoreline, its 68 acres are zoned for just about everything - offices, homes, stores, hotels, a marina - on a big scale. But the largest developable property left on Lake Washington is also one of the most contaminated sites in the state, one that has dashed the dreams of a string of developers over the past 22 years. For more than six decades, the site was the center of creosote production, and residues from chemical vats were routinely dumped on the ground_ Now, the latest and wealthiest developer - multibillionaire Paul Allen - may also walk away from the site. Allen's options to buy the land expire Nov. 4, and he is expected to decide soon whether to move ahead with his mega -project at Port Quendall or move his companies' headquarters to a more modest backup site in Issaquah. "It's going to be difficult for anybody to do it if he can't," says Renton's economic -development director, Sue Carlson. "We don't want it to sit for another 50 years spilling oil." If Allen walks, it would be a disappointment to Carlson and other city officials who view him as their best hope for developing this troubled property and transforming blue-collar Renton into a world -class technology center. It also would be a blow to the state Legislature and Department of Ecology, which have spent more than a decade streamlining procedures for cleaning up toxic wastes and redeveloping industrial "brownfields" like this. What a difference a year has made. Allen electrified Renton and neighboring Newcastle last year with the announcement that he had optioned four large properties in the Kennydale area for a corporate campus ranging from 2 million to 3 million square feet. His plans envisioned a $500 million to $700 million development with up to 10,000 workers in offices, a hotel and conference center, restaurants and stores, along with trails and public open space between Interstate 405 and Lake Washington_ As the months passed, however, the difficulty of developing the land has become apparent once again. Allen's number crunchers determined the cost of environmental cleanup and road improvements was too high to support the original plan. They went back to the drawing board to see if they could eliminate $40 million of new freeway interchanges by replacing many of the planned offices with multifamily housing. Allen could become the latest in a parade of developers who have walked away from the property. The Skinner Corp., which built Kirkland's tony Carillon Point, nearly bought the Port Quendall site in 1989 or 1990, but backed away because of uncertainties about what kind of environmental cleanup the Department of Ecology would require. "Not only could they not tell you what the cost would be, they couldn't tell you when they would know what the cost would be," says Judd Kirk, who developed Carillon Point in Kirkland for Skinner and who now is president of Port Blakely Communities. "That's a double whammy. When you invest that kind of money, you have to be able to project what your costs are." Kirk envisioned Port Quendall as "another Carillon Point," but much larger and with a mix of more homes and fewer offices_ The vision of a large waterfront development dates to 1972, when the Cugini and Baxter families formed a partnership to buy the Quendall Terminals property, where the Reilly Tar and Chemical Co. had produced creosote for 63 years. Each family owned a property adjacent to Quendall Terminals. The Cuginis operate the Barbee Mill, the last sawmill on Lake Washington, and sort logs on the former Reilly property. J.H. Baxter & Co. ran a wood -treatment plant on the other side of Reilly. Combining their three properties, the Cugini and Baxter families assembled a remarkable 60-acre tract of lakefront property zoned for a mix of uses. (Allen's plan would enlarge the property to 68 acres by adding the Pan Abode Cedar Homes property.) "It's a beautiful site," says Robert Cugini, vice president of the company and grandson of its founder. "There are not any like it in the area." With the property's panoramic view of boats in the Lake Washington East Channel, the forested hillsides of Mercer Island and the southern tip of Seattle, it's hard to argue with him. Two developers - Don Koll Northwest followed by James Schuler's Port Quendall Development - started working on plans for a megadevelopment in 1976. Schuler won approval from the Renton City Council in 1982. But the plan was stalled by the toxic -contamination problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn't decide until 1986 whether the cleanup would be supervised by the federal or state government. The state assumed jurisdiction, but contamination continued to be a stumbling block for developers. Carlson's description of contaminants as "oil" is a charitable term. Two industrial plants operating between 1916 and 1981 left a legacy of cancer -causing chemicals in the soil, groundwater and lake sediments. After such a long history of failed development attempts, it's no surprise that state and city officials are eager to see the toxic mess cleaned up by a developer with pockets as deep as Paul Allen's. No one yet knows just how much it will cost to clean up the contamination or improve 1405 access to the site. Nor is it known just how much public money might be thrown into the pot along with a developer's capital. Cost estimates range upward of $20 million to deal with the chemicals and $40 million to $84 million for road work and a transit center. The Legislature has tried to speed up redevelopment of industrial "brownfields" by allowing officials to strike deals with developers who, like Allen, don't yet own the property. Cleaning up contaminated, idle land like the Reilly and Baxter parcels is exactly what the Legislature had in mind when it modified the Model Toxics Control Act's brownfields provisions last year, notes Assistant Attorney General Tanya Barnett. City officials likewise see opportunities for economic growth and transportation improvements. A development the size of Port Quendall would hasten construction of a regional -transit center and direct -access ramps to car-pool lanes on 1-405 - at far less cost than in fully developed areas, according to Renton's transportation planning manager, Lee Hero. The Port Quendall transportation plan also calls for bike and pedestrian trails along the waterfront, possible ferry service and shuttle buses around the campus. "We think this is an exciting regional opportunity to do a demonstration of land use and transportation working together to support the transit system," says Hero. It might seem that those most concerned about the possibility of an Allen pullout would be the property owners. Not so, according to Cugini. He would like Allen to develop the property. But if Allen doesn't, the Cugini and Baxter families are prepared to complete the environmental studies they've been funding for years - and then Cugini expects them to do the cleanup. "I've always envisioned, and it was always my plan," he says, "to slowly develop the site ourselves. Mr. Allen approached us, not the other way around." Publicity about Allen's project has brought other potential development partners to his door, Cugini says. With the valuable land already in hand, most of the environmental surveying completed, Ecology officials clearer about what they expect, a continuing revenue stream from the sawmill, and developers interested in the property, Cugini is biding his time. Robert Cugini figures Paul Allen's loss might just prove to be his family's gain. Keith Ervin's phone message number is 206-515-5632. His e-mail address is: kerv- new@seatimes.com----------------------------------------------------------------- Port Quendall: a difficult site to develop Eighty years of pollution to clean up Until now, efforts to redevelop the industrial site known as Port Quendall have failed because of the highly cost of cleaning up toxic. Likely transportation improvements The latest would-be developer, Paul Allen, has found that transportation costs will be high if the site is developed. Among necessary changes, 1-405 would have to be widened to accommodate a transit stop and direct HOVE access. ATTACHMENT D VJednes.day. September 14, 2005 EPA proposes Lake Washington shoreline in Renton for Superfund Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) ■ Print ■ Frraii ■ i.', Lii'�1'.t$ ' Dip T ,is ■ Cornments Related News ■ Cordish partners with Blazers on Portland development ■ Seattle Symphony's Schwarz chosen as 2009 First Citizen • Atigeo names ex-Myspace, Vulcan execs to board Paul Alien's philanthropic philosophy is driven.by intense interests in discove and learning, ■ Retailers say interest remains strong in high -end stones; Costco sells $225 OOG diamonds The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed adding Quendall Terminals, a former creosote formulating plant on the Lake Washington shoreline in Renton, to its Superfund National Priorities List. The list contains the nation's most seriously contaminated hazardous waste sites. The EPA said the listing proposal is designed to spur active cleanup of the site. "We believe Superfund is an effective legal tool in getting seriously contaminated property cleaned up," said Dan OpaIski, director of EPA's Superfund cleanup office in Seattle. "Experience has shown that by simply proposing or listing a site on the NPL, amazing progress can be made to move site cleanup forward." The EPA said preliminary investigations show extensive contamination of the soil, groundwater and nearby lake sediments with cancer -causing chemicals. The chemicals are concentrated "well above cleanup levels for both industrial and residential sites," the EPA said. "Releases of these contaminants to Lake Washington -- a popular recreation spot for both residents and tourists -- are of particular concern." Reilly Tar and Chemical Corp. and its predecessors made creosote at the 23-acre site from 1917 to 1969. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendall Terminals, a joint venture of J.H. Baxter and Co. and Altino Properties Inc. Ownership remains the same today, despite interest in recent years in redeveloping the site by the city of Renton and Vulcan Inc., Paul Allen's investment and development company. The EPA said a 6o-day public comment period has started and will end Nov.14. After that, and assuming the site is listed, the agency's first step is to evaluate all previous environmental studies done at the site to determine whether an appropriate cleanup alternative is available. ATTACHMENT E EAST: ,f7F_ BIUSS NESE. Renton project may collapse amid squabbling By Luke Timmerman Seattle Times Easfside business reporter Paul Allen is used to doing pretty much as he wishes, but he has not been able to fulfill his vision for an immense office and residential development in Renton on Lake Washington's shore. After four years of studies and complex maneuvering, a Renton official and a key landowner say Allen's idea to build the $500 million mixed -use development at Port Quendall is in jeopardy. Allen's people don't use such bleak language, but a volatile situation clearly has emerged since June. That's when the city of Renton abandoned an option to buy and clean up a chunk of the site that's highly contaminated with industrial waste - a move that shifts liability for the estimated $20 million cleanup back onto the private landowners. Although the city still could end up paying for the cleanup through state or private grants and loans, it is now in a serious squabble with one of the current owners, the Cugini family. Tensions escalated further this week when the family, which owns the Barbee Mill on the site, sued the city for passing an emergency ordinance July 24 prohibiting the family from building on its 23-acre property without approval from adjoining landowners. Robert Cugini says the ordinance knocks millions of dollars of value off the property, assessed at $16 million. Renton economic -development administrator Sue Carlson says the emergency ordinance is just a technical clarification of a 7-year-old master -planning ordinance that encourages cooperative land -use planning. "I don't think this will stop anybody from developing; we just want to make sure it's done correctly," Carlson said. Cugini contends the city is trying to force him to acquiesce to Allen, who he said has offered hint less than market value for his land. "This significantly reduces the value of our property," Cugini, vice president of Barbee Mill, said in a statement. "We feel it's an attempt to force us into a certain action." This latest round of saber -rattling around Port Quendall amplifies what had already been a delicate situation. The next steps are unclear. Cugini said he will still negotiate with Allen, and Allen's surrogates say they're continuing to work on the project for the "long term," while the city is still trying to shepherd the project along. Since June, city officials have told the landowners and Allen they want assurances before they pay for the cleanup. They want to be sure a development group such as Allen's will follow through on plans to build a $500 million gem of office, retail, residential and park space on 68 acres of Lake Washington shore. If the plans are fulfilled, the development could turn Renton from an industrial working-class town into a member of the Eastside glitterati. "Certainly the project we're envisioning is in jeopardy," said Jay Covington, chief administrative officer for the city of Renton. "From our standpoint, we're waiting for a good word, a unified commitment from the property owners. If that happened, we could pick up the baton." Whether that will happen is questionable, as the varied Port Quendall interests haven't meshed for 30 years. Allen's vision generated some excitement in Renton four years ago, with plans for more than 1 million square feet of office space, hotels, more than 1,200 homes, and more than 650,000 square feet of retail space. To do that, Allen or another developer would need to purchase the remaining 40 acres of the 68- acre property currently owned by the Cuginis and J.H, Baxter & Co. But before any development can happen, the land needs a serious cleanup. The contamination in the soil stems from when it was home to Reilly Tar and Chemical from 1916 to 1969. In those years, the land was used for refining coal tar for paving and preserving logs. Former workers at the site have told Department of Ecology officials of massive spills, underground pipe leaks and dumping of chemical residue on the ground. Although state Department of Ecology officials have tried to get the polluters to clean up their mess. Reilly's attorneys have successfully used a sale agreement from the early 1970s as a shield from responsibility. The Baxter company and the Cugini family argue they shouldn't be held responsible because they didn't create the mess or know the extent of the contamination when they bought the land. Through the years since, numerous developers have flirted with projects, but none has ever put a shovel in the ground. Part of that is because of a tangled web of interests. The Cugini family wants what it considers fair market value for the land, assessed at $16 million, but in need of a $7 million cleanup. If the price isn't right, they say they have a smaller development of their own in mind_ The city already has rejected an application for that development. Much bigger plans are on the minds at Allen's Vulcan Northwest and a consortium of other companies it is working with. But the group doesn't want to pay for the brunt of the cleanup, or too much for the land, or for a new freeway interchange at Northeast 44th Street that could cost $60 million to $80 million. On the public side, the city of Renton has said it wants Allen to develop the property, and it wants the mile of shoreline for a new park. It doesn't want to commit to a cleanup and then watch him back out and allow a lesser development to swoop in. The state Department of Ecology has wanted the property cleaned up for decades, but it doesn't want to keep holding money for it forever while denying other deserving projects. And the Legislature has been lobbied extensively by the city and by Allen's people for the expensive interchange, which may be a tough sell in the post -Initiative 695 era. Still, preliminary design work for the interchange is moving forward. Though no interested parties show signs of budging from their positions, Vulcan Northwest insists it will keep trying to make a deal happen, and it hasn't set any deadlines. "We want to provide more public access to the lake and a real mixed -use development in an urban area," said Larry Martin, vice president of real estate for Vulcan Northwest. "That is an appealing package of public and private benefits. Paul Allen and Vulcan Northwest are really motivated to make it happen." Some of that motivation could be seen in May, when Allen bought the northern 20 acres of the land, and agreed to pay for $6 million to $7 million for its cleanup. That move piqued some interest among Renton citizens, many of whom hadn't paid much attention since a series of public meetings four years ago. Neighbors who live near Port Quendall generally agree the place should be cleaned up --the state has given it a ranking as the highest risk to human health and the environment --but many are patient with the slow progress. Cugini said talks likely will break out of a holding pattern by the end of this year. "It's like a big weight about to tilt," Cugini said. "All of the parties have had enough time to examine the issues. There's been a ton of work done. It will either go or fall apart, I think, sometime fairly soon." Luke Timmerman's phone message number is 206-515-5644. His email address is: ltimmerman@seattietimes. cam. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) SEGB, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an } individual and citizen of Renton, } } Petitioners, ) ) STATE OF WASHINGTON } ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE 1, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Notice of Supplemental Evidence: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone. {2061621.8868 Fax:(2061621-0512 ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19; i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 [x] By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail DATED this 4' day of � �'� � , 200�, at Seattle, Washington. (!Y0P&A COAKL (South End Gives Sack(Den)1Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax. 1206) 621-0512 CITY OF MENTaNSTTLE J V L 3 1 L IJ O 910 EA AVE. 943 TACOMA TACOAV E. SO. 10655 NE 41h 2927 ROCKS ELLER 119 W LEGION WAY SEATTLE, WA 98104 TACOMA, WA S8402 Suite L101 FVERETT, WA 96201 OLYMPIA, WA 98501 LEGAL 5 � - PH- 206-623-8771 PH: 253-383-1791 BELLEVUE, WA 98004 PH: 425-258-4591 Poi: 360-154-6595 00 206•682-1675 1-800-383-1791 PH:425-455-0102 1-800-569-7755 1-800-828-0199 1.800.736.7295 FAX7253-272-9359 FAX:425-455-3153 FAX: 425-252-9322 FAX:360-357-�3302 FAX:206-625-9247 tacl�abclegal.com bel@abclegak.com eveaabclegal.com ofy@ahclegal.com sea abAlepaLcam MesseNeea ssav'ce FIRM NAME PHONE !: EXT.# EMAIL (SECRETARY) DATEMME ADDRESS ESECRFTARY Fourth Suite 1015, Seattle WA 98101 S - - @gendlermann.cam LAST DAY Gendler & Mann _ 621.886.8_ ' 850 florit1424 a@gendiefM2..nn.com CASE NAME Ave,,� - - - — YOUR ABC ACCT. NO I` FID _ ___ - In the Matter of the Appeal of South End Gives Back 103142 by 4.30 P.M. CAUSE NO. CUFNT MATER # DATE LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H 616 7/31/2009 Hearing Brief of Appellant; Declaration of Service SIGNATURE REQUIRED x RETURN CONFORMED RETURN CONFORMED I CONFORM ORIGINAL ON DOCUMENTS ABC SLIP ONLY COPY DO CITY OF REN roN NOT FILE OTHER INSTRUCTIONS i1 Hearing Examiner 3 City of Renton J U L 3 1? c/o City Clerk 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98057 REC&17,D CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I SUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT (INDICATE APPEALS COUNTY AUDITOR n- COURT DISTRICT) isrJ rar THIS FORM NOT FOR PROCESS FEDERAL COURT sink ace SUPREME STATE WIL 9AWRUPTcr COURT CORP. ABC Legal Services, Inc. (ABC) assumes no liability for errors caused in whole or in part by the improper filling out of this messenger service request form, including but not limited to, omission of a last day daleltime, filings not marked in they proper and designated filing boxes, illegible print or script, etc. All messenger requests are double-checked for accuracy and completion prior to reluming to the requeslor, however; it is the responsibiRy of the requestor to also check the completed request form for accuracy and to notify us immediately if there are any questions or discrepancies. Usage of this form Constitutes a contract between the requeslor and ABC and acknowledgment and acceptance by the requeslor of the terms set forth above. 1 ABC Legal Services ABCSup 3.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT I. INTRODUCTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this hearing brief to supplement the legal argument in the Notice of Appeal filed in this matter. Appellants adopt the Notice of Appeal by reference. The matter should be reversed for the reasons argued therein, and because a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required but has not been sought. II. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT A. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is Required In the Notice of Appeal, SEGB raised as an issue that Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applied to the site, and requested that City staff review the project for GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 1 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 ORIP"11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 compliance. A closer review reveals that an SSDP is required, and that the applicant should be required to provide additional infonnation on the applicant's earth movement and landscaping plans next to Conservancy -Shoreline designated May Creek. The applicant has completed a Technical Information Report (TIR), and a Wetland and Stream Study. Both of those documents demonstrate that an SSDP is required, and show that further information is needed to determine if the applicant's plans comply with Renton's SMP. Applicant Spencer Alpert (Applicant) has applied for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. The proposal would involve constructing new buildings approximately 248 feet from May Creek, but would also involve demolishing existing structures, and disturbing earth, within a short distance of the Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). See Att. A, Technical Information Report (TIR), at 4; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. Renton's Shoreline Master Program requires an SSDP whenever substantial development is proposed within 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek. RCW 90.58.140; SMP § 2.02, 9.38. "Substantial development" is that costing greater than $2500 to construct.SMP § 2.02, 9.38, RCW 90.58.030, In this case, although the hotel structure is planned for slightly farther than 200 feet from the OHWM, the existing site consists of "four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping." Att. A at 5; Figure A-7. Currently, buildings, debris, and other impervious surface comes to within a few feet of May Creek. Att. A, TIR, HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: [206) 621-8868 Fax:12061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure A-7; Ex. 16 to Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). During construction, the "existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/reused and removed from the site." Att. A, TIR, at 5; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. There is no detail on what will happen with the site once the buildings are removed — no detail on whether impervious surface will be left, whether the site will be left in bare earth and thus subject to erosion, and whether and what type of landscaping will be provided right next to May Creek. See Att. A, TIR, at Att. A-4, showing blank space next to May Creek. Since the applicant proposes a hotel, it is unlikely that the concrete and debris will remain in view of guest rooms. Instead, it is probable that the applicant will be landscaping; the applicant's Technical Information Report discusses "hydroseeding" among other landscape activities. Att. A, TIR, at 16. Thus, although the buildings will be located greater than 200 feet from the Creek, the "substantial development" extends nearly to the water's edge. The applicant's landscaping must preserve May Creek in "essentially [its] native state." RMC 4-3- 090(I)(1). Landscaping "should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific type[] of waterway." SMP § 6.05.01. May Creek is a Renton Shoreline, designated as "conservancy" for the portion passing next to the development site. RMC 4-3-090(I). Neither the TIR nor the Wetland/Stream Study have any information on the type of landscaping, other than a mention of hydroseeding. Hydroseeding suggests that the applicant intends to use entirely inappropriate non-native lawn grass, right up to the edge of May Creek. HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621.8868 Fax: (2061 621.0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Knowing what the applicant proposes to do on the banks of May Creek and ensuring that it is in keeping with Renton's SMP is key to preserving this shoreline of the City. Decreasing water flow through removing surface water flow and planting the shore of May Creek with an invasive non-native grass, subject to pesticides and fertilizers which will flow unobstructed into the waterway, could have disastrous consequences for the shoreline's health. Landscaping must be "representative of the indigenous character of the specific type of waterway." Renton SMP § 6.06,01. The applicant provides no detail on what type of plants will be placed; its reference to "hydroseeding" makes it probable that the applicant plans to spray golf -course style non-native grass onto this sensitive environmental area. The SSDP must address numerous areas of concern under Renton's Shoreline Master Program. In addition to native plants, stream flow must be addressed. Currently, stormwater flow runs to May Creek over impervious surface. Although unclear, it is probable that the development project will decrease flow to May Creek based upon the increase in pervious surface and subsequent decrease in surface water flow. As the SMP provides, "[s]teeam alteration is the relocation or change in the flaw of a river, stream or creek." SMP § 7.16.01. Stream alteration is only allowed if it is designed by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer, and "will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life." SMP § 7.16.04. In this case, the applicant has blown off any impacts on May Creek by noting without analysis that the impervious surface will be less than before, and that the new buildings will be more than 50 feet away from the OHWM. But even the applicant admits the importance of this creek to wildlife in Renton; it is reported to be used HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax:(2061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 by Chinook and Sockeye salmon, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout. Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 6. Terrestrial species benefit from May Creek, too: according to the applicant, "[t]he riparian area provides excellent feeding an cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species." Id., at 7. Similarly, a variety of mammals use May Creek — and are adapted to and dependent on its current flow and vegetation. An SSDP should be required, describing and limiting the impacts of this massive project on May Creek. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein and in the Notice of Appeal, the MDNS and Master Site Plan should be reversed, and an SSDP required. Dated this 31st day of July, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, L�P Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants %South End Gives Back(Den)IHearing Brief of Appel lant FINAL 7 31 09 HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: {2861 621-0512 ATTACHMENT A Flo TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL For Hawk's Landing L.L.C. April 28, 2009 Prepared By: Sound Development Group, L.L.C. 1111 Cleveland Ave., Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone: (360) 404-2010 Fax: (360) 404-2013 Email: office@sdg-lic.com Project No. 8115 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREP SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PI LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. DATE: BY: JOR UNDER MY DIRECT :ENGINEER UNDER THE M:15DG1200F,8115 - Hawks Landing -Hawks LandingWraimta.doc 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Project Overview........................................................................... 1.1 Purpose and Scope .................. ....................... ........................................... I—........ 4 1.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Post -Development Conditions ..................... ....... 6 2.0 Conditions & Requirements Summary.............................................................................. 2.1 Core Requirements.............................................................................. .... 7 2.1.1 C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location ............................................... 7 2.1.2 C.R. #2 — Off -site Analysis.......................................................................... 7 2.1.3 C.R. #3 — Flow Control................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System.................................................................... 8 2.1.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion & Sediment Control........................................................ 8 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance & Operations.......................................................... 8 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability .............................................. 8 2.1.8 C.R. #8 — Water Quality............................................................................... 9 2.2 Special Requirements...................................................................................... 2.2.1 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements ................................ 10 2.2.2 S.R. #2 — Flood plain/Fioodway Delineation_ ..................... .... 10 ...................... 2.2.3 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities............................................................ 10 2.2.4 S.R. #4 — Source Controls........................................................................... 10 2.2.5 S.R. #5 — Oil Control.................................................................................... 10 3.0 Off - Site Analysis............................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Downstream Analysis........................................................................................ ..... 11 3.1.1 Task 1 — Study Area Definition and Maps ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Task 2 -- Resource Review ................................................. ..... 12 3.1.3 Task 3 — Field Inspection............................................................................. 12 3.1.4 Task 4 — Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions ............. 12 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................... 13 K -1 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design........................................................................ 13 6.0 Special Reports and Studies.. .... ................................. .................. ................................. 14 7.0 Other Permits.................................................................................................................... 14 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design.. ................... ............................................................. 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure................................................................. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping............................................................... 16 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration .................................................. 16 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report......................................................................... 16 8.5 Inspection Sequence.............................................................................................. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments......................................................... 18 8.7 Utilities........................................................................................... ...... 18 .................. 8.8 TESC Conclusion................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summary, and Declaration of Covenant .................................... 19 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan................................................................................... 19 11.0 Conclusion... ............... .................................................................. 19 APPENDICES AppendixA — Exhibits................................................................................................. ..... 20 Figure A-1 — Vicinity Map ...................................................... ..... 21 Figure A-2 — Flood Insurance Rate Map — Firmette.......................................................... 22 Figure A-3 — Pre -Developed Condition Map Figure A-4 — Developed Condition Map .................................. Figure A-5 — MRCS Soil Survey Information..................................................................... 25 Figure A-6 — WSDOT Basin Map ....................................................... ..... 26 Figure A-7 — Downstream Aerial ...................................................................................... 27 FigureA-8 — TIR Worksheet............................................................................................. 28 Y Figure A-9 — Facility Summary (not included)................................................................... 29 Figure A-10 -- Bond Quantity Worksheet (not included) .................................................... 30 Figure A-11 — Draft Declaration of Covenant Form (not included) .................................... 31 �3 Appendix B — Geotechnical Report.............................................................................................. 32 Appendix C — Water Quality Calculations (not included) ............................................................. 33 Appendix D — Maintenance and Operations Plan (not included) ................................................. 34 Appendix E — Legal Description........................................................................ 35 Appendix F — Conveyance Calculations and Detail (not included) .............................................. 36 3 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the proposed 3.06-acre project is to demolish the existing structures within the current project boundary, relocate existing onsite utilities dJ and construct a 5-story 122,000 square foot hotel. Associated utilities will be provided to the new hotel to accommodate required fire, water, stormwater, Y i power, cable and sanitary sewer requirements. Existing impervious areas within the development area will be demolished and re-used/recycled or removed. It is assumed that the site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be less than that of the existing site conditions. The developed runoff from the pollution generating impervious areas will be treated with Low Impact Development: rain gardens. The Western Washington Hydrology Model will be utilized to determine the required treatment stormwater runoff to size the proposed rain gardens, and can be found in Appendix C. As discussed with Alex Jones, with the King County Surface Water Department, the KCRTS is not appropriate to size rain gardens. Modifications will be made to the existing on -site Washington Department of Transportation conveyance system to re-route the existing system around the new building structure and site improvements. 4 1.2 Existing Conditions The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, west of Highway 405_ King County parcel number: 3224059049. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The project site basin is approximately 3.06 acres. Existing soils onsite consist al' of Norma Sandy Loam, with a Hydrologic group of "D", per the NRCS soil survey, r, A geotechnical engineering study was prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in February of 1991 and is attached to this report as Appendix B. This report a; describes the soils on -site, and will be updated upon site design. An on -site topographic survey was conducted by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc, in 1995. This survey was used as a base map to delineate the on -site drainage and grading for the new site plan. Sound Development Group has verified that there are no apparent major modifications to the existing on -site conditions. This office also completed an off -site topography to be utilized in the proposed off -site road improvements, in January, 2009. 3 The project site currently supports four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping. The existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/re-used and removed from the site. Currently, the site is approximately 85 percent impervious. The majority of the 15 percent pervious area includes the landscaped road frontage along Lake Washington Boulevard. 5 r 1.3 Post -Development Conditions Upon completion of construction, the proposed project site will consist of a new 5-story, 29,412 square foot footprint hotel, with underground parking garage. The new hotel will be provided with proposed storm and sanitary sewer, water and other appropriate utilities. Road improvements will be completed along Lake Washington Boulevard to include curb, gutter and sidewalk. Stormwater runoff from the site development will be treated with rain gardens. A portion of the southern entrance to the site, from Lake Washington Boulevard will be conveyed through a proposed basic treatment system in compliance with the King County Stormwater Design Manual, prior to discharging to the proposed public storm system. 6 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1 - Discharge at the Natural Location Currently, based on the topographic survey information and records, stormwater from the majority of the existing site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake ri Washington Boulevard, or within an existing onsite storm system, and } discharged to said ditch. The water captured within the tight -lined system is conveyed discharged off -site to the existing ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site will occur at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch, utilizing the existing culvert to May Creek. 2.1.2 C.R. #2 - Off -site Analysis A Level 1 Upstream / Downstream Analysis, is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The analysis, upon site design, will include: • Defining and mapping the study area; • Reviewing available information on the study area; • Field inspecting the study area; and 1 Analyzing the existing drainage system including its existing and ° predicted problems, if any. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 - Flow Control The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1,2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. 7 r'I 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems will be demolished 1 removed. Due to essentially equivalent impervious areas in the pre -developed and developed conditions, flow characteristics should be unchanged. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin. 2.1.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for this site in accordance with the KCSWDM and the City of Renton requirements. The existing paved northern entrance to the site will be used as the construction entrance. Construction work limits will be determined and shown in Appendix A, Figures A-3 and A-4, upon design. The erosion and sediment control plan will be included in Section 8 of this Technical Information Report. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations See Appendix D of this report for further discussion on maintenance: and operations requirements. 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability Financial guarantees meeting King county guarantee requirements will be provided under separate cover. See Appendix A in the future, Figure A-7 for the Bond Quantity Worksheet. s3 ff ;a 8 2.1.8 C.R. ##8 - Water Quality Water quality treatment, as required by Core Requirement #8, will be implemented and designed to target pollution -generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) and a portion of the non -pollution -generating impervious surface (NPGIS). It is intended to capture the proposed roadway/parking runoff, as well as a good portion of the NPGIS, within several individual rain gardens. The rain gardens will be designed utilizing Western Washington Hydrology Model, Version 3, to treat 91 % of the site runoff. The proposed rain gardens will meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, Section 6.1. 0 W'.0. 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2.1 S.R. #1 - Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements NIA. 2.2.2 S.R. #2 - Floodplain/Floodway Delineation FEMA Map Panel No. 53033C0664 F, dated May 16, 1995, was consulted and shows that the site is not within a 100-year floodplain. Note that the site is located in a Zone X (see Appendix A, figure A-2). 2.2.3 S.R. #3 - Flood Protection Facilities To our knowledge, the existing site does not contain flood protection facilities, nor does the proposed project intend to construct any. 2.2.4 S.R. #4 - Source Controls This project does not require -Source controls; therefore, Special Requirement No. 4, Source Control, does not apply. 2.2.5 S.R. #5 -- Oil Control This project does not fit the classification of a high -use site; therefore, Special Requirement No. 5, Oil Control, does not apply. 10 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis 3.1.1 Task 1 — Study Area Definition and Maps The project site represents a portion of the May Creek watershed basin. ri (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The site currently f' drains south to May Creek, and eventually to Lake Washington. A boundary and topographical survey of the project site has been completed and is included in the project submittal. A Pre -Developed Condition Map is included in this report in Appendix A, Figure A-3. An upstream and downstream inspection I site visit was conducted to determine the relative basin that contributes to the shared discharge location. The contributing basin appears to include a portion of Interstate 405, associated on -ramps, Lake Washington Boulevard and the project site. The approximate 1-405 basin has been included in Appendix A — Figure A-6. The 1-405 basin is captured in a series of ditches, culverts and catch basin - pipe networks, and conveyed west to ex CB 2604 per the attached Developed conditions map. It is then tightlined south and west to the existing roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard, The ditch conveys the water south, approximately 450' to an existing 24" CPP culvert. The culvert discharges the stormwater directly into the buffer of May Creek. May Creek flows to the west from the above discharge point, beneath an existing Lake Washington Boulevard bridge, beneath an existing railroad trestle, then south and west to discharge to Lake Washington. The downstream flow path of May Creek has been included in Appendix A — Figure A-7. May Creek appear to be well vegetated, with no conveyance or erosion problems. W 3.1.2 Task #2 — Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential problems in the study area: 1. FEMA Maps. ri 2. Critical Areas Map and Wetlands Inventory Map: A critical areas xj report is being prepared. i 3. Soils Information: The geotechnical report for the project site was consulted, and no special conditions apply. (Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix B.) 4. Drainage Complaints: City records will be consulted to determine if any drainage complaints are on file. 5. Erosion Problems. There are no erosion problems at the site due to the fact that it is almost 100 percent impervious. 3.1.3 Task #3 — Field Inspection Sound Development Group staff walked the project site on March 12, 2009. There was no rain at the time of this inspection. The site was observed to be comprised of primarily concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Minimal landscaping in the parking area was observed. 3.1.4 Task #4 — Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The drainage system consists of sheet flow to an existing roadside ditch and catch basins to a closed conveyance systems. The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. This will contribute to conveyance problems, ditch and pipe siltation, and possible clogging of the existing system, and should be remedied. There are no known overtopping problems at this site, or within May Creek. 12 `i 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This site is will meet flow control requirements. See Section 2.1.3 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. This site is will meet the Water Quality Core Requirement. See Section 2.1.8 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW. Due to no change within the WSDOT basin, flow characteristics should be unchanged, and existing sizing will be utilized. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin upon site design. 13 f Y I 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Critical Area Investigation by Graham and Bunting. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS SEPA Checklist - City of Renton Building Permit — City of Renton Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) — DOE Clearing and Grading Permit — City of Renton 14 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure The proposed project will include an erosion/sedimentation control plan designed to prevent sediment -laden runoff from leaving the site during construction. Currently, the site is approximately 85% percent impervious. Maintaining existing surfacing where construction allows, will help ensure erosion/sedimentation control. Additional control can be achieved by cover measures and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. Prior to the start of any construction activity upon the site, erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance with this plan and the construction documents. The best management practices will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. The planned construction sequence for erosion control is as follows: 1. Stake and flag the clearing limits. F 2. Schedule and attend a pre -construction meeting with the City of Renton, the Owner, and Engineer. 3. Identify existing entrance(s) to be used as construction entrance(s). 4. Provide catch basin sediment protection. 5. Provide miscellaneous demolition within the clearing limits as necessary to construction project. 6. All on -site erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected at least once every 5 working days, each working day during a runoff producing rain events, and within 24 hours after a runoff producing rain event. The contractor shall repair or replace erosion control measures as required, 7. As necessary, adjust temporary erosion control measures as work progresses. 8. Install stormwater facilities, fine grade areas to receive surfacing and provide the surfacing indicated on the plans. 9. Stabilize all remaining disturbed areas. 10_ Contact the City of Renton for final inspection. 11. Remove sediment from catch basin sumps, Remove remaining temporary erosion control devices when the area has been permanently stabilized with vegetation and surfacing, and the removal is approved by the City and the Owner. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Structural control measures will not be used on this site due to the fact that it consists almost entirely of existing concrete, asphalt, and buildings within the work limits. i� Specifically, during the period of May 1 through September 30, the contractor will j not be allowed to leave soils unprotected for more than 15 days, and immediate seeding will be required for areas brought to finish grade with no further work planned for the next 30 days. Areas to be paved may be armored with crushed rock subbase in place of other stabilizing measures. The area of clearing will be limited to the amount that can be stabilized by September 30 of that year. During the period of October 1 through April 30, all disturbed soil areas will be covered or stabilized within 2 days or 24 hours when a major storm event is predicted. Cover measures may include mulching, netting, plastic sheeting, erosion control blankets, or free draining material. The extent of clearing shall be limited to the amount of land that can be covered or stabilized within 24 hours. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized by plastic covering. In order for the TESC facilities to function properly, they must be maintained and sediment removed on a regular basis. Inspection and sediment removal shall be performed on all TESC facilities as described in the inspection schedule located in Section 9.4 of this report. 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration Permanent site stabilization and erosion control will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. Paving of driving and parking surfaces. 2. Landscaping (including hydroseeding). 8.4 Geotechnicai Analysis and Report Geotechnical analysis has been completed for this site and is contained in Appendix B. 16 0 8.5 Inspection Sequence The Contractor shall inspect the temporary erosion control facilities prior to commencement of construction. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining TESC facilities. Erosion control facilities shall not be allowed to fall into disrepair. All TESC facilities shall be inspected, as a minimum, according to the following schedule. • Dry Season: Once a week. • Wet Season: Daily, and after every storm event that produces runoff. Needed repairs shall be made within 24 hours or immediately, if possible. if necessary, the Engineer or City will instruct the Contractor to provide additional facilities as warranted during field inspections. The Contractor shall provide the name and contact information for the designated Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead to the City of Renton prior to beginning construction. Additionally, the following inspection/maintenance schedules shall be utilized to ensure the TESC facilities are functioning as designed. Plastic Covering: + Plastic sheeting shall be inspected once a week during both the wet and dry season. Torn sheets must be replaced and open seams repaired_ • if the plastic begins to deteriorate due to ultraviolet radiation, it must be completely removed and replaced. • When the plastic is no longer needed, it shall be completely removed. • If tires are used to weight down the plastic sheeting, they must be disposed of properly. Inlet Protection: • Catch basin filter inserts shall be inspected frequently, especially after storm events. If the filter becomes clogged, it should be cleaned or replaced. • Inserts shall be replaced when tears are detected. If the erosion control facilities are damaged, or if the CESCL, project Engineer or City determines that existing controls are inadequate, the contractor shall install additional measures as required. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments The contractor shall be responsible for controlling pollutants at the work site. Key elements such as centralized areas for equipment and concrete truck washing and temporary storage of debris and other stockpiled materials are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor may elect to follow the detailed guidance on control of non - sediment pollutants as outlined in the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Department of Ecology, February 1992, Section I1-3 (included as Appendix E). 8.7 Utilities In general, in order to prevent conflicts between the utilities, the sanitary sewer system shall be installed first due to the depth of the installation. The storm system shall then be constructed and the water system shall follow. During trenching activities, no more than 500 feet of open trench shall be allowed at any time. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of the trench except where limited by safety or space requirements. Trench dewatering, if required, shall discharge to a sediment -trapping facility. 8.8 TESC Conclusion Erosion control procedures as described in this report and illustrated on the design plans, if properly implemented, should mitigate anticipated erosion effects from the development of this project. 18 ti 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARY, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet, TIR Worksheet, Facility Summary Form, and Draft Declaration of Covenant Form will be provided in Appendix A upon site design. 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance and operation of storm facilities is the responsibility of the Owner. All drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with King County maintenance standards. A Maintenance and Operations Plan will be provided in Appendix E upon site design. 11.0 CONCLUSION This site will be designed to meet KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management. The existing conveyance system will be reused and rerouted as necessary to facilitate the new building footprint. The storm drainage calculations t and modeling provided in this report will meet King County standards for sizing stormwater conveyance systems and treatment facilities. This analysis is based on topographic surveys, supplied data and records. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project should not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. The backwater problem within the existing ditch and it's contributory system should be remedied. This project should not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. 19 ATTACHMENT B Wetland/Stream Study: Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel v ;-w Prepared for: Dan Mitzel . Hawle s Landing LLC 1111 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Prepared by: Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road Bow, WA 98232 Ph.360.766.4441 Fay 360.766.4443 May 12, 2009 Table of Contents Section/Subsection Page ProjectSummary ---------------------------------------------------------- ii 1.0 Introduction 2,0 Existing Conditions -- ------------------- ----_------- _----------- --- 3.0 Project Description ----------------------------- ---------- ----------- 3 4.0 Existing Information --------------------------------------------- ---- 3 4.1 National Wetland Inventory ------------------------------ 3 4.2 Soil Survey of King County ------------------- ------------- 4 4,3 May Creek Basin Action Plan ------------------------------ 5 4.4 Barbee Mill (BA) -------------------------------- ------------ 5 4.5 Fawcett Property Wetland Delineation ------------------- 5 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map ---------------------- --_ 5 5.0 Stream Study ---- ------------------ ----------------- ----- __. 5 5.1 Riparian Functions ----- -------------- ----- ----- ------------- 5 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark --------- ----- ---- ------------ 7 5.3 Stream Classification and Regulations --- --------- -------- 8 6.0 Wetland Study ------------------------ ------------ ------------------- 9 6.1 Methodology ------------------------------- ----- ------- --- 9 6.2 Findings --- ----------------- ------------ —---- ------ ----------- 10 6.3 Data Summary Table ------ ------ ------- ------------- ------ 11 6.4 Data Digest -------------------- -------- ----------- ----------- 11 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations12 7.0 Regulatory Sununary and Mitigation Measures ------------------ 13 7.1 May Creek --------------------- -- ---- ------------- ----- w--- 13 7.2 Drainage Ditch (Class 5 Water) ----__— ------- ---------- 14 7.3 Wetlands A and B---------- ------------------- ------------ 14 7.4 Drainage Ditch (nonregulated wetland) --------- --------- 14 7,5 Water Quality ------- —-------- _-------- --_---- _._.-------- 14 8.0 Closure --- ------ ----------------------- ------------ ---____-------__-. 14 9.0 References ----------- ----- ---------------------------- ----------------- 15 Attachments Wetland Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan ---- Attachment A Proposed Conditions Attachment B Wetland Field Data Forms ------ —------------------------ ------ ----------------- Attachment C graham-Bunlin a :;ssociales Lfawkv Landine Afav 2009 Environmental & and Gse.lervices PROJECT SUMMARY PrgLt ct: Construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel including underground parking and ground level parking. Proiect Site: The project site is a 3.06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. Project Location: The subject property is Iocated at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44" Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Project Proponent: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1 I 11 Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Methods: Wetland - Routine On -Site Methodology, 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-97- 1) - Corps Interim Regional Supplement, April 2008 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, Ecology Publication 496-94 City of Renton Critical Area Regulation: RMC 4-3-050 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program: RMC 4-3-090 Field Dates: March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009 Streams & Wetlands: May Creek - Class 1 Water, Shoreline of the State Drainage ditch - Class 5 Water/Nonregulated Wetland Wetland A -- 433 square foot Category 2 Wetland Wetland B -- 481 square foot Category 2 Wetland Proposed Mitigation: Subject proposal will avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setbackibuffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Project Staff. Graham -Bunting ,-associates Ilawks Landing lllay 2009 Patricia Bunting, Wetland Ecologist PWS Oscar Graham, Wetland Ecologist ii Fnvironmental & Land 1,Ls Sen ices Graham -Bunting Associates May 12, 2009 Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Dan Mittel Ph.360.766.4441 Fx. 360.766.4443 Hawk's Landing LLC I I I I CIeveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 StreamlWetland Study (Portions of Section 29 & 32 Township 24 north, Range 5 East, W.M., Renton, WA) 1.0 Introduction At the request of Hawks Landing LLC, Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the following report addressing streams and wetlands within and adjacent to the site of the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel. The report addresses the stream and wetland study requirements established under the City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, summary of existing information sources and a narrative description of our investigative procedures and findings. The report includes plan sheets prepared by Sound Development Group depicting existing and proposed site conditions. 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44" Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M.; King County, WA. Kiang County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Figure 1-Terraserver; USGS (1983) Figure 2 - Corp.: Virtual Earth (2008) The project site is a 3.06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. The property is currently occupied by pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes. An administrative office is also located on the site. The buildings are constructed on a fill pad surfaced with crushed rock and asphalt. The site has been fully developed for industrial purposes. Graham-Burrnng Associates 1 EnAm ntal & Land Use Semi s L aZ s Landing Assessment (5/12/09) Little native vegetation exists within the subject property itself. The eastern and western perimeters, predominantly within the right of ways of 1405 and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibit a mix of native and invasive plant species. Trees consist of red alder (Alnus rubra), paper birch (Betula papyKfera), black cottonwood (Populus balsintifera) and Western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Shrubs are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor), red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Indian plum (Oemleda cerasiformis), Japanese knotweed (Palygomtm cusptdatum) and sword fern (Polystrchum munitum). An open drainage ditch located between the project site and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibits a small community of cattail (1, pha latifolia) and a thick mat of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arun&nacea). The parcel located south of the subject property includes lower May Creek and its associated riparian corridor. The distance from the subject property to May Creek varies from 235 feet in the east (adjacent to the on -ramp to 1405) to 58 feet in the west (adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard). A mature deciduous forest consisting of large black cottonwood (16"- 36" dbh), alder and big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum) dominates the riparian corridor, The understory includes vigorous colonies of invasive blackberry and Japanese knotweed, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), reed canarygrass and sword fern. A small community of slough sedge (Carex obnupta) was observed in conjunction with a wetland identified along the right bank of May Creek. .... .. -- Photo 1 - View north along eastern right of way of Lake Washington Blvd, showing perimeter vegetation adjacent to drainage ditch. The subject property is predominantly flat, however, the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the entrance of the existing Pan Abode facility, resembles a bowl shaped depression designed to receive stormwater runoff from multiple catch basins located along the southbound on -ramp to I- 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard. Stormwater runoff from the catch basins is transmitted to the northern portion of the subject property and discharged to the northern end of the open drainage ditch, located along the eastern right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard, Stormwater from the subject property is also collected and discharged to the ditch at this location. The open ditch extends approximately 500 feet to the south where it enters a buried 24-inch corrugated plastic pipe that flows an additional 60 feet south before discharging to May Creek. Additional drainage enters the ditch from the subject property near the entrance to the buried pipe. May creels flows into Lake Washington approximately .25 miles southwest of the subject property. (Attachment A: Existing Conditions Site Map) Graham -Bun_ HL:gAssociates 2 &jr-gnmental & Land Use &13 ices L[m k Landing Assessment (5112109) 3.0 Project Description The proposal is to demolish the existing structures associated with the Pan Abode facility and utilize approximately 3, 06 acres of the subject property for construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel. The proposed Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will consist of • One level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls • Ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square feet, 2,152 square feet, and 3,360 square feet for retail, spa and restaurant facilities respectively • Four levels of guesuno • A total of approximately 126 surface level parking stalls, including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)) • Two access points along Lake Washington Boulevard • Storm water facilities including rain gardens * Sanitary sewer, water and other utilities Preliminary designs indicate that the hotel will maintain a maximum height of 60 feet. Required land use permits include site plan review, environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), building permits and a street vacation. All development including required infrastructure will be located a mWi urn of 277 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of May Creek. (Attachment B: Proposed Conditions) 4.0 Existing Information The subject property has been addressed under a number of existing studies. These information sources have been reviewed and synthesized to assist CBA in characterizing the subject property. The sources are scummared as follow: 4.1 National Wetland lnvgntorx The National Wetland Inventory (NWT) is compiled by the U. S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, NWI relies upon visual aerial photo interpretation of wetland indicators including hydrologic, vegetation and topographic signatures. NWI does not identify wetlands within the vicinity of the subject property. It should be recognized however; that the forest canopy associated with the riparian corridor of May Creek would likely obscure the indicators upon which NWI relies, 4BA utilize NWI only as a generalized reap indication of the possible Graham -Bunting Assodafes 3 I itvirow wntal&LLnd Use Services Hawks Landfng_Assessmenta112/09) presence and extent of wetlands. Reconnaissance and delineation procedures are always based on an on -site assessment. 4.2 Soil Survey. of King County, Area. Washington The Soil Survey is compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and includes mapped soil units registered to detailed descriptions of soil characteristics. The survey identifies one soil unit within the subject property boundaries. The reap unit appears to include the entire floodplain associated with lower May Creek. No -Norma sandy loam is a poorly drained soil typically found on floodplains with slopes between 0 and 2 percent. The parent materiel is alluvium. Minor components include Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils. Norma sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil under criteria L, 2. b) (3) and 3, 1, All Mstosols except folists 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or Cum6c subgroups that are: b) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (3) water table equal to 1.0 feet from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches. 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season, Figure 3 - National Wetland Inventory h J/wetlandsfws.er.us s. ovl Site z� S N Figure 4 - Soil Survey http://websoilsury .nres.usda.gg /apt 4.3 May Creel{ Basin Action Plan (April 2001) The May Creek Basin Action Plan was funded by King County and the City of Renton outlines a set of actions addressing the threat of flooding, facilitation of stonnwater conveyance to stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The plan is intended to prevent existing problems within the basin from becoming worse in the Graha» URMftAssodates 4 Environmental & Land Use S'e�vtae Hawlcr LandlnagA ssment (5112109} fiiture The plan provides baseline information 'elating to conditions in the basin including a map sheet rcflecting the approximate location and extent of wetlands. It is noteworthy that the wetland map identifies a small wetland in the vicinity of the drainage ditch described under existing conditions, 4A Biological Assessment: Barbee Mill Preliminary -Plat (August 2002) Raedke Associates, Inc. prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to evaluate potential effects of the proposed subdivision on federal and state listed species. The BA includes a characterization of May Creek and Lake Washington, documents species use, and identifies mitigating conditions to ameliorate project generated impacts to listed species. The Barbee Mill development is located just west of Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the subject property. 4.5 Wdland Delineation Report; Fawcett Property (Deccm> er 2000) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prepared a Wetland Delineation Report addressing a portion of the area located south of the subject property. While the contiguous area south of the subject property is under the ownership of Dr, Greg Fawcett, the delineation focused only on the area south of May Creek. The report includes observations relating to May Creek and hydrology, soil and vegetation within the riparian corridor. 4.6 Forest Practice Activily Mg U The Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps and classifies waters of the state pursuant to WAC 222-16-031 on the Forest Practice Stream Type Maps. The maps were reviewed to assist in characterizing the project area. May Creek is identified as an S (Shoreline) Water of the State. Type S waters are defined as. "All waters, within their bankfuIl. width, as inventoried as `shorelines of the state' under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. No additional Waters of the State were identified on the Stream Type Maps. 5.0 Stream Study May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly approximately 8,6 miles to Lake Washington. The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square rrWes of residential, open space, agricultural, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure development including runoff from 1405. The stream reach located south of the subject property lies between the 1405 bridge crossing in the cast and the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge crossing in the west. This reach of May Creek is identified as Reach B and characterized in the City of Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis as relatively unaltered (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008) 5.1 Riparian Functions Observations gathered during our site investigation, conducted during the early spring of 2009, indicate a high IeveI of in stream and riparian corridor functions. The stream is low gradient (< 81/'o) and displays a complex of low velocity pools mixed with swifter moving riffles and runs. In stream structure is provided by naturally recruited large woody debris (LWD) consisting of native deciduous species and installed habitat features including anchored root wads and cabled logs. Riparian functions are closely linked to vegetation along the stream bank and adjacent floodpWn. Graham-Bunling_;lssociares 5 F,nvironmenral & Land Use Services ICmvks Landin Assessment 5/1?/09 LWD Recruitment - While large; conifers are generally the preferred source of LWD, the presence of mature deciduous species throughout the stream reach provides an ongoing source for recruitment of woody material into the stream. LWD promotes complexity within the stream and provides holding areas for salmonids and resident fish species. Bank Stability — The three strata vegetation community along the riparian corridor promotes bank stability through establishment of deep root systems. The anchored roots help hold the sandy loam of the floodpiain intact and minimize the forces of erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity. heed canarygrass, often viewed as an undesirable species, is very effective in promoting bank stabilization. Unfortunately it also may colonize aggressively reducing the diversity of native plant species. Shade - The deciduous tree canopy provides shade during low flow summer months and helps to maintain cool temperatures and maintain dissolved oxygen levels required by salmonids and resident fish species. Water Quality - Emergent vegetation including vigorous convnunities of reed canarygrass contiguous to the OHWM provide for the filtering of sediments and pollutants. Reed canarygrass is viewed as an invasive species; however, its dense mat like quality provides an excellent filtering function that helps prevent delivery of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters. Photo 5 — View upstream (east) showing LWD and riparian vegetation south of subject property. Fish and Wildlife Habitat — While no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during our site investigation, May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerkar) salmon. Winter steelhead (Oncorhynchus m)kiss) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) are also known to utilize the creek. (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008). Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon an listed as a candidate species under ESA, May Creek does not have a self sustaining Chinook run. Chinook observed in May Creek are likely strays from the Cedar River (Lucchette 2002). Coho are known to utilize Lake Washington and May Creek. Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production (Raedeke 2002). Puget Sound Steelhead have utilized May Creek on a historic basis and may remain present in depressed numbers (Salmonscape 2009). A Graham-BuntingAssociates G Environmental & Land Use Ser d s Hawks Landing Assessment (5112/0� -- review of pertinent literature relating to Lake Washington sahnonid stocks indicates a high degree of uncertainty as to the genetic origins of salmonids utilizing May Creek. It is possible that individuals from the Puget Sound and Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) utilize the habitat provided by the creek. The riparian area provides excellent feeding and cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species. Small mammals such as voles utilize uplands within the riparian area for burrowing. GBA observed blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) droppings and hoof prints within the riparian corridor. Common snipe (Capella gallinago) were flushed during several site inspections at a location near the bridge crossing at Lake Washington Boulevard. A short tailed weasel (Mustela erminea) was also observed burrowing in the rip rap near the bridge abutment. A pair of Osprey (Pandion haliatus) was observed perched on a nest platform near the mouth of May Creek. Additional species were observed during our site investigation including: song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla) hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) spotted towhee (Pipdo maculatus) winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) mallard hen and drake (Anas plaryrhynchos) unidentified buteo (Buteo sp.) American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) gull species (Larus sp) 5,2 Ordinary High Water Mark GBA reviewed the location of the OHWM as identified and flagged in the field by David Evans Associates (DEA) in 2006 and Sound Development Group (SDG) in 2009. The guidance contained in the statutory definition was utilized in confirming the location of the OHWM. "The Ordinary high water mark on all lakes, streams and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continues in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter, PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water." In addition, the definition contained in the Renton Municipal Code under 4-11-010 was also considered, Review was aided by a series of high water events occurring during the late winter and early spring of 2009. These one to two year flows generally correlated with the physical evidence observed along the bank of the creek. The OHWM was identified based on scour and drift lines, sediment deposits, topographic features and vegetation transitions located at or near the top of the right bank. It was not deemed necessary to adjust any of the flags placed previously by DEA and SDG. The OHWM as flagged was surveyed and is depicted on the map sheets accompanying this report. Grahem-Burtrin , Issociates 7 Fhvironmental do Land Use Services Hawks Landing l ssessment LS112,109) a�t = H J E u M' Photo 7 — View upstream (east) showing the OBW located at the landward extent of a sandbar and transition to persistent vegetation. 5.3 Stream Classification and Regulations The City's Critical Area Regulations RMC 4-3-050 classify May Creek as a Class 1 water. Class 1 Waters are perennial salmon bearing waters classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Subsection L. Streams and Lakes: 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply stipulates that the City's critical area regulations do not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations. Subsection 4-3-090, 5, d. establishes the standard setback for commercial development as follows: "A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50') to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Ladd Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the waters edge." All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM of May Creek. The subject proposal is located outside of the 200-foot jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Masker Program (SMP) and is therefore compliant with the required 50-foot setback requirement. The drainage ditch located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in light of the City's Critical Area Regulations and identified as a class 5 water, RMC 4-3-050 L. Streams and Lakes: I. a. v. (a) (b) establishes the criteria for Class 5 waters as follows: ` v. Class 5: Class 5 waters are non -regulated non salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no natarally defined channel had previously existed; and or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M. of this section." Grahg Buagg ,4s� sociates 8 i nment T & Land Use Se ices Hawks Landing Assessment (VI2109) GBA conferred on site �ti ith the Area Habitat Biologist from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 who provided the following observations and guidance: The ditch is a man made feature • Work within the ditch itself will not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW • Work on the outfall to May Creek would require an HPA • Any proposed improvement to the outfall should prevent entry of fish to the ditch Based on observations gathered during our site investigation and consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist, GBA have determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmon bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicate that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility. GBA have determined that the drainange ditch satisfies Criteria (a) as a Class 5 Water and is therefore not regulated under the City's Critical Area Regulations. The ditch will be discussed further under the following Wetland Study. 6.0 Wetland Study The following discussion addresses the procedures and methods utilized in our wetland investigation and provides a summary of our findings. 6.I Methodoloev GBA utilized the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is a revised version of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1) in the preparation of this report_ The Ecology Manual (along with the recent Corps of Engineers regional supplement, April 2008) represents the accepted standard for identifying and delineating wetlands for jurisdictional purposes under the Clean Water Act. GBA considered the new interim regional supplement in the assessment of field data. The Ecology manual has been adopted for use by the City of Renton for use in conjunction with the Growth Management Act mandated Critical Areas Ordinance_ Both the Ecology and Corps manuals incorporate the Clean Water Act Definition of Wetlands as follows; "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." The City's Critical Areas Ordinance stipulates additional defining elements as follows. - "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway, Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands," Graham -Burning: lssociates 9 h,"hyironmentol & Land Use Services flaivksLanding,-lssersment (LJ2W) -De definition requires that three interrelated defining elements or parameters be established Svhcn idcntifi•ing wettands. These parameters are wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hNdrophytic vegetation. Wetland Hydrology Water is the driving force, which creates and sustains wetlands. The 1987 Manual and subsequent Corps guidance identifies wetlands as areas where soils are inundated or continuously saturated for a minimum of 5% of the growing season (approximately 12.5 days for Western Washington). When direct observation of the water table cannot be made, hydrology is determined by relying upon hydrologic indicators such as hydric soil characteristics, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns. Hydric Soils Wetlands exhibit hydric soils. These are soils which are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. These are conditions where no free oxygen is present in the upper soil horizons. Typical field indicators of hydric soils are the presence of a thick organic layer, or in predominantly mineral soils such as found on this site, a loAv chrorna matrix (gray color) and/or bright mottling. Soil chromas are determined by comparing soil samples with color chips in the Munsell Color Charts. Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has classified wetland vegetation according to its frequency of occurrence in wetlands: Obligate wetland species (OBL) occur in wetlands greater than 99% of the time. Facultative wetland species (FACW) occur in wetlands greater than 67% of the time. Facultative species (FAC) occur in wetlands 341/o-66% of the time. Facultative upland species (FACU) occur in wetlands less than 34% of the time. Upland species (UPL) occur in wetlands less than I % of the time. Generally the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is satisfied when greater than 50% of the species present at a data collection point have an indicator status of OBL, FACW and/or FAC; when two or more dominant species have observed morphological or known physiological adaptations for' occurrence in wetlands; or when other indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are present. 6.2 Findirnns GBA conducted the site investigation on March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009. Observations were collected over a period of a month during weather conditions that transitioned from cold and wet to sunny and seasonable. Little plant growth was noted during our initial site visit, however, by nvd April plants were exhibiting active growth. Indian plum, salmonberry and elderberry were rapidly leafing out and Japanese knohveed colonies along the bank of May Creek was emerging from dormant rhizomes. GBA consider the tinning and weather conditions of our investigation to be optimal for the identification of wetlands. Two areas were investigated: 1) The subject property (Pan, Abode facility) and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. and; 2) The fioodplain south of the subject property- to the right (north) bank of May Creels. Both areas were traversed and visually inspected for indications of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The ordinary high water mark of the drainage ditch was identified and flagged on site. A single data point (DP- 7) was established along the top of the bank. A second data point (DP-2) was assessed just cast of the ditch along the southern boundary of the subject property. Three rough transects were established in an cast/west aspect behreen May Creek and the subject property. Six data points Grcahanr-Bunting associates 10 Environmental & Land L'se &rvices Hawks Landin rissessment P121"09 (DPs 1,3,4,5,6,8) were assessed in the floodplain or riparian corridor of May Creek, Soil evaluation pits were excavated to a uniform depth of 21 inches. Hydrology, soil and vegetation were assessed at each data point. Data collected on site was recorded on data forms and field notes. Photographs documentod appropriate visual images. Data collected is summarized in the following table. (Attachment C: Wetland Field Data Forms) 6.3 Data Sun mare Table DP Hydrology Soil Dominant Ve etarion Status *oxidized *sandy loam 2.5Y *Populus balsamifera FAC (20%) rhizospheres - 4/2 - rNzospheres - Alnus rubra FAC (201%) 1 fac neutral - sandy redox Cornus siolonrfera FACW (50%) Wet geomorphic Carex obnupla OBL (80%) position no indicators gravelly loam - *Ainus rubra FAC (2%) 2 10YR 4/3 Rubus discolor FACU (25%) Up Phalaris arundinacea FACW (95%) no indicators silt loam - IOYR Populus balsamrfera FAC (30%) 3 3/3 Rubus discolor FACU (100%) U no indicators silt loam 10YR 3/3 *Popufus balsamifera FAC (10%) 4 Ainus rubra FAC (101%) Up Phalaris arun&nacea FACW (100%) no indicators silty clay loam Ainus rubra FAC (60%) 5 IOYR 2/2 Rubus discolor FACU (1001/o) U *water table @ 8" *silty clay loam *Ainus rubra FAC (60%) 6 — saturated to 2.5Y 3/1 — 10% Rubus discolor FACU (60%) Wet surface mottles 7.5YR 4/6 Rubus s ectabilis FAC 30% Saturation @ 15" gravelly silt loam *Populus balsamifera FAC (80%) 7 1 OYR 2/2 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Rununculus re ens FACW 5% saturation below sandy loam 2.5 Y *Ainus rubra FAC (20%) 8 20" 4/4 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Cornus stoloni era FACW (200/6) 'Wetland parameter satisfied 6.4 Data Digest Based on the above data summarized above, two regulated wetlands were identified: Wetlands A and B are small depressional wetlands located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. The wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek_ The wetlands are distinguished from the surrounding uplands because they are distinct topographic features, exhibit saturated soils and are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland A is a deep depression with observable hydrology at the soil surface. Soil displays a very dark matrix chroma accompanied by mottles. Vegetation is dominated by a mix of facultative plant species. Wetland B is a gentler depression which exhibits only secondary indicators of wetland hydrology with saturation present well below the soil surface. Soil is sandier and lighter by comparison and vegetation includes a vigorous community of slough sedge (DBL). In addition to Wetlands A and B, the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in accordance with the wetland identification/delineation methodology. Although a data Graham -Bunting Associates 11 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landin Assessment (5/12i09) point was not assessed within the ditch itself, the area within the flagged OHWM was determined to satisfy wetland parameters. Standing water was present in much of the 500 hear foot ditch. Soil was silty and likely consists of storinwater sediment from surrounding development. Vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass. Data point 7, established at the top of bank approximately 20 feet west of the existing Pan Abode facility was assessed to characterize the area lying between the ditch and subject property. No surface water was observed although saturation was present at a depth of approximately 15 inches from the soil surface. Soil consisted of a gravely silt loam, possibly fill from the development of the Pan Abode facility. The soil exhibited a dark matrix chroma (1 OYR 212) but was not accompanied by mdoximorphic features. The subsoil was a very light silty sand (2.5Y 616). Vegetation was dominated by a mix of facultative trees, shrubs and herbs. Because the hydrology and soil parameters were not satisfied the data point was determined to be upland. 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations Wetlands A and B were classified in accordance with the criteria contained under Subsection 4-3- 050 M. 1. a. ii. of the City's Critical Area Regulations as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands that meet one of the criteria listed under (a) through (d). Wetlands A and B were found to satisfy criteria (d) below: "(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such a diking ditching or channelization... " The majority of the floodplain, including Wetlands A and B, located landward of the right bank of May Creek and south of the subject property has not been subject to human related alteration. The wetlands contribute to the riparian functions discussed under the stream study earlier in this report including LWD recruitment, bank stability, shade, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, The wetlands functional value, however are limited by their small size which represents a combined area of only 914 square feet in a fioodplain parcel totaling over 110,000 square feet. RMC 4-3-050 M, 6, c. establishes the standard buffer width required for Category 2 Wetlands at 50 ftet. Required buffers are to be maintained in their natural condition. Bufts are required to be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Wetland A and B are located offsite 117.4 and 63.8 feet south of the subject property respectively. The area between the Grahcvn-BmR4n-g Associates 12 Em ironment l & Land Use Se ice Hawks LandingtAsse rsment (5112109) wetlands and the property line remains in a natural condition and is vegetated primarily with native species. RMC 4-3-050 M. I . e. i, establishes the basis for regulated and non regulated wetlands as follows: "i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands -- General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. The department administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements or other evidence." GBA followed the guidance provided above in assessing the regulatory status of the drainage ditch. The following findings were considered: • The Pan Abode facility was constructed on a fill pad during the mud 1950s • The fill pad appears to extend to a point near the road right of way at the top of ditch • The soil profile assessed at data point 7 displays rock typical of pit run commonly utilized as a fill base • The 2:1 bank profile of the ditch is typical of an excavated stormwater conveyance facility • The hydrology that charges the ditch is composed primarily of stormwater runoff from I- 405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility • Unaltered areas within the floodplain south of the subject property do not include natural linear features similar to the ditch • National Wetland Inventory does not identify the ditch as a wetland Based on the above findings GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a nonregulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. While the wetland may not be regulated by the City, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. 7.0 Regulatory Summary/Mitigation Measures The following buffers and setback requirements are registered to proposed project actions: 7.1 May Creek May Creek is a shoreline of the state regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends two hundred feet landward of the OHWM. The closest point of proposed project actions to the OHVVM is 277 feet. The setback for commercial buildings from May Creek is currently established under the SMP at 50 feet. The subject property itself is located entirely outside of the required shoreline setback area. The mature deciduous forest located on the parcel south of the subject property varies in width from 64 feet in the west to 235 feet in the east and provides a full range of protective functions (see subsection 5.1 Riparian Functions)_ Because the riparian corridor is outside of the Grahain-Bunfing Associates 13 Environmental do Land t;se Services HawksLandirzgAywssment (5l12109) subject property boundaries and is not owned by the applicant; GBA have refrained from characterizing the area as a buffer. 7.2 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is classified as a Class 5 water, Tt is a non regulated non salmon bearing water Nvithin an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel previously existed. 7.3 Wetlands A and B Wetlands A and B are Category 2 Wetlands which require 50 foot buffers. Both wetlands are located offsite south of the subject property. Wetland A is 117.4 feet south of the subject property boundary, and Wetland B is 63.8 feet south of the subject property. The area between the wetlands and the subject property consists of a mature deciduous forest, Although the uplands surrounding the wetlands are not characterized as buffers, the deciduous forest provides a high level of buffer functions. 7.4 _Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is a noruegulated wetland created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of conveying stormwatcr. 7.5 Water QuaIitty In addition to the distance of project actions from the regulated stream and wetlands, rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with the project's drainage plan. The site will be designed consistent with the King County Stone Water Design Manual guidelines for stormwater management. It is anticipated that the water quality of drainage leaving the site will represent an improvement over the existing conditions associated with the aging Pan Abode facility. 8.0 Closure GBA employed currently accepted methods of delineating wetlands and characterizing aquatic features on the site. In addition we utilized the guidance provided in the City of Renton's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program in identifying appropriate regulatory requirements. Consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducted to determine fish use of May Creek and the drainage ditch and to determine potential hydraulic project approval requirements. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report, however, represent our best professional opinion. Concurrence should be obtained from agencies of jurisdiction prior to initiating land use actions or construction. The report will also provide a sufficient source of information in the event that a jurisdictional determination is requested from the Corps of Engineers, Please call either Patricia Bunting or myself with any questions relating to this report. Sincerely; Oscar Graham Principal Ecologist/Project Lead graham -Bunting; Iss oci aces Nmvks Landine Assessment (5/12iO9) f Patricia Bunting Wetland EcologistlPWS 14 Environmental & Land Use Services 9.0 References .Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., December 7, 2000. Wetland Delineation Report Fawcett Property; Renton, WA, Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, E. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hitchcock C.L. and A. Cranquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific NonIswest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 730 pp. King County, April 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Munse,l] Color. 1994 revised. MunselI Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Pcjar J. and A, MacKinnon, 1994. Plan of the P ific Northwe t Q= Was can Oreagn. British Columbia c�Al_aska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver B. C., 528 pp. Raedke Associates, Inc., August 26, 2002. Biological Assessment, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat, Reed, PB, Jr. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Northwest (Region 9) National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008, Sound Development Group, LLC. April 28, 2009. Technical Information Report; Hawks Landing — Crowne Plaza Hotel. U.S_ Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13, Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vepraskas, Mike, Technical Bulletin 301, 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions: North Carolina State University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences33 pp. Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication 496-94, Washington State Departnent of Natural Resources Forest Practice Activity Map, �1CC1:rJ1��41C-(11Lr.11;l:,"G ; ltkSfISCsshertiiiti ropI, S1Fl)i'c-5 rpjj QS_ �1?( 'at uiis Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, http;il��.lt�ti<«a. u��'inapt�il�'sa1�11��r15c t,I]C Personal Communications Fisher, Larry. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries. On site discussion relating to drainage ditch along Lake Washington Blvd, April 24, 2009. Severin, Pat P.E. Project Engineer, Sound Development Group, Project Meetings March through May 12, 2009. Graham-BuaLing lssoeiates 15 Environmental & Land Use S rvices Hawks Landing Assessment t3/1 LO9i IN_ A PORTION OF SECTION 29, e, 31 TWN 24 N, RANCE 5 E, W.M. A portion of the ditch is proposed to he filled to allow for a sidewalk a long f Lake Washington Boulevard.'111jjI PrWosed .•,r� • romprint �y4f7',P8.iM71�Ly � .p i I Z.( 7,u 6i3VA4E s Ice! Poexl sty SWLtS f. �z ic: ,aI � - i ',r Construction Jamie Line <1A ` r, o E,id ofconstnuti91 on O .f�1• I _ _ : : •/ I i� ORQINMIY H[GM - V wA7At t�+.+nK of `1s Note: This is a induced site plan orthe proposed project. The original - - I drawing should be consulted for any detailed inf ��" i i ormalion. MVP I0� _fy.. �Y_o�r9=Y!'.'.`•��tY—A�..c+sX—'-=fSu�m�ti—p�:�--a,T.� __��ti 0 0P 3 Dr EXITtNG 00.171NARY HIGH a WETLAND W I EnsTN rG l WATtR M"K OF U' S.F. AN i WETLD \CREEK OP Y CATEGORY 7 dal SF \\\\\\ GtTEGORY'Y CR SCALE 1' loo' I Attachment B Sound Dev,-��,mA^ j � 'a1 awrooN tcu� r. wto +ARtc1 41LL 4$ YOU DI „rF""�" �P ,P ►� lwxs L,11VDIlVG • C]ROWNE PLAZA HOTEL $EfOREYOUl71G samar+caNeNtrxeauwanwawf. saner 1�$t]0.424-SSSS a.s�rtar�rro.s aaoavrr rsrNssr f4R 3rrfV.", ", am3 • w r 'e3r..r.�+�w�,.. sue+aoa PROPOSED CPNOtTlON5 � . n,,,a'r�..N„z,.urs./., r ,.a-.a-�oro .i.�aro-.P.�aol� �,,, ,,.�,..... HAWKS LANDING, LLC � Wetland Field Data Forms Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: AppliCanUOwner: Hawks Landing,LLC Sampling Point: L,,1-8 Invesligatar PatlOscarIAMML CgXounEy: RentonlKin Secbcn, %vvnVit p. Range: S29 T24N R5E State: WA Landform (hiltslope, terrace, etc) Slope (%) Local relief (concave, convey, none) Subregion (LRR) A La147.5338 Long-122.19487 Datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma NWI classification: None Are dimaticthydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year' X Yes 1 ❑ 1 No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstances' present on the site? X Yes No Are Vegetation r❑, Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation i❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology C3 naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) 1UMMARY Ulf- FINIJINii1 -• Attach Site map showing Earnlira WintlOcatjons.tra>n acts, Im rtarltfeatures e[c. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this 8ampling Point within a Wetland? ® Yes FMAD Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Yes No Remarks: T�� G}�'i�,.;:..i",, • '•; /._ ��•,� (��u.; -1/r� -�f r~•..ir'r'�' ..), �" `t .• , � �.-� Ll VEGETATION — LJse sniantific names of nlants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 20 ft _, J Absolute % Dominant Indicator Cover S es? Status Dominance Test Worksheet t r Number of Dominant Spedea that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2. 3, Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (13) 4, Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1 O ft R_ _ ) = Taal Cower Percent of Dominant Species Y d that are 0BL FACW, or FAC: i . (a$) f', L Prevalence Index Wo*sheet I Y f of Multiply by 2. �7 • C ? 1 ; }' ,: [t A. [ , r + - ; FACW species x 2 = 5- FAC species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size S f� R ) d = Total Cower FACU spedes x 4 UPL species X5. Column tots i (A) B 1. Prevalence Index = 81 A a 2, 3. 4. Hydrophytic Velletation Indicators 5. Dominance test is } 50% a. Prevafenoe teat is s 3.0 ' 7. Morphological Adaptations' (proWe supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheet) t3. a. Welland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydnaphybe Vegetation' (explain) 11, • Indicators of hydro soil and wetland hydrology must be resent unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine Stratum Plot size = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No ❑ Present? 2 Taal Cover J % Bane Ground in Herb Stratum Ramarrr s: ' ' 5L L ✓ � ti . of L r t �t i f r: f% } � ..r,� US Army Corps of Engineers Wesfem Mountains. Valleys, &id (l)asr- Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date- 4/1r{!09 Applicant/Ownev Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: DP-7 Investigator: PaUOscarlJerom City/County. RenionlKin _ Section, Township, Range= S29 T24N R5E State: WA Landferm (hillslope, terrace, etc) slope (9O} Local relief (concave, convex, none) Subregion (LRR) A Lat 47.5338 long-122.19487 J Datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma NWI dasOcation: None Are climatirMydrplogic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? I X J Yes I ❑ I No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstanoes' present on the site? X I Yes I U I No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, 0or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) site Hydrophyft Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point wtthln ■ Wetland? ® Yes KNo Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? ❑ Y8e No Remarks:` VEr3FrATION — I.Ica selantirie nzkmaa ni ntnnts Tme Stratum (Plot size 20 R R ) Absolute % Dominant Caner S 'es7 Indicator Status Dominance Test Worksheat i. . ' �;'i; r ' f . � t �., r . : t Number of Dominant Species � f'} that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: iA) 2, 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Acrm All Strata: (13) a. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1 O It R__) t Tatar Cower Percent of Dominant Species 7/. that are OBL, FACW, or FAQ .; E �{ [� T (1VB) i a CJr Prevalence Index Worksheet Total % cover of1�lljfjGl]LbSi OBL species x 1 = 2. 3. r' P !' ' ; ! r , s ' z— 4� 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAC species x 3 = Herb iratum (Plot size 51t R } r = Total Cower FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 6 Column totals (Al 13 Prevalence Index = B ! A = 2. 4• H dro h is Ve elation indicators 5- C XC Ir yl�) , • L G {' Dominance test is y 50% 6- Prevalence test is s 3.0 ` 7- Morphological Adaptations' (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate trhaet) 8. 9. Welland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic HydrophytiG Vegetation '(explain) 11. • Indicators of hydric soft and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic -No2q Vine Stratum Plot size = Total Cover NydrophytIC Vegetation Present? Yes No ❑ 2. = Total Co,rark,.. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks:.;,Ole!. r US Army Corps of Engineers wesWm Mounfalrl& Valleys, and Coast —Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1997 COE Wetlands Delineation manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotei Sampling Date: 418109 Applicantlowner: Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: DP-6� Investigator: PatlOscar/Jeromy_ C41County: RentonlKin Section, Township, Range: $29 T24N R5E State: WA Landform (Hislope, terrace, etc) - r Slope (9,) Local relief (concave, oonvex, none) Subregion(LRR)A U147.5338 Long —122. i8;Datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma NN Gassificatiom None Are climaUdhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? X Yes ❑ No (if no, explain in remarks.) Are *Normal Circumstances' present on the site? X Yes No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) a.,rnrrrnrsr yr rtmuinc a — Attacn site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, Important Maturers, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ut Yes ❑ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Yes ® No Hydric Soils Present? Yes NO T Welland Hydrology Present? EX Yes ❑ J No Remarks: / t /� Rama r /� .. !,.. I « , .. /<l; VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 0� it Absolute % Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover 5 es? Status Number of Dominant Spades 2. that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3. 4' Total Number of Dominant Species Across All SVata: (H) = Terei Cover Percent of Dominant Species -7 / O f that are OBL. FACW, or FAC:_- () SaplinglShruh Stratum (Plot size 10 R R_) Prevalence IndexWortltsheet z. f` .. � , 1. � . T • I Cover of Multiply by a 013L species x 1 = C FACW species x 2 = s. FAG spades x 3 = = Taal Covet FACU species x 4 n UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum {Pint size 5 ft ft ) Column totals (A) g 1. 2• Prevalence Index = 81 A = 3. 4. Hydrojphytic VLagetallilon Indicators 5. Dominance test is > 50% e' Prevalence teat is s 3.0' 7. MorphoWgical Adaptations " (provide supporting data in rernarics or a1 a separate sheet) e. 9. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants ' 10, Problematic Hydrophylio Vegetation • {explain} 11 = Taal Cover ' Indicators of hydric sag and wetland hydrology must be Woody Vine Stratum (plot size sent uniessdisturbed or problemiiik 1. 2. Vegetation Yes X No ❑ =fatal Cover Present? % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum do Remarks: LJ1 "; r•< �,i t' SIG (C1 J US Army Carps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys. and Coast -lntenm Version SOIL Sampling Point DP-5 Prone Descrl lion; IDescribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Texture Remarks Coler LmojsD Color (moist) % Type Lac s� x. r r.`-.. F 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Loc: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix drtc $0 Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRa, unless otherwise noted.) Hislosol (Ai) Sandy Redox (S5) Indicators for ProWernatic Hydric Solis' 2tm Muck (Aio) ❑ Histic F-pipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (SB) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fi) (except MLRA 1) other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matix (F2) ❑ Depleted Maw Dark Surface (At 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) ICI ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox El Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface (F6) Dark Surface (F7) Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (Fa) Restrictive Laver fif Dresenl): Type: Yes ❑ No Hydrbc sell pnmer*? Depth (inches): Remarks:lr7!%`Uv HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary indicators (2 or more required): Surface water (A1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Be) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (Bg) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 413) High Water Table (A2) Water -Stained leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A d 48) (139) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (Ell 1) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (RI) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (513) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg) Sediment Deposits (132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (GI) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Atgal Mat or Crust (84) © Presence of Reduced Iron (12-4) FAC-Neutral Test (Da) © Iron Deposits (05) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (86) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aeriat Imagery (B7) ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks Field Obsarvatlons Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes Water Table Present? ❑ Yes Saturation Present? ❑ Yes No Depth (in): No Depth (in): I �I No Depth (in): gY�nd Hydrology Pmserd? Yes ❑ Ho (Includes capillary fringe) Describe Record Data (stream gauge., monitoring weir, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available. W Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Wastem Mountains, Vafion and Coast —Interim Version SOIL SarnDting Point DP-4 Profile Description: jOescribe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Texture Remarks Color moist % Color moist % T Loe - i i 'Type: C=ConcemraVon, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains koc PL=fore Lining, M=Matrix H drlc Sol) Indicators: {Appkable to all LRRs unless otherwise noted.) Indicator for Problematic Hydrfo Soil&3 ❑ Hislosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muck (A10) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (SS) Red Parent Materiel (T172) 0 I Stark Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Minced (F1) (except MLRA 1) FM Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ' Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Glayed Matrix (S4) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver fff Dresenti: Type, Hydric sob present? Yes No Depth (inches) Remarks- HYDROLOGY Wetland Primary ❑ ❑ Hydrology Indicators: Indicators (minimum of one required: Surface water (A 1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (31) Sediment Deposits (62) Drift Deposits (83) Algal Mat or Crust (134) Iron Deposits (85) Surface Soil Cracks (BB) Inundation Visible on Aeoaf Imagery (67) check ❑ ❑ all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A b 48) (B9) Salt Crust (all) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CB) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Other (explain In remarks) Secondary lndkelors (2 or more required): ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (89) (Al 1, 2, 4A ti 48) Drainage Patterns (810) Dry.Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (03) FAGNeudal Test p5) Raised Ant Mounds (08) (LRR A) FrmstMeave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? ❑ Yes (includes Capillary fringe) No Depth (rn); No Depth (in): No Depth (in); Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ Na Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avallable: it/ Remarks: US Army Corps of 1=ngrneera Western Mountains, Valleys. and Coast — Interim Varsiorr SOIL Samolind Point DP-3 Profile Description: Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Texture Remarks Color moist % Color moist % T L rr 3 17 'Type. C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2Luc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix ric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs uniese otherwise, noted,) ❑ Histosol (Al) ❑ Sandy Redox (SS) Indicators lar ProhlomaBe Hydlrte Solis' FM 2Cm Muck (A10) Hisbc Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix {S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Watic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (Al, Loamy Greyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (F6) ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral ($t) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) r Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver fit oresentl: Type: Yes Na Hydric wit Areaent? Depth (inches) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Welland Hydrology indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one rmguined:check Surface water (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) ❑ all.fhat apply): Secondary Indicator's (2 or more r"ufrad): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water -Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A rk 48) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (89) Drainage Patterns (B 10) Safi Crust (811) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (81) Sediment Deposits (B2) Aquatic Invertebrates (Bf 3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Saturation VWble on Aerial Imagery (CO) Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Iron Deposits (a5) Oxidized Rhinospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Solis (C8) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (DS) Raised Ant Mounds (De) (LRR A) El Surface Soil Cracks (86) Inundation Visible on Aerial ❑ © Stunted or Stmased Plants (01) {LRR A) Other (explain In remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks Imagery (B7) Field 4heervaUone Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes (includes capillary fringe) No Depth (in): I I No Depth (in):I 1f No Depth (in): f W°ttind Fydroloyy Prvaant7 yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge,, monitoring well, aeriallphotos, previous inspections). K available: Remarks: /. l� �ctF' i ll 1lfL'� %a!{'•� n� ; 'A lKd ate Lf� c� tJ US Army Corps of Engineers WeVem Mountaft vaaeys, and Coast — Interim Version SOIL Santnlina POInt DP-2 Profile Desch ption: Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indlcatore. Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Texture Remarks Color moist % Color moist % Ty LoC D C> ! 'Type. C=Concent alion, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 2LaC. PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix dric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs unless otherwise noted,} ,. Hislosol (Al) Sandy Redox (SS) Indfcalors for Problematic Hydric SolLss 2cm Muck (Al0) His& Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix pis) ❑ Red Parent Material (TF2) Slack Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) {except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix {F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (FB) s Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Laver (If otesent): Type: Yes ❑ No Hydrie soil present:? Depth (inches): Remarks. 11yd1 r 2, HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary initiators (minimum of one required.• check all the( applq): SecoWaryfndicatom (2 or more required): Surface water (Al) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (t38) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A ✓L 4B) ❑ High Water Table (A2) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A i 413) (BB) Drainage Pattems (810) Saturation (A3j ❑ Salt Crust (B11) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) ❑ Water Marks (B1) ❑ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposds (62) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (GI) Geomorphic Position (D2) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ShallowAquifard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ❑ Presence of Reduoad Iron (C4) PAC-Naufrdl Test (D5) ❑ Iron Deposits (B5) ❑ Recent Iron Reduction in Toted Soils (CO) Raised Ant Mounds (Da) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (87) FlMd Observations Surface Water Present? ❑ Yes Water Table Present? ❑ Yes Saturation Present? Yes No Depth Qn); No Depth (in); 7 �Q No Depth (in): Z[j Wetland Hydrology PrcseM7 Yes [I Ha (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), R available: Ramarks:E,%}�,i,{,i./?.�� r , US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mauntatns, VaNeys, and Coast — Interim Version Salt Sarniolina Point DP -I Profile Descri tion: jDascrIbe to tho depth needs tl to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features irches' Remarks Color moist 1/ Color moist % T LOCITexture _ h `Type: C=ConcontratGon, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 21.0c: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix ric Soil indicators: (Applicable to alt LRRs mess 0Crsrwise notYd.) ❑ Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Histic F-pipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (SS) indicators for Problematic Hydric Sills' a I 2cm Muck (A10) FM Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic 03) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iffi ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Redox Dark Suffaoe (F6) ' Indicators of hydrophytio vegeta0len and wetland hydrology must ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) 171 Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ I Redox Deprasylons (FB) Restrictive Laver (if Dresenti: Type: Hydric Boll present? Yes No Depth (inches): Remarks �oc-c G7 r{'�: �> .trrr:'.- � Q [C Ck2 tE�,.c •1F�� jC�i7� ::r�°r2f��' y' fkl� C !r%}rrk HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators, Primary indicators (minimum of one required.' check all that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or moors required}: Surface water (A 1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Water -Stained Leaves (BS) (MILRA 1, 2, 4A d 4 B) High Water Table (A2) Water-Sfained4eaves (except IIN RA 1, 2, 4A R 48) (89)Drainage Patterns {B10} Saturation (A3) Water Alprks {81} Sait Crust (611) Aquatic tnvartatxates (B13) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Salwatien ifiaible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (82) Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (Bq) Iron Deposits (65) Surface Soil Cracks (86) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (S7) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Orddiwd Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Prpgence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (Ce) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (ERR A) other (explain in remarks) Geomorphic Position (D2) Shallow Aquitard (D3) C-IeLft Test (D5) Raised Ant Mounds (DB) (LRR A) JrFA rost-Heave Hummocks ❑ flail Observations Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present', Yes (includes capillary fringe] No Depth (in): No Depth (in): 2 C) { y No Depth (on):7'Z Wetand HydnAM Prasent9 Y� No [] Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitaring weti, aeriat photos, previous inspections), It available ; Remarks: & C!% Ile/�/ �iG1 d k, % i ZOS 1 [•2 � C'1.1 .�iE` 'tirr /r I'IIC^ 1. C'.c!I ¢� US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of ) SEGB, a Washington non-profit ) Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an ) individual and citizen of Renton, ) Petitioners, ) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE 1, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: 1 am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Hearing Brief of Appellant to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - l GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206i 621-0512 ORIGINAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 281 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2n6 Street P.O. Box 626 Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By United States Mail [ ] By Facsimile [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [ ] By Facsimile [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail iessicagmhseattle.com [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen(drentonwa.gov DATED this -�S ls"rday of w L 200_�_, at Seattle, Washington. 15outh End Gives Back(Den)\Dec sm DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 F QRITA COAKLEY GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, Case No, LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT 1. INTRODUCTION South End Gives Back and Brad Nicholson (SEGB) provide this hearing brief to supplement the legal argument in the Notice of Appeal filed in this matter. Appellants adopt the Notice of Appeal by reference. The matter should be reversed for the reasons argued therein, and because a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required but has not been sought. 11. SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT A. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is Required In the Notice of Appeal, SEGB raised as an issue that Renton's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) applied to the site, and requested that City staff review the project for GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 1 Fly, Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 compliance. A closer review reveals that an SSDP is required, and that the applicant should be required to provide additional information on the applicant's earth movement and landscaping plans next to Conservancy -Shoreline designated May Creek. The applicant has completed a Technical Information Report (TIR), and a Wetland and Stream Study. Both of those documents demonstrate that an SSDP is required, and show that further information is needed to determine if the applicant's plans comply with Renton's SMP. Applicant Spencer Alpert (Applicant) has applied for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. The proposal would involve constructing new buildings approximately 248 feet from May Creek, but would also involve demolishing existing structures, and disturbing earth, within a short distance of the Creek's Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). See Att, A, Technical information Report (TIR), at 4; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3, Renton's Shoreline Master Program requires an SSDP whenever substantial development is proposed within 200 feet of the OHWM of May Creek. RCW 90.58.140; SMP § 2.02, 9.38. "Substantial development" is that costing greater than $2500 to construct.SMP § 2.02, 9,38, RCW 90.58.030. In this case, although the hotel structure is planned for slightly farther than 200 feet from the OHWM, the existing site consists of "four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping." Att. A at 5; Figure A-7. Currently, buildings, debris, and other impervious surface comes to within a few feet of May Creek. Att. A, 'FIR, HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206)621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure A-7; Ex. 16 to Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). During construction, the "existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/reused and removed from the site." Att. A, TIR, at 5; Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 3. There is no detail on what will happen with the site once the buildings are removed — no detail on whether impervious surface will be left, whether the site will be left in bare earth and thus subject to erosion, and whether and what type of landscaping will be provided right next to May Creek. See Att. A, TIR, at Att. A-4, showing blank space next to May Creek. Since the applicant proposes a hotel, it is unlikely that the concrete and debris will remain in view of guest rooms. Instead, it is probable that the applicant will be landscaping; the applicant's Technical Information Report discusses "hydro seeding" among other landscape activities. Att. A, TIR, at 16. Thus, although the buildings will be located greater than 200 feet from the Creek, the "substantial development" extends nearly to the water's edge. The applicant's landscaping must preserve May Creek in "essentially [its] native state." RMC 4-3- 090(I)(1). Landscaping "should be representative of the indigenous character of the specific type[] of waterway." SMP § 6.05.01. May Creek is a Renton Shoreline, designated as "conservancy" for the portion passing next to the development site. RMC 4-3-090(I). Neither the TIR nor the Wetland/Stream Study have any information on the type of landscaping, other than a mention of hydroseeding. Hydroseeding suggests that the applicant intends to use entirely inappropriate non-native lawn grass, right up to the edge of May Creek. HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax; (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 25 26 27 28 Knowing what the applicant proposes to do on the banks of May Creek and ensuring that it is in keeping with Renton's SMP is key to preserving this shoreline of the City. Decreasing water flow through removing surface water flow and planting the shore of May Creek with an invasive non-native grass, subject to pesticides and fertilizers which will flow unobstructed into the waterway, could have disastrous consequences for the shoreline's health. Landscaping must be "representative of the indigenous character of the specific type of waterway." Renton SMP § 6.06.01. The applicant provides no detail on what type of plants will be placed; its reference to "hydroseeding" makes it probable that the applicant plans to spray golf -course style non-native grass onto this sensitive environmental area. The SSDP must address numerous areas of concern under Renton's Shoreline Master Progra>n. In addition to native plants, stream flow must be addressed. Currently, stonnwater flow runs to May Creek over impervious surface. Although unclear, it is probable that the development project will decrease flow to May Creek based upon the increase in pervious surface and subsequent decrease in surface water flow. As the SMP provides, "[s]tream alteration is the relocation or change in the flow of a river, stream or creek." SMP § 7.16.01. Stream alteration is only allowed if it is designed by an appropriately State licensed professional engineer, and "will have minimal adverse effects on aquatic life." SMP § 7.16.04. In this case, the applicant has blown off any impacts on May Creek by noting without analysis that the impervious surface will be less than before, and that the new buildings will be more than 50 feet away from the OHWM. But even the applicant admits the importance of this creek to wildlife in Renton; it is reported to be used HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT by Chinook and Sockeye salmon, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout. Att. B, Wetland/Stream Study, at 6. Terrestrial species benefit From May Creek, too; according to the applicant, "[t]he riparian area provides excellent feeding an cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species." Id., at 7, Similarly, a variety of mammals use May Creek — and are adapted to and dependent on its current flow and vegetation. An SSDP should be required, describing and limiting the impacts of this massive project on May Creek, 111. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein and in the Notice of Appeal, the MDNS and Master Site Plan should be reversed, and an SSDP required. Dated this 31 `t day of July, 2009. Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, L P wst�A�'i4`tn� By, Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants Soutl� End Gives Back(Den)',.Heartng Brief of Appellant FINAL 7 31 09 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 ATTACHMENT A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL For Hawk's Landing L.L.G. April 28, 2009 Prepared By: Sound Development Group, L.L.C. 1111 Cleveland Ave., Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone: (360) 404-2010 Fax: (360) 404-2013 Email: office@sdg-llc.corn Project No. 8113 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREP SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PI LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. DATE: BY: OR UNDER MY DIRECT ENGINEER UNDER THE r0 k1',5DG',2GOB'%6115 - 11ahks Lanomg - Hawks LdndinglUrainllir doc 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Project Overview....... ....................... I .... I ...... 1. ........................ I .................... .............. 1.1 Purpose and Scope...... ............................................................... ....... .................. 4 1.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Post -Development Conditions ....................................... ...... 6 2.0 Conditions & Requirements Summary ............................................. 2.1 Core Requirements................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location ............................................... 7 2.1.2 C.R. #2 — Off -site Analysis.......................................................................... 7 2.1.3 C.R. #3 — Flow Control................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System.................................................................... 8 2.1.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion & Sediment Control........................................................ 8 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance & Operations..... ................................................... _ 8 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability .............................................. 8 2.1.8 C.R. #8 — Water Quality............................................................................... 9 2.2 Special Requirements............................................................................ 2.2.1 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements ................................ 10 2.2.2 S.R. #2 — Floodplain/Floodway Delineation ................................................. 10 2.2.3 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities. ............ .............................................. 10 2.2.4 S.R. #4 -- Source Controls........................................................................... 10 2.2.5 S.R. #5 — Oil Control.................................................................................... 10 3.0 Off -Site Analysis.................................................................................. 3.1 Downstream Analysis............................................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Task 1 — Study Area Definition and Maps ................................................... 11 3.1,2 Task 2 —Resource Review... ....................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Task 3 — Field Inspection............................................................................. 12 3.1,4 Task 4 -- Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions ............. 12 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................... 13 2 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ...................................... ........ ...... 13 6.0 Special Reports and Studies............................................................................................. 14 7.0 Other Permits.................................................................................... 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design............................................................... .......... 15 ................ 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure................................................................. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping............................................................... 16 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration .................................................. 16 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report ......................................................................... 16 8.5 Inspection Sequence.............................................................................................. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments......................................................... 18 8.7 Utilities................................................................ ...... 18 8.8 TESC Conclusion................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summary, and Declaration of Covenant .................................... 19 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan.......................................................................19 ..... 11.0 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 19 APPENDICES AppendixA — Exhibits.................................................................................................................. 20 FigureA-1 — Vicinity Map.................................................................................................. 21 Figure A-2 — Flood Insurance Rate Map -- Firmette.......................................................... 22 Figure A-3 — Pre -Developed Condition Map Figure A-4 — Developed Condition Map............................................................................ 24 Figure A-5 — NRCS Soil Survey Information..................................................................... 25 Figure A-6 -- WSDOT Basin Map................................................................................ . ..... 26 Figure A-7 — Downstream Aerial.................................................................. .. 27 ................... Figure A-8 — TIR Worksheet............................................................................................. 28 Figure A-9 — Facility Summary (not included)................................................................... 29 Figure A-10 — Bond Quantity Worksheet (not included) .................................................... 30 Figure A-11 — Draft Declaration of Covenant Form (not included) .................................... 31 Appendix B — Geotechnical Report.............................................................................................. 32 Appendix C — Water Quality Calculations (not included)............................................................. 33 Appendix D — Maintenance and Operations Plan (not included) ................................................. 34 Appendix E — Legal Description....................................................................... Appendix F -- Conveyance Calculations and Detail (not included) .............................................. 36 3 Ty 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the proposed 3.06-acre project is to demolish the existing fl,A structures within the current project boundary, relocate existing onsite utilities and construct a 5-story 122,000 square foot hotel. Associated utilities will be provided to the new hotel to accommodate required fire, water, stormwater, power, cable and sanitary sewer requirements. Existing impervious areas within +� the development area will be demolished and re-used/recycled or removed. It is assumed that the site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be less than that of the existing site conditions. The developed runoff from the pollution generating impervious areas will be treated with Low Impact Development: rain gardens_ The Western Washington Hydrology Model will be utilized to determine the required treatment stormwater runoff to size the proposed rain gardens, and can be found in Appendix C. As discussed with Alex Jones, with the King County Surface Water Department, the KCRTS is not appropriate to size rain gardens. Modifications will be made to the existing on -site Washington Department of Transportation conveyance system to re-route the existing system around the new building structure and site improvements. 4 1.2 Existing Conditions The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, west of Highway 405. King County parcel number: 3224059049. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The project site basin is approximately 3.06 acres. Existing soils onsite consist of Norma Sandy Loam, with a Hydrologic group of "D", per the NRCS soil survey, a A geotechnical engineering study was prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in February of 1991 and is attached to this report as Appendix B. This report describes the soils on -site, and will be updated upon site design. 11 An on -site topographic survey was conducted by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc, in 1995. This survey was used as a base map to delineate the on -site drainage and grading for the new site plan. Sound Development Group has verified that there are no apparent major modifications to the existing on -site conditions. This office also completed an off -site topography to be utilized in the proposed off -site road improvements, in January, 2009. The project site currently supports four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping. The existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/re-used and removed from the site. Currently, the site is approximately 85 percent impervious. The majority of the 15 percent pervious area includes the landscaped road frontage along Lake Washington Boulevard. 5 1.3 Post -Development Conditions r� Upon completion of construction, the proposed project site will consist of a new 5-story, 29,412 square foot footprint hotel, with underground parking garage. The new hotel will be provided with proposed storm and sanitary sewer, water and other appropriate utilities. Road improvements will be completed along Lake Washington Boulevard to include curb, gutter and sidewalk. Stormwater runoff from the site development will be treated with rain gardens. A portion of the southern entrance to the site, from Lake Washington Boulevard will be conveyed through a proposed basic treatment system in compliance with the King County Stormwater Design Manual, prior to discharging to the proposed public storm system. 2 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1 - Discharge at the Natural Location Currently, based on the topographic survey information and records, stormwater from the majority of the existing site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard, or within an existing onsite storm system, and discharged to said ditch. The water captured within the tight -lined system is conveyed discharged off -site to the existing ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site will occur at approximately the same a location within the existing roadside ditch, utilizing the existing culvert to May Creek. 2.1.2 C.R. #2 - Off -site Analysis A Level 1 Upstream / Downstream Analysis, is discussed in Section 3 of this report. The analysis, upon site design, will include: • Defining and mapping the study area; i Reviewing available information on the study area; Field inspecting the study area; and • Analyzing the existing drainage system including its existing and ' predicted problems, if any. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 - Flow Control The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1,A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. 7 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems will be demolished 1 removed. Due to essentially equivalent impervious areas in the pre -developed and developed conditions, flow characteristics should be unchanged. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin. 2.1.5 C.R. #6 — Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for this site in accordance with the KCSWDM and the City of Renton requirements. The existing paved northern entrance to the site will be used as the construction entrance. Construction work limits will be determined and shown in Appendix A, Figures A-3 and A-4, upon design. The erosion and sediment control plan will be included in Section 8 of this Technical Information Report. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations See Appendix D of this report for further discussion on maintenance and operations requirements. 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability Financial guarantees meeting King county guarantee requirements will be provided under separate cover. See Appendix A in the future, Figure A-7 for the Bond Quantity Worksheet. 8 2.1.8 C.R. #8 — Water Quality Water quality treatment, as required by Core Requirement #8, will be implemented and designed to target pollution -generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) and a portion of the non -pollution -generating impervious surface (NPGIS). It is intended to capture the proposed roadway/parking runoff, as well as a good portion of the NPGIS, within several individual ` rain gardens. The rain gardens will be designed utilizing Western Washington Hydrology Model, Version 3, to treat 91 % of the site runoff. The proposed rain gardens will meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, Section 6.1. 9 I 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2.1 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements NIA. 2.2.2 S.R. #2 -- Floodplain/Floodway Delineation FEMA Map Panel No. 53033CO664 F, dated May 16, 1995, was consulted and shows that the site is not within a 100-year floodplain. Note that the site is located in a Zone K (see Appendix A, figure A-2). 2.2.3 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities To our knowledge, the existing site does not contain flood protection facilities, nor does the proposed project intend to construct any. 2.2.4 S.R. #4 — Source Controls This project does not require Source controls; therefore, Special Requirement No. 4, Source Control, does not apply. 2.2.5 S.R. #5 — Oil Control This project does not fit the classification of a high -use site; therefore, Special Requirement No. 5, Oil Control, does not apply. 10 9 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis 3.1.1 Task 1 —Study Area Definition and Maps The project site represents a portion of the May Creek watershed basin. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The site currently drains south to May Creek, and eventually to Lake Washington. A boundary and topographical survey of the project site has been completed and is included in the project submittal. A Pre -Developed Condition Map is included in this report in Appendix A, Figure A-3. An upstream and downstream inspection l site visit was conducted to q determine the relative basin that contributes to the shared discharge location. The contributing basin appears to include a portion of Interstate 405, associated on -ramps, Lake Washington Boulevard and the project site. The approximate I-405 basin has been included in Appendix A — _ Figure A-6. The 1-405 basin is captured in a series of ditches, culverts and catch basin — pipe networks, and conveyed west to ex CB 2604 per the attached Developed conditions map. It is then tightlined south and west to the existing roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. The ditch conveys the water south, approximately 450' to an existing 24" CPP culvert. The culvert discharges the stormwater directly into the buffer of May Creek. May Creek flows to the west from the above discharge point, beneath an existing Lake Washington Boulevard bridge, beneath an existing railroad trestle, then south and west to discharge to Lake Washington. The downstream flow path of May Creek has been included in Appendix A -- Figure A-7. May Creek appear to be well vegetated, with no conveyance or erosion problems, 61 3.1.2 Task #2 -- Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential problems in the study area: 1. FEMA Maps. 2. Critical Areas Map and Wetlands Inventory Map: A critical areas x.t report is being prepared. 3. Soils Information: The geotechnical report for the project site was consulted, and no special conditions apply. (Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix B.) 4. Drainage Complaints: City records will be consulted to determine if any drainage complaints are on fife. 5. Erosion Problems. There are no erosion problems at the site due to the fact that it is almost 100 percent impervious. 3.1.3 Task #3 — Field Inspection Sound Development Group staff walked the project site on March 12, 2009. There was no rain at the time of this inspection. The site was observed to be comprised of primarily concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Minimal landscaping in the parking area was observed. 3.1.4 Task #4 — Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The drainage system consists of sheet flow to an existing roadside ditch and catch basins to a closed conveyance systems. The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. This will contribute to conveyance problems, ditch and pipe siltation, and possible clogging of the existing system, and should be remedied. There are no known overtopping problems at this site, or within May Creek. 12 5 Q i i 3 "1 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This site is will meet flow control requirements, See Section 2.1.3 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. This site is will meet the Water Quality Core Requirement. See Section 2.1.8 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW. Due to no change within the WSDOT basin, flow characteristics should be unchanged, and existing sizing will be utilized. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin upon site design. 13 iI 6.0 SPECIAL_ REPORTS AND STUDIES Critical Area Investigation by Graham and Bunting. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS SEPA Checklist - City of Renton Building Permit -- City of Renton Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) -- DOE Clearing and Grading Permit — City of Renton 14 i i 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure The proposed project will include an erosion/sedimentation control plan designed 1 to prevent sediment -laden runoff from leaving the site during construction. Currently, the site is approximately 85% percent impervious. Maintaining existing surfacing where construction allows, will help ensure erosion/sedimentation control. Additional control can be achieved by cover measures and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. Prior to the start of any construction activity upon the site, erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance with this plan and the construction documents. The best management practices will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. The planned construction sequence for erosion control is as follows: 1 _ Stake and flag the clearing limits. 2. Schedule and attend a pre -construction meeting with the City of Renton, the Owner, and Engineer. 3. Identify existing entrance(s) to be used as construction entrance(s), 4. Provide catch basin sediment protection. 4 5. Provide miscellaneous demolition within the clearing limits as necessary to construction project. 5. All on -site erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected at least once every 5 working days, each working day during a runoff producing rain events, and within 24 hours after a runoff producing rain event. The contractor shall repair or replace erosion control measures as required. 7. As necessary, adjust temporary erosion control measures as work progresses. 8. Install stormwater facilities, fine grade areas to receive surfacing and provide the surfacing indicated on the plans. 9. Stabilize all remaining disturbed areas. 10. Contact the City of Renton for final inspection. 11. Remove sediment from catch basin sumps, Remove remaining temporary erosion control devices when the area has been permanently stabilized with vegetation and surfacing, and the removal is approved by the City and the Owner. 15 3 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Structural control measures will not be used on this site due to the fact that it consists almost entirely of existing concrete, asphalt, and buildings within the work limits. Specifically, during the period of May 1 through September 30, the contractor will not be allowed to leave soils unprotected for more than 15 days, and immediate seeding will be required for areas brought to finish grade with no further work planned for the next 30 days. Areas to be paved may be armored with crushed rock subbase in place of other stabilizing measures. The area of clearing will be limited to the amount that can be stabilized by September 30 of that year. During the period of October 1 through April 30, all disturbed soil areas will be covered or stabilized within 2 days or 24 hours when a major storm event is predicted. Cover measures may include mulching, netting, plastic sheeting, erosion control blankets, or free draining material. The extent of clearing shall be limited to the amount of land that can be covered or stabilized within 24 hours. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized by plastic covering. In order for the TESC facilities to function properly, they must be maintained and sediment removed on a regular basis. Inspection and sediment removal shall be performed on all TESC facilities as described in the inspection schedule located in Section 9.4 of this report. 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration Permanent site stabilization and erosion control will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. Paving of driving and parking surfaces. 2. Landscaping (including hydroseeding). 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report Geotechnical analysis has been completed for this site and is contained in Appendix B. 16 ,1 8.5 Inspection Sequence The Contractor shall inspect the temporary erosion control facilities prior to commencement of construction. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining TESC facilities. Erosion control facilities shall not be allowed to fall into disrepair. All TESC t facilities shall be inspected, as a minimum, according to the following schedule. • Dry Season: Once a week. • Wet Season: Daily, and after every storm event that produces runoff. Needed repairs shall be made within 24 hours or immediately, if possible. If necessary, the Engineer or City will instruct the Contractor to provide additional facilities as warranted during field inspections. The Contractor shall provide the name and contact information for the designated Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead to the City of Renton prior to beginning construction. Additionally, the following inspection/maintenance schedules shall be utilized to ensure the TESC facilities are functioning as designed. f Plastic Covgr n : • Plastic sheeting shall be inspected once a week during both the wet and dry season. • Torn sheets must be replaced and open seams repaired. • If the plastic begins to deteriorate due to ultraviolet radiation, it must be completely removed and replaced. • When the plastic is no longer needed, it shall be completely removed. If tires are used to weight down the plastic sheeting, they must be disposed of properly. 5 Inlet Protection: • Catch basin filter inserts shall be inspected frequently, especially after storm events. If the filter becomes clogged, it should be cleaned or replaced. • Inserts shall be replaced when tears are detected. If the erosion control facilities are damaged, or if the CESCL, project Engineer or City determines that existing controls are inadequate, the contractor shall install additional measures as required. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments The contractor shall be responsible for controlling pollutants at the work site. Key elements such as centralized areas for equipment and concrete truck washing and temporary storage of debris and other stockpiled materials are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor may elect to follow the detailed guidance on control of non - sediment pollutants as outlined in the Sformwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Department of Ecology, February 1992, Section 11-3 (included as Appendix E). 8.7 Utilities In general, in order to prevent conflicts between the utilities, the sanitary sewer system shall be installed first due to the depth of the installation. The storm system shall then be constructed and the water system shall follow. During trenching activities, no more than 500 feet of open trench shall be allowed at any time. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of the trench except where limited by safety or space requirements. Trench dewatering, if required, shall discharge to a sediment -trapping facility. 8.8 TESC Conclusion Erosion control procedures as described in this report and illustrated on the design plans, if properly implemented, should mitigate anticipated erosion effects from the development of this project. 18 1 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARY, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet, TIR Worksheet, Facility Summary Form, and Draft Declaration of Covenant Form will be provided in Appendix A upon site design. 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance and operation of storm facilities is the responsibility of the Owner. All drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with King County maintenance standards. A Maintenance and Operations Plan will be provided in Appendix E upon site design. 11.0 CONCLUSION I This site will be designed to meet KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management_ The existing conveyance system will be reused and rerouted as necessary to facilitate the new building footprint. The storm drainage calculations and modeling provided in this report will meet King County standards for sizing stormwater conveyance systems and treatment facilities. This analysis is based on topographic surveys, supplied data and records. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project should not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. The backwater problem within the existing ditch and it's contributory system should be remedied. This project should not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. 19 ATTACHMENT B Wetland/Streaw Study: Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel go 0 Prepared for: �hk� 1 ao� Tian Mitzel D Hawk's Landing LLC I I I I Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Prepared by: Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Ph.360.766.4441 A 360.766.4443 May 12, 2009 Table of Contents Section/Subsection Page Project Summary ---------- ------------- ---------------------------------- ii 1.0 Introduction -- -------------------------- —----- ------------ ---------- I 2.0 Existing Conditions --- ------ ------------ ------------ ----- ------ --- 1 3.0 Project Description --------------------------------- ------------- ------ 3 4.0 Existing Information ------------------------------------- —------ ---- 3 4.1 National Wetland Inventory -------------------------------- 3 4.2 Soil Survey of King County ------------------------------- 4 4.3 May Creek Basin Action Plan ---- ------------------------- 5 4.4 Barbee Mill (BA) ---- ----------- ----,.---------- ------------ 5 4.5 Fawcett Property Wetland Delineation -------------------- 5 4.6 Forest Practice Activity Map -------- ---------- ------- ---- 5 5.0 Stream Study ------------------- —---------------- --------------- ----- 5 5.1 Riparian Functions ----------- --------------------- .------- 5 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mask --------------------------------- 7 5.3 Stream Classification and Regulations --------- ---------- 8 6,0 Wetland Study ---------------------------- —--------------- ---------- 9 6.1 Methodology ------------------- ----------- -------- ------- --- 4 6.2 Findings -------------------- —--- ---------------- ---------- 10 6.3 Data Summary Table ------ ---------- ---------- ------------ 11 6.4 Data Digest ------------ ------- ------- ------------- ----- ------ 11 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations ------------------ 12 TO Regulatory Summary and Mitigation Measures ------------------ 13 Tl May Creek -------------------------- --------------------- ---- 13 7.2 Drainage Ditch (Class 5 Water) --------- —--------------- -- 14 7.3 Wetlands A and B------ —----------------- ------ -------- ---- 14 7.4 Drainage Ditch (nonmgulated wetland) ------------------- 14 7.5 Water Quality ------------------------------ --------- -------- 14 8.0 Closure --------------- ----------------------------- —-------------- ------ 14 9.0 References ------------------------------------------ ---------- --------- 15 Attachments Wedand Delineation and Stream Study Existing Conditions Site Plan ---- Attachment A Proposed Conditions ----------------------------------------------- -------------- Attachment B Wetland Field Data Forms ------------------------------------------------------- Attachment C Graham-Buntim, ,lssociates i Environmental & and Use Services f fativksr Lan_din May 2009 PROJECT SUMMARY Pr ect: Construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel including underground parking and ground level parking. Proiect Site: The project site is a 3.06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south. Project Location: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard/N.E. 44`s Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W.M., King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059049, Project Pr onent: Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC 1 i 1 I Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Methods: Wetland — Routine On -Site Methodology, 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-97- 1) - Corps Interim Regional Supplement, April 2008 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, March 1997, Ecology Publication 496-94 City of Renton Critical Area Regulation: RMC 4-3-050 City of Renton Shoreline Master Program: RMC 4-3-090 Field Dates. March 23, April 8, ApriI 14 and April 24, 2009 Streams & Wetlands: May Creek — Class 1 Water, Shoreline of the State Drainage ditch — Class 5 Water/Nonregulatcd Wetland Wetland A -- 433 square foot Category 2 Wetland Wetland B — 481 square foot Category 2 Wetland Proposed Mitigation: Subject proposal will avoid any direct impacts to regulated streams and wetlands by maintaining setback/buffers that exceed the standards of the City's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program. Project Staff Oroham-Run ting J,ssogales IIaw1Gs _Landin 1fav 2009 Patricia Bunting, Wetland Ecologist PWS Oscar Graham, Wetland Ecologist ii Environmental & Land Use Services May f 2, 2009 Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing LLC I l l l Cleveland Ave. Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Graham -Bunting Associates Environmental & Land Use Services 3643 Legg Road, Bow, WA 98232 Ph.360.766.4441 Fx. 360.766.4443 StreamlWetland Study (Portions of Section 29 & 32 Township 24 north, Range 5 East, W.M., Renton, WA) 1.0 Introduction At the request of Hawks Landing LLC, Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA) have conducted a site investigation and prepared the following report addressing streams and wetlands within and adjacent to the site of the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel. The report addresses the stream and wetaand study requirements established under the City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The report includes a characterization of existing conditions, project description, summary of existing information sources and a narrative description of our investigative procedures and findings. The report includes plan sheets prepared by Sound Development Group depicting existing and proposed site conditions. 2.0 Existing Conditions The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the Interstate 405 and Lake Washington BoulevardlN,E, 44 h Street exit at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, within portions of Sections 29 and 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, W,M,, King County, WA. King County Parcel Number: 3224059049. Figure 1-Terraserver; USGS (1983) Figure 2 - Microsoft Corp.: Virtual Earth (2008) The project site is a 3,06-acre area situated on a triangular shaped parcel of approximately 7.8 acres. The subject property is bordered by Interstate 405 in the east, Lake Washington Boulevard in the west and an undeveloped parcel to the south, The property is currently occupied by Pan Abode Cedar Homes and is developed with metal warehouses used for manufacturing and storing materials associated with the production of cedar homes, An administrative office is also located on the site. The buildings are constructed on a fill pad surfaced with crushed rock and asphalt, The site has been fully developed for industrial purposes. Graham -Bunting Associates I Envimamental &Land Use Services Hawks LandingAssessment (MV09) Little native vegetation exists within the subject property itself. The eastern and western perimeters, predominantly within the right of ways of 1405 and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibit a mix of native and invasive plant species. Trees consist of red alder (Alnus rubra), paper birch (Retula papyrifera), black cottonwood (Populus balsim fera) and Western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Shrubs are dominated by Himalayan blackberry (Rub us discolor), red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera), Indian plum (Gemleda ceras farmis), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and sword fern (Polysuchum munitum). An open drainage ditch located between the project site and Lake Washington Boulevard exhibits a small community of cattail (I)pha latrfolta) and a thick mat of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). The parcel located south of the subject property includes lower -May Creek and its associated riparian corridor. The distance from the subject property to May Creek varies from 235 feet in the east (adjacent to the on -ramp to 1405) to 58 feet in the west (adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard). A mature deciduous forest consisting of large black cottonwood (16"- 36" dbh), alder and big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum) dominates the riparian corridor. The understory includes vigorous colonies of invasive blackberry and Japanese knotweed, salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), reed canarygrass and sword fern. A small community of slough sedge (Carex obnupta) was observed in conjunction with a wetland identified along the right bank of May Creek. Photo 1: View north along eastern right of way of Lake Washington Blvd_ showing perimeter vegetation adjacent to drainage ditch. The subject property is predominantly flat, however, the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the entrance of the existing pan Abode facility, resembles a bowl shaped depression designed to receive stormvwer runoff` from multiple catch basins located along the southbound on -ramp to I- 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard. 5tormwater runoff from the catch basins is transmitted to the northern portion of the subject property and discharged to the northern end of the open drainage ditch, located along the eastern right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard. Stormwater from the subject property is also collected and discharged to the ditch at this location. The open ditch extends approximately 500 feet to the south where it enters a buried 24-inch corrugated plastic pipe that flows an additional 60 feet south before discharging to May Creek. Additional drainage enters the ditch from the subject property near the entrance to the buried pipe. May creek flows into Lake Washington approximately .25 miles southwest of the subject property, (Attachment A: Existing Conditions Site Map) Graham-Buntinrtssociates 2 Environ ent 1 Bc Land Use Services Hawks Landin ssessment f5j2/09 3.0 Project Description The proposal is to demolish the existing structures associated with the Pan Anode facility and utilize approximately 3.06 acres of the subject property f6r construction of a 5 story, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel. The proposed Hawks Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will consist of; • One level of underground parking with approximately 107 stalls • Ground floor hotel reception area with meeting rooms and approximately 742 square felt, 2,152 square feet, and 3,360 square feet for retail, spa and restaurant facilities respectively • Four levels of guestrooms • A total of approximately 126 surface Ievel parking stalls, including five spaces designated for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs)) • Two access points along Lake Washington Boulevard • Storm water facilities including rain gardens • Sanitary sewer, water and other utilities Preliminary designs indicate that the hotel will maintain a maximum height of 60 feet. Required land use permits include site plan review, environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), building permits and a street vacation. All development including required infrastructure will be located a minimum of 277 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (GHWM) of May Creek. (Attachment B: Proposed Conditions) 4.0 Existing Information The subject property has been addressed under a number of existing studies. These information sources have been reviewed and synthesized to assist GBA in characterizing the subject property. The sources are summarized as follow: 4.1 Nghoml Wedand Invento The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) is compiled by the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. NWI relies upon visual aerial photo interpretation of wetland indicators including hydrologic, vegetation and topographic signatures. NWI does not identify wetlands within the vicinity of the subject property. It should be recognized however; that the forest canopy associated with the riparian corridor of May Creek would likely obscure the indicators upon which NWI relies, GBA utilize NWI only as a generalized map indication of the possible Graham BuntrnQ Associates 3 Enylronmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landtn�Assessment (5112/09) presence and extent of wetlands. Reconnaissance and delineation procedures are always based on an on -site assessment. 4.2 S io l Sugeyr ofKituz County. Area Washington The Soil Survey is compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and includes mapped soil units registered to detailed descriptions of soil characteristics. The survey identifies one soil unit within the subject property boundaries. The map unit appears to include the entire floodplain associated with lower May Creek. No -Norma sandy loam is a poorly drained soil typically found on floodplains with slopes between 0 and 2 percent, The parent material is alluvium. Minor components include Seattle, Tukwila and Shalcar soils. Norma sandy loam is listed as a hydric soil under criteria 1., 2. b) (3) and 3. 1. Al! Histosols except folists 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Aquisalids, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that are; b) poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (3) water table equal to 1.0 feet from the surface during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches. 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season, Figure 3 - National Wetland Inventory Figure 4 - Soil Survey h ://wetlandsfws.er.us s. ov/ h ://websoiI nres.usda. ov/a Dp 4:3 May Creek Basin Action Plan (April 2001i The May Creek Basin Action Plan was funded by King County and the City of Renton outlines a set of actions addressing the threat of flooding, facilitation of stormwater conveyance to stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion, protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water quality. The plan is intended to prevent existing problems within the basin from becoming worse in the Grahon-Buntin Associates 4 Environmental & Laird Use Services &wks_Lan&t!g_AssesMent (5112109) Future. Tlic plan provides baseline information relating to conditions in the basin including a map sheet reflecting time approximate location and extent of wetlands. It is noteworthy that the wetland map identifies a small wetland in the vicinity of the drainage ditch described under existing conditions. 4.4 Biolostica] Assessment: Barbee Mill Pgliminary Plat (August 2002) Raedke Associates, Inc_ prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to evaluate potential effects of the proposed subdivision on federal and state listed species. The BA includes a characterization of May Creek and Lake Washington, documents species use, and identifies mitigating conditions to ameliorate project generated impacts to Iisted species. The Barbee Mill development is located just west of Lake Washington Boulevard adjacent to the subject property, 4.5 Wetland Delineation Report: Fawcett Property (December 2000) Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prepared a Wetland Delineation Report addressing a portion of the area located south of the subject property. While the contiguous area south of the subject property is under the ownership of Dr. Greg Fawcett, the delineation focused only on the area south of May Creek. The report includes observations relating to May Creek and hydrology, soil and vegetation within the riparian corridor, 4,6 Forest Practice Activity_ Map The Washington State Department of Natural Resources maps and classifies waters of the state pursuant to WAC 222-16-031 on the Forest Practice Stream Type Maps. The snaps were reviewed to assist in characterizing the project area. May Creek is identified as an S (Shoreline) Water of the State. Type S waters are defined as: "All waters, within their bankfuil width, as inventoried as `shorelines of the state' under chapter 90,58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands. No additional Waters of the State were identified on the Stream Type Maps. 5.0 Stream Study May Creek originates from the outlet of Lake Kathleen and flows westerly approximately 8.6 miles to Lake Washington. The May Creek watershed drains approximately 14 square miles of residential, open space, agricultural, commercial, industrial and public infrastructure development including runoff from 1405. The stream reach located south of the subject property lies between the 1405 bridge crossing in the east and the Lake Washington Boulevard bridge crossing in the %vest. This reach of May Creek is identified as Reach B and characterized in the City of Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory and Analysis as relatively unaltered (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008) S. t Riparian Functions Observations gathered during our site investigation, conducted during the early spring of 2009, indicate a high level of in stream and riparian corridor functions. The stream is low gradient (< 8%) and displays a complex of low velocity pools mixed with swifter moving riffles and runs. In stream structure is provided by naturally recruited large woody debris (LWD) consisting of native deciduous species and installed habitat features including anchored root wads and cabled logs, Riparian functions are closely linked to vegetation along the stream bank and adjacent floodplain. Graham-BunUn-Q,lssodates 5 h.,hvimnmental & Land Use Services_ Hawks Landing 4 ssessment (5112109) LWD Recruitment - While large conifers are generally the preferred source of LWD, the presence of mature deciduous species throughout the stream reach provides an ongoing source for recruitment of woody material into the stream. LWD promotes complexity within the stream and provides holding areas for salmonids and resident fish species, Bank Stability - The three strata vegetation community along the riparian corridor promotes bank stability through establishment of deep root systems. The anchored roots help hold the sandy loam of the floodplain intact and minimize the forces of erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity. Reed canarygrass, often viewed as an undesirable species, is very effective in promoting bank stabilization. Unfortunately it also may colonize aggressively reducing the diversity of native plant species. Shade - The deciduous tree canopy provides shade during low flow summer months and helps to maintain cool temperatures and maintain dissolved oxygen levels required by salmonids and resident fish species. Water Quality - Emergent vegetation including vigorous communities of reed canarygrass contiguous to the OIIWM provide for the filtering of sediments and pollutants. Reed canarygrass is viewed as an invasive species; however, its dense mat like quality provides an excellent filtering function that helps prevent delivery of sediments and pollutants to receiving waters. BI Photo 5 — View upstream (east) showing LWD and riparian vegetation south of subject property - Fish and Wildlife Habitat - While no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during our site investigation, May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho (Oncorhynchus kisurch) and Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) salmon. Winter steelltead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki clarki) are also known to utilize the creek. (Renton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008). Puget Sound Chinook salmon and Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho salmon are listed as a candidate species under ESA. May Creek does not have a self sustaining Chinook run. Chinook observed in May Creek are likely strays from the Cedar River (Lucchette 2002). Coho are known to utilize Lake Washington and May Creek. Coho runs in Lake Washington are heavily influenced by hatchery production (Raedeke 2002). Puget Sound Steelhead have utilized May Creek on a historic basis and may remain present in depressed numbers (Salmonscape 2009). A Graham-BunHngAssociates 6 Environmental & Lond Use Services Hawks Landin Assessme t 5/I2/09 review of }pertinent literature relating to lake Washington salmonid stocks indicates a high degree of uncertainty as to the genetic origins of salmonids utilizing May Creek. It is possible that individuals from the Puget Sound and Puget Sound Strait of Georgia Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) utilize the habitat provided by the creek. 'Hie riparian area provides excellent feeding and cover habitat for birds, including woodland hawks and passerine species, Small mammals such as voles utilize uplands within the riparian area for burrowing. GBA observed blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) droppings and hoof prints within the riparian corridor. Common snipe (Capella gallinago) were flushed during several site inspections at a location near the bridge crossing at Lake Washington Boulevard. A short tailed weasel (Mustela erminea) was also observed burrowing in the rip rap near the bridge abutment. A pair of Osprey (Pandion hallatus) was observed perched on a nest platform near the mouth of May Creek. Additional species were observed during our site investigation including: song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) house finch (Carpcdacus mexicanus) black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapilla) hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) spotted towhee (Pipilo maculates) winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) mallard hen and drake (Anal platyrhynchos) unidentified buteo (Buteo sp.) American crow (Corvus hrachyrhynchos) gull species (Larus sp.) 5.2 Ordinary High Water Mark GBA reviewed the location of the OHWM as identified and flagged in the field by David Evans Associates (DEA) in 2006 and Sound Development Group (SDG) in 2009. The guidance contained in the statutory definition was utilized in confirming the location of the OHWM. "The Ordinary high water mark on all lakes, streams and tidal water is that marls that will be found by exarnii ng the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continues in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high seater mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water." In addition, the definition contained in the Renton Municipal Code under 4-11-010 was also considered. Review was aided by a series of high water events occurring during the late winter and early spring of 2009. These one to two year flows generally correlated with the physical evidence observed along the bank of the creek. The Of I4VM was identified based on scour and drift lines, sediment deposits, topographic features and vegetation transitions located at or near the top of the right bank. It was not deemed necessary to adjust any of the flags placed previously by DEA and SDG, The OHWM as flagged was surveyed and is depicted on the map sheets accompanying this report. Graham -Bunting; associates 7 Environmental etc Land Use Services Hawks Landing;lssessinent CS112,1091 k', y z A, ice; Photo 7 — View upsueam (east) showing the OHWM located at the landward extent of a sandbar and transition to persistent vegetation- 5 _3 Stream Classification and Reolations The City's Critical Area Regulations RMC 4-3-050 classify May Creek as a Class 1 water. Class I Waters are perennial salmon bearing waters classified by the City and State as Shorelines of the State. Subsection L. Streams and fakes: 1. Applicability/Lands to Which These Regulations Apply stipulates that the City's critical area regulations do not apply to Class 1 waters which are regulated by RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations. Subsection 4-3-090, 5, d. establishes the standard setback for commercial development as follows: "A commercial building should be located no closer than fifty (50) to the ordinary high water mark; however, the Land Use Hearing Examiner may reduce this requirement through the variance process for good reason for those structures that allow public access to and along the waters edge." All development related to the proposed Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel will be located a minimum of 248 feet landward of the OHWM of May Creek. The subject proposal is located outside of the 200-foot jurisdictional area of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and is therefore compliant with the required 50-foot setback requirement. The drainage ditch located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in light of the City's Critical Area Regulations and identified as a class 5 water. RMC 4-3-050 L. Streams and lakes: 1. a. v. (a) (b) establishes the criteria for Class 5 waters as follows: ` v. Class 5; Class 5 waters are non -regulated non salmonid-bearing waters which meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) Flow within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel had previously existed; and or (b) Are a surficially isolated water body less than one-half (0.5) acre (e.g. pond) not meeting the criteria for a wetland as defined in subsection M. of this section." GrahamBunttngAssodfares 8 Environment l & Land Use Se ices HawksLandjagAssessment (5/l2/09) GBA conferred on site with the Area Habitat Biologist from the Washington State Departiticnt of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 Nvho provided the following observations and guidance: • The ditch is a man made feature • Work within the ditch itself will not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW • Work on the outfall to May Creek would require an HPA • Any proposed improvement to the outfaR should prevent entry of fish to the ditch Based on observations gathered during our site investigation and consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist, GBA have determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmon bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicate that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, fake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility. GBA have determined that the drainange ditch satisfies Criteria (a) as a Class 5 Water and is therefore not regulated under the City's Critical Area Regulations. The ditch will be discussed further under the following Wetland Study. 6.0 Wetland Study The following discussion addresses the procedures and methods utilized in our wetland investigation and provides a summary of our findings. 6A Methodolosv GBA utilized the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is a revised version of the 1987 Co s of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1 ] in the preparation of this report. The Ecology Manual (along with the recent Corps of Engineers regional supplement, April 2008) represents the accepted standard for identifying and delineating wetlands for jurisdictional purposes under the Clean Water Act. GBA considered the new interim regional supplement in the assessment of field data. The Ecology manual has been adopted for use by the City of Renton for use in conjunction with the Growth Management Act mandated Critical Areas Ordinance. Both the Ecology and Corps manuals incorporate the Clean Water Act Definition of Wetlands as follows: 4"rhose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." The City's Critical Areas Ordinance stipulates additional defining elements as follows "Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands created from non -wetland sites, including but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas created to mitigate conversion of «elands." Graham-Buntin .]ssociales 9 Environmental & Land Use Services flowks Lon chu,I ssexwwnt (511 109) Tlie definition requires that three interrelated defining elements or paramcters be established �whern identifying %%ctlands. These parameters are wwetland hydrology, hydric soils and hrdrophytic vegetation. Wetland Hydrology Water is the driving force, which creates and sustains wetlands. The 1987 Manual and subsequent Corps guidance identifies wetlands as areas where soils are inundated or continuously saturated for a minimum of 5% of the growing season (approximately 12.5 days for Western Washington). When direct observation of the water table cannot be made, hydrology is determined by relying upon hydrologic indicators such as hydric soil characteristics, water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits or drainage patterns. Hydric Soils Wetlands exhibit hydric soils. Those are soils which are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions. These are conditions where no free oxygen is present in the upper soil horir_ons. Typical field indicators of hydric soils are the presence of a thick organic layer, or in predominantly mineral soils such as found on this site, a low chroma matrix (gray color) and/or bright mottling. Soil chromas are determined by comparing soil samples with color chips in the Munsell Color Charts. Hydrophytic Vegetation The U.S. fish and Wildlife Service has classified wetland vegetation according to its frequency of occurrence in wetlands: Obligate wetland species (OBL) occur in wetlands greater than 99%of the time, Facultative wetland species (FACW) occur in wetlands greater than 67% of the time. Facultative species (FAQ occur in wetlands 34%66% of the time. Facultative upland species (FACU) occur in wetlands less than 34% of the time. Upland species (UPL) occur in wetlands less than I % of the time. Generally the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is satisfied when greater than 50% of the species present at a data collection point have an indicator status of OBL, FACW and/or FAC; when two or more dominant species have observed morphological or known physiological adaptations for' occurrence in wetlands; or when other indicators of hydrophytic vegetation are present. 6.2 Findings GBA conducted the site investigation on March 23, April 8, April 14 and April 24, 2009. Observations were collected over a period of month during weather conditions that transitioned from cold and wet to sunny and seasonable. Little plant growth was noted during our initial site visit, however, by mid April plants were exhibiting active growth. Indian plum, salmonberry and elderberry were rapidly leafing out and Japanese knotweed colonies along the bank of May Creek was emerging from dormant rhizomes. GBA consider the timing and weather conditions of our investigation to be optimal for the identification of wetlands. Two areas were investigated: 1) The subject property (Pan Abode facility) and its perimeter including the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. and; 2) The floodplain south of the subject property to the right (north) bank of May Creek. Both areas were traversed and visually inspected for indications of wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation. The ordinary high water mark of the drainage ditch was identified and flagged on site. A single data point (DP- 7) was established along the top of the bank. A second data point (DP-2) was assessed just cast of the ditch along the southern boundary of the subject property. Three rough transects were established in an casthvest aspect between May Creek and the subject property. Six data points C,rohatri-BunL2g,lssoeiates 10 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks LandinuAssessment (511 ,092 (I)Ps 1,3,4,5,6,8) were assessed in the Floodplain or riparian corridor of May Creek, Soil evaluation pits were excavated to a uniform depth of 21 inches, Hydrology, soil and vegetation were assessed at each data point. Data collected on site was recorded on data forms and field notes. Photographs documented appropriate visual images. Data collected is summarized in the following table. (Attachment C: Wetland Field Data Forms) 6.3_Data Summary Table DP 1 !Iydrology Soil Dominant V etation Status *oxidized *sandy loam 2,5Y *Populus balsamifera FAC (20%) rhizosphe,res - 4/2 - rhizospheres - Alnus rubra FAC (201%) ! 1 fac neutral - sandy redox Cornus stolonifera FACW (50%) Wet geomorphic Carex obnupla OBL (801/6) position no indicators gravelly loam - *Alnus rubra FAC (2°/o) 2 10YR 4/3 Rubus discolor FACU (25%) Up Phalaris arundinacea FACW (95%) no indicators silt loam -- lOYR Populus balsamifera FAC (30%) 3 3/3 Rubus discolor FACU (1001/o) U no indicators silt loam 1 OYR 3/3 *Populus balsamifera FAC (I0%) 4 Alnus rubra FAC (10%) Up Phalaris arundinacea FACW 100%) no indicators silty clay loam Alnus rubra FAC (605%) 5 1 OYR 2/2 Rubus discolor FACU (1001/6) U *water table Aa 8" *silty clay loam *Alnus rubra FAC (60%) 6 — saturated to 2.5Y 3/1- 10% Rubus discolor FACU (60%) Wet surface mottles 7.5YR 4/6 Rubus s ectabilis FAC (301/6) Saturation @ 15" gravelly silt loam *Populus balsamifera FAC (80%) 7 10YR 2/2 Rubus discolor FACU (20%) Up Rununculus re ens FACW (5% saturation below sandy loam 2.5 Y *Alnus rubra FAC (20%) 8 20" 4/4 Rubus discolor FACU (201/o) Up Cornus stoloni era FACW (20%) "Wetland parameter satisfied 6.4 Data Dip-est Based on the above data summarized above, two regulated wetlands were identified: Wetlands A and B are small depressional wetlands located within the floodplain of May Creek with areas of 433 and 481 square feet respectively. The wetlands receive their hydraulic charge from a seasonal high water table, precipitation and periodic overbank flooding of May Creek. The wetlands are distinguished from the surrounding uplands because they are distinct topographic features, exhibit saturated soils and are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, Wetland A is a deep depression with observable hydrology at the soil surface. Soil displays a very dark matrix chroma accompanied by mottles. Vegetation is dominated by a mix of facultative plant species. Wetland B is a gentler depression which exhibits only secondary indicators of wetland hydrology with saturation present well below the sail surface. Soil is sandier and lighter by comparison and vegetation includes a vigorous community of slough sedge (OBL). In addition to Wetlands A and B, the drainage ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard was also assessed in accordance with the wetland identification/delineation methodology, Although a data Graham -Bunting Associates 11 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landin-e Assessment (5/121'09) point was not assessed within the ditch itself, the area within the flagged OHWM was determined to satisfy wetland parameters. Standing water was prescnt in much of the 500 linear foot ditch. Soil was silty and likely consists of stormwater sodunent from surrounding development, Vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass. Data point 7, established at the top of bank approximately 20 feet west of the existing Pan Abode facility was assessed to characterize the area lying between the ditch and subject property. No surface water was observed although saturation was present at a depth of approximately 15 inches from the soil surface. Soil consisted of a gravely silt loam, possibly fill from the development of the Pan Abode facility. The soil exhibited a dark matrix chrvma (1 OYR 212) but was not accompanied by redoximorphic features. The subsoil was a very light silty sand (2.5Y 6f6). Vegetation was dominated by a mix of facultative trees, shrubs and herbs. Because the hydrology and soil parameters were not satisfied the data point was determined to be upland. 6.5 Wetland Classification and Regulations Wetlands A and B were classified in accordance with the criteria contained under Subsection 4-3- 050 M. 1. a. ii. of the City's Critical Area Regulations as Category 2 wetlands. Category 2 wetlands are wetlands that meet one of the criteria listed under (a) through (d). Wetlands A and B were found to satisfy criteria (d) below: "(d) Wetlands having minimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration such a diking ditching or channelization..." The majority of the floodplain, including Wetlands A and B, located landward of the right bank of May Creek and south of the subject property has not been subject to human related alteration. The wetlands contribute to the riparian functions discussed under the stream study earlier in this report including LWD recruitment, bank stability, shade, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. The wetlands functional value, however are limited by their small size which represents a combined area of only 914 square feet in a floodplain parcel totaling over 110,000 square feet. RMC 4-3.050 M. 6. c, establishes the standard buffer width required for Category 2 Wetlands at 50 feet. Required buffers are to be maintained in their natural condition. Buffers are required to be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field. Wetland A and B are located offsite 117.4 and 63.8 feet south of the subject property respectively. The area between the Gm am-Buntin .4ssociates 12 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Land ing4ssessment (5112109) wetlands and the property line remains in a natural condition and is vegetated primarily with native species. RMC 4-3-050 M. 1. c, i. establishes the basis for regulated and non regulated wetlands as follows: "i. Regulated and Nonregulated Wetlands — General: Wetlands created or restored as a part of a mitigation project are regulated wetlands_ Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites for purposes other than wetland mitigation, including, but not limited to irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm pond, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. The department administrator shall determine that a wetland is not regulated on the basis of photographs, statements or other evidence." GBA followed the guidance provided above in assessing the regulatory status of the drainage ditch. T'he following findings were considered: • The Pan Abode facility was constructed on a fill pad during the mid 1950s • The fill pad appears to extend to a point near the road right of way at the top of ditch • The soil profile assessed at data point 7 displays rock typical of pit run commonly utilized as a fill base • The 2:1 bank profile of the ditch is typical of an excavated stormwater conveyance facility • The hydrology that charges the ditch is composed primarily of stormwater runoff from 1- 405, Lake Washington Boulevard and the Pan Abode facility • Unaltered areas within the floodplain south of the subject property do not include natural linear features similar to the ditch • National Wetland Inventory does not identify the ditch as a wetland Based on the above findings GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a nonregulatcd wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations. While the wetland may not be regulated by the City, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology may assume jurisdiction over the wetland. 7.0 Regulatory Summary/Mitigation Measures The following buffers and setback requirements are registered to proposed project actions_ 7.1 May Creck May Creek is a shoreline of the state regulated under the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends two hundred feet landward of the OHWM. The closest point of proposed project actions to the OHWM is 277 feet. The setback for commercial buildings from May Creek is currently established under the SMP at 50 feet. The subject property itself is located entirely outside of the required shoreline setback area. The mature deciduous forest located on the parcel south of the subject property varies in width from 64 feet in the west to 235 feet in the east and provides a full range of protective functions (see subsection 5.1 Riparian Functions). Because the riparian corridor is outside of the Graham-duniing_issociates 13 Environmental & Land Use Services Kawks Landin Assessment R12109) subject property boundaries and is not owned by the applicant, GBA have refrained from characterizing the area as a buffer. 7.2 Draina-e Ditch The drainage ditch is classified as a Class 5 tauter, It is a non regulated non salmon bearing water within an artificially constructed channel where no naturally defined channel previously existed. 7.3 Wetlands A and B Wetlands A and B axe Category 2 Wetlands which require 50 foot buffers. Both wetlands are located offsite south of the subject property. Wetland A is 117.4 feet south of the subject property boundary and Wetland H is 63.8 feet south of the subject property. The area between the wetlands and the subject property consists of a mature deciduous forest, Although the uplands surrounding the wetlands are not characterized as buffers, the deciduous forest provides a high level of buffer functions. 7.4 Drainage Ditch The drainage ditch is a nonregulated wetland created from a nonwetland site for the purpose of conveying stormwater. 7.5 Water Quality In addition to the distance of project actions from the regulated stream and wetlands, rain gardens are proposed in conjunction with the project's drainage plan. The site will be designed consistent with the King County Storm Water Design Manual guidelines for stormwater management. It is anticipated that the water quality of drainage leaving the site will represent an improvement over the existing conditions associated with the aging Pan Abode facility. 8.0 Closure GBA employed currently accepted methods of delineating wetlands and characterizing aquatic features on the site. In addition we utilized the guidance provided in the City of Renton's Critical Area Regulations and Shoreline Master Program in identifying appropriate regulatory requirements. Consultation with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife was conducted to determine fish use of May Creek and the drainage ditch and to determine potential hydraulic project approval requirements. The findings and conclusions rendered in this report, however, represent our best professional opinion Concurrence should be obtained from agencies of jurisdiction prior to initiating land use actions or construction. The report will also provide a sufficient source of information in the event that a jurisdictional determination is requested from the Corps of Engineers. Please call either Patricia Bunting or myself with any questions relating to this report. Sincerely; Oscar Graham Principal Ecologist/Project Lead Graham -Bunting Associates Hmvks Landing Assessment 5112I Patricia Bunting Wetland Ecologist/PWS 14 Environmental & Land Use Services 9.0 References Associated Earth Scienccs, Inc., December 7, 2000. Wetland Delineation Report Fawcett Property, Renton, WA, Cowardin L., V. Carter, F. Golet, E. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Hitchcock C.L. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 730 pp. - - King County, April 2001. May Creek Basin Action Plan. Munsell Color. 1994 revised, MunselI Soil. Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, MD. Pojar J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington. Oregon, British Columbia & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver B. C., 528 pp. Raedke Associates, Inc., August 26, 2002. Biological Assessment, Barbee Mill Preliminary Plat. Reed, PB, Jr. National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands; Northwest (Region 9) National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9) 89 pp. Menton Draft Shoreline Inventory, November 2008. Sound Development Group, LLC. April 28, 2009. Technical Information Report; Hawks Landing — CroAu Plaza Hotel. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008.,lnterim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual; Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W.. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-13. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vepraskas, Mike. Technical Bulletin 301, 1999. Redoximorphie Features for Identifying Aquie Conditions: North Carolina State University, Collcge of Agriculture and Life Scienees33 pp, Washington State Department of Ecology, March 1997, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, Ecology Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Practice Activity Map, ltttp;;lt�tti�d�lr_��a:�c>ti�[3tisiit�ss€'�nitit;7lrU�icyrFc�r�stf'r�ctic�s�ll�l�l.ic;t[iuiis Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, l�t�p;/:'ti�.11t_t�,«a.aUir'inal)lllk gi5 �l�t�ttttsc tkxc Personal Communications Fisher, Larry. Area Habitat Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries. On site discussion relating to drainage ditch along Lake Washington Blvd, April 24, 2009. Severin, Pat P.E. Project Engineer, Sound Development Group. Project Meetings March through May 12, 2009. Graham-BunlrngAssociates 15 Environmental & Land Use Services Hawks Landing Assessment 51I L29 IN A P RT10N OF SECTION 29, & 31 TWN 24 N, RANCE 5 E., W.M. yY Y ram/ / �} �' '='�`- .. i � i•np'y�n ?L-,�aCirca�i.-5 TG TFl�,. -. �� 'r...v ,f,,c�, �. �tY��. ,.. • Fept'1 DdY �- P4tC.t1Cy a +��:- t{ , /� •^ ,T 4 'y !' ;'Ir;l f w 1'1 rr•': iJ I I '� IIlIrl � r �5 - r+ i ';{_ r �fr Ir,'lJ lj 1�'�7 Jl1li. rr rlfllr. `'I I i CI +r rrl�fJllr��1'1 / 1'',,� , 1�/. '++dr •_�, +�I �� .•• Jflf 1 /y A aeQlNA. H[CH I Ql �� '�rf+,,Llrl.l!/.f r 4 �r6 Fr J!l/lj cLa55-s 64.Q �. :� , a - i %. Pa.,w "I Y++lf Irlll rt•�I J a o -p 1�� zjf I!' 1 �r!J)%rlrr�+ /JJ '• <� `' '-t'� 1y F` fl '- � -7 r' I r' Ir �� f I, I /II �Irll j�J'��`'r- r+`` � Lr r'rJ'__��.�� 'y. _ t- _ •1� � - UI rI l ifl� �r l+l�l; 'r - • O ui!11�llll+r—- I — -- s' +f I h� - \,, / + roJc I' Jr/!I'fifrrJlJrlfrlf �tlk/JI'Jf-Jjrlr7�J/llfrJrl i �\ �J`, I e;' I 1 r�lifr��Jlllrlir+� 11+ !r r a.P7 QKO , ,, -1, ,r rf �11, r !r/f� •N- '.', h ', GLiFo., , S17 1�Rs4cA '+ 1.kr1 f'!i-� . • , _ .._ - _ `'•, Wff-D An WF EFF �.�{ FR`r-,I�YT � . .r € ""•'•" _ 0�3 WITH Gs>r.G M-eJ ! LIMPI MM' � 1 'J +r ORIANARY HIGH or 6 WEfUNo'A +. I 00371NC .' WATFR hNl{K OF or S 43l SF. I WE31AND Y �C7l EEK UTEGORY Y I f ._f i o„rccoRY r \--SAY Sound DEvdbpment Croup cM-- r e� HAWKS S LANOtNG • CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL I w,nR.a a.u...ne. � so-r�n awes r,epRne nr, gty�n rya Graham-ou"alls Asfociatu °w r�G �cernrr. wu °rramr'°Jrrawxr o[tm't' PAMO r FOR EnrviMn ntal & Lmd Use Scr+•icm �.o«'>.a HA WKS DINGING, LLC r.yea-,er-n,a f an-rw-»u ph-3 0,76Rd.•6aW. wA 9a?6 __--_ dre.__..._...._ eur s.,mn � Pk J6o.76d.4447 Fr, 3fi0.7fid.4443 Legend DP = Wetland Data Point Delineated Wetland J J Existing vegetation t+CALE I, = 100` - NORTH Wetland Del Inution and Stma Study Existing Conditions Attachment Site Plan A IN A PORTION OF .SECTION 29, 32 TWN 24 N., RANCE 5 F, W.M. 1 A portion afthe ditch is proposed to to filled to alicw far a sidewalk along Lake Washington. Boulevard. - -;�•( •�a f 'y i l Proyoscd Bearding B 4. .'s�� III .t Paz[ttJG s4+u5 pd l i IIII ! r, �;A R` End afcon9truction - r J !• -.......... I' r- tlli :z f ORPItNkY Nr J4 WAIM ! .ARK of v Note: This it a reduced site plan ofthe proposed project. The original drawing should be consulted for any detaikd information. Ivor+y oars I ORDINARY MICR a • �• Ii \��MMK Of Drs No W T431 5 F WErLN 7' WEK GTDOORV '2' •as S.F. UTEGORY7 ` A 4�e�� j".� '," i I '�+ L�K•Cr�,sx ��_ SCALE r = 100' Attach..., R NORTH CALL48 HOURS Sound Development Group w� r P u HAWX-S L4ND;NG - CROVME PLAZA HOTEL ma BEFORE YOU olC a� tr rfseroaK foR cr"nvm 1,800.42�•5555 yM04-M =eA t�ra�tslt v.,la l;l lN�f....,+�..... s""•a°' PROP05ED CO/v0lT7ON5 p�ar HAWKS LANDING, LLC 2w hull NRWr!}.}eflf4u+f o-��_p10 MR A Vp,,- wmrt wwawblew Wetland Field Data Forms Attachment C WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project site: Hawks Landing. Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampiing Date: AppFcantiOwner: hawks Landin , LLC Sampling Point: L -8 Investigator: Pab'OscarlJerom Clty/County: RentonlKin Section, Township, Range: 52T24N R5E State: WA �9 Landform (Nislope terrace, etc) fj> {.•. „F -1Slope (%) Local reiief (concave, convex, none) Subregion (LRR) A Lat 47,5338 Long-122.19487 datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma NWI dassification: None Are ciimatidhydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? I X I Yes 1. [] I No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances' present on the site? rX I Yes M No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology [] significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUR MAKT UI- FINUINUb - MUM site mao snawina samounn aoint locations. transacts. imDortantselatures, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes � No Is this sampling Point wtthln a Wetland? Yes [MJo Hydric Soils Present? Yes {I��djl No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Remarks. 7flr S clbr f Y �� 5�. -f ,, i.. ryr` 5• Y U VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size 20 ft 13T } Absolute % Dominant indicator Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Works hoot 1, Number of Dominant Species that are 09L, FACW, or FAG: (A) 2. 3 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size 1 a R = rouil cover R,__) Percent of Dominant Spedes �f t d that are 019L, FACW, or FAC: {A!e) t. c I`, rri Prevalence index Worksheet Tow, Coyet of MuNi H bvby 08L species x 1 = 2. e ; t' +^ 3- .,., t r^ ' :ievl LA 4. r ,, - - FACW species x 2 = 5- FAC species X3. Herb Stratum (Plot size ,2 = Total Cover I FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column totals (A) B 1. Prevalence Index = B 1 A = 2. 3. 4. Hydro-phytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance test is !- 50°% B. Prevalence test is s 3.0 ' T Morphological Adaptations' (provide supporting data In mmafks or on a separate sheet) 8• 6. Welland Non -Vascular Plants' 10. Problematc Hydrophytic Vegetation(explain) it. ' Indicators of hydria soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Wood Vine Stratum Plol size = Total Cover Hydrophytk Vegetation Present? Yes NO ❑ 1. 2. - Total Cover % Bare Ground in Hest Stratum J /' Remarks J, (• w �,�r` rf ,.. ,.;,: . , ��:-� / � �� - r--/ % C� G ��" l r � � (� t 4 - r 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Wesfem Mouftlains. Valleys, and Coesl- Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the i987 COE Wetlands Defineatlon Manual Project Site: Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling Date: 41I !09 ApplicantlOwner: Hawks Landin , LLC Sampling Point: OP-7 Investigator. Pauoscarl,ierom City/County: Renton/King Section, Township, RangeS29 T24N R5E _ State: WA Landfoml (hillslope, terrace, etc) Slope (/) Local relief (concave, convex, none) Subregion (LRR) A Lat 47,5338 Long-122,19487 Datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma I NWI classification: None Are climati hydroiagic condlt"tons on the site typical for this 6me of year? X Yes No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are 'Normal Circumstances' present on the site? X Yes No Are Vegetation ❑ Soil, ❑, or Hydrology El significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation 0: Soil, 0, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) avnrmnrs r air rrnf 1r4tJJ - AM= site Map snowing sampling point locations, Lmnsects, Important features, etc. Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes [❑ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wstland7 FM Yes r�W No Hydstc Sofas Present? ❑ Yea l� I No Wetland Hydrology Present? /0 Yes ty�1 No Remarks: r, /a'.e 'w'!,, VEGETATION - Use sclenliFlc names of plants. 'Gres Stratum (Plat size oaf Absolute % Dominant Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Cover S es? Status 1. i•, ? � i.. - Number of Do ninant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A) 2. s' Total Number of Dominant �y Species Across AN Strala: SOS (B) 4. -Total Covar Percent or Dominant Species , o / that are OBL, FAGW, or FAG: le r% (Are) SaplingJShrub Stratum (Plot size 14 R R� - 1. C Prevalence Index Wortrsheet Total e Cover o Multiply b OBL species x 1 = 2' I. f' r •' :I r(r s .;. L L 4. FACW sped" x 2 s FAC species x 3 = r = Total Cover FACU species x 4 r UPL species x 5 = Herb t1raturn (Plot size Ott R } Column totals (A} g J. n 1 f 151, Prevalence Index a B IA = 2. 3. i r.;;gf;r" t{ 4. H dro h 'c Vegetation Indicators 5• 7'a ra XC/rt. 91 ! : ; ; r G Lj ( Dominance test is '� 50% 6' Prevalence lest is S 3.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations ' (provide supporting data in remarks or on a separate sheeq e 0' Wetand Non -Vascular Plants' tQ' Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (explain) 11. • Indicators of hydras soil and wetland hydrology must be • Total Caver sent, unless disturbed or problematic Woody Vine StratumPlat size Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No Prraent? 1. 2. = Total Cower �y! [Y.Bare Ground in Hertr Stratum Remarks r[; i,�,, tc, £ e I • , i .' �: ' 4 r US Army Corps of Engineers Wesfsm Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Supplement to the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project Site Hawks Landing, Crowne Plaza Hotel Sampling pate: 4/8/09 Applicant/Owner: Hawks Landing, LLC Sampling Point: DP-6 Investigator: PaUOscar/Jerflmy CitylCounty: RentonlKing Section, Township, Range: S29 T24N R5E State: WA Landrorm (Mislope, terrace, etc) - ., ; .r :. Slope {h} 4; Local relief (concave, convex, none) nl �,f r• Subregion (LRR) A [.at 47.5338 Long-122.19487 datum Soil Map Unit Name No, Norma NWI classification: None Are climatJohydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year! X Yes ❑ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances' present on the site? X Yes ❑ No Are Vegetation El. Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ significantly disturbed? No Are Vegetation ❑, Soil, ❑, or Hydrology ❑ naturally problematic? No {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) .`fUMMAKT Ur I-Iffulmi, - Actacn sloe map snowing sampling point iocauons, transecm, imporEarvt reaurres, enc. Hydropt ytic Vegetation Present? X, Yes No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? JpYes �❑ No Hydro Soils Presenty QW, Yes LF No Wetfand Hydrology Present? tLJdJ Yes ❑ I No Remarks: J/• :'I'. ! i;`+err !�+ ( !. ✓ :/: fi'✓.( r ' � � i r � VEGETATION - Use scientific narnas of nlantn_ Tree stratum (Plot size 200 a R _ 1 Absolute % Dominant Indicator Cover Species? Status Dominance Test Wofksheet 1Wile/ r. Ntrnber of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, orFAC: (A) 2. 3. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) 4. =Tosel Cover Soptlngl3brub Stratum (Plot size 10 ft R_j Percent of Dominant Species Of Ihat are DBL, FACW, or FAC: 71 3 _ "6. r (AIB) t f ✓ !- r : {': Prevalence Index Worksheet 7 - alCover of ulti I OBL species x 1 = 2. is r x,f • 3. 4. FACW species x 2 = 5. FAG species x 3 = Herb Stratum (Plot size 5 ft R = Total Cover l FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 - Column totals (A) B 1. Prevalence Index = B ! A = 2, 3. 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators 5. Dominance testis a SO% s. Prevalence test is Y. 3.0 ' 7. Morphological Adaptations' (provide supporting date In remarks or on a separate sheet) S. 8. Wetland Non -Vascular Plants ' 10. ProWeinaficHydrophydaVegetation (explain) 11. ` Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be sent unless disturbed or Problematic Woody Vine Stratum Plot size = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Yes No Prosent7 ❑ 1. 2. =coral Cover % Bare ground in Herb Stratum a� Remarks. ; ��., r°,�J, � �� c / r i�� r �r'�, • G J � c r•'r�' � J �QI Jd� 1 i C� �'�?�-:.. • (. d r .<.. 75 C1`F i�� , US Army Caps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - lntarim Version SOIL Sampling Point DP-5 Profile Descrl Lion: DescrlW to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators. Depth Malrix Redox Features inches xture Remarks Color mois % Color moisll % T e Loc 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains rLoc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix di is Sot! Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRz, Hislosol (Al) unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox ($5) indicators for Problematic Hydrk Soils' 2cm Muds (Aso) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Materiat (W2) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) p Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Cl ❑ Sandy Greyed Matrix (S4) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (FB) Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Laver iff oresenll: Type. Hydric Boll preaelrt? �Yes ❑ No � Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wettand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check a/I that apply): Secondary Indicators (2 or more requimcd): Surface water (Ai) I Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (139) Water -Stained Leaves (139) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) High Water Table (A2) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A 8 48) (89) Drainage Pattems (010) Saturation (A3) Salt Cn►st (B11) Dry -Season Water Table (132) ❑ Water blocks (81) Aquatic Invertebrates (013) Saturation Visible an Aerial Imagery (C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (02) Drift Deposits (B3) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (04) ❑ ❑ O:adined Rhirospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iran (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (DS) ❑ Iron Deposits (85) ❑ Recent Iron Reducilon in Tilted Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (86) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) Frost -Heave Hummocks Imagery (B7) Field Observations Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? ❑ Yes Saturation Present? Q Yes No Depth (in): No Depth (in): I II No Depth (in): wetland Hydrology PresBrd? Yes ❑ No (Includes capillary hinge) Describe Record Data (stream gauge; monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if avVable. Remarks: OS Army Corps of Engineers Western MounlalnS, Valleys, and Coast— Interim Version Samolina Point DP-4 Profile Deacri tion: Describe to tha depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators. Depth Matrix Redox Features Inches Texture Remarks Color molsl % L - •{3 54— 1-L.� + o,z _ rr) 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains 'Loc: PL-Pore lining, M=Matrix H dric Sall Indicator: (App)lcable to all LRRs unless otilerwiso noted.) ❑ Hisiosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) indicators for Probiemadc Hydrk Sofia' EM 2cn1 Muck (A10) Histio Epiped on (A2) ❑ Stripped Matrx (SG) F-[—Jl Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) FM Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulftda (A4) loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) (Depleted Below Dark Surface (At 1) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Darts Surface (FG) ' Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) [] Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive laver f'rf aresenli: Hydrtc sod Present? Yes ❑ NO Depth (inches): Remarks��Y1G HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicatom (minimum of one required: check all that apply): Secondary indicators (tor more required): water (A 1) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B6) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A S 413) High Water Table (A2) ❑ Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2,4A S 48) (B9) Drainage Pattems (B10) Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (611) Dry, -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) Saturation Visible onAedal Imagery(C9) Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Position (D2) ISurface Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (03) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (t34) Presence of Reduced Imn (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iran Deposits (85) ❑ Recent lion Reduction In Tilled Soils (06) Raised Ant Mounds (W) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks (BG) ❑ Slunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks Inundation Visible on Aerial © Other (explain in remarks) Imagery (67) Field Observations Surface Water Present? = Yes Water Table Present? Yes Safuralion Present? Yes (includes capillary fringe) No Depth (in): No Depth (in): No Depth (in): i+ j Welland Hydrology Present? Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, mon/itoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-lnterfm Version SOIL Samolina point DR-3 besr bon: Describe to the de th needed to document the Ind)cator or confirm the absence of lndlcatnrs. Matrix Redox Features re s Texture Remarks Color moist %n Color moist % TYN, LOT— 9 'Type: C=Ceneentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS --Covered or Coated $and Grains 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix dric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs1 unless otherwise noted.) indicators far Problematic Hydric Soils' Histosoi (Al) ❑ j Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muck (A10) Hisbc Epipedon (A2) Uj I Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loanry Murky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ❑ Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Im Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al.;t) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (Fe) s Indicators of hydrophyllc vegetation and Welland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Ro be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Redox Depressions (F6) Restrictive Laver of ur8senti: Type: _ — — Hydrlc soil present? Yes Na Depth (inches): Remarks: I/JU�.1r:'r HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minlmum of one required Surface water (A 1) check 1 all that apply): Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Ba) Secondary Indicators (2 or more requlmd): WaterStalned Leaves (89) (Mt RA 1, 2, 4A 3 40) 01 High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 413) (136) Salt Crust (BI1) Drainage Patterns (510) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B 1) Sediment Deposits (02) Drift Deposits (83) ❑ Algal Mat or Crust (1 4) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfde Odor (C7) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Saturation Valbie on Aerial Imagery (CO) Geomorphic position (D2) ShafiowAquitard (D3) FAGNeulral Test (D5) 10 ❑ Iron Deposits (95) Surface Soil Cracks (86) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CS) Stunted or Stressed Plants (1) 1) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) Raised Ant Mounds (136) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks Field Observations Surface Water Present? = Yes WaterTatNe Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yea (includes capillary fringe) No Depth (in). 11 No Depth (inJ:� No Depth (in):�/ Wetland Hydrology Preeserrt7 Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, mon�iloring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: f 1 k/"! ,n!? : r'� 4r ate c V i7� US Army Corey of Engineers Westem Mountains. Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version SOIL Sar"Clina Point DP-2 Profile Descri tion: Describe to the de th needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators• Depth Matrix Redox Features nches Texture Remarks Color morst % Color moist % TVDe 1 1 ,S- r:•r 'Type: C=Concentration, O=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains 21.0c: PL=Pore Lin'utg. M--INatrix Filydric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs unless otherwise noted.? Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils° liislosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 2cm Muck (A10) Histic F_pipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (SO) Red Parent Material (TF2) Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Kneraf (Fi) (except MLRA f] Other (explain in remarks) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ © Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thick Dark Surface (Al 2) Redox Dark Surface (FO) l Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) © Depleted Dark Surface (F7) be present, unless disturbed or problematic Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FS) Restrictive Laver (d present): Type: Yes [J No Hydric soil present? Depth (inches): ./ Remarks f ,� r er rf �',ci ?c� r"se HYDROLOGY WeUand Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one requlry: check all that apply): Secondary indicators (2 or more required): ❑ [] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Surface grater (Al) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (61) Sediment Deposits (132) Drift Deposits (133) Algal Mat or Crust (84) Iron Deposits (1135) Surface Soil Cracks (136) inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (87) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Bit) Water -Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A ✓k 413) (89) Sall Crust (B11) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Presence of Reduced tron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (CO) Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) Water -Stained Leaves (B9) (IIIILRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) Drainage Patterns (1310) Dry -Season Water Table (102) Saturation Visible on Aerial knagery (C9) Geomorphic Position (02) ShaflowAquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (05) Raised Ant Mounds (1)(1) (LRR A) Frost -Heave Hummocks ❑ ❑ ❑ Field Observations Surface Water Present? FTTI Yes Water Table Present? ❑ Yes Saturation Present? Yes (Includes capillary fringe) No Depth (In): {r No Depth n): 7 Z No Depth (in)' 77-6 WetlandHydrotogyPreserrt7 Yes ❑ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: c rI1GSc�`i Remarks: �. 9Lc`�1/ hqX��Gf .Al. �9IC��t' aze4O7'� US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast — Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point DP-1 Profile Deecri tlon: tDoacribe to the de th needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators, Depth Matrix Redox Features inches Texture Remarks Color mots[ % Color imoiso % T LOCI /pYZ "PC' O 'L IL' 0-17 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coaled Sand Grains 'Loc: PL=Pare Lining, M=Matrix dric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs 0 Hislosol (Al) mesa otherwise doled.) Sandy Redox (S5) Indfcatom for Probliame0c Hydric Soils' FM 20m iMuck (A10) Kstic Eplpedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S5) Red Parent Material (72) ❑ Black lirstic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) F Other (explain in remarks) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1) ❑ 0 Thick Dark Surface (A 12) ❑ Loa myGleyed Matrix(F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) UL a Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wedand hydrology must Sandy Mucky Mineral (81) { ❑ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Depleted Dark Surface (FT) Redox Depressions (F8) be present unfess disturbed or problematic Restrictive Laver (if oresentl: Type: Yes nail present? Hp Cl Depth (inches): Remarks: �df,2r cL� G?reid�.�. C•%: i/� c: IY)1!1/!)7 �X.� G?k''�' nr_;�Cl�r',. � GtrG r�21+;-1Ge[.j �•te-.�; CR , ✓ OX ,�1, %;( :C.M wit: k+E'l� : , � U��9JE :x��.�F?�,w'ryf�i7t� C%%rv}�}'1.�cc•,t",� HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primarylrrdicators (minimum of one requi+ed' check all that apply): Secondaryfndtators 12 or Mora required): - Surface water (Al) Q Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB) WaterStafned Leaves (139) (MILItA 1, 2 4A 3 48) High Water Table (A2) ❑ Water•Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 48) (99) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) ❑ Salt Crust (1311) Dry Season Water Table (C2) Well (Bi} ter Atp ❑ Aquatic invertebrMes (B13) Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery {Cg) Sediment Deposits (82) © Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Geomorphic Poatiion (02) Drift Deposits (83) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Algal Mat or Crust (64} Pmsence of Reduced kon (C4) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Iron Deposits (95) IT Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Surface Soil Cracks fu) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) [] ❑ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI) (LRR A) Other (explain in remarks) frost -Heave Hummocks Field Obaervatia in Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation PresankT ❑ Yes (includes capillary fringe) No Depth (In): r/ No Depth (in): � 2C) do Depth (in): Z Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ❑ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), If available' Ramariks:Lrl l V�/y �tL•) 4 US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast — interim Version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) ss. Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, FLORITA COAKLEY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for appellants/petitioners herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Hearing Brief of Appellant to be served on: DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 1 C�' `,_' �1 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ann Nielsen Renton City Attorney Warren, Barber, & Fontes, P.S. 100 South 2"d Street P.O. Box 626 Jessica Clawson McCullough Hill, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104-7097 Renton, WA 98057-0626 [ ] By United States Mail [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By United States Mail [ ] By Facsimile [x] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [ ] By Facsimile [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail jessicanmhscattle.com [x] By Electronic Mail (courtesy copy), anielsen rentonwa. ov DATED this 1-5I-'g�day of 14L , 2001, at Seattle, Washington. %South End Gives Back(Den)\Dec sery DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 F'I RITA COAKEFY �f V� GENTLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: 5 2051 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, an individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, TO: Mr. Fred Kauffman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 C17y OF JUL 17 CITY CK (�7Fr_,�,� ',S7�t? ['C Ue,I;l (1 Aiyr C 4 vnr.;1 2 7n ,%EC=z) Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS South End Gives Back (SEGB) and Brad Nicholson hereby file this Notice of Appeal of the MDNS and Master Site Plan issued by the City of Renton. The decision should be reversed by the Hearing Examiner under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C, and the City's Ordinance for review of Administrative and GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1 Phone- (zosssz� o58z8 ORIGINAL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Environmental determinations, RMC 4-8-110 (7) (b.) (v.) The Master Site Plan should be reversed because the application failed to include a stormwater drainage plan or a habitat management plan, and because the City failed to evaluate whether the Shoreline Management Plan for the City was violated. The MDNS should be reversed and an EIS ordered because there are probable significant adverse environmental impacts from increased stormwater flow to May Creek, and/or increased groundwater flow to the Quendall Terminals Superfund site, leading to increased toxin migration to Lake Washington. In the alternative, the MDNS should be reversed for completion and consideration of a stormwater management plan and consideration of the impacts of increased surface water and/or groundwater flow. Applicant Spencer Alpert (Applicant) has applied for a Master Site Plan for a five - story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton.l Parking would be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 new surface parking spaces. In constructing the new hotel, the Applicant plans to move 4,450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil. Thirty-two existing trees would be cut, and unspecified drainage and street frontage improvements would be provided. The proposal also includes a rain garden. Rain gardens are "excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide for storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth." Att J, 1 Facts regarding the proposed development have been drawn from the MDNS and ERC Report. Page references are not provided for brevity. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax. 1206) 621.0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2.4 25 26 27 28 excerpts from the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, App. C. at C-56. This rain garden will increase rain flow to the groundwater. Id. The site on which the hotel is proposed (site) is the former Pan Adobe cedar homes site, and includes 75, 214 square feet of existing warehouse structures. The existing site is 85% impervious surface, and surface water flows from the site to a large ditch, and then to May Creek. ERC Report at Ex. 16. Stormwater flow from this site is massive. With 85% impervious surface, approximately 10 to 20 acre-feet of water flows from the property yearly, meaning that average runoff is between 9,000-18,000 per day. July 17, 2009, Declaration of Joel Massman (Massman Dec.) at � 4. The applicant appears to have provided no information on total impervious surface for the new development. Appellants have retained hydrogeologist Joel Massman to opine on the probable effects on ground and surface water flow of the project. Massman Dec. The applicant proposed deconstructing a large number of existing buildings, and in addition to the rain garden, the applicant proposes 38, 866 of new landscaped area. ERC Report; Massman Dec. at N 2-3. A reduction in impervious surface area would dramatically increase the rate of groundwater recharge. Massman Dec. at ¶ 7. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. Massman Dec. at � 7. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. Id. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 3 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 3.5 to 7.0 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). Massman Dec. at ¶ 8. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quendall Terminals site located between the project site and Lake Washington. Massman Dec. at 9. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property is contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Massman Dec. at ¶ 10. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. Massman Dec. at ¶ 11. Quendall Terminals is a Superfund site. Att. F, Washington Dep't of Ecology, Quendall Terminals Information; Att. G, U.S. EPA Environmental Fact Sheet. Quendall Terminals operated as a creosote and tar product manufacturing facility from 1916 to 1969, and was then used as a fuel storage and log sort yard until the 1990s. Id. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621.8868 Fax: (206) 621.0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 U-91 There is no mention of this adjacent Superfund site in the description of the project, the TIR, or the decision from the City of Renton. Att. F, Washington Dep't of Ecology information. Of key importance to water management at the up -slope development site considered here, Quendall Terminals' groundwater flows to Lake Washington, and toxic chemicals have been found in the surface water of the Lake. Att. F, Washington Dep't of Ecology information; Att. L, photograph of seepage. Each of the toxic substances found at Quendall Terminals carries a significant human health and safety risk. Att. H, ATSDR, Public Health Assessment for Quendall Terminals. The toxins travel through groundwater; the existing impact on wells in the area has not been studied. Id. at 6. Further, they damage the already fragile ecosystem of Lake Washington, home to endangered salmon and other endangered and threatened species. Id. at 3-4. The toxins can be absorbed through direct contact, drinking contaminated water, or through consuming fish that have been exposed. There is massive public and government concern over the ongoing impact of these toxins on the health of boaters, anglers, swimmers, and the wildlife of the Lake and surrounding area. Although it was initially a state -run cleanup, the Washington State Department of Ecology gave up on the project, citing the costly and complex nature of managing the cleanup, providing oversight, and trying to consider alternatives to the cleanup given the changing nature of the proposed land uses in the area. Id. The future of Quendall Terminals is dependent on not only what happens directly on the site, but how development proceeds around it. As Ecology noted in turning Quendall Terminals over to the EPA, "current zoning of the properties adjoining this site are planned for a mix of residential and NOTICE OF APPEAL - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (206► 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 business uses. Cleanup alternatives will need to consider future possible uses of this property." Att. G, EPA Fact Sheet. Directly to the south of the site is May Creek, a Class One Salmon Stream. Although the applicant has reportedly provided a study claiming that there are no salmonids in the stream ,Z other studies have stated that the creek is commonly inhabited by Sockeye, and that Chinook, Coho, and Cutthroat trout have been seen. Att. A, King County Salmon Watcher Program, May Creek. Neighbors have observed steelhead in May Creek. Nicholson Dec. at 113. The Puget Sound Steelhead has had its status recently upgraded to "Threatened" by the National Marine Fisheries Service; salmon are endangered. The existing site has 32 existing trees, all of which would be removed and replaced with 73 new trees. ERC Report at p. 4 of 16. The species, location, and size of the replacement trees have not been specified. Trees can have a massive impact on water flow; some studies suggest a single tree can absorb up to 290 gallons of rainwater annually. Att. B, Shade Crusade: 97iy City Trees Are Good Medicine. Each of those 290 gallons per tree will flow either through the ground, or via surface water to May Creek once the trees are removed. The soil underlying the site includes a surface layer of medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill, followed by a saturated silty sand layer with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt to depths of about 12-16 feet below ground. ERC Report at p. 6 of 16. Water falling or pooling on exposed soil of this nature quickly infiltrates the ground. Att. C, 2 City Staff claimed not to have a copy of the study for review. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 6 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone; (2061 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Infiltration Through Compacted Urban Soils and Effects on Biof Itration Design. The ground on the site is already saturated. Test pits throughout the site showed that groundwater infiltration would affect construction in even shallow excavations on the site. ERC Report at p. 6 of 16. In 2009, the applicant completed a "Geotechnical Investigation Report." Att. D, 2009 Geotechnical Report. The Report analyzed existing soil and groundwater conditions on the site, but provided no analysis of stormwater management or an evaluation of the impacts on ground and surface water of the proposed development. The 2009 Geotechnical Report found a very high water table and almost totally saturated ground throughout the site; in one test pit, the groundwater seep was at a rate of 4.3 gallons per hour. 2009 Geotechnical Report at 8. Among other recommendations, the Report suggested a "dewatering trench" to remove excess groundwater during construction. Id. This trench would increase surface water flow to May Creek. The need to dewater will not stop once construction is complete; a 1991 Geotechnical Engineering Study submitted by the Applicant suggested installation of "subfloor capillary break and perimeter footing drains" along with other dewatering measures. Att. E, 1991 Geotechnical Engineering Study, at p. 4. Also in 2009, the Applicant completed a Technical Information Report, purportedly addressing stormwater. Att. K, Technical Information Report. The technical information report states that the only flow control measure that will be imposed is rain gardens. Att. K. There is no discussion of groundwater infiltration impacts, nor any detail on how 9,000- 18,000 cubic feet per day of surface water will be handled. Instead, the report erroneously NOTICE OF APPEAL - 7 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone. 12061 621-8868 Fax. (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 concludes that drainage need not be controlled based upon a mistaken belief that an exemption applies. Att. K at 7. On June 29, 2009, the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee met, and adopted the City staff recommendation to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS), and published its Environmental Review Committee Report (ERC Report). On July 3, 2009, the City of Renton published a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS). The MDNS contains 10 mitigation measures. Only four are related to water, and only require the applicant to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical reports created and the wetland/stream study, and comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. MDNS at p. 1 of 2. Pointedly, the Technical Information Report is not made a mandatory mitigation condition. Neither the geotechnical reports nor the Surface Water Design Manual have any requirements discussing or mitigating when groundwater flow may increase toxin flow from a Superfund site. The ERC Report also contains Advisory Notes. Those recommendations are not mitigation, and are non -binding. The recommendations contain a suggestion that the applicant complete a drainage analysis, and note that "the project will need to provide flow control, water quality treatment and conveyance system improvements." MDNS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of 5. Although the applicant claims that there will be no increase in surface water runoff, the Advisory Notes correctly observe that there has been no hydrologic analysis performed, and that the applicant may utilize the LID alternative for flow control only if the increase in surface water flow is at or less than .1 cubic feet per second (CFS). NOTICE OF APPEAL - 8 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suits 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax:12061621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MDNS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of 5. The notes also observe that the rain garden is not a water quality facility, and that other facilities must be constructed if the project will increase water flow by more than .1 CFS. Id. The EPA has not completed studies on groundwater migration patterns at Quendall Terminals. Changing the recharge or discharge conditions of groundwater on the Quendall Terminals site may change the migration status and impact the feasibility and remediation plans for Quendall Terminals. Renton, unfortunately, does not have a coordinated plan for management of stormwater in the area. Water that ends up infiltrating the ground on the site flows downhill to Quendall Terminals. Massman Dec. at ¶ 9. Currently, the surface of the development site at issue here is 85% impermeable, and covered in either structures or asphalt. Thus, currently, little water infiltrates the ground. Massman Dec. at ¶¶ 4-7. Surface water flows from the development site into a large ditch, and thence south to May Creek and then to the Lake. This flow pattern bypasses the Quendall Terminals site, meaning that the development site currently contributes little or no groundwater to the toxin migration from Quendall Terminals to the Labe, and the surface water currently bypasses it. The deconstruction of impervious -surface warehouses, construction of rain gardens and increased pervious -surface landscaping proposed by the applicant will increase groundwater flow, as will the dewatering measures during and after construction. Massman Dec. at 7. if calculations show that surface water flow is increased by more than .l cfs, then additional stormwater management measures may further increase groundwater infiltration. Id. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 9 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone! (206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0612 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. STANDING A. SEGB Standing Appellant SEGB is a legally established and operating Washington nonprofit corporation serving the interests of the Citizens of Renton to protect Renton's environmental duality. July 16, 2009 Declaration of Brad Nicholson (Nicholson Dec.) at 11 8. SEGB's membership is made up of Renton citizens who are directly impacted by the loss of environmental quality in their city. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 8. The members of SEGB have exclusive control of the corporation. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 8. SEGB has an adopted corporate policy that envisions committing all of its resources to efforts such as this appeal. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 8. No outside influences have any control on the direction of the corporation. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 8. SEGB has standing to file this appeal, under the standards in RMC 4-8-110E. (3.)(a.)(b.)(c.), because its members' interests are within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the City's SEPA ordinance, and its members are suffering and will suffer the following injury in fact. SEGB has one or more members that enjoy the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walk, boat, fish, or swim or desire to swim and observe the areas surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife habitat associated with this project. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 9. The improper review and construction proposals that fail to improve the situation will impact them, using outdated or inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact them, and SEGB will be impacted by the NOTICE OF APPEAL - 10 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 281 degradation to water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake Washington or May Creek. Nicholson Dec. at � 9. SEGB has one or more members who are residents of Renton with an active interest in the integrity of City of Renton's land use and environmental review processes, who have actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to Clean Water,3 who seek to ensure that the City abides by SEPA policies and procedures and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and who are negatively impacted by the improper processing and lack of environmental considerations in connection with this project. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 10. SEGB has one or more members who wish to have their community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment EIement and City code, and who will be injured by the City's denial of their rights to such a community because of the ERC's actions. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 11. B. Nicholson. Standing Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a very short distance up hill from the site, (less than one mile) and uses the May Creek and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining the site. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 1-3. As a result of the unanalyzed and unmitigated impacts caused by the project, Nicholson will suffer hann from increased damage to the environmental quality envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Element and SEPA, specifically decreased water 3 In the recent Landing appeals, (in the UC-N designation of Renton) Brad Nicholson was instrumental in securing use of the most current version of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 11 GENOLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suits 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: [206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 quality in May Creek and Lake Washington, Ioss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids that use these water bodies that he enjoys. Nicholson Dee. at � 3-4. Nicholson declares that he enjoys the fish that presently make May Creek and Lake Washington their habitat. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 1. Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in appeals concerning water quality in the past. Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 2, 10. He has worked to protect the environment in the past. Nicholson Dec. at ¶2, 10, As a result of the City's improper processing with regard to issuing the DNS and failure to require the correct processes and procedures, Nicholson is already suffering harm from an inability to consider the quantifiable environmental effect of the project or propose alternative measures envisioned by SEPA. Nicholson Dec. at � 2- 3. III. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL A. Standard of Review The hearing examiner reviews the City's approval of the Master Site Plan and the determination of the Environmental Review Committee to issue an MDNS for clear error. RMC 4-8-110 (E)(7)(b); Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Assn v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 275, 552 P.2d 674, 679 (1976). A decision is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Glasser v. City of Seattle, 139 Wn. App. 728, 740, 162 P.3d 1134, 1139 (2007). AIthough the City's determination is entitled to NOTICE OF APPEAL - 12 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 substantial weight, that deference stops if clear error is found. RMC 4-8-110 (E)(7)(a); Glasser, supra. B. The Master Site Plan must be reversed for completion of a stormwater drainage plan Renton requires a stormwater drainage plan prior to issuance of a permit. RMC 4- 6-030(C) governs drainage plans, and provides in pertinent part: 1. When Required: All persons applying for any of the following permits and/or approvals shall submit for approval, unless expressly exempted under subsection C2 of this Section, a drainage plan with their application and/or request: j. Site plan approvals; k. Any other development or permit application which will affect the drainage in any way. This is a master site plan, and a drainage plan was required. Renton exempts from this requirement only projects that the City determines will not affect water quality: 2. When Plans Not Required: The plan requirement established in subsection Cl of this Section shall not apply when the Department determines that the proposed permit and/or activity: a. Will not seriously and adversely impact the water quality conditions of any affected receiving bodies of water; and/or b. Will not substantially alter the drainage pattern, increase the peak discharge and cause any other adverse effects in the drainage area. c. Additionally, the plan requirement established in subsection Cl of this Section shall not apply to single family residences when such structures are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet, unless the subject property is in a critical area as determined under subsection D of this Section. NOTICE OF APPEAL - 13 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax. 1206) 621-0512 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RMC 4-6-030(C). In this case, the Department has not made any determination regarding the impact on water quality. Instead, rather than making a determination that there were no adverse impacts, the City noted that information is incomplete: The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. MDNS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of 5. Renton incorporates sections of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. RMC 4-6-030. This incorporation, though, does not affect RMC 4-6-030(C)'s requirement to create a drainage plan whenever a site plan is proposed. Moreover, even if King County's standards applied, a drainage plan would still be required. A drainage plan is required for projects that disturb more than 7,000 square feet of soil; this project will remove 4,450 cubic yards of soil, and add 15,000 cubic yards of fill. Att. I, excerpts from 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, App. C, at 1-9. A drainage plan is further required if the project will modify a 12-inch or greater drainage pipe, or is more than $100,000 in improvements on a high -use site. This project meets each of those criteria. A drainage plan is especially important given the nature of this site. Currently, there is a massive amount of stormwater flowing from the site — between 9,000-18,000 Cr allons per day. Massman Dec. at � 4. Stormwater leaves the site in one of two ways: either it flows as surface water into May Creek, and thence to the Lake in a southerly direction, or it infiltrates the ground and moves to the Lake via groundwater seepage to the GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: {208i NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1.4 68 Fax: 521-0611-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 east. Massman Dec. at ¶ 5. Each direction carries very different environmental implications. If the stormwater plan were to concentrate rain and other flow over the surface to May Creek, then the impacts on the creek of increased drainage and increased toxins from the parking lot and other development must be evaluated. If, by contrast, the stormwater plan focuses on rain gardens, retention ponds, vaults, and other methods that cause increased infiltration of the groundwater, then the stormwater will flow east, through the ground, and cause increased outflow from the Quendall Terminals site. Massman Dec. at ¶ 8. If this is the plan, then the impacts on the toxic outflow from the Quendall Terminals site, and the impact of increased groundwater flow on remediation efforts, must be evaluated and mitigated. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. The ERC Committee Report references a "Preliminary Technical Information Report." ERC Report at 7 of 16. But this document has not been made a mitigation condition, does not evaluate the impact on the groundwater, and moreover, erroneously concludes that no surface water controls other than rain gardens are required due to a misreading of King County's Surface Water Design manual. The report notes that "The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3. L A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development." Att. K at 7. But KCSWDM 1.2.3.1 provides: Basic Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,0000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) If the project is a redevelopment project, less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface will be added. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061 621-6868 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 15 Fax: (2061 621-0512 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22' 23 24 25 26 27 28 (emphases added and removed; "AND" emphasis in original). Although the project meets criteria (a), it fails (b) and (c). A proper drainage plan, applying KCSWDM standards, must be created. A proper drainage plan — with flow analyses, and technical data - will answer the question of where water will flow, and how much will get there. RMC 4-060-030(F) governs drainage plan design criteria, and provides: The drainage plan shall be prepared in conformance with the Department's construction plan drafting standards and contents, the City's Standard Specifications for Municipal Construction and Standard Detail documents, and the design criteria, construction materials, practices, and standard details contained in chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. The approval of the Master Site Plan should be reversed until a drainage plan is complete and can be evaluated. C. A Habitat Management Plan is Required Similarly, the Master Site Plan should be reversed until a habitat management plan has been created. The City allowed the applicant to avoid creating a habitat management plan because the development is outside of the buffer area for May Creek. ERC Report at 9 of 16. But buffer areas and the need to create a habitat management plan are separate requirements. RMC 4-3-050 governs habitat plans, and provides: 1. Applicability: The habitat conservation regulations apply to all nonexempt activities on sites containing or abutting critical habitat as classified below. a. Critical Habitat: Critical habitats are those habitat areas which meet any of the following criteria: i, Habitats associated with the documented presence of non-salmonid (see subsection L1 of this Section and RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, NOTICE OF APPEAL - 16 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061 621 0612 I 2 3 4 5 6 VA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For salmonid species) species proposed or listed by the Federal government or State of Washington as endangered, threatened, candidate, sensitive, monitor, or priority; and/or ii. Category 1 wetlands (refer to subsection M1 of this Section for classification criteria). 2. Habitat Assessment Required: Based upon subsection K1 of this Section, Applicability, the City shall require a habitat/wildlife assessment for activities that are located within or abutting a critical habitat, or that are adjacent to a critical habitat, and have the potential to significantly impact a critical habitat. The assessment shall determine the extent, function and value of the critical habitat and potential for impacts and mitigation consistent with report requirements in RMC 4-8-120D. In cases where a proposal is not likely to significantly impact the critical habitat and there is sufficient information to determine the effects of a proposal, an applicant may request that this report be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section. In this case, May Creek contains endangered and threatened species. Att. A, King County Salmon Watcher; Nicholson Dec. at ¶ 3. Although the applicant completed a "wildlife study," no habitat management plan pursuant to RMC 4-8-120(D) has been created. D. The SMP Governs Development On the Site May Creek is a Shoreline of the State, governed by Renton's Shoreline Master Program. RMC 4-3-090 (E). The portion of May Creek on the site is designated as "conservancy" by the City, meaning that activities are severely curtailed, and the impacts of any activity on water quality must be mitigated. RMC 4-3-090(G)(0(3). The City has erroneously concluded in its ERC Report that because the development is outside of the NOTICE OF APPEAL - 17 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24I 25 26 27 buffer zone, "the subject project would not be subject to SMA or SMP regulations at this time." ERC Report at 6 of 16. But RMC 4-3-090 (K)(2)(a) unequivocally provides that: The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation, water life and other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natural habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other environmental aspects must be considered in the design plans for any activity or facility which may have detrimental effects on the environment. The property is subject to SMP regulations, and the project must be evaluated by City staff for compliance. Moreover, the Applicant has completed a wetland/stream study, which is referenced in the MDNS and ERC Report. However, City staff advised Appellants that they "did not have" the study, and could not provide it for review. Appellant requests a copy of the study, and a continuance of the portion of the hearing relevant to it in order to review and provide informed comment. E. An EIS is Required The MDNS should be reversed and an EIS required. If a development proposal is "likely to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts," SEPA mandates that the reviewing agency "shall issue a determination of significance requiring that an EIS be prepared." RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c); RCW 43.21C.031; WAC 197-11-360. Where there is doubt whether a probable significant adverse impact exists, the SEPA threshold determination must be in favor of preparing an environmental impact statement: The policy of the act, which is simply to assure via "a detailed statement" a full disclosure of environmental information, so that environmental matters can be given proper consideration during decision making, is thwarted whenever an incorrect "threshold determination" is made. NOTICE OF APPEAL - IS GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: {2061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Assoc. v. King County, 87 Wn.2d 267, 273, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). A "probable significant adverse effect" exists whenever more than a "moderate effect on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability." Id. at 287. According to the SEPA rules: Significance involves context and intensity ... The context may vary with the physical setting. Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of the impact. The severity of an impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. WAC 197-11-794(2). As one SEPA commentator has noted: SEPA ultimately strives to avoid environmental degradation, to preserve and even enhance environmental quality by requiring the actions of state and local govenunent agencies to be based on sufficient environmental information and to be in accord with SEPA's substantive policies. Settle, Richard; The Washington State Environmental Policy Act, § 14.01, p. 14-2 to 14-3 (Release 15, 2003) citing RCW 43.21C.010, .020, and .030. While SEPA itself does not compel environmentally wise choices, its ultimate purpose, and the purpose of an EIS, is to provide decision -makers with all relevant information about the potential environmental consequences of their actions and to provide a basis for a reasoned judgment that balances the benefits of a proposed project against its potential adverse effects. Citizen Alliance to Protect Our Wetlands v. City of Auburn, 126 Wn.2d 356, 362, 894 P.2d 1300. Consistent with this purpose, "SEPA mandates governmental bodies consider the total environmental and ecological factors to the fullest in deciding major matters." NOTICE OF APPEAL - 19 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (2061621-0612 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Eastlake Comm 'ty Coun. v. Roanoke Assocs., 82 Wn.2d 475, 490 (1973). These considerations must be integrated into governmental decisionmaking processes so that "presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical consideration." RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(b); Eastlake, at 492. The environmental impact statement (EIS) must "accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes" so that officials will use it in making decisions, RCW 43.21C.030(2)(d), WAC 197-11-655. SEPA's ultimate quest has been described as ensuring "environmentally enlightened government decision making. Settle, Richard; The Washington State Environmental Policy Act, § 14.01(2)(b), p. 14-48 (Release 15, 2003). At least two relevant factors must be considered: (1) the extent to which the action will cause adverse environmental effects in excess of those created by existing uses in the area, and (2) the absolute quantitative adverse environmental effects of the action itself, including the cumulative harm that results from its contribution to existing adverse conditions or uses in the affected area. Norway Hill, 87 Wn.2d at 277, 552 P.2d at 680. A governmental action is "major," for purposes of RCW 43.21C.030 if it is discretionary and nonduplicative. ASARCO v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 701, 601 P.2d 501, 512 (1979). The Master Site Plan proposal for Hawk's Landing satisfies the criteria in ASARCO. The plans approval and issuance of the MDNS is a "Major Action," since it is discretionary, and nonduplicative of any other approval. RMC 4-9-200(E). An argument that an EIS is unnecessary because there is no change in the amount of impervious surface on the site will fail. Action which results in the continuance of NOTICE OF APPEAL - 20 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suits 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone. 12061 621-8868 Fax. (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 environmental degradation from existing pollutant sources will require an impact statement on the same basis as actions resulting in a change in the status quo. ASARCO v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wn.2d 685, 706, 601 P.2d 501, 515 (1979). In ASARCO, a smelter requested a variance that would allow it to continue operating. The court held that even though there was no change in the status quo of pollutants emitted, the action still required an EIS. In this case, even if there were no changes in water flow, allowing stormwater to continue to enter May Creek, and groundwater to infiltrate into Quendall Terminals, continues the pace of pollutant emissions. The impacts must be studied. There are probable, significant adverse environmental impacts to the project. Increasing pervious surface and constructing a rain garden will significantly increase groundwater infiltration up to a rate of 3,570-7,140 gallons per day. Massman Dec. at ¶ 8. Groundwater flows downhill to the Quendall Terminals site. Id. at ¶ 9. Quendall Terminals pollutes Lake Washington through groundwater flow. Att. F, Washington Dep't of Ecology Information; Massman Dec. at T 10. The human and wildlife health impacts of increased Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, and Xylene in the Lake and potentially affecting nearby wells and public swimming beaches are significant. Att. H, ATSDR Report. Moreover, there is a significant change in the character of surface water flow. Currently, the site is an abandoned lumber mill. Water flows across clean pavement and into May Creek. Once the site is developed, 240 cars every day will be depositing oil, rubber, and other toxins onto the parking lot. Waste from the kitchens of the restaurant, and runoff from pesticides and fertilizer from landscape maintenance, and other debris from NOTICE OF APPEAL - 21 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (2061621-6868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pressure washing, painting, concrete sealing, and other construction and maintenance activities will be added to May Creek. F. In the Alternative, the MDNS Should Be Reversed For Completion of the Stormwater Management Plan To reach a threshold determination that a proposal will not significantly affect the quality of the environment, Renton "must consider the various environmental factors even it if concludes that the action does not significantly affect the environment and therefore does not require an EIS." Sisley v. San Juan County, 89 Wn.2d 78, 83, 569 P.2d 712 (1977). An incorrect threshold determination, made in the absence of complete information, thwarts SEPA's purpose to ensure that the full disclosure of environmental information informs the government's decision -making process. Id. at 84. Consequently, an agency that issues a DNS must demonstrate "that environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural requirements of SEPA." Juanita Bay Valley Cmty. Assn v. Kirkland, 9 Wn. App. 59, 73, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973). In this case, the City has acknowledged that stormwater must be controlled, and has noted that: The applicant contends that detention is not required due to not increasing the amount of impervious surface on the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is proposed, but the report does not include any information about the amount of impervious area that will exist for the developed condition. The applicant will need to include a tabular summary [ofJ the amount of pollution generating impervious surface area, other impervious surface area (roofs, sidewalks, plazas) and pervious area (grass, pasture, forest) for the pre -developed site condition and the developed site conditions. The applicant will also need to provide for City review and approval a hydrologic analysis for the portion of the site where the Hawks Landing Hotel is NOTICE OF APPEAL - 22 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suits 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (2061621.8868 Fax: (2061 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 proposed to demonstrate that the difference is no more than l cfs between the sum of the developed 100-year peak flows and the pre -developed (existing) 100-year peak flows using the KCRTS model. MDNS Advisory Notes at p. 3 of 5. On any development site, the failure to consider stormwater in anything more than a cursory fashion would merit reversal. This site is Iocated next to a Superfund site with toxins oozing via groundwater directly into Lake Washington, and the failure to consider the impacts of increased and differently -located pervious surface area, the removal of groundwater -absorbing mature trees, and the addition of a rain garden plus an unspecified number and amount of drainage control features has deprived Renton's decisionmakers of the opportunity to fully consider the environmental implications of approving the Master Site Plan and issuing the MDNS. Stormwater mitigation measures vary dramatically in scope and effect on groundwater. Att. I, excerpts from 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Depending on the type of stormwater management measure chosen, the impacts to groundwater can vary from slight, if a surface -flow measure such as a pipe to May Creek is chosen, to significant, if an infiltration measure such as a vault is chosen. Applicant's argument to the City that no stormwater drainage plan is required because stormwater flow will not be changed is unsupported by the record. First, as described above, both Renton's code and the King County Surface Water Design Manual require a stormwater plan. Moreover, as the ERC Report notes, "comments from the City's Development Services Division indicate that flow control, water quality treatment, and conveyance system improvements would be required." ERC Report at p. 8 of 16. Further, during construction a massive "dewatering" plan will be in place to drain the site, NOTICE OF APPEAL - 23 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 1206) 621-8868 Fax: (206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and dewatering will continue post -construction. Att. D, 2009 Geotechnical Report; Att E, 1991 Geotechnical Report; ERC Report at 6 of 16. Each of those activities will affect surface flow to May Creek, and increase or otherwise alter groundwater flow to the adjacent Superfund site. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons argued herein, the MDNS and Master Site Plan should be reversed. Dated this 17th day of July, 2009. %South End Gives Back(Den)\Notice of Appeal 7 17 09 NOTICE OF APPEAL - 24 Respectfully submitted, GENDLER & MANN, LLP By: Keith P. Scully WSBA No. 28677 Attorneys for Appellants GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 12061 621-8868 Fax: 12061 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Index of Attachments A King County Salmon Watcher Program, May Creek B Shade Crusade. Why City Trees Are Good Medicine C Infiltration Through Compacted Urban Soils and Effects on Biofiltration Design D 2009 Geotechnical Report E 1991 Geotechnical Engineering Study F Washington Dep't of Ecology, QuendaIl Terminals Information G U.S. EPA Environmental Fact Sheet H ATSDR, Public Health Assessment for Quendall Terminals I Excerpts from 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual J Excerpts from the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual, App. C K Technical Information Report L Photograph of chemical seep NOTICE OF APPEAL - 25 GENQLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 88101 Phone: (2061621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson re; Petitioner, The ERC erroneous negative threshold determination Master Site Plan and Site Plan Approval re Hawk's Landing: TO: Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF JOEL MASSMANN DECLARATION OF JOEL MASSMANN - 1 ORIGINAI GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 I have rcvicwed the following documents related to the proposed project at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard N.: Environmental Review Committee Report, City of Renton, Department of Community and Economic Development, dated June 29, 2009. Environmental Threshold (SEPA) Determination, Hawk's Landing Mixed Use, LUA09- 060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, City of Renton, dated June 30, 2009. Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated February 6, 1991. Geotechnical Investigation -Draft Report prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc., dated June 4, 2009. Fact Sheet, Quendall Terminals, Renton, prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program dated August 4, 2005. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to Quendall Terminals/J. H. Baxter Site, Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 91-e39, May 1991. Well logs for Sections 29 and 32, Township 24N, Range 4E compiled from the Department of Ecology database(http://apps.ecy.wa.zov/weliloja/). Findings, opinions, and conclusions that I have developed based on my review of these documents include the following: 1. The subject site is approximately 7.8 acres in size and is currently developed with warehouses. Minimal vegetation exists on the subject site and approximately 85 percent of the site (6.6 acres) is comprised of impervious surfaces. 2. Under the proposed project, 3.07 acres would be developed with a hotel. No construction activity is proposed on the remainder of the site except for the deconstruction of existing warehouse buildings and site cleanup work. A total of 75,214 square feet of buildings (1.73 acres) will be deconstructed and removed from the site. 3. Approximately 4 acres of impervious surface may be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. This estimate is derived assuming 6.6 acres of impervious surface under existing conditions and 2.6 acres under the proposed development scenario. The estimate of 2.6 acres under the proposed development scenario is derived assuming 85% impervious surface and 3.07 total acres. 4. Under current conditions, stormwater from the project site flows along the ground surface to the north and west. Based on typical rates of precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration, it is estimated that the total stormwater runoff from the 7.8-acre site may be in the range of 10 to 20 acre-feet per year. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 9,000 to 18,000 gallons per day. 5. Stormwater runoff is currently directed to a roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard or to an existing on -site storm system that discharges to the ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater to an existing 24-inch culvert which discharges to May Creek. 6. The project site is relatively flat and near -surface soils at the site are comprised of sands and silty sands. Depths to groundwater at the site have been observed in the range of 1.3 feet to 9.5 feet. A reduction in impervious surface would increase groundwater recharge at the project site. Based on typical rates of groundwater recharge in similar hydrogeologic environments, groundwater recharge may increase by approximately 1 to 2 acre-feet per year for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. This is equivalent to an average runoff of 900 to 1,800 gallons per day for each acre of impervious surface that is deconstructed. 8. The estimated increase in groundwater recharge at the project site as a result of the proposed project is approximately 4 to 8 acre-feet per year (3,570 to 7,140 gallons per day). This estimate was developed assuming 4 acres of impervious surface could be deconstructed as part of the proposed development. 9. Groundwater flow at the site is expected to be primarily to the west with discharge to Lake Washington. This is based on measured groundwater levels at the site, hydrogeologic conditions inferred from well logs and test pits, and known lake levels. Groundwater from beneath the project site likely flows beneath the Quandall Terminals site Iocated between the project site and Lake Washington. 10. Soil and ground water beneath the Quendall Terminals property are contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of soil throughout the Quendall Terminals site have been contaminated. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same contaminants detected in soils and groundwater at the Quendall Terminals site have been detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. 11. Increased groundwater recharge on the project site will likely increase the rate of contaminant discharge from the Quendall Terminals site to Lake Washington. This conclusion is based on the observed distribution of contamination beneath the Quendall Terminal site and on the inferred groundwater flow direction from the project site. I Joel W. Massmann, declare as follows: 1. I am a consulting civil engineer and formerly Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Washington. I received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the Ohio State University and a Ph.D. degree from the University of British Columbia. 2. I have worked extensively on problems associated with hydrology, surface water and groundwater interactions, and surface water and groundwater water quality. I have taught courses in civil engineering at the University of Washington, the University of Illinois, and Michigan Technological University. These courses include graduate and undergraduate courses in hydrology, environmental modeling, contaminant transport, and hydraulic engineering. 3. I have extensive consulting experience on water issues. This experience includes work for the U.S. Department of Energy, the Washington Department of Ecology, the Finnish Ministry of the Environment, the L.OTT Alliance, Elf Atochem Company, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, the Muckleshoot Indian Trine, and the Portland Oregon Water Bureau. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Dated this 171' day of July 2009, Joel Massmann, Ph.D., P.E. J. Massmann Resume, page 1 of 4 JOEL MASSMANN, Ph.D, P.E. Principal Engineer and Manager Keta Waters LLC, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Joel(a,,Keta Waters. cam; (206) 236-6225 Dr. Massmann has over twenty years of experience as an engineering consultant and works with a wide spectrum of public- and private -sector clients, including industry, government agencies, tribes, and environmental groups. Dr. Massmann received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from the Ohio State University and the Ph.D. degree in from the University of British Columbia. He has taught courses in civil engineering and groundwater hydrology at the University of Washington, the University of Illinois, and Michigan Technological University. Dr. Massmann's work on environmental and water resources issues has received national recognition, including the Rudolf Hering Medal from the American Society of Civil Engineering in 1990 and the Presidential Young Investigator Award from the National Science Foundation in 1988. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board and has served as a consultant to the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. He was appointed to the Fate and Transport Subcommittee of the Washington Department of Ecology Science Advisory Board (1996-2000) and assisted them in developing risk -based clean-up standards at contaminated sites. He also served on the Washington Department of Ecology Technical Advisory Group charged with establishing the standards for review of applications for aquifer storage and recovery projects (2000-2002) and is currently a member of the Mercer Island Utility Board. Academic background Ph.D. Hydrology M.S., Civil Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering Professional history University of British Columbia The Ohio State University The Ohio State University 1987 1981 1980 Principal Engineer and Owner, Keta Waters LLC, Mercer Island, Washington, 2002-current. Associate Professor with Tenure, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1993-2002, Visiting Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1997-98 (sabbatical leave). Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1992-93. Assistant Professor, Departments of Geology and Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign -Urbana, Illinois, 1990-92. Assistant Professor, Department of Geological Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, 1987-90. Senior Project Engineer, Hart Crowser, Seattle, Washington, 1985-87. J. Massmann Resume, page z of 4 Selected Professional Society and Other Service Appointed to U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, Consultant, 1992-1997. Appointed to Environmental Restoration Priority System Panel, National Research Council, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 1992-1994 Appointed to Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment Peer Review Committee, 1995-1997 Appointed to Washington Dept. of Ecology, Science Advisory Board, Fate and Transport Subcommittee, 1996-2000. Appointed to Washington Dept. of Ecology, Technical Advisory Group on Aquifer Storage and Recovery, 2000-2002 Associate Editor, Water Resources Research, published by American Geophysical Union, 2000-2002. Appointed to Mercer Island Utility Board, 2004-2008; 2008-2012. Professional licenses Professional Engineer 436101, State of Michigan Professional Engineer 474912, State of Oregon Professional Engineer #40749, State of Washington, Water System Distribution Manager #9819, State of Washington Water Treatment Plant Operator, #9819, State of Washington Professional Society Membership American Geophysical Union American Society of Civil Engineers Environmental and Water Resources Institute American Water Works Association ,Selected Refereed Journal Publications and Book Chapters Sixteen articles published in refereed journals and five book chapters related to groundwater hydrology. List provided upon request. J. Massmann Resume, page 3 of 4 Table 1 Summary of selected projects and services. Client Years Location grief description of project and services provided by Dr. Massmann Washington _ 2goi Provide technical analysis and advice regarding remediation of Department of Tacoma, WA groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Occidental Ecologyongoing Chemical Company site near the H lebos waterway. Water for 2007- Malawi, Evaluate water supply systems in rural areas along the shores of People ongoing Africa Lake Malawi and advise on activities to improve these systems, LOTT 2006- Olympia, Perform bydrogeological investigations necessary to evaluate the Alliance/Brown WA groundwater recharge potential of sites that may be considered for and Caldwell on going g g groundwater rcchar e facilities for reclaimed water. Squaxin Island 2006- Shelton, WA Provide hydrogeologic conditions and water rights evaluation Tribes ongoing services 2005- Assist the Tribes in developing, negotiating, and implementing Tulalip Tribes Tulalip, WA strategies to protect and develop water rights. Includes testing and ongoing evaluation of existing groundwater wells. Suquamish 2005- Suquamish, Provide hydrogeologic conditions and water rights evaluation Tribes ongoing WA services. Muckleshoot 1995- Provide technical analysis and advice related to groundwater Indian Tribe Auburn, WA resource development and interactions between groundwater and ongoing surface water. City of Camas, 2007- Camas, WA Assist in obtaining new groundwater rights_ WA 2008 Friends of the 2007 _ Friday Review and evaluate groundwater pumping tests and groundwater San Juans 2008 Harbor, WA model developed to assess impacts of a proposed development on San Juan Island. 2007- Bremerton Development of the Illahee Creek aquifer protection plan. The Port of Illahee 2008 WA objective of this project was to identify specific measures to protect and enhance roundwater resources in the Illahee Creek watershed. This study was aimed at identifying the types of hydrogeological Cascade Water 2007- Bellevue, conditions or scenarios that may result in significant improvements Alliance 2008 WA to in -stream flow and temperature conditions through seasonal ausin of groundwater extraction from wells. Muckleshoot 2000- Auburn, WA Provide technical analysis and related potential impacts of the Lake Indian Tribe 2008 Ta ps Reservoir Water Right. University of 2007 Seattle, WA Provide technical assistance to estimate nitrate loadings to Hood Washington Canal via groundwater discharge. Squaxin Island 2006- Shelton, WA Develop 3-dimensional MODFLOW model for simulating flow in Tribe 2007 the Woodland Creek watershed. Muckleshoot 2006 Assess feasibility of water supply from Coal Creek Springs. Indian Tribe 2007 Auburn, WA Involved evaluating existing spring collection facilities and U.S. EPA rovidin recommendations for locating new wells to increase yield. Washington Provide peer review of a groundwater flow model for the Spokane Department of 2006- Olympia, Valley Rathdrurn Prairie (SVRP) Aquifer. The SVRP Aquifer Ecology 2007 WA Study is a cooperative effort between the State of Idaho, Washin ton and the United States Geological Survey. Work with Tribal personnel and Indian Health Service to improve Tulalip Tribes 2005- Tulalip, WA the water supply system for the reservation. This project involved 2007 evaluating existing supplies, recommending modifications to the existing s stem, and designing new water _sMly wells. J. Massmann Resume, page 4 of 4 Client Years Location Brief description of project and services provided by Dr. Massmann Squaxin lstand Develop a groundwater flow model and derive opinions about the Tribes 2006 Shelton, WA relationship between surface water, groundwater, and water withdrawals in the Woodland Creek watershed Provide technical support to help plan strategic and operational Gila River 2004- Gila River, delivery of water to meet agricultural, municipal, and industrial Indian 2006 AZ uses. Assist in developing a groundwater model to simulate both Community quantity and quality of groundwater resources, including potential effects of salt build-up due to irrigation practices. Shared Strategy Olympic Instream Flow Assessment Pilot Project aimed at assessing human for Puget Sound 2005 Peninsula, impacts on stream flow and salmon populations within subbasins of WA the Stillaguamish Watershed. 2004- Seattle- Provide peer review of the groundwater flow and transport models Port of Seattle 2005 Tacoma, WA developed for the Port of Seattle to assess contaminant migration at the SeaTac airport Swinomish 2004- La Conner, Evaluate groundwater -surface interactions in the Lower Skagit River Indian Tribe 2005 WA basin, with particular focus on effects of exempt wells on flow in tributaries to the Skagit River. City of 2003- Milwaukie Provide technical analysis, advice, and expert testimony related to Milwaukie, 2005 Oregon g groundwater contamination which has affected the City's municipal Oregon water sup ly system. State of Provide technical analysis, advice, and expert testimony related to a Washington 2003- Olympia, groundwater and surface water contamination site in Spokane, WA. Attorney 2004 WA General Public Utility Evaluated projects related to groundwater storage and District #] of 2003 Bellingham, groundwater/surface water interactions, including converting surface Whatcom WA water diversions to groundwater withdrawals and augmenting flow County. with groundwater. Evaluate the risk of water shortages in the Lower Peninsula, Virginia, including a review of future water use in the service area U.S. Army Corp 2000- Norfolk, VA of a consortium of water utilities representing Newport News, of Engineers 2001 Hampton, Poquoson, Williamsburg, York County, and James City County, Virginia. It was my responsibility to review and evaluate studies aimed at estimating the groundwater yield for these utilities Nestle Waters of San Evaluate the hydrogeology and groundwater flow systems at several North America 2000- Francisco sites that provide spring water. Assessed compliance with (Perrier Water) 2001 CA regulations established by the Food and Drug Administration for spring waters Portland Water 1998- Portland, Provide technical advice related to assessing the vulnerability of Bureau 1999 Oregon their South Columbia Wellfield to surface contamination. This is a 100 MGD system that is located beneath an industrialized area. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON In the Matter of the Appeal of SEGB, a Washington non-profit Corporation, and Brad Nicholson, and individual and citizen of Renton, Petitioners, TO: Mr. Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor Renton, WA 98055 Case No. LUA-09-060, ECF, SA-M, SA-H DECLARATION OF BRAD NICHOLSON I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows: 1. I have lived in Renton my whole life, and I have lived about 1/2 mile from the above Seahawks Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years. I regularly walk next to May Creek, and enjoy the wildlife present there. I swim and boat in Lake Washington. I would like to be able to fish in Lake Washington and/or May Creek for native species resident there. GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1016 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 DECLARATION OF BRAD NICHOLSON - 1 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 � GINAI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. I have a much greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton. 1 created a Washington non-profit corporation specifically for the purpose of protecting amenities that this appeal seeks to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings, developing my own property according to code, and monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals. 3. 1 am aggrieved by the determination of non -significance for several reasons. I have been unable to comment, participate, and voice objections to the City Hearing Examiner and/or the ERC because studies have not yet been completed. I would like to have my community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan and development regulations, consistent with SEPA, the City's site development review ordinance RMJC 4-9-200, and a quality Stormwater management plan to protect my interests. I am aggrieved by the City's denial of my rights to such a community. By ignoring the procedural protections contained in the Renton Municipal Code and State law, the ERC's decision deprived me of an environment that is so described and that are contrary to the letter and the spirit of the development regulations and the Renton Comprehensive Plan. I am aggrieved that the most current means and methods of protecting water quality is not being used. For the record, I want to state, that the applicant investigation did not look very hard because I personally observed Salmonid minnows in May Creek just last week by just putting my head over the Bank of the Creek. I have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 DECLARATION OF BRAD NICHOLSON - 2 Fax: (206) 621 0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 upstream for the proposal and observing the fish. Around a year ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in the creek. I also had the observation ability to observe that it was not clipped. 4. I am injured by the threshold determination in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am harmed by the City's improper processing of the application, including failure to require complete application materials that I can review, failure to provide opportunity to comment based upon deliberation of other citizens input, to study or describe the property's proposed physical characteristics or proposed significant environmental features such as a stormwater plan. I am harmed by the failure to properly categorize those features, and failure to refer the Site Plan to the Hearing Examiner prior to a decision being made so that my input could be considered before the decision was made, I am harmed by the City's failure to conduct a consistency review of SEPA concurrent with the Master site plan and Site Plan approvals. If the City had required the application to be submitted being consistent with proper procedures, I would have voiced my concerns about the City's failure to mitigate impacts such as impacts to the ongoing Environmental Study being conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, suggested thoughtful and creative alternatives if possible, or mitigation measures that would tend to eliminate or redress my grievances. Substantively, I am injured by the Site Plan's noncompliance with the City's code. For example, that code requires that the Site Plan must conform to the Comprehensive Plan's elements, goals, objectives and policies„ and must mitigate impacts (such as impacts to threatened or endangered species ) to GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue. Suite 1015 Seattle. WA 98101 Phone: (206) 621-8868 DECLARATION OF BRAD NICHOLSON - 3 Fax: f206) 621-0612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 surrounding properties and uses. The Site Plan submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. I am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State. 5. If the project is built according to inferior standards and means of achieving water quality standards, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project. The Stormwater manual proposed does not provide the degree of protection to the environment as does the current versions do and would want the applicant to use those manuals to protect my interests and the interests of my family 6. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. 7. I am a Founding member of South End Gives Back (SEGB). 8. SEGB is a legally established and operating Washington nonprofit corporation serving the interests of the Citizens of Renton to protect Renton's environmental quality. SEGB's membership is made up of Renton citizens who are directly impacted by the loss of Environmental quality in their City. The members of SEGB have exclusive control of the corporation. SEGB has an adopted corporate policy that envisions committing all of its resources to efforts such as this appeal. No outside influences have any control in the direction of the corporation. 9. SEGB has one or more members that enjoy the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walk, boat, fish, or swim or desire to swim and observe the areas surrounding the proposed project, who will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife habitat associated with this project. The improper review and construction proposals that fail to improve the situation will impact them, using outdated or inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact them, and DECLARATION OF BRAD NICHOLSON - 4 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: I206► 621-8868 Fax: 1206) 621-0512 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEGB will be impacted by the degradation to water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake Washington or May Creek. 10. SEGB has one or more members who are residents of Renton with an active interest in the integrity of City of Renton's land use and environmental review processes, who have actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to Clean Water, who seek to ensure that the City abides by SEPA policies and procedures and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and who are negatively impacted by the improper processing and lack of environmental considerations in connection with this project. 11. SEGB has one or more members who wish to have their community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and City code, and who will be injured by the City's denial of their rights to such a community because of the ERC's actions. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 171h day of July, 2009, at Seattle, Washington. :RAD N IIOLAUON- SEGB President NSouth End Gives Back(Dcn)�Dec Nicholson 7 17 09 DECLARATION OF BRAD NICHOLSON - 5 GENDLER & MANN, LLP 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: Q06)621-8868 Fax: (2061 621-0512 ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 4 LQ King County Salmon Watcher Program May Creek On this page you will find illustrations of salmonid species that you may see in your stream. These drawings will be proportional to one another to aid in identification. Also, whenever possible, we will include hints to identifying fish in your specific stream and additional photos if we have them. The name of each species is also a link to additional information about identifying that particular species. 1. Fish that have been reported by Salmon Watcher volunteers in this stream and that you are most likely to see here: Sockeye Salmon . length 20- 28 inches . NO spots . brilliant to dark red bodies . pale to olive green heads . spawn August through December . more sockeye info_ lim.a.ges_ 2. Fish that have been seen in your stream by Salmon Watchers, but have not been seen commonly: Chinook Salmon . length 24- 60 inches . blotches http:llwww.kingcounty.govlenvironmentlanimalsAndPlants/salmon.-and-troutlsalmon-watc... 7/16/2009 Page 2 of 4 on back and dorsal fin . spots cover entire tail . black gums . colors of olive, copper, or almost black . more Chinook infolimages Coho Salmon . length 17- 38 inches . dark (blue) backs and heads . maroon to reddish sides . spots on tail only on upper half . red gill cover . spawn mid - October to January . more coho infolimages Cutthroat Trout . usually not larger than 18 inches . small black spots on head and body . spots are on all fins http://www. kingcounty.gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/salmon-and-troutlsalmon-wate... 7/16/2009 Page 3 of 4 • blunt heads • spawn February and March • more cutthroat infolimages Kokanee Salmon • length 8- 18 inches • spots on their backs • brilliant to dark red 116 bodies IV . pale to olive green heads • spawn August through January • more kokanee info/images If you see fish that have not been reported in your stream previously, please let us know right away so we can talk to you more and possibly come out and verify the sighting. This program is conducted in cooperation with the King County Water and Land Resources Division, Bellevue Stream Team, Redmond Stream Team, and the cities of Seattle, Bothell, Kirkland, Renton, Woodinville, and the Vashon-Maury Island Land Trust, with support from the King Conservation District. Home ! Privacy J Accessibility I Terms of use I Search Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County. By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site OO 2009 King County http: //www.kingcounty. gov/environment/animalsAndPlants/salmon-and-troutlsalmon-watt... 7/ 16/2009 Page 4 of 4 http://www.kingcounty. gov/environment/animalsAndPlantslsaltnon-and-troutlsalmon-watt... 7/16/2009 ATTACHMENT B Columns Magazine - The University of Washington Alumni Magazine - Columns Magazi... Page 1 of 4 Shade Crusade: Why City Trees Are Good Medicine vvr;tten by Sandia i- mLs A shopping blog for "green, eco-friendly pet owners" features a dog collar made from recycled inner tubes and lined with silver seatbelt material. A so-called "eco-luxury" vodka uses only locally grown grain and comes in a bottle of recycled glass for what the Missouri distiller says is, a 'vodka with a green state of mind." And now you can go green to the grave with biodegradable coffins. It's composting at its best, says the owner of Natural Burial in Portland. Ore., which sells products like the Ecopod, a kayak -shaped coffin made out of recycled newspapers. Seems like everything and everybody is going green these days. But where is the green going? American Forests, a Washington. D C... nonprofit, found that America's largest cities have lost more than a quarter of their tree canopies since 1972. 1n Seattle, the city's urban forester Mark Mead, '82, '87, says that 18 percent of the city has canopy cover, down from 40 percent just 35 years ago. That s about half of what is recommended for a city of its size, according to American Forests. "it we don't have urban green in our surroundings, our lives are diminished," says Kathleen Wolf, a research scientist with the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources. "And it's usually taken for granted until it's gone." Urban forests provide many obvious benefits. When rains inundate cities, as they did in western Washington this winter, trees and green spaces help reduce stormwater runoff. One study found that the canopy of a single, leafy, 38-foot-tall tree intercepts and holds rainwater, reducing runoff by 290 gallons. Urban tree canopies and green spaces also remove pollutants from air and water, soak up the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and provide cooling shade for concrete -laden cityscapes. Scientists estimate that a mature tree canopy in a city center, for example, reduces air temperatures up to 10o F and can even influence indoor temperatures of nearby buildings. Along with the environmental gains, there are other benefits less obvious to the casual observer. studies show that urban greenery makes us healthier and happier, says Wolf, who is an environmental psychologist. • In one study, scientists put their subjects through stressful mental exercises and then showed them images of nature or of urban environments without any green. During the tests, they measured physiological responses such as heart rate and blood pressure. The subjects who looked at nature shots had lower stress levels than those exposed to urban images, and their responses returned to normal faster. ="° E"",; $�;:�,° • Environmental psychologists looked at two parts of a public housing site in Chicago: one with more trees, grass and plants than the other. The "green" housing area had fewer domestic disputes. lower levels of fear, less crime and better relationships among neighbors. • Greenery even affects how we see the world. Jenna Tilt, '01, asked her subjects to estimate the walking distance in settings with lots of greenery and settings with less green. If the neighborhood has more street trees and other plants, people judge walking distances to be less, even if the distances are the same in both settings. Why is that important? If you feel that it's easy to walk someplace, you just might be more inclined to do so, something that's important in the face of the mounting medical costs of inactivity and obesity among Americans. • A Japanese study looked at elderly people living in high -density Tokyo. The elderly with green in their neighborhoods were, during a five-year period, healthier and had a lower mortality rate. The researchers controlled for such things as age and the health of participants at the start of the study. "To me this is very exciting," Wolf says. "It means in green environments, where people are able to walk about, you get the http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/marchO8/index2.php?option=com_content&t... 7/16/2009 Columns Magazine - The University of"Washington Alumni Magazine - Columns Magazi... Page 2 of 4 recommended moderate -activity levels and health benefits. "If we don't have contact with nature on a daily basis, we become more stressed, less able to focus on tasks at work and at school. We need green around our homes, schools, places of business Wolf's research in central business districts, for example, found people were willing to pay more —up to 12 percent more ---for the same products if the business district had large trees. Not only were customers willing to pay more, they judged the merchants to be more helpful and the products to be of higher quality. Currently Wolf is looking for a way to assign a dollar value to these health and psychological benefits. Environmental psychologists need help from economists to do that, says Wolf. who has submitted a grant proposal to tackle the question. There's a pressing need to understand the economics because saving trees is not going to be easy as cities become denser. Infili development is a way to concentrate housing in existing urban areas to avoid sprawl and ever -longer commutes. But setting aside land for trees could make housing even pricier. "We're all for trees, and we think they make communities more livable; the problem is with regulations that take away inventory for buildable lands," Tim Harris; an attorney with the Building Industry Association of Washington, said in a Seattle Past-Intelligencer article. In a blog about efforts to save urban trees, one citizen wrote, "Gan the tree huggersjust hug the trees on their own property where they pay the taxes and just leave the rest of us alone?" Another wrote, "Pack houses into small areas and oh, by the way, save room for trees and make the houses affordable? When is the next election?" [AN Research Soientist Kathleen Wolf €s looking for a way to assign a dollar va uv to the h€xalth and psychological benefits of urban greenery. Photo by Mary �rYvisS. Having the economic benefits in dollars and cents would make the case for urban trees and green more compelling, Wolf says We already know there's an economic value when someone increases their physical activity: A study in 2000 said that annual mean medical costs are reduced by $865 per person when inactive adults engage in regular moderate activity. What needs to be determined is just how much green spaces contribute to people's motivation to head out for a walk, ride a bike or go for a run. Krowing just what increment of that motivation can be attributed to the landscape would give researchers a way to assign a dollar value to that contribution. Even while awaiting the economic studies, the importance of health and social benefits from green spaces is beginning to be incorporated into building and community planning. For example, the organizers behind LEED—the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification process for green buildings —are partnering with those participating in a Sustainable Sites Initiative to better develop the sites around such buildings. There are some standards now but they're considered weak by those in the field. More thought needs to be given to the environment around the buildings. not just the environment within them, Wolf says. Wolf and colleagues across the nation have been considering the amount of vegetation and how to manage water and other materials on the grounds of buildings. Because of her involvement, the goals for sites were recently expanded to recognize environmental psychology. A new human well-being subcommittee will be formed, the first group of its kind in the nation, and Wolf will be a leading member. While Wolfs research is about "why" green is important, others are busy with the "how." Over in the UW's Green Futures Research and Design Lab the talk is about how to preserve and enhance "green infrastructure." If roads, sewer systems and bridges are examples of gray infrastructure, then open spaces, parks, wetlands —even ditches and gardens in parking strips —are examples of green infrastructure, according to Nancy Rottle, associate professor of landscape architecture and director of the UW Green Futures lab. it's all about helping communities understand how to plan for and establish green spaces. In a recent project, for example, the lab helped the community of Lake Forest Park, north of Seattle, with a 100-year legacy plan. Citizens and city officials determined the elements they would like to see in the future—hab€tat corridors, trails, parks and access to Lake Washington and streams in the area. Priorities were then set for the next six years with funding approved by the Lake Forest Park City Council. "If you don't plan for green infrastructure first, it's much more costly to go back and do it once development has occurred," Rottle http : //www.washington . edu/al umn i/columns/march08/index2. php?option=com_content&t... 7/ l 6/2009 Columns Magazine - The University of Washington Alumni Magazine - Columns Magazi... Page 3 of 4 says. "Seattle's existing green -space framework, for example, was the result of visionary planning and acquisition 100 years ago that anticipated Seattle's growth into a world -class city." She hopes her lab's faculty and students can help with the next 100 years. The need is pressing. In her own neighborhood she says she's seen eight-plex after eight-plex going up, mowing down every tree in the process. That's something Wolf's students also noticed. "Students are always out there and so they see things we may not be paying attention to. About five years ago students started saying, 'We're losing big trees in the cities.' " Wolf is talking about trees with trunks bigger than 12 inches across. "l didn't really pay attention to it but now it's becoming an issue in the arborist and urban forestry community in the state. As we do infill development, what we're left with are tiny spaces where only tiny plants can exist. With real estate values escalating, it's much more difficult to convince the public to acquire spaces for green." The Evergreen State has a spotty record with its urban forests says Wolf. Robert Corletta, '02; Noel Studer, '03; and Sean Dugan., '04; conducted statewide assessments for the Washington Department of Natural Resources since 2000 that found: Only 10 percent of communities had up-to-date tree inventories. Only 12 percent of communities had management plans; the rest don't have clear goals and objectives for tree care. About 20 percent of communities do routine tree care; the challenges include poor pruning practices and failing to replace trees where they have been removed. While 47 percent of communities have tree ordinances, many reported needing better enforcement. "Communities are trying but their efforts are often hit-or-miss and money is not consistently budgeted," says Wolf, "Part of the problem is that when you say 'nature,' people tend to think about the Cascades or the Pacific Coast. They don't realize the incredible value of nature niches in our cities," She points to one of the nature niches on the UW campus, the popular Medicinal Herb Garden, where Steve erueggerhoff, '01, surveyed people about what they learned there. Other than formal class groups, what he discovered was that people were at the herb garden not to study plants but rather as a respite from sitting in their offices. They went there and claimed it enhanced their productivity when they went back to their desks," Wolf says. "That's what we humans need in urban settings to function at our very best, to optimize our abilities. "There's a peril in ignoring this for individuals and entire communities." • Sandra Hines is a science writer for UW News and Information Purple and Gold and Green The UW is one of the premier research institutions rn the nation, so it is only natural that it is playing a key role in environmental initiatives at the international, state and campus levels. Here is a sample of recent UW contributions: • Last fall when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President At Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, more than 50 UW faculty, affiliate faculty and students could claim a part of the credit. They served as lead authors, contributing authors and reviewers for the IPCC's major reports over the years. "As the wording of the Nobel Prize citation emphasizes, it is not just having the scientific knowledge, but also getting public understanding and affecting policy that will alter the outcomes of our changing climate." says Arthur Nowell, dean of the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences. "UW scientists, policy experts and analysts have been important players in all three aspects from the oceans, the atmosphere and the policy dimensions." • In the midst of International Polar Year, UW researchers conducted projects on the ice near the North Pole, camped beside some of the Earth's greatest glaciers and published papers about startling changes detected in the Arctic. "The UW's expertise in polar sciences includes some of the leading oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, glaciologists, biologists, chemists and computer modelers in the nation," says Dick Moritz, director of polar sciences at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. • The state has asked the UW's Climate impacts Group to conduct the most comprehensive assessment of the impact of climate change on Washington. Among other things, the study includes the first statewide look at how climate change may affect the health of residents —for example, by potentially increasing the incidence of West Nile virus or Lyme disease, according to Edward Miles, professor of marine affairs and director of the Climate Impacts Group. The project also marries the UW's climate tools with Washington State University's agricultural expertise to create the most detailed examination ever of how climate change might affect agriculture here. • At the campus level, the UW was one of six institutions achieving an overall grade of A- or better on a report card issued by the Sustainable Endowments Institute which considered 200 universities in the United States and Canada. The institute said that since his arrival, President Mark A. Emmert, '75, has created an Environmental Stewardship Advisory Committee and an environmental stewardship coordinator position. The President has also formalized a policy focused on campus sustainability. http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/marchO8/index2.php?option=com_content&t... 7I16/2009 Columns Magazine - The University of Washington Alumni Magazine - Columns Magazi... Page 4 of 4 Among other things, the institute noted that the UW has been working on energy conservation measures since the 1880s and all of the Seattle campus's electricity purchases are from renewable and carbon -neutral sources. • Also last year, Emmert committed all three UW campuses to minimizing global warming emissions and integrating sustainability more firmly into the curriculum when he signed onto the Leadership Circle of the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment —Sandra Hines Close Window http://www.washington.edLi/alumni/columns/marchO8/index2.php?option=com_content&t... 7/16/2009 ATTACHMENT C Presented at the Low Impact Development Roundtable Conference, Baltimore, MD, July 2001. Infiltration Through Compacted Urban Soils and Effects on Biofiltration Design Robert Pitt,' Shen -En Chen,' and Shirley Clark 'Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, AL 35226 'Postgraduate Research Program, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education National Risk Management Research Laboratory U,S. Environmental Protection Agency Edison, NJ 08837 Abstract.................................................................................... Background............................................................................................................................... ......... ......... .. ......... 2 InfiltrationMechanisms.....................................................................................................................................3 HortonEquation. ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Soil Modifications to Enhance infiltration..........................................................................................................5 Groundwater Impacts Associated with Stormwater Infiltration...........................................................................5 Relativc Risks Associated with Stormwater Infiltration of Various Contaminants...........................................6 Disturbed Urban Soil Field Infiltration Measurements............................................................................................8 Experimental Design and Measurement Methodologies......................................................................................8 Infiltration Rate Measurements.............................................................................. .......................,.,.,....,.9 Soil—Water Measurements.............................................................................................................................9 SoilTexture Measurements............................................................................................................................9 Soil Compaction Measurements................................................................................................................... 10 Infiltration Test Site Descriptions..................................................................................................................... 10 Results.............................................................................................................................................................10 LaboratoryCompaction Tests............................................................................................................................... 16 Method............................................................................................................................................................16 Results............................................................................................................................................................. 21 Soil Amendments to Improve Urban Soil Performance......................................................................................... 25 Water Quality and Quantity Effects of Amending Soils with Compost.............................................................. 25 Selection of Material for use as Soil Amendments................................................................................................27 Conclusions..................................................................... ...28 Acknowledgements.............................................................. ... 30 References............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Abstract The effects of urbanization on soil structure can be extensive. Infiltration of rain water through soils can be greatly reduced, plus the benefits of infiltration and biofiltration devices can be jeopardized. This paper is a compilation of results from several recent and on -going research projects that have examined some of these problems, plus 0 possible solutions. Basic infiltration measurements in disturbed urban soils were conducted during the EPA - sponsored project by Pitt, el al (1999b), along with examining hydraulic and water quality benefits of amending these soils with organic composts. Prior EPA -funded research examined the potential of groundwater contamination by infiltrating stormwater (Pitt, el al, 1994, 1996, and 1999a). in addition to the information obtained during these research projects, numerous student projects have also been conduced to examine other aspects of urban soils, especially more detailed tests examining soil density and infiltration during lab -scale tests, and methods and techniques to recover infiltration capacity of urban soils. This paper is a summary of this information and it is hoped that it will prove useful to both stormwater practice designers and to modelers. Prior research by Pitt (1987) examined runoff losses from paved and roofed surfaces in urban areas and showed significant losses at these surfaces during the small and moderate sized events of most interest for water quality evaluations. However, Pitt and Durrans (1995) also examined runoff and pavement seepage on highway pavements and found that very little surface runoff entered typical highway pavement. During earlier research, it was also found that disturbed urban soils do not behave as indicated by most stormwater models. In an attempt to explain the variations observed in early infiltration tests in disturbed urban soils, tests were conducted in the Birmingham, AL, area by the authors, assisted by UAB hydrology students. About 150 individual double -ring infiltration tests were conducted, separated into eight categories of soil conditions (comprising a full factorial experiment). Factors typically considered to be responsible for infiltration rate variations are texture and soil -water content. These Alabama tests examined texture and soil -water content, plus soil compaction (as measured by a cone penetrometer), It was also hoped that age since disturbance and cover condition could also be used to explain some of the variation, but poor distributions of these conditions over the complete range of the main experimental test conditions did not allow complete statistical examinations of these additional factors. The initial exploratory analyses of the data showed that sand was mostly affected by compaction, with little change due to soil -water content levels. However, the clay sites were affected by a strong interaction of compaction and soil -water content. The variations of the observed infiltration rates in each category were relatively large, but four distinct soil conditions were found to be significant, as shown in Table 1, The data from each individual test were fitted to the Horton equation, but the resulting equation coefficients were relatively imprecise, with the noncompacted sandy soil tests being the only soil category that had obvious infiltration rate variations that were well described by time since the start of the tests. When modeling runoff from most urban soils, it may be best to assume relatively constant infiltration rates throughout an event, and to utilize Monte Carlo procedures to describe the observed random variations about the predicted mean value. Table 1. Infiltration Rates for Significant Groupings of Soil Texture, Soil -Water Content, and Compaction Conditions Group Number of Average Infiltration cov _ tests rate (irdhr) noncompacted sandy soils 36 _ 13 0.4 compact sandy soils 39 1.4 1.3 noncompacted and dry clayey soils 18 9.8 1.5 all other clayey sons (compacted and dry, plus all wetter conditions) 60 0.2 2.4 Amendments to the soil were also found to significantly improve both the infiltration capacity of the soils and to better capture pollutants from the infiltrating water, significantly reducing the potential of groundwater contamination. Some organic amendments may leach nutrients for several years, but all were found to significantly reduce the transport of toxicants. Background Early unpublished double -ring infiltration tests conducted by the Wisconsin DNR in Oconomowoc, WI, (shown in Table 2) indicated highly variable infiltration rates for soils that were generally sandy (MRCS A and B hydrologic group soils) and dry. The median initial rate was about 75 mm/hr (3 in/hr), but ranged from 0 to 600 mm/hr (0 to 25 in/hr). The final rates also had a median value of about 75 mm/hr (3 in/hr) after at least two hours of testing, but ranged from 0 to 400 mm/hr (0 to 15 in/hr). Many infiltration rates actually increased with time during these tests. In about 1/3 of the cases, the observed infiltration rates remained very close to zero, even for these sandy soils. Areas that experienced substantial disturbances or traffic (such as school playing fields), and siltation (such as in some grass swales) had the lowest infiltration rates. It was hoped that more detailed testing could explain some of the large variations observed. Table 2. Ranked Oconomowoc Double Ring Infiltration Test Results (dry conditions) Initial Rate (inlhr) Final Rate (after 2 hours) Total Observed Rate (inlhr) Range (inlhr) 25 15 _ 11 to 25 22 17 17 to 24 14.7 9.4 9.4 to 17 5.8 9.4 0.2 to 9.4 5.7 9.4 5.1 to 9.6 4.7 3.6 3.1 to 6.3 4.1 6.8 2.9 to 6.8 3.1 3.3 2.4 to 3.8 2.6 2.5 1.6 to 2.6 0.3 0.1 <0.1 to 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.3 to 3.2 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 to 0.2 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 to 0.6 <0.1 <0.1 all <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 all <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 all <0.1 Source: unpublished data from the W I Dept. of Natural Resources Infiltration Mechanisms Infiltration of rainfall into pervious surfaces is controlled by three mechanisms, the maximum possible rate of entry of the water through the soil/plant surface, the rate of movement of the water through the vadose (unsaturated) zone, and the rate of drainage through the bottom of the vadose zone. During periods of rainfall excess, infiltration is the least of these three rates, and the runoff rate after depression storage is filled is the excess of the rainfall intensity greater than the infiltration rate. The infiltration rate typically decreases during periods of rainfall excess. Storage capacity is recovered when the drainage from the vadose zone is faster than the infiltration rate. The surface entry rate of water may be affected by the presence of a thin layer of silts and clay particles at the surface of the soil and vegetation. These particles may cause a surface seal that would decrease a normally high infiltration rate. The movement of water through the soil depends on the characteristics of the underlying soil. Once the surface soil layer is saturated, water cannot enter soil faster than it is being transmitted away, so this transmission rate affects the infiltration rate during longer events. The depletion of available storage capacity in the soil affects the transmission and drainage rates. The storage capacity of soils depends on the soil thickness, porosity, and the soil -water content. Many factors, such as texture, root development, soil insect and animal bore holes, structure, and presence of organic matter, affect the effective porosity of the soil. The infiltration of water into the surface soil is responsible for the largest abstraction (loss) of rainwater in natural areas. The infiltration capacity of most soils allows low intensity rainfall to totally infiltrate, unless the soil voids became saturated or the underlain soil was much more compact than the top layer (Morel-5eytoux 1978). High intensity rainfalls generate substantial runoff because the infiltration capacity at the upper soil surface is surpassed, even though the underlain soil might still be very dry. The classical assumption is that the infiltration capacity of a soil is highest at the very beginning of a storm and decreases with time (Willeke 1966). The soil -water content of the soil, whether it was initially dry or wet from a recent storm, will have a great effect on the infiltration capacity of certain soils (Morel-Seytoux 1978). Horton (1939) is credited with defining infiltration capacity and deriving an appropriate working equation. Horton defined infiltration capacity as "...the maximum rate at which water can enter the soil at a particular point under a given set of conditions" (Morel-Seytoux 1978). Horton Equation One of the oldest and most widely used infiltration equations used was developed by Horton (1939). This equation was used during these studies to compare the measured equation parameters with published literature values for a commonly used infiltration method. The equation is as follows: where: f=f�+(fo-oe-11 f= infiltration capacity (in/hr), f, � initial infiltration capacity (in/hr), f, = final capacity (in/hr), k — empirical constant (hr-1) This equation assumes that the rainfall intensity is greater than the infiltration capacity at all times and that the infiltration rate decreases with time (Bedient and Huber 1992). The capacity of the soil to hold additional water decreases as the time of the storm increases because the pores in the soil become saturated with water (Bedient and Huber 1992). The Horton equation's major drawback is that it does not consider the soil storage availability after varying amounts of infiltration have occurred, but only considers infiltration as a function of time (Akan 1993). It is recommended that f, fo, and k all be obtained through field data, but they are rarely measured locally. More commonly, they are determined through calibration of relatively complex stormwater drainage models (such as SWMM), or by using values published in the literature. The use of published values in place of reliable Feld data is the cause of much concern (Akan 1993). The following lists include commonly used Horton infiltration parameter values: Soil Type f, (inlhr) Dry sandy soils with little to no vegetation 5 Dry loam soils with little to no vegetation 3 Dry clay soils with little to no vegetation 1 Dry sandy soils with dense vegetation 10 Dry loam soils with dense vegetation 6 Dry clay soils with dense vegetation 2 Moist sandy sails with little to no vegetation 1.7 Mast loam soils with little to no vegetation 1 Moist clay soils with little to no vegetation 0.3 Moist sandy soils with dense vegetation 3.3 Moist loam, soils with dense vegetation 2 Moist clay soils with dense vegetation 0.7 Soil Type f. inthr k 11min Clay loam, silty clay loams 0 to 0.05 0.069 Sandy clay loam 0.05 to 0.15 0.069 Silt loam loam 0.15 to 0.30 0.069 Sand loamy sand, sandy foams 0.30 to 0.45 0.069 Source: Akan 1993. The above k values are not divided into categories; a single value is used for all conditions (Akan 1993)- The k value units are listed as 1/minute instead of 1/hr because the time steps commonly used in urban hydrology are measured in minutes, even though the infiltration rates are commonly measured in units of inches per hour. 4 Soil Modifications to Enhance Infiltration Turf scientists have been designing turf areas with rapid infiltration capabilities for playing fields for many years. It is thought that some of these design approaches could be used in other typical urban areas to enhance infiltration and reduce surface runoff. Several golf course and athletic field test sites were examined in Alabama during this study to document how turf areas can be constructed to enhance infiltration. These areas were designed to rapidly dry -off following a rain to minimize downtime due to excessive soil -water levels. Turf construction techniques were reviewed at three sites: an intramural playing field at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), the UAB practice football field, and a local golf course. The UAB intramural field has a simple drainage design of parallel 100 min (4in.) wide trenches with a filter fabric wrapped pipe laid 30 cm (12 in.) deep. A thick sand backfill was used and then the area was recapped with sod. The drainage pipe was directed to the storm drainage system. The drainage for the UAB practice field was done by a local engineering firm that chose a fishbone drainage design. A trunk line of 100 mm (4 in.) corrugated pipe is the "spine' of the system with smaller 75 mm (3 in.) pipes stemming off from the main line_ All the pipes rest on a gravel base with a sand backfill. This system feeds to a larger basin that collects the stormwater and takes it to the existing storm drainage system. The golf course used the same basic fishbone design noted above, but differed in the sizes of the individual pipes. The drainpipes are 3 m (10 1t.) apart in trenches filled with 75 mm (3 in.) of gravel. The pipes are then covered with 30 cm (12 in.) of sand with the top 50 min (2 in.) of the sand consisting of a blend of sand and peat moss. This particular mixture is known as the USGA greens sand mix and is readily available because of its popularity in golf course drainage design. If the backfill sand particles are too large, clay is added to the mixture to slow the drainage. However, if the sand particles are too small, the soil will compact too tightly and will not give the desired results. In all of these cases, standing water is rare after rain has stopped, even considering the generally flat playing fields and very high rainfall intensities occurring in the Birmingham area. It is likely that similar soil construction (without subsurface drainage in most cases) could be used in high density urban areas to enhance stormwater infiltration. Other modifications include amending the soil with other materials. A later discussion in this paper summarizes the results of tests of amended soils and the effects on infiltration and groundwater protection. Groundwater Impacts Associated with Stormwater Infiltration One of the major concerns of stormwater infiltration is the question of adversely impacting groundwater quality. Pitt, ei al. (1994, 1996 and 1999a) reviewed many studies that investigated groundwater contamination from stormwater infiltration. They developed a methodology to evaluate the contamination potential of stormwater nutrients, pesticides, other organic compounds, pathogens, metals, salts and other dissolved minerals, suspended solids, and gases, based on the concentrations of the contaminant in stormwater, the treatability of the contaminant, and the mobility of the contaminant through the vadose. Stormwater salts, some pathogens, 1,3- dichlorobenzene, pyrenc, fluoranthene, and zinc, were found to have high potentials for contaminating groundwater, under some conditions. They concluded that there is only minimal potential of contaminating groundwaters from residential area stormwaters (chlorides in northern areas remains a concern), especially if surface infiltration is used. Prior to urbanization, groundwater recharge resulted from infiltration of precipitation through pervious surfaces, including grasslands and woods. This infiltrating water was relatively uncontaminated_ With urbanization in humid areas, the permeable soil surface area through which recharge by infiltration could occur was reduced. This resulted in much less groundwater recharge and greatly increased surface runoff and reduced dry weather flows. In addition, the waters available for recharge generally carried increased quantities of pollutants. With urbanization, new sources of groundwater recharge also occurred, including recharge from domestic septic tanks, percolation basins and industrial waste injection wells, and from agricultural and residential irrigation. In arid areas, the groundwater recharge may actually increase with urbanization due to artificial irrigation, resulting in increase dry weather base flows. The following paragraphs (from Pitt, el al. 1994 and 1996) describe the stormwater pollutants that have the greatest potential of adversely affecting groundwater quality during stormwater infiltration, along with suggestions on how to minimize these potential problems. Relative Risks Associated with Stormwater Infiltration of Various Contaminants Table 3 is a summary of the pollutants found in stormwater that may cause groundwater contamination problems for various reasons. This table does not consider the risk associated with using groundwater contaminated with these pollutants. Causes of concern include high mobility (low sorption potential) in the vadose zone, high abundance (high concentrations and high detection frequencies) in stormwater, and high soluble fractions (small fraction associated with particulates which would have little removal potential using conventional stormwater sedimentation controls) in the stormwater. The contamination potential is the lowest rating of the influencing factors. As an example, if no pretreatment was to be used before percolation through surface soils, the mobility and abundance criteria are most important. If a compound was mobile, but was in low abundance (such as for VOCs), then the groundwater contamination potential would be low. However, if the compound was mobile and was also in high abundance (such as for sodium chloride, in certain conditions), then the groundwater contamination would be high. If sedimentation pretreatment was to be used before infiltration, then much of the pollutants will likely be removed before infiltration. In this case, all three influencing factors (mobility, abundance in stormwater, and soluble fraction) would be considered important. As an example, chlordane would have a low contamination potential with sedimentation pretreatment, while it would have a moderate contamination potential if no pretreatment was used. In addition, if subsurface infiltration/injection was used instead of surface percolation, the compounds would most likely be more mobile, making the abundance criteria the most important, with some regard given to the filterable fraction information for operational considerations. This table is only appropriate for initial estimates of contamination potential because of the simplifying assumptions made, such as the likely worst case mobility measures for sandy soils having low organic content. if the soil was clayey and/or had a high organic content, then most of the organic compounds would be less mobile than shown on this table. The abundance and filterable fraction information is generally applicable for warm weather stormwater runoff at residential and commercial area outfalls. The concentrations and detection frequencies (and corresponding contamination potentials) would likely be greater for critical source areas (especially vehicle service areas) and critical land uses (especially manufacturing industrial areas). With biofiltration through amended urban soils, for example, the lowered groundwater contamination potential shown for surface infiltration with prior treatment, would generally apply. With gravel -filled infiltration trenches having no grass filtering or other pre-treatment, or with discharge in disposal wells, the greater groundwater contamination potentials shown for injection with minimal pretreatment would generally apply. The stormwater pollutants of most concern (those that may have the greatest adverse impacts on groundwaters) include: • nutrients: nitrate has a low to moderate groundwater contamination potential for both surface percolation and subsurface infiltration/injection practices because of its relatively low concentrations found in most stonnwalers. However, if the stormwater nitrate concentration was high, then the groundwater contamination potential would also likely be high. • pesticides: lindane and chlordane have moderate groundwater contamination potentials for surface percolation practices (with no pretreatment) and for subsurface injection (with minimal pretreatment). The groundwater contamination potentials for both of these compounds would likely be substantially reduced with adequate sedimentation pretreatment. Pesticides have been mostly found in urban runoff from residential areas, especiaily in dry -weather flows associated with Landscaping irrigation runoff. Table 3. Groundwater Contamination Potential for Stormwater Pollutants (Source: Pitt, et aL 1996) Compounds Mobility Abundance Fraction Contamination Contamination Contamination (sandyllow in storm -water filterable potential for potential for potential for organic soils) surface infilt. surface infilt. subsurface and no with sediment- inj. with pretreatment ation minimal pretreatment Nutrients nitrates mobile low/moderate high low/moderate lawlmoderate low/moderate Pesticides 2,4-D mobile low likely low low low low y-BHC (lindane) intermediate moderate likely low moderate law moderate malathion mobile low likely low low low low atrazine mobile low likely low low low law chlordane intermediate moderate very low moderate low moderate diazinon mobile low likely low low low low Other VOCs mobile low very high low low low organics 1,3-dichloro- low high high low law high benzene anthracene intermediate low moderate low low law benzo(a) intermediate moderate very low moderate low moderate anthracene bls (2- intermediate moderate likely low moderate law? moderate ethylhexyl) phthalate butyl benzyl low lowimoderate moderate low low low/moderate phthalate fluoranthene intermediate high high moderate moderate high fluorene intermediate low likely low low low low naphthalene low/inter. low moderate low low law penta- intermediate moderate likely low moderate low? moderate chlorophenol phenanthrene intermediate moderate very law moderate low moderate pyrene intermediate high high moderate moderate high Pathogens enterovi(uses mobile likely present high high high high Shrgella lowlinter. likely present moderate lowimoderate law/moderate high Pseudomonas lowlinter. very high moderate lowimoderate low/moderate high aerugii70sa protozoa low/inter. likely present moderate low/moderate low/moderate high Heavy nickel low high low low low high metals cadmium low law moderate low low low chromium inter./very low moderate very low low/moderate low moderate lead very low moderate very low low low moderate zinc lowlvery low high high low low high Sails chloride mobile seasonally high high high high a other organics: 1,3-dichlorobenzene may have a high groundwater contamination potential for subsurface infiltration/injection (with minimal pretreatment). However, it would likely have a lower groundwater contamination potential for most surface percolation practices because of its relatively strong sorption to vadose zone soils. Both pyrene and fluoranthene would also likely have high groundwater contamination potentials for subsurface infiltration/injection practices, but lower contamination potentials for surface percolation practices because of their more limited mobility through the unsaturated zone (vadose zone). Others (including benzo(a)anthracene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, pentachlorophenol, and phenanthrene) may also have moderate groundwater contamination potentials, if surface percolation with no pretreatment, or subsurface injection/infiltration is used. These compounds would have low groundwater contamination potentials if surface infiltration was used with sedimentation pretreatment_ Volatile organic compounds (VOGs) may also have high groundwater contamination potentials if present in the stormwater (likely for some industrial and commercial facilities and vehicle service establishments). The other organics, especially the volatiles, are mostly found in industrial areas. The phthalates are found in all areas. The PAHs are also found in runoff from all areas, but they are in higher concentrations and occur more frequently in industrial areas. + pathogens: enteroviruses likely have a high groundwater contamination potential for all percolation practices and subsurface infiltration/injection practices, depending on their presence in stormwater (likely if contaminated with sanitary sewage). Other pathogens, including 5higella, Pseudomonas aer-uginosa, and various protozoa, would also have high groundwater contamination potentials if subsurface infiltration/injection practices are used without disinfection_ If disinfection (especially by chlorine or ozone) is used, then disinfection byproducts (such as trihalomethanes or ozonated bromides) would have high groundwater contamination potentials. Pathogens are most likely associated with sanitary sewage contamination of storm drainage systems, but several bacterial pathogens are commonly found in surface runoff in residential areas. a heavy metals: nickel and zinc would likely have high groundwater contamination potentials if subsurface infiltration/injection was used. Chromium and lead would have moderate groundwater contamination potentials for subsurface infiltration/injection practices. All metals would likely have low groundwater contamination potentials if surface infiltration was used with sedimentation pretreatment. Zinc is mostly found in roof runoff and other areas where galvanized metal comes into contact with rainwater. e salts: chloride would likely have a high groundwater contamination potential in northern areas where road salts are used for traffic safety, irrespective of the pretreatment, infiltration or percolation practice used. Salts are at their greatest concentrations in snowmelt and early spring runoff in northern areas. Disturbed Urban Soil Field Infiltration Measurements E-xperitnental Design and Measuretnent Methodologies A series of 153 double ring infiltrometer tests were conducted in disturbed urban soils in the Birmingham, and Mobile, Alabama, areas. The tests were organized in a complete 23 factorial design (Box, et al. 1978) to examine the effects of soil -water, soil texture, and soil compactness on water infiltration through historically disturbed urban soils. Turf age was also examined, but insufficient sites were found to thoroughly examine these effects. Ten sites were selected representing a variety of desired conditions (compaction and texture) and numerous tests were conducted at each test site area. Soil -water content and soil texture conditions were determined by standard laboratory soil analyses. Compaction was measured in the field using a cone penetrometer and confirmed by the site history. Soil -water levels were increased using long -duration surface irrigation before most of the saturated soil tests. From 12 to 27 replicate tests were conducted in each of the eight experimental categories in order to measure the variations within each category for comparison to the variation between the categories. The categories tested were as follows: Category Soil Texture Compaction Soil -Water Number Content of Tests 1 Sand Compact Saturated 18 2 Sand Compact Dry 21 3 Sand Non -compact Saturated 24 4 Sand Non -compact Dry 12 5 Clay Compact Saturated 18 6 Clay Compact Dry 15 7 Clay Non -compact Saturated 27 8 Clay Non -compact Dry 18 Soil infiltration capacity was expected to be related to the time since the soil was disturbed by construction or grading operations (turf age). In most new developments, compact soils are expected to be dominant, with reduced infiltration compared to pre -construction conditions. In older areas, the soil may have recovered some of its infiltration capacity due to root structure development and from soil insects and other digging animals. Soils having a variety of times since development, ranging from current developments to those about 50 years old, were included in the sampling program, Again, because these sites were poorly distributed in their representation of the other primary test conditions, these effects were not directly determined. The WI Dept_ of Natural Resources and the University of Wisconsin (Bannerman, personal communication) have conducted some soil infiltration tests on loamy soils to examine the c[ ects of age of urbanization on soil infiltration rates. Their preliminary tests have indicated that as long as several decades maybe necessary before compacted loam soils recover to conditions similar to pre -development conditions. Infiltration Rate Measurements The infiltration test procedure included several measurements. Before a test was performed, the compaction of the soil was measured with the DICKEY John Soil Compaction Tester Penetrometer and a sample was obtained to analyze soil -water content. TURF-TEC Infiltrometers were used to measure the infiltration rates. These small devices have an inner ring about 64 mm (2.5 in.) in diameter and an outer ring about 110 mm (4.25 in.) in diameter, The water depth in the inner compartment starts at 125 mm (5 in.) at the beginning of the test, and the device is pushed into the ground 50 mm (2 in.). The rings are secured in a frame with a float in the inner chamber and a pointer next to a stop watch. These units are smaller than standard double -ring infiltrometers, but their ease of use allowed many tests under a wide variety of conditions to be conducted. The use of three infiltrometers placed close together also enabled better site variability to be determined than if larger units were used. Three infiltrometers were inserted into the turf within a meter from each other to indicate the infiltration rate variability of soils in close proximity. Both the inner and outer compartments were filled with clean water by first filling the inner compartment and allowing it to overflow into the outer compartment, As soon as the measuring pointer reached the beginning of the scale, the timer was started. Readings were taken every five minutes for a duration of two hours. The incremental infiltration rates were calculated by noting the drop of water level in the inner compartment over the five minute time period. Soil —Water Measurements The soikwaler content at each test site was an important test factor. The weather occurring during the testing enabled most site locations to produce a paired set of dry and wet tests. The dry tests were taken during periods of little rain, which typically extended for as long as two weeks with no rain and with sunny, hot days. The saturated tests were conducted after through artificial soaking of the ground, or after prolonged rain. The soil -water content was measured in the field using a portable meter (for some tests) and in the laboratory using standard soil -water content methods (for all tests). The soil -water content, as defined by Das (1994), is the ratio of the weight of water to the weight of solids in a given volume of soil, This was obtained by weighing the soil sample with its natural water content and recording the mass. The sample was then oven dried and its dry weight recorded. Saturated conditions occurred for most soils with soil -water contents greater than about 20%. Soil Texture Measurements The texture of the samples were determined by ASTM standard sieve analyses to verify the soil conditions estimated in the field and for comparison to the NRCS soil maps. The sieve analysis used was method ASTM D 422 —63 (Standard Test Method For Particle Size Analysis of Soils) for particles larger than the No. 200 sieve, along with ASTM D 2488 - 93 (Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure), The sample was prepared based on ASTM 421 (Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle Size Analysis and Determination of Soil Constants). After the material was dried and weighed, it was then crushed for sieve analysis. The sample was then treated with a dispersing agent (sodium hexarnetaphosphate) and water at the specified quantities. The mixture was then washed over a No, 200 sieve to remove all soil particles smaller than the 0.075 mm (75 µm) openings. The sample was then dried and a dry weight obtained. The remaining sample was then placed in a sieve stack containing No. 4, No. 8, No. 16, No. 30, No. 50, No. 100, No. 200 sieves, and the bottom pan. The sieves were then shaken in a mechanical shaker and separated onto their respective sieve sizes. The cumulative weight retained on each sieve was then recorded, and the amount of clay, silt, and sand was determined. The designation for the sand or clay categories follows the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D 2487. Sandy soils required that more than half of the material be larger than the No. 200 sieve, and more than half of that fraction be smaller than the No. 4 sieve. Similarly, for clayey soils, more than half of the material is required to be smaller than the No, 200 sieve. The "clayey" soils category included soils having from 30 to 98% clay, 2 to 45% silt, and 2 to 45% sand. This category included clay and clay loam soils. The "sandy" soils category included soils having from 65 to 95% sand, 2 to 25% silt, and 5 to 35% clay. This category included sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam soils. No soils were tested that were predominately silt or loam. Soil Compaction Measurements The extent of compaction at each site was also measured before testing using a cone penetrometer. Cone penetrometer measurements are sensitive to water content. Soils, especially clay soils, are obviously more spongy and soft when wet compared to hard conditions when extremely dry. Therefore, the penetrometer measurements were not made for saturated conditions and the degree of soil compaction was also determined based on the history of the specific site (especially the presence of parked vehicles, unpaved lanes, well -used walkways, etc.). Compact soils were defined as having a reading of greater than 300 psi at a depth of three inches. Other factors that were beyond the control of the experiments, but also affect infiltration rates, include bioturbation by ants, gophers and other small burrowing animals, worms, and plant roots. Infiltration Test Site Descriptions Birmingham, Alabama, near many of the test locations, has about 1370 mm (54 in.) of rain per year, distributed between about 110 events per year. Typical antecedent dry periods range from about 2 to 5 days. It is rare to have more than t0 days without recorded rainfall. The driest months are October and November, averaging 66 and 91 mm (2.6 and 3.6 in.), respectively, while March is the wettest month averaging 460 mm (6.3 in.) of rainfall. Snow is rare, with snowfalls of at least 125 mm (5 in.) occurring only about once every 10 years. The growing season (higher than -2° C, or 29' F) is at least 243 days per year in 5 out of 10 years. Average daily maximum temperatures are about 32' C (90' F) in the summer months (June through August) and about 13' C (55° F) in the winter months (December through February). Average daily minimum temperatures in the summer are about 18 to 21 ° C (65 to 70' F), and in the winter are about 1 ° C (34' F). The extreme recorded temperatures in Birmingham have ranged from about —18 to 43' C (0 to 110' F). Many of the sandy soil tests were located near Mobile, AL, where the rainfall averages about 250 mm (10 in.) more than in Birmingham, and the summers are even hotter and more humid. Table 4 briefly describes the test locations and site conditions, while Figure 1 is a soil texture diagram showing the distribution of the soil texture classifications at the different test sites. Results The first analysis involved the preparation of 3D plots of the infiltration data, illustrating effects of soil -water levels and compaction, for both sand and clay. These plots are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Four general conditions were observed to be statistically unique, as previously listed on `fable 1. Compaction has the greatest effect on infiltration rates in sandy soils, with little detrimental effects associated with higher soil -water content conditions. Clay soils, however, are affected by both compaction and soil -water content. Compaction was seen to have about the same effect as saturation on these soils, with saturated and compacted clayey soils having very little effective infiltration. The Horton infiltration equation was fitted to each set of individual site test data and the equation coefficients were statistically compared for the different site conditions. Figures 4 through 7 are the plots showing the observed infiltration rates, and the fitted Horton equation parameters for the four general conditions. Figure 4 is for the noncompacted sand conditions, the urban soil conditions having the greatest infiltration potential. In addition, this condition is the only one of the four major conditions that had an obvious decrease in infiltration with time during the tests. The observed infiltration rates occur in a relatively even, but broad, band. `t'hrce of the 36 tests had very low initial rates, but were within the typical band of observations after about ten minutes. Some initial wetting or destruction of a surface crust was apparently necessary before the site infiltration rate stabilized. Table 5 summarizes the observed Horton equation parameter values, compared to the typical published parameter values, for sandy soil conditions. 10 Table 4. Infiltration Test Site Locations and Conditions Site # Location Predominant Land Use Age Texture Compaction ears(psi) 1a Homewood Park Recreational >40 Clay loam 100-200 1b >300 2a Chadwich, Helena Medium density residential <1 Clay loam 150 2b Clay loam >300 3a South Lakeshore Drive Commercial >25 Sandy loam >300 3b Sandy loam 225 3c 1 Clay loam 280 4a Private Residence Backyard Low density residential >30 Clay loam 200 4b (West Jefferson) Clay loam >300 4c Sand foam 200-250 Sa Private Residence Backyard Medium density residential >30 Clay loam 150-200 5b Trussville Sand loam >300 6 Littlefield Farms A ricultural >10 Sand loam >300 7a W ildwood Apartment Complex High density residential <1 Clay loam >300 7b Homewood <150 8 Private Residence Backyard Medium density residential >30 Clay loam >300 (Birmingham) 9a Jasper Golf Course (Walker Recreational <5 Sand 150-175 9b County) <5 Sand >300 9c >10 Sand 100 10 Private Residence Backyard Medium density residential >20 Loamy sand 100 Gulf Shores A\ r F � 1 't .'�j l tiny ��•.+—......._, r --�`�' , Figure 1. Soil texture classifications for test sites. IN 201 -I11/ 4%i Figure 2. Three dimensional plot of infiltration rates for sandy soil conditions. 10 V r �2cY k Figure 3. Three dimensional plot of infiltration rates for clayey soil conditions. 12 Table 5. Observed and Published Horton Equation Parameter Values for Sandy Soils fo 0in/hr f. in/hr k 1lmin meanl typical range mean/ typical range mean/ typical range Observed noncompacted sandy soils 39 4.2 to 146 15 0.4 to 25 9.6 1.0 to 33 Observed compact sandy soils 15 0.1 to 66 1.8 0.1 to 9.5 11 1.8 to 37 Published values 5 1.7 to 10 0.30 to 0.45 0A69 The observed conditions differ greatly from the published values. The published values reflect soil -water content effects, while the observations indicated very small effects associated with soil -water for sandy soils, but very large effects associated with compaction. The observed constant final infiltration rates were greatly larger than typically assumed, with infiltration rates for noncompacted sandy soils of about 350 mm/hr (14 in/hr}, ranging from about 125 to 635 mm/hr (5 to 25 in/hr) during the tests. The comparable published rates were less than 25 mm/hr (1 in/hr). The infiltration rates leveled -off to the constant final values after about 30 to 45 minutes. Figure 4 shows the observed infiltration rates and fitted Horton equation parameter values for compacted sandy soil conditions. The observed rates are significantly less than for the above non -compacted conditions. The effects of compaction on sandy soils is very large, reducing the rates by between 5 and t0 times. Some initial rates are still very large, but the rates decreased quickly, After 20 to 30 minutes they are all within about 0 to 500 mm/hr (0 to 20 in/hr), with most of the 39 observations less than 125 mm/hr (5 in/hr). Figure 5 is a similar plot for clayey soils that are dry and noncompacted, the highest infiltration rate category for clayey soils. No significant changes in infiltration rates are seen as a function of time, with all test average values within the range of 8 to 500 mm/hr (0.3 to 20 in/hr), with a mean rate of about 230 mm/hr (9 ill for all 18 tests combined. Figure 6 shows the observed lest results for the other clayey soil conditions (dry and compact, and all wetter conditions). These rates were the lowest observed. Some saturated noncompacted initial values were greater than later values, although most of the 60 sets of test data indicated infiltration rates within a relatively narrow range of less than 125 mil (5 in/hr). Table 6 shows the observed Horton equation parameters compared to published values. The mean clayey soil infiltration rates observed were all greater than the published values, although the compacted and saturated clayey soils were much closer to the published values than the observed dry clayey soil rates. Because of the wide range in observed rates for each of the major categories, it may not matter which infiltration rate equation is used, The residuals are all relatively large and it is much more important to consider the random nature of infiltration about any fitted model and to address the considerable effect that soil compaction has on infiltration. It may therefore be necessary to use a Monte Carlo stochastic component in a runoff model to describe this variation. Table 6. Observed and Published Horton Equation Parameter Values for Clayey Soils fo IrVhr) (inlhr k 1/min mean/ range mean) range mean/ range typical typical typical Observed dry noncompacted 18 2.5 to 58 6.6 0.1 to 24 8.8 -6.2 to 19 dayey soils Published values for dry clayey 1 to 2 0 to 0.05 0.069 soils Observed for all other clayey soils 3.4 0 to 48 0.4 -0.6 to 6.7 5.6 0 to 46 (compacted and dry, plus all saturated conditions Published values for saturated ��O 0 to 0.05 0.069 clayey sons 13 t&,r1 r 4-1i4,41Aup i'4.Gxq I 9w n 764 C"IWs Nlttl�sMWV'r3 r ."fMk1.9 A4 14.t .59 ',31+4 M.& x. an ; u 1%2 14 "s '14.1 4 � � y � � �, • cry Rki A � f"� � Y a'il. � tr. ± .r. �r � • '� i A ! ■ it TM t Figure 4. Infiltration measurements for noncompacted, sandy soil, conditions. E+7 P4 1=1.0+0A-S-14AamWx0 rd7r' 16.4 11 t 1 a t.3 z^ rr� n :A A-i ids r�.i1 Sta= rr 1U1 wo s� w L IT G� air A ! • A + r: dais i.T9 'M 9.ilK 4.Mt Tbp,4>: 9 0--� Figure 5. Infiltration measurements for compacted, sandy soil, conditions. ! MY f 14 #..L14-t%1-S.1)x"Ir t4-4,xV n�is• Y,,{s ,�, E?� 1�; Sit, Iljjljj tag: !Gv . t� 7 Y.c� 6"i5 14A S t? C etF 1,2 ' '� • .:, S.:fi h,7"S 1. fps. t.a:, 1.71 ..7u r t� Figure 6. Infiltration measurements for dry-noncompacted, clayey soil, conditions. h> 1= 4 n—� rp u' f Q# 4, (490 ^ 0-9 "M K4 x 1) ?61dha; k V9 Ntn� ►ftm rift 0*4) MW*WL reW r.rr JAI t :� > •' C.19 .id e v jai t.D tfr.sar 47Yt be A +y ��era� Natt�aS��q +y ��era� Natt�aS��q b a Ur 150 Figure 7. Infiltration measurements for wet-noncompacted, dry -compacted, and wet -compacted, clayey soil conditions. 15 As one example of an approach, Table 7 shows the measured infiltration rates for each of the four major soil categories, separated into several time increments. This table shows the observed infiltration rates for each test averaged for different storm durations (15, 30, 60, and 120 minutes). Also shown are the ranges and COV values for each duration and condition. Therefore, a routine in a model could select an infiltration rate, associated with the appropriate soil category, based on the storm duration. The selection would be from a random distribution (likely a log -normal distribution) as described from this table. Figures 8 through 1 I are probability plots showing the observed infiltration rates for each of the four major soil categories, separated by these event durations. Each figure has four separate plots representing the storm event averaged infiltration rates corresponding to four storm durations from 15 minutes to 2 hours. As indicated previously, the infiltration rates became relatively steady after about 30 to 45 minutes during most tests. Therefore, the 2 hour averaged rates could likely be used for most events of longer duration. There is an obvious pattern on these plots which show higher rates for shorter rain durations, as expected. The probability distributions are closer to being log -normally distributed than normally distributed. However, with the large number of zero infiltration rate observations for three of the test categories, log -normal probability plots were misleading_ The soil texture and compaction classification would remain fixed for an extended simulation period (unless the soils underwent an unlikely recovery operation to reduce the soil compaction), but the clayey soils would be affected by the antecedent interevent period which would define the soil -water level at the beginning of the event. Recovery periods are highly dependent on site specific soil and climatic conditions and are calculated using various methods in continuous simulation urban runoff models. The models assume that the recovery period is much longer than the period needed to produce saturation conditions. As noted above, saturation (defined here as when the infiltration rate reaches a constant value) occurred under an hour during these tests. A simple estimate of the time needed for recovery of soil -water levels is given by the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (previously the Soil Conservation Service, SCS) in TR-55 (McCuen 1998). The NRCS developed three antecedent soil -water conditions as follows: • Condition I; soils are dry but not to the wilting point • Condition II: average conditions • Condition III; heavy rainfall, or lighter rainfall and low temperatures, have occurred within the last five days, producing saturated soil. McCuen (1998) presents Table 8 (from the NRCS) that gives seasonal rainfall limits for these three conditions. Therefore, as a rough guide, saturated soil conditions for clay soils may be assumed if the preceding 5-day total rainfall was greater than about 25 mm (one inch) during the winter or greater than about 50 mm (two inches) during the summer. Otherwise, the "other" infiltration conditions for clay should be assumed. Laboratory Compaction Tests Method Previous research (Pitt, et al. 1999b), as summarized above, has identified significant reductions in infiltration rates in disturbed urban soils. More than 150 prior tests were conducted in predominately sandy and clayey urban soils in the Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama, areas. Infiltration in clayey soils was found to be affected by an interaction of soil moisture and compaction, while infiltration in sandy soils was affected by soil compaction alone. The tests reported in the following discussion were conducted under more controlled laboratory conditions and represent a wider range of soil textures and specific soil density values than the previous field tests. Laboratory permeability test setups were used to measure infiltration rates associated with different soils having different textures and compactions. These tests differed from normal permeability tests in that high resolution observations were made at the beginning of the tests to observe the initial infiltration behavior_ The tests were run for up to 20 days, although most were completed (when steady low rates were observed) within 3 or 4 days. 16 Table 7. Soil Infiltration Rates for Different Categories and Storm Durations Sand, Non -compacted 15 minutes 30 minutes 60minutes 120 minutes mean 19.5 17.4 15.2 13.5 median 18.8 16.5 16.5 15.4 std. dev. 8.8 8.1 6.7 6.0 min 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 max 38.3 33.8 27.0 24.0 cov 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 number 36 36 36 36 Sand, Compacted 15 minutes 30 minutes 60minutes 120 minutes mean 3.6 2.2 1.6 1.5 median 2.3 1.5 0.8 0.8 std. dev. 6.0 3.6 2.0 1.9 min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 max 33.8 20.4 9.0 6.8 cov 1,7 1.6 1.3 1.3 number 39 39 39 39 Clay, Dry Non -compacted 15 minutes 30 minutes 60minutes 120 minutes mean 9.0 8.8 10.8 9.3 median 5.6 4.9 4.5 3.0 std. dev. 9.7 8.8 15.1 15.0 min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 max 28.5 26.3 60.0 52.5 cov 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.6 number 18 18 18 18 All other clayey soils (compacted and dry, plus all saturated conditions) 15 minutes 30 minutes 60minutes 120 minutes mean 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 median 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 std. dev. 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.4 min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 max 9.0 9.8 9.0 2.3 cov 1.2 1.9 2.5 2.4 number 60 60 60 60 17 7 T iZ6 D a oil, 03 J w (7 WO 0 -0 R 0 14 Waal" 0 W, Mirom v !� ffli"fut , Figure 8. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for noncompacted, sandy soil, conditions. T- ' "'V 'w VKA �P ? Y 0 Figure 9. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for compacted, sandy soil, conditions. 18 v rry ; 7� ;�• s. b v �R Cf E �11 w! 3 IS it'NPy�w 6� y 11' lOtlk i .N�SyI f 121)rnWm irA".Lr. n Raba ri400 Figure 10. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for dry-noncompacted, clayey soil, conditions. t 0 16 11 it'i ,1ti3r'x � v JM TAX&AB *7 12C rtSY 'bw sc 48 Iktkll�atinn Ral" (0141r) Figure 11. Probability plots for infiltration measurements for wet-noncompacted, dry -compacted, and wet - compacted, clayey soil conditions. 19 Table 8. Total Five -Day Antecedent Rainfall for Different Soil -Water Content Conditions (in.) Dormant Season Growing Season Condition 1 <0.5 <1.4 Condition it 0.5 to 1.1 1.4 - 2.1 Condition III >1.1 > 2.1 Test samples were prepared by mixing known quantities of sand, silt, and clay to correspond to defined soil textures, as shown in Table 9. The initial sample moistures were determined and water was added to bring the initial soil moistures to about 8%, per standard procedures (ASTM D1140-54), reflecting typical "dry" soil conditions and to allow water movement through the soil columns. Table 10 lists the actual soil moisture levels at the beginning of the tests. Three methods were used to modify the compaction of the soil samples: hand compaction, Modified Proctor Compaction, and Standard Proctor Compaction. Both Modified and Standard Proctor Compactions follow ASTM standard (D 1140-54). All tests were conducted using the same steel molds (115.5 mm tall with 105 mm inner diameter, having a volume of 1000 cm'). The Standard Proctor compaction hammer is 24.4 kN and has a drop height of 300 mm. The Modified Proctor hammer is 44.5 kN and has a drop height of 460 mm. For the Standard Proctor setup, the hammer was dropped on the test soil in the mold 25 times on each of three soil layers, while for the Modified Proctor test, the heavier hammer was also dropped 25 times, but on each of five soil layers. The Modified Proctor test therefore resulted in much more compacted soil. The hand compaction was done by gentle hand pressing to force the soil into the mold with as little compaction as passible. A minimal compaction effort was needed to keep the soil in contact with the mold walls and to prevent short-circuiting during the tests. The hand compacted soil specimens therefore had the least amount of compaction. The compacted specimens in the compaction molds were transferred to the permeability test setup. The head for the permeability test was 1.14 meter (top of the water surface to the top of the compaction mold). The water temperature during the test was kept consistent at 75' . Table 9. Test Mixtures During Laboratory Tests Pure Sand Pure Clay Pure Silt Sandy Clayey Loam Silt Loam Clay Mix Loam % Sand 100 72.1 30.1 19.4 30 % Clay 100 9.2 30.0 9.7 50 Silt 100 18.7 39.9 70.9 20 As shown on Table 10, a total of 7 soil types were tested representing all main areas of the standard soil texture triangle. Three levels of compaction were tested for each soil, resulting in a total of 21 tests. However, only 15 tests resulted in observed infiltration. The Standard and Modified Proctor clay tests, the Modified Proctor clay loam, and all of the clay mixture tests did not result in any observed infiltration after several days and those tests were therefore stopped. The "after test" moisture levels generally corresponded to the "saturated soil" conditions of the earlier field measurements. Table l I is a summary table from the NRCS Soil Quality Institute 2000, Urban Technical Note 2, as reported by Ocean County Soil Conservation District. The bulk densities of the laboratory soil test specimens are seen to cover the range of natural soils for the different textures, with the Modified Proctor tests causing conditions that would restrict root growth and the hand placed specimens generally within the ideal range for plant growth, 20 Table 10, Soil Moisture and Density Values during Laboratory Tests Soil Types Compaction Dry Bulk Before Test After Test Method Density Before Moisture Moisture Test (glee) Content (°/n) Content (0/6) Silt Hand 1.508 9.7 22.9 Standard 1.680 8.4 17.9 Modified 1.740 7.8 23.9 Sand Hand 1.451 5.4 21.6 Standard 1.494 4.7 16.4 Modified 1.620 2.0 16.1 Clay Hand 1.242 10.6 NIA Sandy Loam Hand 1.595 7.6 20.2 Standard 1.653 7.6 18.9 Modified 1.992 7.6 9.9 Silt Loam Hand 1.504 8.1 23.0 Standard 1.593 8.1 27.8 Modified 1.690 8.1 27.8 Clay Loam Hand 1,502 9.1 24.1 Standard 1.703 9.1 19.0 Modified 1.911 91 14.5 Clay Mix Hand 1.399 8.2 42.2 Standard 1.685 8.2 N/A Modified 1.929 8.2 NIA Table 11. General Relationship of Soil Bulk Density to Root Growth based on Soil Texture (adapted from NRCS 20011 Soil Texture Ideal bulk density (glcm) Bulk densities that may affect root growth (glcm) Bulk densities that restrict root growth (glcm) Sands, loamy sands <1.60 1.69 >1.80 Sandy loams, loams <1.40 1.63 >1.80 Sandy clay loams <1.40 1.60 >1.75 Loams, clay loams <1.40 1.60 >1,75 Silts, silt loams <1.30 1,60 >1.75 Silt loams silty clay loams <1.10 1.55 >1.65 Sandy clays, silty clays, clay loams 35 to 45% clay) <1.10 1.49 >1.58 Clays >45%cla <1,10 1 1.39 1 >1.47 Results Figures 12 through 17 show the infiltration plots obtained during these compaction tests. Table 12 presents the calculated Horton equation coefficient values for these tests, using the nonlinear curve fitting routines in SigmaStat, (SPSS, Inc_). Also shown on this table are the ANOVA tests for the complete model, indicating if the complete models were significant (or if a constant infiltration value should be used), and if the individual equation coefficients are significant, Only seven of the models were significant at least at the 0.10 level. All of the calculated Fo (initial infiltration rates) were significant, except for the hand compacted sand and the Modified Proctor compacted sand. Fewer Fe (final infiltration rates) and k (rate constants) were significant. 21 Table 12. Horton Equation Coefficients and ANOVA Results Soil Types Compaction Method Overall Significance of Model (ANOVA P value' Overall Model Adjusted Rz Fo Significance of Fc Significance of value Fo coefficient value Fc coefficient (inlhr) (ANOVA P (inlhr) (ANOVA P value)' value)' k value (11hr) Significance of k coefficient (ANOVA P value Silt Hand <0.0001 0.96 3.001 <0.0001 0.717 <0.0001 7290 0.99 Standard 0.99 0 0.034 <0.0001 0.034 <U001 0.13 0.99 Modified 0.45 0.02 0.003 <0.0001 0.003 <0.0001 0.21 0.73 Sand Hand NA 0 3.03 0.97 3.09 1.0 -0.004 1.0 Standard 0,088 0.18 0.60 <0.0001 -0.076 0.99 0.25 0.94 Modified NA 0 3.21 0.91 3.16 1.0 0.004 1.0 Clay Hand <0.0001 0.87 0.157 <0.0001 0.108 <0.0001 0.039 0.015 Sandy Loam Hand <0.0001 0.75 32.0 <0.0001 -350 0.95 -0.007 0.95 Standard <0.0001 0.81 7.15 <0.0001 -209 0.94 -0.007 0.94 Modified 0.028 0.85 2.63 0.002 1.04 0.006 0.060 0.17 Silt Loam Hand 0.022 0.70 2.50 0.0003 1.13 0.0018 4.33 0.15 Standard 0.11 0.96 0.0269 0.0014 0.0276 0.0018 0.052 0,22 Modified 0.12 0,59 0.0015 0,0004 0.0018 <0.0001 0.089 0.54 Clay Loam Hand 0.10 0.37 0.30 <0.0001 0.87 0.99 -0,0038 0.99 Standard 0.50 0 0.0166 <0.0001 0.0154 0.0068 0.021 0.82 ANOVA P values of <0.05 are typically accepted as being significant. If the P vatue is large, the Fc and Fo values are likely very close in values, and the k parameter is likely close to zero and insignificant. Under these conditions, very little changes in the infiltration rates were observed during the duration of the tests. a negative Fc rate values should be considered as zero. 1000 0.1 4- 0,001 Infiltration Laboratory Tests ibr Sand 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth �- Hand compacted - Standard compaction procedure Modified compaction procedure 0.01 0.1 1 10 Time (hours) Figure 12. Sandy soil laboratory infiltration test results. 22 100 0.1 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Sandy Loam Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth Hand compacted Standard compaction procedure i Modified compaction procedure 0.01 0-t 1 10 100 Time (hours) Figure 13. Sandy loam soil laboratory infiltration test results. Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Silt 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth 10 1 0.001 0.Q1 0,1 1 10 Time (hours) Figure 14. Silty soil laboratory infiltration test results. 100 23 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Silty Loam Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth 10 1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Time (hours) Figure 15. Silty loam soil laboratory infiltration test results. Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Clayey Loam Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth 0.001 0.1 1 10 100 Time (hours) Figure 16. Clayey loam soil laboratory infiltration test results. 24 L 100 01 -1- 0.001 Infiltration Laboratory Tests for Hand -Compacted Soil 4" Diameter Test Cylinder, 115 mm Depth 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Time (hours) Figure 17. Comparison of hand compacted test results for sand, silt, and clay. Soil Amendments to Improve Urban Soil Performance Water Quality and Quantity Effects of Amending Soils with Compost Another component of the EPA -sponsored project that included the field infiltration tests was conducted by the College of Forestry Resources at the University of Washington (under the direction of Dr. Rob Harrison) in the Seattle area to measure the benefits of amending urban soils with compost (Pitt, et at. 1999b). It was found that compost -amended soils could improve the infiltration characteristics of these soils, along with providing some fi ltration/sorption benefits to capture stormwater pollutants before they enter the groundwater. Existing facilities at the University of Washington's Center for Urban Horticulture were used for some of the test plot examinations of amended soils. Two additional field sites were also developed, one at Timbercrest High School and one at WoodMoor High School in Northern King County, Washington. Both of these sites are located on poorly -sorted, compacted Glacial Till soils of the Alder -wood soil series. Large plywood bays were used for containing soil and soil -compost mixes. At the UW test facilities, two different Alderwood glacial till soils were mixed with compost. Two plots each of glacial till -only soil. and 2:1 mixtures of soil:compost were studied. The soil -compost mixture rates were also the same for the Timbercrest and Woodmoor sites, using Cedar Grove compost. The two composts used at the UW sites were Cedar Grove and GroCo. The GroCo compost -amended soil at the UW test site is a sawdust/municipal waste mixture (3: l ratio, by volume) that is composted in large windrows for at least 1 year_ The Cedar Grove compost is a yard waste compost that is also composted in large windrows. Plots were planted using a commercial turfgrass mixture during the Spring 1994 season for the Urban Horticulture sites and in the fall of 1997 for the Timbercrest and Woodmoor sites. Fertilizer was added to all plots during plot establishment (16-4-5 N-P2O5-K20) broadcast spread over the study bays at the rate recommended on the product label (0.005 lb fertilizer/112). Due to the poor growth of turf on the control plots, and in order to simulate what would have likely been done anyway on a typical residential lawn, an additional application of 0.005 lb/ft2 was 25 made to the UW control plots on May 25, 1995. At the new test plots at Timbercrest and Woodmoor , glacial till soil was added to the bays and compacted before adding compost. Cedar Grove compost was added at a 2:1 soil:eompost rate and rototilled into the soil surface. Once installed, all bays were cropped with perennial ryegrass. Sub -surface flows and surface runoff during rains were measured and sampled using special tipping bucket flow monitors (Harrison, el a/. 1997). The flow amounts and rates were measured by use of tipping bucket type devices attached to an electronic recorder. Each tip of the bucket was calibrated for each site and checked on a regular basis to give rates of surface and subsurface runoff from all plots. Surface runoff decreased by five to ten times after amending the soil with compost (4 inches of compost tilled 8 inches in the soil), compared to unamended sites. However, the concentrations of many pollutants increased in the surface runoff, especially associated with leaching of nutrients from the compost. The surface runoff from the compost -amended soil sites had greater concentrations of almost all constituents, compared to the surface runoff from the soil -only test sites. The only exceptions being some cations (Al, Fe, Mn, Zn, Si), and toxicity, which were all lower in the surface runoff from the compost - amended soil test sites. The concentration increases in the surface runoff and subsurface flows from the compost - amended soil test site were quite large, typically in the range of 5 to 10 times greater, Subsurface flow concentration increases for the compost -amended soil test sites were also common and about as large. The only exceptions being for Fe, Zn, and toxicity. Toxicity tests indicated reduced toxicity with filtration at both the soil - only and at the compost -amended test sites, likely due to the sorption or ion exchange properties of the compost, Compost -amended soils caused increases in concentrations of many constituents in the surface runoff. However, the compost amendments also significantly decreased the amount of surface runoff leaving the test plots. Table 13 summarizes these expected changes in surface runoff and subsurface flow mass pollutant discharges associated with compost -amended soils, All of the surface runoff mass discharges from the amended soil test plots were reduced from 2 to 50 percent compared to the unamended discharges. However, many of the subsurface flow mass discharges increased, especially for ammonia (340% increase), phosphate (200% increase), plus total phosphorus, nitrates, and total nitrogen (all with 50% increases). Most of the other constituent mass discharges in the subsurface [lows decreased. During later field pilot -scale tests, Clark and Pitt (1999) also found that bacteria was reduced by about 50% for every foot of travel through columns having different soils and filtration media. Table 13. Changes in Pollutant Discharges from Surface Runoff and Subsurface Flows at New Compost -Amended Sites, Compared to Soil -Only Sites Constituent Surface Runoff Discharges (mass), Amended -Soil Compared to Unamended Soil Subsurface Flow Discharges (mass), Amended -Soil Compared to Unamended Soil Runoff Volume 0.09 0.29 Phosphate 0.62 3.0 Total phosphorus 0.50 1.5 Ammonium nitrogen 0.56 4A Nitrate nitrogen 0.28 1.5 Total nitrogen 0.31 1.5 Chloride 0.25 0.67 Sulfate 0.20 0.73 Calcium 0.14 0.61 Potassium 0.50 2.2 Magnesium 0.13 0.58 Manganese 0.042 0.57 Sodium 0.077 0.40 Sulfur 0.21 1.0 Silica 0.014 0.37 Aluminum 0.006 0.40 Copper 0.33 1.2 Iron 0.023 0.27 Zinc 0.061 0.18 26 Selection of Material for use as Soil Amendments Additional useful data for soil amendments and the fate of infiltrated stormwater has also been obtained during media filtration tests conducted as part of EPA and WERF-funded projects (Clark and Pitt 1999). A current WERF-funded research at the University of Alabama also includes a test parallel swale where amended soil (with peat and sand) is being compared to native conditions. Both surface and subsurface quantity and quality measurements are being made. The University of Washington and other Seattle amended soil test plots (Pitt, el aL 1999b and Harrison 1997) examined GroCo compost -amended soil (a sawdust/municipal waste mixture) and Cedar Grove compost -amended soil (yard waste compost). In addition, an older GroCo compost test plot was also compared to the new installations. These were both used at a 2:1 soil:compost rate. As noted previously, these compost -amended soils produced significant increases in the infiltration rates of the soils, but the new compost test sites showed large increases in nutrient concentrations in surface runoff and the subsurface percolating water. However, most metals showed major concentration and mass reductions and toxicity measurements were also decreased at the amended soil sites. The older compost -amended test plots still indicated significant infiltration benefits, along with much reduced nutrient concentrations. Table 14 shows the measured infiltration rates at the old and new compost - amended test sites in the Seattle area (all Alderwood glacial till soil). Table 14. Measured Infiltration Rates at Compost -Amended Test Sites in Seattle (Pitt, et al. 1999b) Average Infiltration Rate cndhr inlhr UW test pbt 1 Alderwood soil alone 1,2(0.5) UW test plot 2 Alderwood soil with Ceder Grove compost old site 7,5(3.0) UW test plot 5 Alderwood soil alone 0.8(0.3) UW test plot 6 Alderwood soil with GroCo compost old site 8.4(3.3) Timbercrest test plot Alderwood soil alone 0.7(0.3) Timbercrest test plot Alderwood soil with Cedar Grove compost new site 2.3(0.9) W oodmoor test plot Alderwood soil alone 2.1 0.8 W oodmoor test plot Alderwood soil with Cedar Grove compost new site 3.4(1.3) The soil that was not amended with either compost had infiltration rates ranging from 0.7 to 2.1 cm/hr (0.3 to 0.8 in/hr). The old compost amended soil sites had infiltration rates of 7.5 and 8.4 cm/hr (3.0 and 3.3 in/hr), showing an increase of about 6 to 10 times. The newer test plots of compost -amended soil had infiltration rates of 2.3 and 3A cm/hr (0.9 to 1.3 in/hr), showing increases of about 1.5 to 3.3 times. The older compost -amended soil test sites showed better infiltration rates that the newer test sites. It is likely that the mature and more vigorous vegetation in the older test plots had better developed root structures and were able to maintain good infiltration conditions, compared to the younger plants in the new test plots. Therefore, the use of amended soils can be expected to significantly increase the infiltration rates of problem soils, even for areas having shallow hard pan layers as in these glacial till soils, There was no significant difference in infiltration between the use of either compost during these tests. Our earlier work on the performance of different media for use for stormwater filtration is useful for selecting media that may be beneficial as a soil amendment, especially in providing high infiltration rates and pollutant reductions. As reported by Clark and Pitt (1999), the selection of the media needs to be based on the desired pollutant removal performance and the associated conditions, such as land use. The following is the general ranking we found in the pollutant removal capabilities of the different media we tested with stormwater: • Activated carbon -sand mixture (very good removals with minimal to no degradation of effluent) 27 • Peat -sand mixture (very good removals, but with some degradation of effluent with higher turbidity, color, and COD) • Zeolite-sand mixture and sand alone (some removals with minimal degradation of effluent) • ) nretech (a cotton processing mill waste) -sand mixture (some removals with minimal degradation of effluent) • Compost -sand mixture (some removals but with degradation of effluent with higher color, COD, and solids) All of the media performed better after they are aged because they have the potential to build up a biofilm that will aid in permanent retention of pollutants. These materials act mostly as ion -exchange materials. This means that when ions are removed from solution by the material, other ions are then released into the solution. In most instances, these exchangeable ions are not a problem in groundwaters. During these tests and for the materials selected, the exchangeable ion for activated carbon was mostly sulfate; while the exchangeable ion for the compost was usually potassium. The zeolite appears to exchange sodium and some divalent cations (increasing hardness) for the ions it sorbs. Conclusions Very large errors in soil infiltration rates can easily be made if published soil maps are used in conjunction with most available models for typically disturbed urban soils, as these tools ignore compaction. Knowledge of compaction (which can be measured using a cone penetrometer, or estimated based on expected activity on grassed areas, or directly measured) can be used to more accurately predict stormwater runoff quantity. In most cases, the mapped soil textures were similar to what was actually measured in the field. However, important differences were found during many of the 153 tests. Table 2 showed the 2-hour averaged infiltration rates and their COVs in each of the four major groupings. Although these COV values are generally high (0.5 to 2), they are much less than if compaction was ignored. These data can be fitted to conventional infiltration models, but the high variations within each of these categories makes it difficult to identify legitimate patterns, implying that average infiltration rates within each event may be most suitable for predictive purposes. The remaining uncertainty can probably best be described using Monte Carlo components in runoff models. The measured infiltration rates during these tests were all substantially larger than expected, but comparable to previous standard double -ring infiltrometer tests in urban soils. Other researchers have noted the general over - predictions of ponding infiltrometers compared to actual observations during natural rains. In all cases, these measurements are suitable to indicate the relative effects of soil texture, compaction, and soil -water on infiltration rates. However, the measured values can be directly used to predict the infiltration rates that may be expected from stormwater infiltration controls that utilize ponding (most infiltration and biofiltration devices), Table 15 summarizes the overall test and analysis results from the laboratory tests. In many cases (those with significant and close Fc and Fo rates, but insignificant k coefficient), uniform infiltration rates would be most appropriate to describe soil infiltration. Some tests also indicated significant model results with differing infiltration equation coefficients (except that many of the rate coefficient values were not significant). Obviously, it is unlikely that any other infiltration model would provide significant coefficients for the conditions where no, or constant infiltration was observed. However, those conditions that generally were described by the Horton equation could likely be modeled successfully using alternative equations. These tests indicate that both texture and compaction were important in determining the infiltration rates, with time since the beginning of rain only important for less than half of the conditions tested_ Additional tests are planned in the field to compare the earlier infiltration rates observed by Pitt, et al. 1999b for a broader range of soil conditions. In addition, in -situ soil density values will be determined for comparison to these laboratory test results. Finally, tests should be conducted to compare rain induced infiltration with double -ring infiltration rates. Our earlier work indicated that the double -ring values could be substantially greater than observed during actual rains, but would be useful for designing biofiltration and other infiltration stormwater controls. 28 The use of soil amendments, or otherwise modifying soil structure and chemical characteristics, is becoming an increasingly popular stormwater control practice. However, little information is available to reasonably quantify benefits and problems associated with these changes. An example examination of appropriate soil chemical characteristics, along with surface and subsurface runoff quantity and quality, was shown during the Seattle tests. It is recommended that researchers considering soil modifications as a stormwater management option conduct similar local tests in order to understand the effects these soil changes may have on runoff quality and quantity. During these Seattle tests, the compost was found to have significant sorption and ion exchange capacity that was responsible for pollutant reductions in the infiltrating water. However, the newly placed compost also leached large amounts of nutrients to the surface and subsurface waters. Related tests with older test plots in the Seattle area found much less pronounced degradation of surface and subsurface flows with aging of the compost amendments. In addition, it is likely that the use of a smaller fraction of compost would have resulted in fewer negative problems, while providing most of the benefits. Again, local studies using locally available compost and soils, would be needed to examine this emerging stormwater management option more thoroughly. Table 15. Significant Infiltration Models Soil Types Compaction Method Dry Bulk Density Before Test !cc No Observed Infiltration during Tests use 0 inlhr Model Not Significant, Use Constant Infiltration Rates inlhr Use Horton (or other) Infiltration Model) (use coefficients shown on Table 12) Silt Hand 1.508 X (k not significant) Standard 1.680 X (0.034) Modified j 1.740 X (0.003) Sand Hand 1.451 X (3.06) Standard 1.494 X (use 0 for Fc, k not significant) Modified 1.620 X (3.19) Clay Hand 1.242 X (all coefficients significant at <0.05) Standard N1A X Modified N/A X Sandy Loam Hand 1.595 X (use 0 for Fc, k not significant) Standard 1.653 X (use 0 for Fc, k not significant) Modified 1.992 X (k significant at 0.17 level) Silt Loam Hand 1.504 X (k significant at 0.15 level) Standard 1,593 X (0.027) Modified 1.690 X (0.0017) Clay Loam Hand 1.502 X (increase rate with time, Fc and k not significant) Standard 1.703 X (0.016) Modified 1,911 X Clay Mix Hand 1.399 X Standard 1.685 X Modified 1.929 X These data can be utilized by stormwater modelers to better predict the behavior of urban soils, by site developers to better plan and compensate for detrimental effects on soils associated with development, and by stormwater managers and drainage engineers for more appropriate designs of stormwater control devices. As an example, SLAMM, the Source Loading and Management Model (Pitt and Voorhees 1995, www.win stain m.com) incorporates this soil information (and Monte Carlo components) in the evaluation of biofiltration and infiltration devices, enabling more efficient evaluations of alternative stormwater controls and development options. It is relatively straight -forward to incorporate the effects of disturbed urban soils in many stormwater management 29 models. However, site -specific calibration and verification monitoring is still highly recommended for the most useful results. Acknowledgements Much of the infiltration measurements were carried out as class projects by University of Alabama at Birmingham hydrology, experimental design, and soil mechanics students. Choo Keong Ong directed the laboratory compaction tests, while Janice Lantrip directed the field infiltration tests. Specific thanks are given to the following students who assisted with the projects summarized here: Robecca Martin, Stacey Sprayberry, Muhammad Salman, Wade Burcham, Brian Adkins, Sarah Braswell, Scott Lee, and Jennifer Harper. Partial support was provided by the Urban Watershed Management Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ for portions of the field measurements, including the amended soil tests. Thomas O'Connor was the EPA project officer and provided valuable project guidance. References Akan, A. 0., Urban Stormwater Hydrology: A Guide to Engineering Calculations. Lancaster_ PA: Technomic Publishing Co_, Inc., 1993, American Society of Testing and Materials. 1996.Annual Book of ASTMStandards. West Conshohocken. PA: ASTM vol. 04.08,1994. Bedient, P. B., and Huber, W.C. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1992. Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G., and Hunter, J.S.. Statistics for Experimenters. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978. Clark, S. and R. Pitt. Stormwater Treatment at Critical Areas, Vol. 3: Evaluation of Filtration Media for Stormwater Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-00/016, Cincinnati, Ohio. 442 pgs. October 1999. Das, B.M, Principals of Geotechnical Engineering Boston: PWS Publishing Co., 1994, Gilbert, R.0., Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing Co_, 1987. Harrison, R.B., M.A. Grcy, C.L. Henry, and D. Xue, Field Test of Compost Amendment to Reduce Nutrient Runoff. Prepared for the City of Redmond_ College of Forestry Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. May 1997. Turf Tec International, Turf Tec Instructions. Oakland Park, Florida. 1989. Dickey -John Corporation. Installation Instructions Soil Compaction Tester. Auburn, Illinois:, 1987. Horton, R-E. "An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity." Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. Vol, 20, pp. 693 — 711. 1939. McCuen, R. Hydrologic Analysis and Design, 2nd edition. Prentice Hall. 1998. Morel-Seytoux, H_J. "Derivation of Equations for Variable Rainfall Infiltration." Water Resources Research. pp. 1012-1020. August 1979, NRCS. Soil Quality Institute 2000, Urban Technical Note 2, as reported by Ocean County Soil Conservation District, Forked River, NJ. 2001. Pitt, R. Small Storm Urban Flow and Particulate Washoff Contributions to autfall Discharges, Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, W1, November 1987. Pitt, R., S. Clark, and K. Parmer. Protection of Groundwaterfrom Intentional and Nonintentional Stormwater Infiltration. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/SR-94/051. PB94-165354AS, Storm and Combined Sewer Program, Cincinnati, Ohio. 187 pgs. May 1994. Pitt, R. and S-R. Durrans. Drainage of Water from Pavement Structures. Alabama Dept. of Transportation. 253 pgs. September 1995. Pitt, R. and J. Voorhees. "Source loading and management model (SLAMM)." Seminar Publication: National Conference on Urban Runoff'Management: Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels, March 30 — April 2, 1993. Center for Environmental Research Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/625/R-95/003. Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 225-243. April 1995. 30 Pitt, P., S. Clark, K. Parmer, and R. Field. Groundwater Contamination from Stormwvter Infiltration. Ann Arbor Press. Chelsea, Michigan. 218 pages. 1996. Pitt, R., S. Clark, and R, Field. "Groundwater contamination potential from stormwater infiltration practices." Urban Water. Vol. 1, no, 3, pp, 217-236. September 1999a. Pitt, R., J. Lantrip, R. Harrison, C. Henry, and D. Hue. Infiltration through Disturbed Urban Soils and Compost - Amended Soil Effects on Runoff Quality and Quantity. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA 600/R-00/016, Cincinnati, Ohio. 231 pgs. December 1999b_ United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service). Soil Survey of Chilton County, Alabama. October 1972. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Alabama. August 1982. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), Soil Survey of Shelby County, Alabama. July 1984. Willeke, G.E., "Time in Urban Hydrology," Journal of the Hydraulics Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 13-29, January 1966. 3t ATTACHMENT D Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering • Materials Testing • Special Inspection • Environmental Consulting June 4, 2009 Mr. Dan Mitzel Hawk's Landing, LLC P.O. Box 188 Mt. Vernon, WA 98273 Geotechnical Investigation — Draft Report Hawk's Landing Lake Washington Blvd. N and I-405 Renton, WA Project No.: 09BO44 Dear Mr. Mitzel: 09V LOPM R . ANM- C1T1' A��c_r 'JUN I RCE.'0 In accordance with your request, Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) has conducted a soils investigation and geotechnical engineering analysis for the referenced project. The results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are contained in the following report. To investigate the site, we excavated seven test pits, obtained soil samples for laboratory testing, conducted one ground water inflow measurement and performed geotechnical engineering analysis. In addition, we reviewed two previous geotechnical engineering reports by others. Water levels were measured in the test pits. We plan to return to the site and measure water levels a second time this coming winter when water levels are estimated to be near their highest levels. An addendum to this report will be submitted with the second set of water level readings at that time. Questions related to soil conditions often arise during design and construction of a project. We would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical consultants during the project planning and construction. We also have a keen interest in providing materials testing and special inspection during construction of this project. We will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these services. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to working with you in the future. If you have any questions concerning the above items, the procedures used, or if MTC can be of any further assistance please call us at (360) 647-60611. Respectfully Submitted, MATERIALS TESTING & CONSULTING, INC. Corporate — 777 Chrysler Drive - Burlington, WA 99233 - Phone (360) 755-1990 . Fax (360) 755-1990 NW Region — 2126 Fast Bakerview Rd., Suite #101 - Bellingham, WA 98226 - Phone (360) 647-6061 - Fax (360) 647-9111 SW Region — 2118 Black Lake Blvd. SW - Olympia, WA 98512 - Phone (360) 534-9777 . Fax (360) 534-9779 Visit our website: www.nttc-inc.net Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09BO44 June 4, 2009 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. •............3 1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Scope.............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 Project Description..............................................................................................................4 3.0 Site Description...................................................................................................................4 3.1 General Description........................................................................................................................................ 4 4.0 Field Exploration.................................................................................................................4 4.1 Excavation & Sampling Procedures...............................................................................................................4 4.2 Laboratory Testing.......................................................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Subsurface Conditions.........................................................................................................5 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................................................6 6.1 General Suitability for Planned Development................................................................................................ 6 6.2 Suitability of Existing Soil for Re -Use as Structural Fill................................................................................ 7 6.3 Recommended Changes to Previous Recommendation by Others................................................................. 7 6.4 Grading..................................................................................... 6.5 Groundwater Control...................................................................................................................................... 8 7.0 Additional Services and Limitations...................................................................................9 AppendixA. Site Plans .............................................................................................................10 AppendixB. Logs of Test Pits..................................................................................................12 Appendix C. Laboratory Results..............................................................................................20 Appendix D. Limitations and Use of This Report....................................................................23 T Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09B044 1.0 Introduction Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 This report presents the results of a soils investigation for the proposed Hawk's Landing complex to be constructed south of the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and interstate 405 in Renton, WA. This investigation was conducted for Hawk's Landing, LLC, who provided written authorization to proceed on May 5, 2009. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to review existing geotechnical reports by others, determine the various soil profile components, determine the suitability of re -using existing soils for structural fill, provide additional ground monitoring points, and provide estimates of ground water inflow for design of a dewatering trench. 1.2 Scope As detailed in our proposal for geotechnical services dated January 22, 2009, the scope of services included: Subsurface Exploration • Excavate 6 test pits • Log the soil and ground water conditions • Obtain representative grab samples of the soils • Measure water levels • Conduct ground water pump -down and record rebound volume vs. time Laboratory Testing • Gradation • Moisture content Geotechnical Report • Subsurface soil conditions • Ground water • Suitability of re -using the existing soil for structural fill • Estimate of ground water inflow rate • Review existing soils reports and amend recommendations if necessary We were not requested to provide an environmental site assessment for this property. Any comments concerning on -site conditions and/or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. Information in this report is not intended to describe, quantify or evaluate any environmental concern or situation. 91 Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09B044 June 4, 2009 2.0 Project Description The project will consist of a 120,000 square foot, five story hotel. The hotel will be of conventional wood frame construction with a cast -in -place concrete parking garage basement with a post -tensioned roof slab. Structural loads had not been developed at the time of this report, however, we understand a similar project you developed in Marysville, WA was designed with shallow spread footings utilizing allowable bearing pressures of 2500 pounds per square foot (psf) and column footings measuring up to 14 by 14 feet in plan dimension. The ground floor elevation will be at elevation 38 feet; the parking garage finish floor grade will be at elevation 28 feet. The existing elevation of the site is about elevation 30 feet. Development plans include a permanent dewatering trench at the site perimeter to allowable excavation for site grading and excavation of footings without ground water intrusion. Two previous geotechnical engineering investigations have been conducted on this site by others. The first report is: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study — Proposed May Creek Office Building, prepared for the Ranier Fund, by Hart Crowser & Associates, Inc., October 8, 1985. The second is: Geotechnical Engineering Study — May Creek Business Park, prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., February 6, 1991. Detailed descriptions of area geology, seismicity and subsurface soil conditions are contained in these reports and will not be repeated here. 3.0 Site Description 3.1 General Description The project site is located on a property measuring approximately 800 feet along Lake Washington Boulevard North 960 feet along 1-405 and about 730 feet along the south property line. The site is currently occupied by wood and metal framed industrial warehouses and support structures and a wood frame administrative and sales office for pre -fabricated homes. Much of the site is paved, but includes gravel surfaced areas and limited brush and trees in peripheral areas along a portion of the northwest property line. A small lawn fronts the sales office and landscaping borders the entry drive accessing the north corner of the site. The site is relatively level, for the most part, increasing in elevation from 30 to 38 feet from north to south. More abrupt topography occurs as road embankment fills along the periphery at Washington Boulevard, the north entrance driveway and Interstate 405. A 13 foot -high fill forms the entrance driveway. 4.0 Field Exploration On January 4, 2009, our geologist visited the site and conducted a subsurface exploration of the soil and groundwater conditions. The field investigation included excavation of seven geotechnical test pits, ground water flow measurements in a perforated casing and measurement of water levels in two existing monitoring wells installed by others. A site plan supplied by the project engineer was used to position the test pits. Test pits were located by pacing and sighting off of existing buildings and landmarks and are presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. 4.1 Excavation & Sampling Procedures Test Pits were excavated using a track -mounted excavator and operator supplied by the client. Grab samples representative of each soil type were obtained from each test pit. The samples were classified in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS, see Appendix B), identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in plastic bags to protect against moisture loss 4 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 and transported to the laboratory for testing. Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 The Logs of Test Fits are shown in Appendix B. To measure the ground water inflow rate, we installed a 6 inch diameter PVC pipe into Test Pit 5 to a depth of 7.0 feet below the ground surface or 3.4 feet below the water level. The pipe was slotted with numerous saw cuts and wrapped with filter fabric. The annular space around the pipe was backfilled with soil excavated from the test pit and four inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of the pipe. The time required to re -fill the casing is summarized in Table 2, below. The pipe was removed at the end of the test and the hole was backfilled. Table 2. Water Table Recovery Rate Elapsed Time (Minutes) Depth Below Ground Surface(Feet) 0 6.67 15 5.00 25 4.25 38 3.75 65 3.50 The results of the water level recovery test indicate a ground water inflow rate of 4.3 gallons per hour. 4.2. Laboratory Testing Upon demobilizing from the field, laboratory testing was conducted on selected samples to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. The laboratory testing included supplementary visual classification, moisture content (ASTM D2216), and Grain Size Analysis (ASTM C 117, C 136). The results of these tests are presented in Appendix D. 5.0 Subsurface Conditions Soil profiles were somewhat variable across the site. Three distinct soil units were observed in the test pits. The identified units are as follows with increasing depth below the surface: Table 1. Observed Soil Units with Decreasing Depth Topsoil (OL, SM) Dark brown organic silt and sandy silt encountered in Test Pit 1, 2 and 4 and 5 to depths of 0.6 to 1.5 feet. The topsoil was overlain by 0.3 feet of gravel fill in Test Pit 4. Uncontrolled Fill (UT, GP, ML, SPSW, SM-ML) Encountered in Test Pits 3, and 5 through 7, Varying from sandy gravel as crushed surfacing top course to sawdust. The fill ranged in thickness from 1.4 to 3.3 feet thick. The sawdust (Test Pit 3) and organic silt (Test Pit 4) and was 2.8 and 1.2 feet thick, respectively. 5 Hawk's Landing Jot .. Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. ,..,.. �.� .� June 4, 2009 Alluvium (GW, GP, SW, SP, SP-SW, SM, ML, OL) Encountered in all test pits to the depths explored (4.5 to 11.2 feet). Encountered as layers 0.5 to 4.4 feet thick with thin interbeds within the layers. Granular soils were loose to dense and fine grained soils were medium stiff to stiff. Naturally occurring wood debris in the form of fine organics, roots and branches was encountered in Test Pits 3 through b. The water table was encountered in all test pits at depths ranging from 2.1 to 7.5'. Two water level monitoring wells had been previously installed by others, one in front of a warehouse building near the east property line and one in a parking area in the north west corner of the property as shown on the site plan. The water level in the warehouse well was measured at 3.4 feet below grade and in the parking area at 1.2 feet. During a previous site visit on January 28, 2009, we measured the water level in these wells at 3.8 feet and 1.3 feet, respectively. We plan on retuming to the site in early June in order to hand auger through selected test pit backfills and measure water Ievels again. 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 General Suitability for Planned Development Based on the results of our field investigation, laboratory tests and review of the two previous geotechnical reports, we conclude that the recommendations contained in the Hart Crowser report for pile foundations are applicable to this phase of the project. We conclude the loads for this structure lie somewhere between those contained in the Hart Crowser report (7 to 8 story, east -in -place concrete building with column loads of 220 to 1250 kips) and the Earth Consultants report (2 story warehouse/office buildings with 150 kip column loads and 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot perimeter footing loads). The Earth Consultants report recommended pre -loading the site and providing shallow spread footing foundations for support. The Hart Crowser report recommended auger -cast concrete piles of about 50 feet deep. We conclude that the loads for your structure will be on the order of 500 kips per column and that foundations gaining their support from denser soils at depth will be required to limit differential and total settlements to tolerable levels. This is especially true because of the variable nature and density of the fill and alluvial soils, the relatively shallow water level, the presence of organic material in the soil and the design ground floor elevation of the structure. We understand that for deep foundations, you are considering aggregate piers for soil improvement in conjunction with spread footing foundations. Aggregate piers may be a viable solution for this site. These systems are typically designed by specialty contractors based on soils information supplied by others. They may be able to design a system based on the existing reports cited above. However, it will be beneficial if additional geotechnical information specific to this site and project were obtained for design of deep foundations. MTC would be keenly interested in providing you and your aggregate pier contractor with additional subsurface information at this site. We would be pleased to meet with you and your aggregate pier designer to plan the additional geotechnical investigation. r1i Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. .lob No.: 09B044 June 4, 2009 6.2 Suitability of Existing Soil for Re -Use as Structural Fill The soil encountered in at 1.8 feet in Test Pit 1 and 4.5 feet in Test Pit 2 consist of sandy gravel and silty sand, respectively. These soils are suitable for re -use as structural fill provided the recommendations presented below are followed: Native soil used as structural fill should be near optimum moisture according to the modified Proctor test method (ASTM D1557) and as determined by MTC. Soils not meeting optimum moisture content should be moisture conditioned by wetting or drying prior to placement. Soil with a moisture content exceeding 3% of optimum should be spread in thin lifts or wind rows, aerated, and turned over until it reaches near -optimum moisture conditions. The shallow soils encountered in the remaining test pits vary considerably in makeup from very organic fill to sand. Some of these soils may be suitable for re -use as structural fill, but since the deposits appear to be isolated selective excavation will be required during grading if any are to be re -used as structural fill. 6.3 Recommended Changes to Previous Recommendation by Others Because the building pad will be in about two feet of cut, no surcharge fill is required. However, prior to placing the floor slab, MTC should check the condition of the exposed subgrade to check for the presence of unsuitable, soft or deflecting soils. Where these soils are encountered, they should be removed down to firm unyielding soils and replaced with compacted structural fill. The recommendations for grading and fill placement presented in the previous reports should be followed with the exception that all structural fill should be compacted to 95% of maximum density in accordance with the ASTM D 1557 modified compaction test method. 6.4 Grading Excessively organic and loose soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads. This is detrimental to the behavior of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills and foundations placed upon them. Therefore, excessively organic and loose soils should be stripped from these areas and wasted or stockpiled for later use. If very loose soils are encountered underlying the recommended stripping depths, these soils will need to be re -compacted or replaced with structural fill. Table 2. Stripping Depth Test Location Reference Location Stripping Depth (Feet) TP-1 820' N, 270' W of SE Property Corner 1.0 TP-2 835' N, 325' W of SE Property Corner 0.6 TP-3 275' N, 385' W of SE Property Comer 33 TP4 110' N, 60' W of SE Property Comer 1.5 TP-5 240' N, 40' W of SE Property Corner 0.3 TP-6 390' N, 25' W of SE Property Corner 0 TP-7 690' N, 10' W of SE Property Corner 1.0 Exact depths of stripping should be adjusted in the field to ensure that the entire root or loose zone is removed. The final exposed subgrade should be inspected by MTC to verify that all organic material has been removed. Any soft spots or deflecting areas should be removed to firm unyielding soils and replaced with structural fill. 7 Hawk's Landing Job No_! 09BO44 6.5 Groundwater Control Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 As described above, ground water and perched groundwater seeps were observed at all test pit locations during this investigation. Flow measured in Test Pit 5 averaged 4.3 gallons per hour. Ground water in the Earth Consultants report was measured at 2.0 to 3.5 feet deep in February, 1991. The Hart Crowser report indicated water levels of 5 to 9.5 feet deep in August 29, 1985; water levels measured in two of the borings on September 5, 1985 indicated water levels higher by 1.3 and 2.4 feet. Ground water infiltration will affect construction in even shallow excavations on this site. Water level will vary seasonally. We understand the project civil engineer will be designing a dewatering trench in order to draw down the water level on this site in order to mitigate dewatering problems during and after construction. Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09Bo44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 7.0 Additional Services and Limitations We recommend that MTC be engaged to review the plans and specifications to check that the recommendations presented in this and previous reports are adhered to. MTC should also test and evaluate the exposed subgradcs before placing slabs or structural fills to determine that the soils meet the required bearing capacities and that unexpected conditions are not present. Monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fills and that they are properly placed and compacted. MTC should be present during foundation installation to check that the expected bearing soils are as described in the previous soils reports and assumed by the designer and to make recommendations for modifications if necessary. The work described in this report is considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the site development. MTC should be notified of any revision in the plans for the proposed structure from those presented in this report so that we may determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. if deviations from the noted subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, they should also be brought to our attention. MTC warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained in this report, have been developed after being prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practice in the fields of soil mechanics and engineering geology. No other warranties are implied or expressed. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Hawk's Landing, LLC and their retained design consultants. Findings and recommendations within this report are for specific application to this site and proposed project. [ems 7/'4110 Randolph R. Ross, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Hawk's Landing Job No,: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix A. Site Plans �0 ond 10 Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No-: 095044 June 4, 2009 5� 0 too 200 300 �ji St Scale : Feet 'Pest Pit Location (Typ.) q * �MK Of irk 1 i Y : n�". l \�crl 7A Existing Monitoring Well (Typ.) 6 rA.A` !f 7_ LLJ 1 r o r x �1A z ! ! 3 4 Scale : Feet l y1lr .. ]I ili77 _C. _ _ • l Ref Grading Plan By: Sound Development Group Dated: May, 2009 Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 09B044 June 4, 2009 Appendix B. Logs of Test Pits ilniirptiCnil C'laccification SVStem Chart Major Divisions Graph USCS Typical Description Coarse Grad Bed Soils Gravel More Than 504/u of Coarse Frao- tiDll Retained Clean Grave 6 o '�. ° GW Weil g cd Gravels, Gravel-Saod Mir - Cures R 0 f - i i .\• • GP Poorly Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Mixtures v GM Sil ty Gravels, Gravel -Sand -Silt Mixtures More Than 50% Retained On No. 200 Sieve On No. 4 Sieve GravelsWith Fines 4' d: GC CffiyeyGrave Is, Gravel Sard-Cffiy Mix - hues SW Well -graded Sands, Gravelly Sands Sand More Than Clean Sands SP Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands 50% of Coarse Frac- tion Passing Slyj SihySands, Sand -Silt Mixttaes No. 4 Sieve Sands With Fires SC Clayey Sands, Clay Mixtures Fine Grained M[, Inorganic Silts, rock Flour, Clayey Silts Soils With Low P Wit ity Silts & Clays Liquid Limit Less Than 50 CL Inorganic Clays of Low To Meditan Plasticity More 11san 50% Passing The No. 200 Sieve OL Organic Silts and Organic Silly Clays a f Low Plasticity i NM inorganic Silts ofModerate Plasticity Silts & Clays Lquid Lirrdt CH Inorganic Clays of I ligla Plasticity Greater Than 50 i OH Organic Chys Arid Sills ofMedittmto � HighPffisticiry Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, Humus, Soils with Predominantly Organic Content c..tl r.,neGeror.�., Granular Soils Fine-grained Soils Density SPT BLOtveoertt Consistency SPT Blow aunt Very Loose 04 Very Soft 0-2 Loose 4-10 Soft 24 Medium Dense ID-3D Firm 4-8 Dense 30-50 Stiff 845 Very Dense 7 50 Very Stiff 15-30 Hard 7 30 f_.n in Cis Sampler avmboI De sedad-0n WStandard Penetration Test (SPT) ® Shelby Tube ® Grab or Bulk eCalifornia (3.0" GD.) Modified California (25' D.D.) 5trathiraphic Contact Distinct Stratigraphic Contact Between Sail Strata Gradual Change Between Soil Strata Approximate location of slratagaphic change 1W Groundwater observed at lime of exploration 4 Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezonteter Perched water Observed at Line or explorat ian TU—Bri.— Description % Trace >5 Some 5-12 Wkh >12 DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE GRAIN SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE Bouklers > 12" 7 12" Larger than a basketball Cobbles 3 - 12" 3 - 12" Fist to basketball Gravel Coarse 314 - 3" 314 - 3" Thumb to first Fine p4 - 3/4" 0.19. 0.75" Pea to thumb Sand Coarse # I o - #4 0.079 - 0.19" Rock salt to pea Medium #40 - #10 0.017- 0.079" Sugar to rock salt Fine 4200 - k40 0.0029 - 0.017" Flour to Sugar Fires Passing 9200 < 0.0029" Flour and smaller 12 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 1 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started 5-8-09 Renton, WA Date Completed 5-6-Og Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 829 N, 279 W of SE Property Corner Logged By :A Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation m e, c Surf. y a Elev. on as DESCRIPTION v p 34 � (� to 0 34 Dark brown organic SILT (Topsoil) OIL 1 33 -" Grey GRAVEL with sand, medium dense to dense, wet, rounded gravel to 3" diameter Well defined rust line 5" thick at 1.5' wilh heavy mottling below 2 32 with interbedded sandy layers at 2.3' Seepage at 2.4' GW 3 31 Moderate seepage at 3.4' i> Stabilized water level at 3.3' 4 30 Bottom of boring at 4.5'. Pit walls cave readily below 2'. 5 29 6 28 7 27 8 26 9 25 10 24 11 23 12 13 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 2 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Dale Started 5-8-09 Renton, WA Dale Compfeted 541-09 Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location 835N, 325W of SE Property Corner Logged By A. Isle Geotechnical Site investi ation m m w Surf a Elev. v o DESCRIPTION E a a0.5 GO N 0 Dark brown organic SILT (Topsoil) OIL 30 Grey brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist, with some gravel, light mottling throughout 1 SM 2 29 SP Grey SAND, medium dense, wet, with some silt and trace gravel, light mottling throughout 2 Gray sandy GRAVEL, medium dense to dense, saturated, sandy upper 0.2% rounded to subrounded gravel to 3" diameter, with moderate matting throughout With sandy (SW) layers throughout 1 ❑ 28 With interbeds of heavily mottled silty sand throughout. Root zone to 2-2.0 GW Seepage at 2.0' 3 27 4 Grey to blue gray fine SAND, medium dense, wet, with silticlay interbeds, mottling to 3.5' 26 2 5 SIP25 6 24 Bottom of boring at G.T. Pit walls cave readily below f .3'. 7 23 6 22 9 21 1a 20 1i 19 12 14 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 3 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started : 5-8-09 Renton, WA Data Completed : 5-8-09 Sampling Method : Grab sampling Location : 275' N, 386 W of SE Property Corner Logged By : A, Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation u- U N m a J C Surf. _ m Elev. m DESCRIPTION :? 33.5 [n GP ;F' h,." i, f��tip;a Grey brown sandy GRAVEL, dense, moist 33 Uncontrolled FILL, with gravel and construction debris (wood, brick, plastic), matrix soil is brown silty sand, loose 1 32 Sawdust layer a1 1.5% 1' thick on south side of pit and 1.8' on north side 2 OF 1 ❑ 31 3 3o Green grey silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist with trace roots and fine organics to 5.6' 4 29 5 28 1 Perched seepage at 5.9' 6 Sm 27 7 26 Very slow seepage at 7.5' all sides of pit; 1" accumulation of water in bottom of pit after 5 minutes S 25 24 Bottom of boring at 9.3'. Pit walls cave readily below 1.3'. 10 23 11 22 12 IN Hawk's Landing Job No.; 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing Sr Consulting, Inc. Lag of Test Pit 4 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing pate Started : 5-8-09 Renton, WA Dale Completed 5-8-09 Sampling Method Grab sampling Location 110' N, 60' W of SE Property Corner Lagged By A. Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation m u_ .5 surf. d y Elay. U a DESCRIPTION € a Q 35 co 0 35 GP Sandy GRAVEL. (Crushed Surfacing Top Course) Brawn sandy organic SILT, soft, moist, with roots to 114" diameter (Topsoil) 1 34 GL Grey SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist to saturated, rounded gravel to 1" diameter, with sandy and silty sand layers throughout 2 33 5P water level at 2.6' 1 ❑Perched 3 32 Brown SILT, medium stiff, moist, with trace organics 4 31 MIL 5 3a 1 ❑ yjfii?,A'ii I Grey sandy GRAVEL, medium dense, saturated JikhhA'7:1{nl:fi $ 29 GP �kFhSj; t Grey to brown SILT with sand, medium stiff, moist, large naturally occuring wood debris north side of test pit from 6.5 to 7.5' 7 28 i ML $ 27 �E 9 26 I Brown organic sandy SILT with clay, medium stiff, moist, with some wood debris and roots to 6" 3 ❑ diameter 10 25 OIL 11 24 SIP Grey SAND, medium dense, moist Bottom of test pit at 11.2'. Pit walls cave readily at 5.4' 12 16 Hawk's Landing Soh No.: 09B044 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 5 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started : 5-8-09 Renton, WA Date Completed : 5-8-09 Sampling Method :Grab sampling Location : 240' N, 40' W of SE Property Corner Logged By : A. Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation m >L c Surf. U = ai a -J a Elavr v a DESCRIPTION o a4 n p 34 SM Dark brown silty SAND (Topsoil) Brown crushed surfacing TOP COURSE, with roots to 1% plastic at 1' OL 1 33 Dark brown sandy SILT, medium stiff, moist, with trace gravel ML I� 2 32 Red silty SAND medium dense to dense, wet, with gravel (Uncontrolled Fill) SP Grey SAND, medium dense, wet SP 3 31 Brown silty SAND, medium dense, heavy mottling decreasing at 37 Sparse roots to 3.5' t ❑ 4 30 SM 5 29 i Blue grey SAND with some gravel Becomes coarser with depth SP-SW 8 2a Bottom of test pit at 6.5'. 7 27 e 26 9 25 10 24 11 23 12 17 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 6 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started : 5-8-D9 Renton, WA Date Completed : 5-8-D9 Sampling Method Grab sampling Location 390' N, 25' W of SE Property Corner Logged By A. Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation as u_ U Surf. = m a Elev. v o DESCRIPTION E a3` p 34 ? rm 0 3a ASPHALT PAVEMENT grown gravelly SAND, dense, moist SW 1 33 ML I Brown SILT with some sand, medium stiff, moist, with some roots throughout, with (race gravel Grey brown SILT, medium stiff to stiff, moist, heavily mottled throughout 2 32 El 3 31 ML i 4 30 I'I Brown to grey brown SAND, medium dense, moist to saturated, with gravel to 2' diameter. heavily mottled throughout 5 29 SW 6 26 ML Dark grey brown SILT, stiff to medium stiff, moist, with some sand, with small roots to 1/8" diameter throughout, with small pockets of organic debris (partially decomposed wood) 3 27 Bottom of test pit at 7.0'. a 26 9 25 10 24 11 23 12 18 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit 7 (Page 1 of 1) Hawk's Landing Date Started : 5-6-09 Renton, WA Date Completed : 5-8-09 Sampling Method Grab sampling Location : 690' N, 10' W of SE Property Corner Logged By A. Isle Geotechnical Site Investigation a: � m LL Surf. U = y Q Elev v ¢a DESCRIPTION p 32 Cm7 rn 0 32 ASPHALT PAVEMENT Brown sandy SILT, soft, moist, mottled with roots throughout (Fill) SM-ML I 1 31 i Grey sandy SILT, soft to medium stiff, moist, heavily mottled throughout, trace small roots (Fill) SM-ML Light brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist, heavily mottled, with trace gravel 2 30 Pit wails cave readily below 2' 1 ❑ 3 29 1 at 3.0% small interbeds of sand, slow seepage SM 4 28 t 5 27 fi 26 Grey SAND with trace gravel, medium dense, saturated, sand fine grained Sp 3 Bottom of test pit at 6.5'. 7 25 S 24 9 23 10 22 1t 21 12 19 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Appendix C. Laboratory Results Sieve Report Project: Hawks Landing Date Received: 8-May-09 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project #: 09B044 Sampled By: A. Isle GW, Well -graded Gravel with Sand Client: Hawks Landing, LLC Date Tested: 15-May-09 Sample Color: Source: TP-1 @ 1.8 Tested By: T. Baggerman Brown Sample#: 090061 Dt = 0.218 mm % Gravel = 66.0% Coe IT of Curvature, C, = 0.32 eci (cations Dr mm % Sand = 32.3% Coeff. ofUnifannity, C I= 0.02 No Specs D„ 1= 2.660 mm %Silt& Clay= 1.7% Fineness Modulus= 5.62 Sample Meets Specs ? Yes Dlti,l= 11.178 mm Fracture %= n/a Liquid Limit= 0.0% D(6o)= 14.603 mm Moisture %, as sampled - Wa Plastic Limit = 0.0% D,q,t= 34.920 mm Plasticity Index - 0.0% Actual Interpolated Grain Size DistributionSieve Cmmlative Percent Cumulative Percent Sh; Specs Specs US Metric I Passing Passing Max Min 100° „% �0M+, a n�R sz 6t®s F +t ir17 , z - r - 100.0% &W" 150.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 4.00" I W.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% III I I I :,III I r I I 3.00" 75.00 100% 100 TIC, 0.0% ° 11 1 1 I I I I f I l r l I I `I r ,_ I-' - - - ' g l l l _ r _ _ 111-1 1 _r _ 1 _ _' i l i l , I 1 . l_ _ 90.0% 2.50" 63.00 1QD% 100.0% 0.0°{° III I I IIrli I I IIr„ r 1 I '11I I I 1 1 f III I I I I 'll 11 l I I lII I I I I I III I I I I I 2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0% 0.01/° 1 I . 1 1 1 1 1 1 , rim I I I I [ I I I I i I I 1,75 45.00 laa°/P 1QQ. ll% 0.0%8D°% ! l . _ JIJ 1-1 J -1 - - - 411 I-1 J -! . L _ LILIJ 1 J III j r III' I II '!III 1,50" 37.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% I r l 111 1 I I I I11 Il 1 1 r 1 1 I 1111 1 I 1111 1 I I 1.25" 31.50 100% 100.0% 0.0% rD°� TIT„ 7 -1- r - - rri171 ; -1 7D.0% 1.00" 25.00 79% 79% 100 0% 0.0%r l, I, I III I I I I I I r r 1 I 1 I 1 718" 22.40 76% 100.01/0 0.0% 1 I 314" 19.D0 72 fp 72%B 1DQ, 0°/ 0.0°% 60°�!_ �, _1 _I _ l l _I _ r_- III 1 1 1 1 I__ I, r I -r l 00.0°A 1111 1 I I I� II II I I I I 11I I I I -I 518" 16.00 64% 100.0% a.�/° G •�j 112" 12-50 54% 54% l(}a.a% 0.0% 0 50 IJ LrJ-r JIJ I_IJ _I_ L _ _ 11t -I J J J J _ L _ 50.00f 3/8" 9.50 44% 44% 100.0% 0.0% 11 IL11111 'III -I1111 1/4" 6.30 100.0% 0.0% I I I I I , I I I, rlll I I I I 94 4.75 34% .17% 34% 1D0.11% 0.0°% 40°% �17 n n r11 -I r" Y1T1 y 1 I r r- 40.0% 2.360 29% too 0% 0.0%r iill`I#8 #1D 2.00D0 29% 29% 1Da.a% a.0% 3D% I- 1 I 1 1J1_I _ 111 1 1 1 _I :I f I r j I I_ I _ I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I •rO 'r111 I I I I f.I11I I I 1 30.0% 416 1-180 27°% 100.0% 0.0% , 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 11 I •-.1, 1 1 .11 1 1 1 1 11 920 0,950 26% 26% 100.0% 0.0% 20% _1 _, iI J �r 1111 1 _I J L_ 20.0°I #30 0.600 20% 100.0% 0.0% r 1 n l 1 1 1 940 0.425 16% 16% 100. 0% 0.0°% •�I I I r l l I I f 1 I r! I I I I I 950 0.300 9% 100.0% 0.0% 10% I:ni-I-T--Zr-}r17-I-r- u1r l •aa r--rI7I7lr-r- 10.0% #6D D.250 6°% G°% IDQ.Q% 0.Q% II I I I Ir II I I (III I I lryaI -I,I I r I r !I I I I I I r1111 I I #84 0-180 4% 100.0°/, 0.{1% p% q, 0.0% #I00 0,150 3% 3% 100.0% 0.0% 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 #140 0,106 2% 100.0% 0.0% 9170 0.090 2% 100.0% 0.0% Particle Size (mm) #200 0.075 1.7% 1.7% 100. 0% 0.0°% + ste sua -. .. rd.a spaa -y-alasr« aaaa�.aaa�Se cRquas C n 5 a&r irc c hTslnuil5ps�pes P5, 1996A6 Icgadarg --pons is reserved pending nor -imam appmwi. Comments: 7 Reviewed by: 20 • Hawk's Lancing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. June 4, 2009 Sieve Report Project: Hawks Landing Date Received: 8-May4)9 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project N. 09B044 Sampled By: A. Isle SM. Silty Sand Client: Hawks Landing, LLC Date Tested: 15-May-09 Sample Color: Source: TP-2 @ 4.5 Tested By: T. Baggerman Gray Sample#: 090063 P,' ,- 0.013 Into % Gravel - 0.0% Coe,f . of Curvature, Ct- = 0.72 Specifications i�ui)- 0.027 mm %Sand - 72.2% Coeff.ofUniformity, C„= 0.28 No Specs [A lf)I=0.088 mm %Silt&.Clay =27,9% FinenessModulus =0.89 Sample Meets Specs ? Yes DIsoI= 0.191 mm Fracture %= Wa Liquid Limit = 0.0% EII ,)= 0.232 mm Moisture%, assampled = n1a Plastic Limit- 0.0% 1)190}= 0S19 mm Plasticity Index - 0-0% Cumulative Sieve Size Percent US Metric Passiniz Cumulative Percent Specs passinle Max 6, 00" 150.00 100% 100. 0"/O 4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0% 3,0011 75.00 l00°/ 100.0% 2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% 2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0% 1.75" 45.00 100% 100.0% 1.501, 37.50 100% 100,0% 1.25" 31.50 100% 100,0% 1,001, 25.00 100% 100.0% 7/91, 22.40 100% 100.0%a 3/4'r 19.00 100% 100.0% 518" 1&00 100% 100.0% UT' 12.50 100% 100-0% 318" 9.50 100% 100.0% 114" 6.30 100% 100.0% #4 475 100% 100.096 #8 2.360 1o0% 100.9% 410 2.000 100% 100% 100.0% #16 1.180 100% 100.0% #20 0.850 100% l00% 100.0% #30 0.600 97% 100.01110 #40 0.425 95% 95% 100.0% #50 0-100 73% 100.0% #60 0.250 65% 65% 100 0% #80 0.180 47% 1000% 9100 0.150 40% 40% 100,0% #140 0,106 33% 100.0% #170 0.090 30% 100.0% #200 0.075 27.8% 27,8% 100,0% ,,4�d ft -FM, v em -d p.rd.S our a.rnm app-l. Comments: Reviewed by: =�f - Specs 0.0% 0, 0% 0, 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00/ 0 MI. 0fr/. 0.0% 0.0% 00% 00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.M/a 0.0% 0.0% OA% Crain Size Distribution gg 400% •� r•F..;.: �:..,.,.r ti 1--F •••••••sit , Ar;Mr + ir17 Y , - r - 100.0% I rill 11 I �II IIr I I I 'ill}#r I I .IIIII I I I 1 gyp/ I I r, I I'_I_I_r_I_I r r l l I 1 III II i l l 1 'III_I_I_I_I I II 11 1 1 1 r: ,fll I I I �I I11 1 1 I 'lull I I_ 1111111-i-- 1 1 1 I -I �I I - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � IIII I I I i �Op� 80% I I l, I I I I LIJ-I-4--AIJ I I I I I I I I 1 1 I r 1 I r_I-1-L-_'4 I I I! i I I I 'IIr I I I I I IIII I I I , IJa-1---LILI,J J_I- _ a f l i l I I 1 11 1 r l l I ]Il 810% 70% 1 1 1 1 I I .1,111 1 I I r Fin -I-1 I l r r i I I , 11111 I I, 1171-17-1-f--' 'IIII 1 1` IIII r l l I 'ill l l I IIII 11 1 1 TIT" I r--'rlrlrll -r- 70.0% IIII I I I '1111 I r 1, rill .11111 1 1 r I I I I I r 60% lit l l I I 111-I f -1- 1 _ -I 11 l l I I -1� _ I _I -1 _.11111 II I �Illl l I• I rIII I I _ 1_I I _I r .- _ 1111 I I I I - - 'IIII I I I I IIII 11.1 ...1 60.0% IIII I � III I I I I 'II I1 1 1 I III I I 11 I III I I I � .R IIII 1 I IIII I I I ' I I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 I I .N 50% 50.0% d III l I r 1 i 1 1 I I IIII r . ' I E r 1 1 I I 4 IIII I I 1 'IIII I I I I IIII 1 1 r i' i r r r f � I 1 I r I r f r I I C '• 40% rl rr-l-1- - IIII I I I r 7r11-I'1 '1 ' I ,III I I I I III I , 1:1: , , r1n 7 r - r IIII I I I I \'11111 11 1 40.0a/ IIII I I I r :IIII I I I I 11 1 1 1 I I 1 \\\4I 11 I 1 1 1 1 a 30h I I I I_I -I -I - 1 1,- 1- _ q 30. IIr 11-I-f 1--'IIII I I 111111 i �,111 1 1 10/ II11 I r I 'IIII I I I I 1111 r l I I �11t1 l I! I 20% ill 1 1 I r I LI_I_r. 1 'IIII 1 1 I 1 IIII r l 1 I I I I I I I I I JIII JJ-i--L1L J -L_ 1 i l I I I I 20.0% 10% [11111 I I I I I I ! nrrl 1-r--711rr1-1-r- If 111 I r I �II 11 11 1 I 'lull I I I II111 I I r 1111 1 I I I 'IIII I I I i 11rn17-r--nil -r- 'IIII 11 1 r 10.0% 0% IIr I I I I I :,I l l l l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I r 1 DO.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 001 Particle Size (mm) + .keu 5va -nnaa Sr.. -4 -Mm Sp- � �Siere Ravlls IEpMp ale ArhrnillEd as 111E GnnGdpdj� PI^IralY of dieda •rd auar¢rizatien Inrp¢b:ic>bon¢ f akl¢mmlu, mrrr L•inrs ore darh f-r 21 Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.- 09BO44 June 4, 2009 Moisture Content - ASTM C-566, ASTM D-2216 & AASHTO T-265 Sample 113 Location Tare Wet+Tare Dry+ Tare Wg1.Of Moisture Wgt. Of Soil % Moisture 090061 TP-1 @ 1.8 912.4 35027 3300.2 202,5 2387.8 8.5% 090062 TP-2 2.2 918.6 3024.0 2805.5 218.5 1886.9 11.6% 090063 TP-2 @ 4.5 849.4 2641,0 2326.0 275.0 1476.6 18.6% 090064 TP-7 @ 2.0 747,5 2698.6 2281.0 417.6 1533.5 27.2% Ail Iwlh apply a[ir sa ravl bamm� nd wle,kh kaed. Avv mvwl pn[x[ros rn •I'Krt •. Ae pvbk vnd wrrheu, vl [epartv ro ah,KYr>d a Ik ce[fdm[wl pvpvry of tlimrA •d uvdwr;a M1ov fur publiabon olah ••R•K •�•duviorts v[ al••*• 6�m m [rpdviRaw gene [eeerW prNinpam +vri Kn vppnwvd. Reviewed by: 22 Hawk's Landing Job No.: 09BO44 Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. .tune 4, 2009 Appendix D. Limitations and Use of This Report The following is adapted from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report" provided by ASFE The Best People On Earth; www,asfe.org; and "The Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Services Standards of Care with Respect to Mold Potentials 1998 — 2003" by ASFE The Best People On Earth. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) services are structured to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, prepared solely for the client, no one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. This report may not be applied to any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors The scope of study for which this geotechnical report was prepared considered several unique, project - specific factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless MTC 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. Typical changes that can reduce the reliability and application of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; compositions of the design team; or project ownership. Changes made to the project following completion of this report should be made known to MTC so that MTC can assess the potential impact of such changes and make any necessary modifications to our interpretations and recommendations in writing. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report may be affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. MTC should always be contacted to determine if the report is still reliable. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration utilizes test borings and/or test pits that are widely spaced over ground area relevant to a unique scope of work; additionally, soil samples are taken at variable spacing over the depth of exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions may exceed that of the site investigation program. MTC reviews field and laboratory data and then apply professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual site subsurface conditions may significantly deviate from those indicated in this report. Retaining MTC to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 23 + Hawk's Landing Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Job No.: 098044 June 4, 2009 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. The recommendations in this report are not final; they are developed principally from the judgment and opinion of MTC staff. MTC's recommendations are contingent upon observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. MTC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if MTC does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnicai Report May be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the project design team not employed by MTC can result in costly problems. This risk may be reduced by having MTC confer with appropriate members of the design team after submittal of this report. MTC should be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. To avoid misinterpretation of this report by contractors, MTC may be retained to participate in pre -bid and pre -construction conferences, and by providing construction monitoring. 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 report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproductions are acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors A Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly 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 report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposed of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with MTC and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific type 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 you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Limitations Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, MTC includes limitations in this report. Read the limitations closely and contact MTC if you have any questions regarding these provisions. Environmental Concerns Are Not Addressed In This Report The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental site assessment study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations. 24 ATTACHMENT E r , r Lv�'- Ll tI L I L L i PREPARED FOR WELD DEVELOPMENT" COMPANY MAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 February 6, 1991 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1.805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East Z6th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272-6608 r TABLE OF CO h"I'ER7S E-5144 6d PA E INTR O DUC7'I O N General......................................................................................................................................... 1 ProtectDescription ............................................................................................... .............................. I SITECONDITIONS........................................................................................................................ 2 Furfa e............................................................................................................................................. 2 lSubsurface ..................................................................................................................................... ? Groandwater....................................... ................................. ............................ ....................... ,............ 2 r Seismic Considerations................................................................................................................... "a J DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... ................... ............. ................................ I...... [ General......................................................................................................................................... Site Preparation and General EarthworL......................................................... .......................... Pre -Load and Surcharge Proem ............................................................................................ Foundations............................................................................................................................. ..... Slab -on -Grade Floors...... ...................................... ........ ...... ............... ...... .................................. Excavationsand�Slopes.....................................................................................................,........... SiteDrainage ......... ................................... .......................................... .......................... ,................... Utilities........................................... ............................................................................................... PavementAreas............................................................................................................................. LIMITATIONS.. ............................................................................................................................. .... AdditionalServlces....................................................................................................................... APPENDICES LW Appendix A - Field ExpIoration Appendix B - Laboratory Testing L L 3 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 9 10 Earth Consultants, Inc. A ILLUSTRATIONS r � E-514J4 L4 Plate 1 Vicinity Map # Plate 2 Test Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Typical Monitoring Plate Detail Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 5 Typical Utility Trench Fill Plate Ai Legend Plate A2 through A13 Boring Logs LJ Plates B1 and B2 Grain Size Analyses Plate B3 Atterberg Limits Test Data Plates B4 and B5 Consolidation Test Data Lj 4 -Z Earth Consultants, Inc. February b, 1991 Wells Development Company 11 100 Northeast Eighth Street Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attention: Mr. David Grein Gentlemen: a -i Consultants Inc. F-5 144 We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, May Creek Business Park, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, wad engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 30, 1990 proposal and authorized by Mr. Wells on January 8, 1991. Our study indicates that the site is underlain by approximately one to three feet of loose to mediurn- dentse fill consisting of silty sand and sand x ith gravel. Underlying the fill., a soft saturated sandy silt, loose to dense silty sand and some organic silt was encountered to depths of 12 to 16 feet. Below these strata., dense to very dense silty sand and stiff silts were encountered to a maximum exploration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, and the soil conditions encountered, it is our opinion that the proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread footing foundations, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program is completed first. All the foundation footings should bear upon at least two feet of compacted structural fill after the fill induced settlements have been completed. =5 - 136;h Place H E , S612 Q1. BQllavuE. WasningWn �8005 222 E. 261,h Steel. 5uue 101 TItcma.'.;'a hmrnon 98.:1 t 9G98 GI✓OTECHINTICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ;A a� cfeek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page ? We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we loot: forward to working with you in the future phases. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Aaron McMichael Staff Engineer Theodore J. Scbepper, P.E. Director, Geotechnical Services DB/AM/TJS/ah P14,R0i) Enclosure r•', r .� LU i' cc LU lo 0'fiSSIoN�� Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MAY CREEK BUSINESS PARR Renton, Washington E-5144 INTRODUCTION Genera] This report presents the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Study completed by ECI for the proposed May Creek Business Park. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, on this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Proiect Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate ?. From our discussions and review of the project site plan we understand that you intend to construct three warehouse/office buildings. The proposed buildings will consist of first -floor warehouse facilities with second -story office space. The project will also include paved parking areas and paved access roadways to all the warehouse facilities. Based on the preliminary design, the buildings will be constructed at finished floor elevation 32_ The site's present grade ranges from approximately 26.0 to 34.0 feet in, elevation from west to east. Based on the building information provided to us, maximum total dead plus live loads are expected to be as follows_ o Wail loads - 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot, dead plus live o Maximum Column loads - 150 kips, dead plus live o 'Warehouse Slab loads - 250 pounds per square foot (pso If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be retained to perform a general review of the final design. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 : , - .' - - Business Park Page 7 Februan, 6, 1991 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The proposed site is situated on a parcel of land that is east of Lake Washington Blvd. Norlh, west of interstate 405, north of May Creek, and south of the intersection of Northeast 44th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. The property is approximately 720 feet in length along the west, 745 feet along the east, 310 feet along the north, and 730 feet along the south. The site is presently occupied by Pan Abode Inc., as a lumber processing facility. An office, model home, three warehouses, and a production building are located on the site. The remaining area is paved predominantly with asphalt; isolated sections are paved in concrete. The asphalt is in poor to fair condition. Some areas of the asphalt have numerous cracks and show signs of a soft soil subgrade. it is our understanding that the existing structures will be removed in sequence as construction of the new facilities begins. The site is relatively flat and slopes gently from the north and east to the west sides of the property. Elevations at the site range from 26 to 34 feet above sea levei. The adjacent roadways that border the property to the north, east, and west are all higher in elevation than the subject site. The south side of the property parallels May Creek and is several feet higber in elevation than the creek. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling 12 borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A 4 through A 13, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, during our field study we encountered two to three inches of asphalt pavement that is underlain by one to three feet of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt pavement and fall, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt was encountered to a depth of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. Dense to very dense silty sand and stiff silt were encountered below these soils to a maximum exploration depth of 24 fee, below the existing ground surface. Groundwater The groundwater seepage level observed while drilling ranged from approximately 3.0 to 3 .5 feet below the existing surface and are shown on the boring logs. Groundwater levels were measured at 4 to 7 feet below the ground surface during an earlier Hart Crowser, Inc, geotechnical study of the site. The Hart Crowser, Inc. study was completed during September of 1985. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY '.,_;a, = creek Business Park February fi, 1991 E-5 X 44 Page 3 The groundwater seepage level is not static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the flow and level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. However, fluctuations in the groundwater seepage flow should be expected, with higher levels typically developing during the wetter winter months. Seismic Conditions The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the (UBC) Uniform Building Code. In their present condition, the upper ten feet of some on -site soils do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. However, with addition of the proposed preload fill, we have calculated that the potential for soil liquefaction would be minimal. Our liquefaction analysis was based on an analytical procedure presented in "Soil Dynamics" by Shamsher Prakash. Additionally, soil conditions are classified as a type S3 by the UBC with a corresponding 5 factor of I.S. DISCUSSION] TO RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our geotechnical study, it is our opinion that the proposed warehouse buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing upon a compacted structural fill, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program is completed first. The preload and surcharge program is designed to induce settlements equivalent to those that are anticipated due to the slab and column loading. These recommendations are based on the amount of structural fill necessary to bring the finished floor slab surface to Elevation 32. With current grades, the site will require approximately one to five feet of structural fill to attain the proposed subgrade elevation. A small section of the parking area in the southeastern portion of the property will require excavation of approximately two feet. No other site cuts appear necessary. If the finish floor elevation of the buildings change, ECI should be notified and allowed to re-evaluate of r recommendations. Due to the poor condition of the sites near surface soils, we recommend that a minimum of two feet of compacted structural fill be placed below ali footings. A rninirnurn of one foot of compacted structural fill will be required beneath all slab -on -grade and pavement areas. The majority of the site will require more than two feet of structural fill to obtain the proposed subgrade elevation. Only in the southeast sections of the cast and south buildings does it appear necessary to over excavate and replace with structural fill. This requirement should be verified by observation at the time of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY .:eel: Business Parh February 6, 1,991 E-5 144 Pape 4 After the required structural fill has been placed, two feet of surcharge material should be applied to the southeast building areas. The surcharge will be required on areas where less than two feet of fill material will be needed to bring the building pads to subgrade elevation. Groundwater seepage was encountered during our field study from 2.0 to 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore, a subfloor capillary break and perimeter footing drains should be installed. Additionally, the pavement area located centrally between the three buildings and the southeast section of the site should be provided with subsurface drainage to increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. Specific details concerning the parking area subsurface drainage is presented in the subsequent Site Drainage Section of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the Wells Development Corp. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures, foundations, slabs, existing utilities lines, surface vegetation, all organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Where structural fill depths will be two feet or greater, it is our opinion that removal of existing asphalt from below slab -on -grade areas would not be necessary. It will be necessary, however, to remove the asphalt from below interior and perimeter footing locations. In these areas the asphalt removal should extend laterally a distance of two feet from the edge of the footing. Following the stripping and excavating operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Loose or soft areas, if recornpacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 94 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed within +2 percent of their optimum moisture contest€. Fill under pavements and walks should also Earth Consultants, Inc_ GEQTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY _ _reel; Business Part: February 6, 199I E-3I44 Page 5 be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of their maximum dry density, as determined by ASTIvi D-1557-78. Beneath pavements, the upper 12 inches should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent per this same standard. Based on our laboratory test results, the moisture content of the on -site soils at the time of our exploration was well above optimum. Therefore, unless the moisture content can be reduced, it will be necessary to use imported granular soil as structural fill. Ideally, particularly during wet weather conditions, structural fill should consist of a free -draining granular material. This material should have a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Given the fine-grained nature of the native soils, it is strongly recommended that earth work operations be undertaken and completed during the dry summer months. Pre -load and Surcharge Program As discussed, we recommend that pre -load and partial surcharge program be implemented prior to construction of the facilities. As indicated earlier in this report, we recommend that two feet of surcharge material be placed above the southeastern building slab areas where less than two feet of fill will be necessary to bring the pads up to the subgrade elevation. In other areas, where the fill depth will range from three to live feet, additional surcharge would not be necessary. The program is designed to pre -consolidate the compressible soils, in a manner that will limit post construction movements to within a tolerable range. Based on our analyses, we estimate that the preload and surcharge fill material will induce approximately two to three inches of settlement across the building foundation area. Based on the results of our laboratory testing of the site soil samples, we estimate that this settlement should take about four weeks to occur. The surcharge material, where placed, may be removed when the required settlement rate has been reached. A smaller settlement than estimated could indicate that the soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely,�a larger settlement than that estimated could be interpreted as indicating the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and additional measures, such as more surcharge or a longer surcharge period will be needed to obtain satisfactory results. As stated, it is important to note that surcharge fill is in addition to the fill required to bring the sitc to subgrade. The surcharge and fill should extend, at full height, a minimum of five feet from the building perimeters, and then slope outward at IKIV (Horizontal:Vertical). Earth Consultants, Inc, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY :reek Business Pwrk February 6, 199I E-5144 Page 6 Surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements except that the material should have a total density of one -hundred -twenty (120) pcf. However, if the surcharge material is to be used for structural fill in other areas after completion of the surcharge program, it should meet the requirements for structural fill. The definition for structural fill can be found in the site preparation and general earth work section of this report. Prior to placement of the fill and surcharge, we recommend installation of six settlement markers within each building surcharge area to monitor the magnitude and rate of such settlement. A typical settlement monitor is illustrated on Plate 3. These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment. The settlement markers should be surveyed, as soon as the markers are installed, by Earth Consultants, Inc. personnel or a licensed surveyor. Monitoring should be done during preload fill and surcharge placement at daily intervals, depending on the progress of the filling operation- headings should then be taken on a weekly basis after completion of the preload fill and surcharge placement until the settlement has stabilized. The initial reading should also show the natural ground elevation, and readings taken during preload, and surcharge placement should also show the changing ground elevation. Settlement readings should be evaluated by Earth Consultants, Inc. if a licensed surveyor performs the settlement monitoring. Foundations Following successful completion of the preload and surcharge program, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional, continuous, or individual spread footings. These footings should bear on at least two feet of compacted structural fill. The compacted fill material should extend at least one foot beyond the footing perimeters. For frost protection and support considerations, we recommend that foundation elements be bottomed at a minimum. depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior foundations should be provided with a minimum of twelve (12) inches of final cover. The foundation elements can be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. With foundation elements obtaining support as described, and with structural loading as expected, estimated total post construction settlement falls in the range of one-half inch for the slab areas, and three-quarters inch for the column areas, A one-third increase in the allowable soil -bearing pressure can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subg,rade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or baclfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT,GTECHNi CA.L ENGINEERING STUDY May Creel: Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 7 Passive earth pressures may be assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight. To calculate base sliding resistance, a coefficient of friction equal to 0.36 may be used. Lateral resistance has been calculated for compacted granular fills. Additionally, since movement is required to mobilize full lateral resistance, we have applied a factor of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 for the passive resistance and coefficient of base sliding, respectively. All footing excavations should be examined by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated in this report. Slab -on -Grade Floors With site preparations completed as previously described, suitable support for slab -on -grade construction should be provided. The slab should be provided with a rr rnlmum of six (6) inches of free draining sand or gravel. in, areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand should be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in caring of the concrete. Excavations and Slopes Based on the preliminary grading plans, the site would not require cuts except for a small area located in the parlang area of the southeast section of the site. We anticipate that this area will require approximately two feet of excavation and will have enough room to create a gentle slope to the property sine. Soil conditions at the site fall into category "C' in accordance with current OSHA. regulations. Therefore, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height must be sloped at a minimum inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. Site Draine The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces must be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the buildinc foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Pate S at Ieast ten feet away from the buildings, except in areas that are to be paved. In paved areas, a rrtir imurn drainage gradient of one and one-half percent should be used. We recommend the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by ECI's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, be more clearly defined. It is likely that seepage will be encountered in utility trenches excavated approximately two feet below the existing ground surface. If seepage is encountered, we recommend your contractor slope the bottom of the excavations to one or more shallow sump pits, The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive discharge point, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump by a system of permanent connector trenches. We recommend you install footing drains around the building perimeter just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circurnstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. AI] roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you install cleanouts at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. As previously mentioned, the parking area centrally located between the three proposed buildings and towards the southeast site corner should be provided with subsurface drainage, This drainage will increase the Fong -term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. The system should consist of an excavated trench at the base of which a four -inch perforated drain pipe wrapped in fabric is placed. The pipe should be slotted and have a smooth interior surface, and sloped at not less than one-half percent to a permanent discharge point. The fabric wrap should consist of Miraf-t 140-N filter fabric or equivalent. The pipe should be bedded and backfilled in a clean, free draining aggregate meeting the grading requirements for a class 2 fine concrete aggregate per the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDQT) specifications. The drain pipe invert should be set at a minimum of four feet below the final pavement elevation. The drainage aggregate should extend a minimum of four inches below the pipe and laterally a minimum of twelve inches to either side of the pipe. Additionally, the drainage aggregate bacldill should continue to the pavement subgrade elevation. The proposed grading plan indicates that the storm sewer system includes three lines which span most of the area of concern. Consideration could be given to installing the subdrain system in the same trenches excavated for the storm sewer. Alternatively, a single separate line can be constructed Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1.991 E-5144 Page 9 with collected water taken to a point of permanent discharge, With cuts required in the southeast section of the site, and considering the groundwater level, it would be prudent to install the subdrain in this area prior to excavation. Utilities Trench backfill beneath building, parking, and roadway areas may consist of native granular soils or imponed materials provided they are near optimum moisture content as determined by our field technician. During wet weather, we recommend using an imported structural fill, as described earlier. Compaction requirements for bedding and backfill are described in detail on Plate 5, Typical Utility Trench Fill. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the top one foot of the existing site fills and any structural fill that will be added to the site should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-7$), as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. 'It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet, or unstable subgrade may exist. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly -loaded areas: Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life, and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck -trafficked areas the following sections: Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, Selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience Earth GonsuUnts, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 10 and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and shill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and to the extent of variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. A,dditionaI Services We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earth Consultants, inc, OEEfIF[1p0 To- ,y 51 `+l' S F 5L 1— ri W e 'C K c ^ C y 7 SE 7cf1f A ( iCl O ]J; sovTrr Pwr+r A • Ir• ♦w � R` L 6VTT ER,� t I fn "'`a Si y K ! E PUASUaf fi,., 41 rff Lal 1IST ,MLMp 1 41n }T I 'a1 t N i Sr • YEN }S T``N oe ..v r ' S "Im SE SITµ ST Sf r- 1 iL T Lf i 13NO �5 a j�, C c +G •ST J yQ 76T I rl T it 1 � ;- CLARttf OfAC/i r SY h P"K {! YL O SE TN {1} q K SE it V y� OT %Ill 1l�.. _ /C,-HMYDAEF UACH OK E /`r Reference King County / Mop 27 By Thomas Brothers Maps Doted 1990 ,�- e�tl' Vicinity Map Earth Consultants Inc. {Play Creek Business Park L.urtvrr.a lna�+nCarwNr•r.�hn.'In�+rn..u!�ryunl- Renton, Washington :'roj. No. 5144 Drwn. GLS Date Jan. r91 � Checited DB Date f/24/91 � Plate 1 y C f1 r I L- !r r� W i ' r 1 I r r I � r I r r I m 1 ' � ) 7 r r I ! I ! !I 7 r 4�f �1 it SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NOTES: a Base consists of 3,4 - inch thick, 2 toot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled slg - inch diameter hole. • Bedding material, it required, should consist of Traction Sand. * Marker rod is 112 - inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. • Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. • Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 - Inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached to rod or base. a Additiona[ sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. * Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press - lit plastic couplings. R Steel markgr rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. * Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. r TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL Earth GOnSLi icil)i5 Inc.rcAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK REN'TON , ;-,A5H:NGT0h Proj. No. 5144 1 Drwn. G?.S date Feb' 91 Checked AM D.Jed 2-1-91 Plate 3 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SLOPE TO DRAIN co'°- ' 4 I i r O • •G 6 inch min.00 18 inch min. 4 Inch min. ' -.',� r\ i. •D ^ .tl°� ° ° 6 diameter �� i' 'r- ,•' ems; ' ° ° ., ° p ° � C • ° \ ,i . 6 tl ° 9 b tl k 2 inch rein. 2 inch min./ 4 inch max. 12 inch min. LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability ` material Gravel backf ill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications, y r' Section 9 -03. 12121 , or Fine A ggregate for Portland Cement Concrete ; Section 9-03.1 [ 2) . Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with 0 perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed ; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. — Impermeable visgeen barrier or other impermeable material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. TYPICAL F=ODTING SUB€]RAIN DETAIL i j' Earl � Cons Wants Inc. MAY CREEK BUSINESS PART: ;'. iiL411 l {Jr! c..,..-cNLna�u•c.mr....c.+,r.n,. N t+r•k. RENTON, WAS}h1NGTON Proj, No. 5144 1 Drwn. GLS I Date Feb' 91 I Checked AM I Dated 2-1-91 1 Plate 4 Non -Load Supporting Floor Stab or Areas Roadway Areas Varies BaCkfill Bedding LEGEND: 1 Foot Minimum Varies Varies IRA Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab Base Material or Base Rock Backfi€i; Compacted On -Site Soil or Imported Select frill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 5 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-79 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Repor# Text, Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and p.4'J.oSao- Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Ean)-j Consultants Inc. rtp,Y eRzrEtc BusTrzt ss N?ARIA PENTONd WA5HTNG"TON Proj. No. 5144 Drwn GLS I}att? Feb' 91 Checked A"1 Date 2-1-91 Plate 5 APPENDIX A E-5144 FIELD EXPLORATION Our held exploration was performed on January 15 through January 17, 1991. Subsurface conditions at the site were cxplored by drilling 12 borings to a maximum depth of 24.0 feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Subterranean Drilling, Inc., using a truck mounted mobile B-61 drilling, Continuous -flight, hollow -Stern augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping from existing buildings on the site. Approximate boring elevations were determined by a topographic map provided by Wells Development, Inc. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our Firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A3, Legend. Logs of the borings represented in the Appendix on Plates A4 through A13. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM 'Pest Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven 'A ith a one - hundred -forty (140) pound harnmer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Gravel And Clean Gravels a °q e` o°a n.°. � a G VV 9W we.,-Graoec ;,rayePse n . Grave-Bac MiXlureb L-RIE Or Ne r,e5 0 • 6 # + �P gp Poarfy-Graaed GravetS, Gravel- Sand Mixiijes, lrslre Or No Fines Coalse Grained Sods Gravelly Sods Mare Than 50', Coarse Fre6lior, Relaipec On Ihttle o, no lined Gravets With F,nes(adpreCtanle amount of lines ` GM gm Sd1y Grsly eis.Giavel•Sand - Sin Mixtures GC Clayey Gravels, Grave; • Sand No 4 S.eve gC Ciay Mixtures More Than 50°, Mafer;al Sand and Sandy SptlS Glean Sand (Irrle or no tines) °° ° ° ° o .e6e 4 "° °• .�W SW Well • Graded Sands. {yravetly Sings. Lrttre Or No Frees SP Sl] Poony-Graaea Satins. Gravelly Sands, Li:tie Or No J=;res Larger Y3ran Nd 200 Sieve Size more Than 50% Coarse Fraction Passing NO 4 Sieve Banda vl Fines Sadprerec;able amount o1 lines! _ •••:1 a •'••••: ,�' +:.1. ,;.,.!.f.,.i.l., ray r SiVi SITT Silly 5anos, Sand - Sail Mixtures SC SC Clayey Sands, Sanq 'Clay Mixtures ML rn1 inorganic Salts 6 very Fine Sands, ROCK FId6r.S;(ly- Clayey Fine Sands: Clayey Sans wa Shunt Plasticity Fine Grained Sots L,QU,d Limit And Less Tnan 50 L CI inorganic Clays OI Low To Medium Piaslicily, Gravelly Clays. Sandy Ciays. Silty Clays, Lean Sorts Clays t I r I I I OL organic Sal$ And Organic E `1 I ; I III pl S-ily Ciays Of Low Plasl;e+ry More ; Hall MH f 11T Inofgan;c Sots, Micaceous Or Dialomaceous Frne Sand Or silly Soils SO. maler:at Smaller Than No.200 Sieve Size S.Its L�dwC Limit And Ciays Greater Tnan 54 I"'No CF'I Ch Inerganrc Clays Of H;gn piwictly. Fat Clays 0H Qh Oraanrc Clays Of Medium To High Plaslrc-ty. Organic Silts Highly Organic Sod: PT pt Peat, Humus. Swamo Sons Vh-h H;gn Organic Contents '+oosdll Humus And Dull Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The D)souss*n In The Text Of This Reoom Is Necessary For A Prooer Unoerstano,ng Of The Nature OI The Mater;at Presented In The AttaCned Logs !'cotes Dual symbois are used to indicate bor&rline sail classification, Lipper rase letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon iab— oraxory tasting; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by Iaborawry testing. i 2-0-D- SPLET SPOON SAMPLER 2.4' I.D. RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED Q WATER LEVEL (DATE) WATER OBSERVATION WELL Earth Consultants Inc. ��I;i f,'\�I. I raaal�r.N.MY.;'lly.rf.lar+Aq:Nsi r'!r,'ni.M�, ♦w. Y, �„��i�rsia C TORVANE READING, TO qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pot DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic fT. ILL LIOU30 LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX EN LEGD Prof, No. 5144 E Date Feb' 91 Plate Al BORING NO. i Logged By nN l -1. 5�- EIev. 91 2 6_ 6. 55 Dare - - - - Graph US Sail Description Depth h) Sample (N) Bill W { l CS Ft. SP Grav brown fitie to nedium SAND with 4 23 13 Gravel, trace silt, dense, wet _IL 5 I 11 •'J,} nl ;lay SILT, nediuri stiff, saturated 1 10 29 10 18 } sm Gray silty medium SAND, dense, f{•:ci1<r saturated ;: t -' !X� 1 50 'oh Organic SILT, log is 4111 Grav sn silty medium S;ND, 1vone, saturateel� with organics, �3Pnse g � 6 ; 20 IrFr%.I��i-i ff Boring terminated at 24 feet below existing grade. Groundwaer encountered at 2 feet during dxiiling. Boring hackfilled with cuttings, bentonite and concrete. I i SuaSllrf].0 9ondm*n tlepmao raorevfti w* ooierwlrani e1 tM Wni eno Iacelpn or tr,j rxoiar mery "c, ffioddn0 ?y eep,r rung loVs. Vl.ry"i anC ►✓apemen[. Trey Ire rCn r"K4SSUf.1y Aare. "1M Or mheie t mei ■r a IO-xK 4. We wmal ■cceir. resconsrorl,ty Ia1 the VSe Of InlerprSLAIMH by alr+ers V InlprTe *M Pec"ateo On "in bC BORING LOG, ' L41 Earth Consultants Inc. MAY (:REEK FIUSIr ESE rAM-, I��•�l Li ,.nnogiJrAur m 4 Uws&XnNrnlrrnnvals[,enrr.r. RENTON, WASIAINOTON Proj, No. 5144 Drwn. GLS Date Fob' 91 Checked DB Date 3-1-93 1 Plate A2 BORING NO. B=- Lcgged By ' Date ) -' S - 91 Bev. 27't Graph US Soil Description D;�pth Sample {N) BlowsCS �} Ft. asphalt concrete sP i.icht brawn fine to coarse SAND, trace 15 silt and gravel, nediun dense, saturated 5 -very dense with gravel I 40 -grades to gray, dense 10 I 21 MI► Gray sandy SILT, medium stiff, I saturated } { 59 sp Gray riediun to coarse SAND with '•t: gravelr trace silt, very dense 20 sP tvcry dense) 63 Boring terminated at 24 feet below existing grace. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Borinc backf_lled with cuttings, bentonite and concrete. Suownaor opnyrt*r4 aemnea rrorrsem our =, ar l,ans el Ine l mt ena sww on or snis PxWortlafy me. M*044 4y tngv tjn4 tens. ■n#ryns. anc 1Wgemani. They are nol MaKsarNY+eQr trsamd.rs w onner 1-T46 ana towns. VW ernnaa .=Qoi resoor,&$bd4y 1trr 1he Vsa W rnrarp,arelion w pinar! or ,nlorrn elra:, premnlsa on" bt BODING LOG I: Earth Consultants Inc. YJ,Y CRUK SUSINUS5 PARK RENTOn, :'4S'Y�.INGT'.`N Praj. No. 5144 Dr-wn. GLS Date Feb' 91 Checked D 3 pate ?-J -91 Plate „3 BORING NO. Logged By 2? Date - ti r' -Q Elev, r - US 4N) W Graph CS Soil De=iptioti �fE) Sample Blows FL sn Gray -brown nediun to coarse SAND with gravel anc silt, saturated � 9 25 j ml Gray sandy S-ILT, truce grave-l , medium, saturated ,j11�111� t I l -lenses of peat � 7 43 I I' I nl Gray sandy SILT, inedium stiff, T 15 jl saturated y 10 � 23 Gray nediu^ to SAND with ..• •.. so coarse gravel, Q rangy r�rp sMI Gray silty rleciiurs SAND, nediun dense, .. j;. 12 saturated r ,n Grays nediun SAND with gravel, nediun � 13 �j dense, saturated r 20 . ij:a's_ •k sr.l Grav silty nedi= SAND, trace gravel, T 6 i'tii:, loose, .aturated -- Gray sander SILT, nediun stiff, sat;�ratedi 17 gn Gra. sil�v nediun SAID dense, satara-e -rac6 OravP1 Boring terT;,inated at 24 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2 feet during drilling. Boring back`illed with cuttings, henronite and concrete. Uosbr11L`a OOr.oloeu callo 0 re Wes1M our ohfe,,yWron3 at Ina lrmc and iwpn Orr co 1nr1 OxOf4r'a m m,&. "iooa �d by {nvrr*onAp iosu, Anm"4, iM 2w64err*rj Tray an np. n Kes"nly i0VF"af%Wr" Gr *~ Wwl eh0 Ural 11 ''',! Q&w*M UCOM (WOruiellny loe Ina u,e or pMrc Or i Rlam woft pra Mqr _ an F113 i09 1 ',`• I � Consultants Inc. —aril BOMNG LOG ",r"}Y Cf2f Ct: r�lf5 I�ic.SS p ARK ei,,,H ., x ,..ram s RENTON', I.ASKING_ N v Pro}. No, 5144 Drwn, GLS Date Feh'g]. Checked Ds Date 2-1-91 1 Plate A4 BORING NO. � Logged By n^ [late 1 -i4 .91 Qev.us I 7Gr_ 1NI Wj Graph Soil Description DepthSample Blows � ) CS (ttFt. SM Brown fine to medium sil.Zy SAND with gravel, nediun dense, saturated -grades to dense -grades to gray with gravel 10 Y nl Gray sandy SILT, trace gravel, - If medium dense, saturated sm Gray silty medium SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, saturated 15 —grades to gray .)rown with gravel, very sense Boring terminated at 19 feat below existing grade. Groundwater !encountered at 3 feet during drilling,. Boring backfilled with cut`incs and hentonite. 11) 23 20 25 5 20 :0 Suosurrace c LftdM orn Oehitreo manfsem our aos."trons sl lne lime •lid i0CLtWA of lnis aioleruory hag. mpall.e0 w sftgiF nnq iesv, •na"n. h4C fr+Cgerrmni. Trey art n47 necesµrllr st`9ib ntmr " or cdtw IUMs sna socAa. $. Mre Gannal 4c�pCl iaspofu Wmy TW the vac 44 sni.rPrassrn py mmn W 1 njbnn nQm arse mac on 1f%n cog BORING LOG l M Earth Consultants Inc. MAY c:zrt> l. >�vsiN ass i�ARr; C_u� P9ea+ A Ft rnW .'e.'.4 r• Proj. No. 5144 Drwn. CL5 Date Feb - 9: checked n I Hate 2-1-91 plate A5 BORING NO. Logged By nP Date } -• i 5 _ 01 us th (N) W Graph Sou Description Sample Blaws ;Q/o} CS Ft aspn21: coo-crr,,. '�"•'3''•_`. SO nwn 4i1[V coarse .,r..., t�!tit grave 1, wet [o � 4 27 ML Grc_ ;,a.)dy Sl,".T, JUfL, saturated, II trace gravel ct 1 1 2 45 LI, t52 oh organic SILT, soft, saturated P:.=S'_ _Brown PI 1 n1 Gray SILT, medium, der:se, saturated ` I 10 sr) Gray msdiun to coarse SAND with gravel, trace silt, very dense, 36 saturated 15 sn Gray silty medium SAND with gravel, 27 is-�: •= dense, saturated Boring texninated at 18 -feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 1.3 feet during drilling. Boring 'back -filled w;th cuttings and bentonite. SvbsVnALV oond(WU peplCled neorrsar" put ph%6m1'u ! W. L" 1'T and locai,pn pr INS "Oto Joey hole, ngoH,a4 by rrp,n .rrq Imu. 10%&",a, •nC Wgeem C. They era np; ryCdy. Amoy rep,"dm4iw dl plha r mwj •nC io r ns- N'c cannot accaol rafaonP044y for Me vat e, lawplomahon 9y pinari of Inlpmarpn picumed on Ma 10C. artl Consultants Inc. BORING LOG MAY CFEnK BUSINSSS RENTON, WASBrNGTCN ?roj. No. 5144�Drwn. CLS pate ',W gl I Checked DR pate 2-1-91 1 plate AFC BORING NO. _B Lgged By ID° Date _ _' -,1 -4�' Bev. s (N) Graph Soil Descripbon MY Sample Blows CS Ft. 2'' asphalt concrete sl, [led brown medium to coarse SAND wit:'. ,ravel, saturated _I 2 36 .. Gray SILT, _ at Sand, noft, jaturated �L ?llJl 5 T I 7 52 sr Graces ro brown silr� SAN , cDarae, saturated nl Grades to gray with sand, med,iwn l ltt --turateo :.ivh orcarics an Gray silty medium SAND, trace orGanics, 11 ;a:�.;.,,.;};: medium dense, sr-rtur.dtF�d -.:..�,,�� la � g itIII l� �i �I ml Gray SILT, medium, saturated --grznes o stiox L is i I 17 .:':j:c ,;;{; sm Gray silty medium to coarse SAND, trace gravel. dense, saturated 16 Bo:ing terminated at 19 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at a feet during drilling. Boring bacy_`i'lec with cuttings, bentonite and i I I concrete- i Sa2sonare C-0M1OA4n1 aeo.0 vC mafe m Qyr ovthMl10h1 41 the lime snd MC[n on DI tn,$ vx=rblOry hdr motlrl-K q' Or1QVl ?^9 lest:, snshws. and IUQ,r10 T.Am 7tVT •re rp; n osl l+lr lwo- >tehjn— Vi mMr s.r s in- WC2{�u, Vft gannM i.Co(rl ra3Don3 4MY 10, tht U V IMIV C M110h py 0"m OI Inlp MW*n pnmenlvG on 1n1s IK LOG }}%�^•rlyr�I}jr11 {!�1 y 1II+�11 1} Inc.BONNG ,I Earth 1s��!\W�1s n I'• .�A CUER BUSINM { FAm I I, r l lJ{ `S' 'I1�1! % l.-rwr++nr.a rn0.��..-.. t.n�:�,r:w4�Fl..u.nn��,��ll �te•nrnl. R:.NTnN, I•JASIil:. =n.J Proj. hlv. 5144 Drwn. C s Date rMh'pl Checked �, Date 2-1�-91 Plate A7 BORING No. B Logged By Nab Date 1-16-91 Bev. 1 = iN? Graph CSC Soil Descrip> on Depth Sample Blows Ft. 2�i•#�,;.<-:• 2asphalt concrete ♦t`t sm Grav silty medium SAND with gravel, JI!Ii�l Gray brown sandy SILT, trace organics, nl soft, saturated 4 39 •� ;-,::•:� •:.• LLB -0 4 srn Gray SILT, loose, saturated PI,=29 40 PI-15 l I I 10 1111I mI Gray -brown SILT, trace sand and organics, sofa4 So, saturated JJ1..LLL__ I, sn Grav silty medium SAND, trace gravel, � 14 nedium dense saturated 15 -grades to dense 20 sm IGray silty SAND with gravel, very dense, saturated I T Supswna" r8D,* am oVf 00"mW of s n tM $,me nno beclf.an a this mpwMory hot. modif wd by wnyineennq ewsu. Inm"Lf, one ludr"m_ They are ne•. nrcrssarily .eoreslf¢a7fr 44 olhwr O 1lmH aM k3CC 4' Mrs can n n.prep: r*10W4,0any hW PM vu of W.lprei■7.be by off+afi d �Me ML-M prvwava 8n MIS " BORING LOG Earth Consultants Inc. :!AY CREEK BUSINESS PARE: is 1�' �+�..cr+n.E�kwcrfsc,.awnxti��n,n,vnr,u.tti.man, t'ZENTONWAShINGTON Proj. No. 5144 1 Drwn. GLS Date Feb' 91 Checked DP. Date 2-1-91 Plate AS a BORING NO. Logged By D1 Date 1-16--91 FJev. Graph GCS Soii Description D(f) Sample IN) Blows {%} Ft. :':j Gray brown silty coarse SAN'-,, loose, Srit wet I�� I nl Gray sandy SILT, soft, saturated4 32 f I 27 19 sP Gray medium SAND, dense, saturated 19 _ MI Gray brown SILT, trace sand, medium 1 g stiff, saturated 13 (grades tc stiff) --- - r — I Boring terminated at 19 Meet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Boring back -filled with cuttings and bentonite. :6 SuLaufum wndnoom demaw mprtaam our amar�ipene v the Irme and loealgr e INS aaAioratory hola, rnodrlyd try 6FOM Ong larS. anelya4. ■nd popinvnl, TMy are rxr r-ocat ah,] feveou m" at alhof nmds anp te-meoca- Y.4 Cinh01 aCeom respomio lny for Iha use of mwolmitCn ar othon of at in$am,on prF qM#d an r" og F BORING LOG L4Vfj'-) Earth Consultants Inc. !.; .Y CR7EK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHING'T_'ON Proj. No. 5144 1 Drwn. G'.S Date Feh'91 � Checked DE - Date 2_1-91 1 Plate A9 BORING NO. Logged By D Date Dev. 2 8 77 D(Wepth W Graph Soil Description Sample Blows M) Ft. 2" as-ohalt concrete F-M_ Rea-brown coarse SAND with gravel, lDose to medium Iense, wet T S m Brown silty medium to coarse SAND, loose, saturazed J3 - --grades--grades to gray brown, t.ace silt '�:}:. I f ml Brown SILT, trace organics, medium6 I I�jlf� stiff, saturated 10 sm Brown silty medium SAND, loose, saturate ml Gray modium SILT, trace sand, medium stiff, saturated 28 lw sn Cray silty Medium SAND, dense, 27 saturated 20 Cray meditan coarse SAND, very dense, Tb3I saturated Boring te=inated at 21-5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2.5 feet during drilling. 8oring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. wMarijae oondrt*n ftt-OW eDemO% out O7 rvstt. jk )0dPeMWM. TM" 2ft- MO' n 0$16&nly FMI"OM4k" 0i Cmhor Jj�% and WK4*ns. Ym unnffl &=z rasoom-DuAy lot Im ubt orlfflfjwmlai� try ONers a' Flronrmpfesemim4 On 1"fs W Earth Consultants mc. f BONING LOG PLAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No- 5194- Drwn. GLS Date Ful-41 Chocked DA Date 2-1-91 Mate A10 BORING NO, B-10 Logged By Date eev. us Depth (N) W Graph Soil Description (ft) Sample Blows U CS Ft aspa L c concre re Sp Brown SAND vi Ch si I r and r_r.jv(.-j loose. wet m I Gray -brown sand) SILT, soft, saturated J iliz y Grale ;.)rcwn silt'medium SAND, 5-onse, r 5 22 T-k I Drown SILT, soft, szturatt�d r .1 Bro% -in silty mediuri 5,ND, louse, saturated 11 sp Brown nudiun SAND with silt, medium oenve, saturated 10 organic. SILT, sort, sar Brown -urated, trace wooci •own T 7 69 110;1111161'4 .q;F 1: �q'j `g . sm Gray -brown silty medium SAND, trace caravel, loose, saturated on gown organic SILT,soft, saturaz T1 Gray silty mediuri SAND, riedian, dense, I xA sr., saturated —LL i5 oh Brown oruanic SI:.--, dense m 1 Gray S!7,T, opd-Jum -stiff, saturated 20 L 5 4 Gray S -1 ty SAND, dense, satuz-a'!:ed 23 L Boring terninated at 24 -.7f-out b+41uw existing Gracie. Groundwater encountered at 3.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with CUttjnq,-,, bentcnite and concrete. al.the hire mw loco Ilan W IN$ 6KPLarvory r9ge. rmodiled by omq�rin0 kasu. Imer @It nal "C917ANy fft"s RUUIvO V =may times and xxiisons, We "nnan accecr. iaspofuioAny W Lh4 U34 Of rM1eerpreta l,prl g' WWI 01 mla-40pit"rnw on ints BORING LOG Earth Consultants inc. KAY CREEK TXSINESS PF,Rl, R E N TO X , I -,A 5 F I N GTON Proj, No. 3144 , Drwn, G1,5 Date F0__ 1 I I �1 Checked OB (pate 2-1-91 1 Plate j j� i BORING NO. ..� togged By 0P Date - -'6-9l Bev. 2,'t us DethiN} W Graph Soil Description {gyp Sample Blows �o/a} Ft 211 a s c h a l` e on c r P e cn C-ay-'oro%-:n silty fine to nedium SAND, with lenses of silt, loose, saturated --grades to brown I� f M1 trace peace, so_t, Brown SILT, f +I k I saturated sp Brown tedium SAND, loose, saturated I 1 M1 Gray S.iLT, medium stiff, saturated sm Gray silty median SAND, louse, saturated nl I Gray SILT, so°t, saturated and 10 T I T T 25 0 5 23 5 28 9 15 14 SriGray silty medium SAND, very dense, 20 saturated 5oring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing trade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drizling_ Borinry backfilled with cuttings and nentonite. Wo 45MISUrtaee cOndalons OCpo" MD-Vwm Ouf O7 ervaugnt at Ine Ilme ana bcalon 0} tn,s asP10r1nOry hat• m0drf*13 by frlq ro nn0 t*TU, *narysa. aee JuC"mon:. 7hay are ra c eassar[ly rrW&"rr1a1nR bl V,"i Hm03 afla kOC nl. VY u ndt acUM 03 om4b[Inr Iw ity Vse or rnlvpl*W" try D:ham 0' mtorm+trOn Ora4,eme0 On tors log BORING LOG Earth Consultants Inc. f_aCRF�.h BUSINESS PARK A ,, RE t' ON, ' I1 ` J tn�ICSNwTr I'np.W.Cn, IFIMttiASfiINGTONUQtl11 i }f+��rfllrT+.r IL11 �.(14'nllN[ Proj. No. 5144 Drwn. GL5 Date Feb' 9l Checked OB pate 2-1-91 plate Al2 BORING NO. -12 — Logged By Date - - - us Depth (N) W Graph CS Description fill Sample Blows Ft asphalt r;r311rntf' sr? Brown -gray silty medium SAND with ;:c{�t;c�::;�•, ,ravel, s�.tt�xar_c�d Gray sandy SILT, mudiun so=t _o -'Miff' � � 24 j 1 i III r1j. II saturated Brown SILT loose sarurated Brown SILT, :soft, saturatu6 IT 38 :.L=38 r.> s:1 n1 13 PL�29 PI= 9 ' so Brown medium SAND, dense , satu---ated 10 Gray and brown sandy SILT, soft, � 3 saturated sn Cray silty rier;iun SAND, medium dense, sLturater2 _ Cray sandy SILT, stiff, saturated ril 23 Boring, terninated at 19 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered a= 2,5 feet curing drilling. Boring back -filled with cuttings, bentanite and =unc=ete. .'1�^a:1=C'-'•,i �s Ce_•= ec "3'e M our czs*n•aticmi a' the lime end Wcm.on el 5nrs aKD-orar orr ha c. mcda,so vl snq—wino to -Vs. analys,a, and s', r_" + Cets-&„ — IM'"en•Al-v o' char 1,A"s and 10C 1*61. N'e UANX iccco, -100--adni 10, Me usa of lntoegfomuon P' ot"m N f - e BORING LOG r Et-inh Consultants inc. •'IAY C�.IZ l-K PI!SIN'�SSm�Pi%RK � s+ •— rr r w l n I.... rF,�l. w l�n I�r�n �r Yli•il �y,Trlli� �:..1\ 1 V�\ 1 �rh.] i:l loll] 1 \l,l Y .y P►oj. No, Drwn. Date 1 Chocked Date Dry a, Plate 7,1 3 -1- APPENDIX B E-S 144 LABORATORY TESTING General We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analyses and Atterberg Limits, on representative samples. Moisture determinations and consolidation tests were performed on representative samples. A brief description of each of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in this Appendix. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based ou our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Soil Classification As mentioned earlier, all soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they are obtained. They are subsequently packaged and returned to our Bellevue office, where they are independently reexamined by one of our engineers and the original description is verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of information obtained from classification tests, the samples are described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTIM Test Method D-2487-83. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual baring log and are qualitative only. The attached Legend Plate A3, provides pictorial symbols that match the written descriptions. Moisture Density Moisture content and tests were performed on several samples obtained from the borings. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the existing in -place moisture content of the soil sample tested. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method. Earth Consultants, Inc. the information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are presented at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. Particle Size Arialvsis Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on several of the shallow soil samples to determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The test is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-422-63. The information gained from this combined analysis allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in -place materials. The results are presented on plates BI through B2, and classification symbols are provided as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs. Several consolidation tests were conducted on two relatively undisturbed representative samples taken with the Shelby Tube sampler to evaluate the consolidation characteristics of the site soil. In addition, the time readings were taken at several points of loading to evaluate the 6me rate of settlement. The results of this test are shown on Places B4 and B5, Consolidation Test Data, Earth Consultants, Inc. - --_ SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS Ln' SILL OF U1'ENIN(: IN INt-HkS MUMt1ETI I]F MESH PE11 INCH U.S. STAN )ARD GIIAIN SIZE IN MM ,rF} ao m , " ?n C> (n 0 0 t 00 0 p 0 �n V ri ni 0 O 6 0 0 a GD.- N r7 V �n W w ,.y 0 O O 0 6 o O O o O O pro Fn 80 � � M JO C cn L n G0 m 03 so n 40 30 T 2D i 1 10 v^ry G> D low 0 10 20 -10 m 30 �1 In 40 $0 D rn 60 70 m_ C3 80 .T.1 sa 100 1T1 [ a O d 0 O 0 O 0 0 O ao w V r7 N r m [p 4 0 N - O W l7 ro N r m [n � rT N -- 0 0 m iO v CI N .- - . 0 0 a a O 4 O O CS d 0 d N - CRAIN SIZE MI IN LLIMETERS o a o Q � a CDAnsrz FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COB13LE5 FINES rq X GRAVEL SAND M N J C m inLn 37 KEY 00611 AT 9 DEPTH i[SC5 DESCRIPTION Moisture LL Pl fi z z z ra > Test Pit No. ft. Content fYaa H cn cn N o� M O 11 1 5 SIP Grey poorly graded SAND WWI gravel 13 d----� --- B-2 IO ML Cray sandy SILT 31 13-4 2.5 SM Gray silty SAND 23 I ~SIEVE ANALYSIS _ -_ IYDROMETER ANALYSIS l - Si, C OF OPIENING IN INCITES LNUMBER OF_MESFI nEFI INCIj, U.S. S_ TAh4I7AM3 GRAIN SIZE IN NIM - --� 1 O o p q 0 O d p [D O a �? c"7 ni m 0 o Q 4 0 Q p a O- O O o O v C7 w n ri _ ti st m ni i'7 d u1 d - a 10 rrr► --- — - _ _ — - — _ - - — - — — - za n-- -- -- --- -- — -- — -- -- m m za --- -- - -- - - - -- as m -- -- 'ri cn --- — _--_- -- -- - aG pia 40 T-i 30 - - - - - - - - — - — - - - _ - - - 70 90 O fz�l - - - - — -- - - 1 QQ O Q O o o 0 W to c7 d [^i N o ❑ m m [l N a GBAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ? o 0 0 0 0 COBBLES COARSEGFtAVEL FINE• COARSE MEDIUMSAND FINE FINES KEY I Dorinq or I DEPTH I lJSCS r DESCRIPTION moistm � l L I Pl. Tcst Pit fVo. If i-) 1 I Contcrtl { „.I 2.5 1 ML Gray sandy SILT Brown SILT 27 38 mm I'IIII � ��III I'I 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.G nips 2 I I I l i7 > j II I fiI i PRESSURE, kips USCS I Soil Descnpi,on Liou;d L,rnis Plasl,c , Limit piasucityl Moisture Index Content, V , 29fore Ater Dry Density Q)ci) { 1 F{� I SILT III 44 29 15 41.0 30.0 80.43 Earth � Consultants Ir1C. _-,,I%CCRING 61 CEOLOG v CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA MAY CREED: BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASkil iGTON Prof. No. 5144 Date Feb' 91 —FP late S4 I r 0 I'III I Ii�II'� i IIIIIII i I'i I I I �I ili I I lil II�iII iI'II�I 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6 kips INN INIIM� INN 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.6 25.6 PRESSURE, Boring Depth Liquid Plast'c . P12sticcty Moisture Dry Key NO (ft i USCS Soil DeSCfaDtion Lana J Uma Index Content. W ,a Density °' i0c!) •� re ro Before After d B-12 5-7� ML Brown SILT 38 29 9 41.0 21.2 83.22 Earth Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGIN£CRING & GEOLOGY CONSOLMATION TEST DATA IN,AY CRtEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5144 Date Feb' 91 Plate B5 ATTACHMENT F Quendall Terminals Update: Ecology Transfers Cleanup Oversight to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) wants to update you on the status of cleanup activities at the Quendall. Terminals site located at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard, Renton. Comments are not being requested at this time. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) takes over lead in overseeing cleanup at Quendall Terminals Ecology has officially transferred oversight responsibilities for cleanup activities at Quendall Terminals to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Why transfer cleanup at the site to EPA? Given the complex nature of the Quendall Terminals site, cleanup will require substantial staff resources and funding. Ecology has been providing oversight for the cleanup of this site under the Model Toxics Control Act (MICA) since the 1980s. Cleanup actions have not yet been performed. EPA has additional resources to most effectively manage the oversight of this complex cleanup. In addition, current zoning of the properties adjoining this site are planned for a mix of residential and business uses. Cleanup alternatives will need to consider future possible uses of the property. What Happens Next? • EPA's site manager will be meeting with Ecology and the responsible parties over the coming months to plan next steps for the project. • A local Information Repository will be established in the project area where citizens can view EPA project documents. • A good way to keep up with EPA's planned activities is to sign-up to receive future mailings for the site (if you received this update by mail, you will automatically be added to EPA's list for future mailings). • EPA will continue to update you on the status of the overall cleanup as the process moves along. Site Background Quendall Terminals is a 25 acre property located on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington, in Renton, Washington. The site is located between the former Baxter site to the north and the Barbee Mill site to the south. From 1916 to 1969, the site was operated by Republic Creosote Company, later called Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation. Reilly manufactured creosote and other tar products at the site. August 2005 Site documents can be reviewed at the following locations: WA Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 (425) 649-7 190 (Call for an appointment) EPA Contacts: Kevin Rochlin, Project Manager 1200 Sixth Avenue (ECL-111) Seattle, WA 98102 (206)553-2106 rochlin.kevin@epa.gov Charles Bert Public Involvement Coordinator 300 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503 (360)753-8073 bert.oharies@epa.gov Ecology Contacts: Brian Sato, Former Site Manager WA Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 E-mail: bsat461@ery.wa.gov (425)649-7265 Justine Asohmbom Public Involvement Coordinator WA Department of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 E-mail:juas461@ecy.wa.gov (425)649-7135 Publication No. 05-09-055 If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Justine Asohmbom at (425) 649-7135 (Voice) or 711 or 1-800-833-6388 (rCY). The site was sold in 1971 to Quendall Terminals, a joint venture of J.H. Baxter & Company and Altino Properties, Inc. Since 1971 the property has been used intennittently for fuel storage and as a log sort yard. Soil, ground water, surface water, and lake sediments have been impacted by past use of the Quendall Terminals property. The primary chemicals of concern are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the volatile organic compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX). The upper 15 to 20 feet of the soil throughout the site have been contaminated by coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other tar distillates. Studies indicate that contaminants are also impacting area ground water to the depths of up to 40 to 50 feet. The groundwater in this zone flows to Lake Washington. The same PAH and BTEX compounds detected in site soils and groundwater were detected in the surface water along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Areas of sediment contamination have also been identified offshore from the largest on -site area of contamination and near the foriner T-pier and dock. In 1993, Ecology negotiated an Agreed Order with Quendall Terminals that agreed to: • Complete a Remedial Investigation to characterize and define the extent of contamination Complete a Baseline Risk Assessment to characterize potential health threats to humans and the environment; and • Complete a feasibility Study to develop and evaluate cleanup options. A schedule for completion of this work was developed as part of the Agreed Order. The Remedial Investigation was completed in 1997. In 1998, the Agreed Order schedule was amended when the City of Renton and Port Quendall Company, a Vulcan Inc_ affiliate, expressed interest in purchasing the Quendall Terminals property. Before the Agreed Order was amended, Ecology held a 30-day comment period from September 30 through October 29, 2002. The City of Renton and Port Quendall Company did not exercise their option to purchase the property. In 2004, Ecology continued negotiations with Quendall Terminals to complete the Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study, pursuant to the Agreed Order. In accordance with the order, Quendall terminals submitted a draft Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study to Ecology. These documents have not yet been finalized under Ecology's oversight. Future project needs will be determined by EPA. How can you be involved? You can provide valuable local input and knowledge that will be helpful as the cleanup plan is developed and implemented. We encourage you to stay informed and involved by: • Signing up for the mailing list for this site (see contact information for Charles Bert, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, on page one); • Attending future EPA public meetings; • Becoming familiar with the cleanup process by reading fact sheets and other documents as they become available; • Providing feedback through public meetings and comment periods. �— SUBSURFACE =L AND GROUNDWATER HYOROCARBONS PORT QUENDALL TERMINALS SITE 1, HYDFZ0CAR80N DNAPL LIU SARSEE fl+IL W PAN cn ADOBE � 0 400 Sim — Scala In Feet F�, s ��`° �� Part Quendall Terminals Cleanup Areas WASH I N G T 0 N STATE ftm DEFARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Quendall Terminals Site: Cleanup Update ATTACHMENT G ^EPA Quendall Terminals Superfund Site, Renton, Washington U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 June 2007 Study Will Guide Cleanup Plans Altino Properties and 1. H. Baxter & Company, two of the Responsible Parties of the Quendall Terminals Superfund site, have begun a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI&S) to better understand the site contamination and to develop a cleanup plan. The study will look at soils, groundwater, and lake sediment along the shoreline of the site. EPA expects to complete the .Rl/FS and select a cleanup plan ira about three years. Earlier studies showed that contamination at Quendall Terminals could pose a risk to people and the environment. How You Can Be Involved EPA is developing a community involvement plan to involve the public in the Quendall Terminals cleanup, and we want to hear from you. If you would like to provide suggestions for this plan, please contact Suzanne Skadowski, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator, at 206-553- 6689. We will be conducting community interviews this summer, and the resulting; plan will be available for public review - An. EPA technical assistance grant (TAG) is available to eligible groups whose members may be affected by this Superfund site. Most of the grant funds must be used to pay an independent technical advisor to help people in the community understand site -related technical information and participate in cleanup decisions_ To receive more detailed information about TAGS and qualifications, please call Sully Han t, EPA Region 10 TAG Coordinator, at (206) 553-1207. Site Background Quendall Terminals is located on the south- eastern shore of Lake Washington at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard North, in Renton, Washington. The former creosote manufacturing facility has been contaminated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other Luke Washington Cwrent�cre63a ... ... fc.mar Gday Creak Chartn� Port Quendall Company (Fortner Baxter Site) (continued on back page) �r�l� U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, ETPA-081 Seattle, Washington 98101-1128 Quendall Terminals Superfund Site Renton, Washington June 2007 Site Background continued Pre -Sorted Standard Postage and Fees Paid U.S. EPA Permit No. G-35 Seattle, WA hazardous chemicals -In 2006, the U.S. Environ- Public access to the Quendall Tenninais site and to mental Protection Agency (EPA) added Quendall the lake from the site is currently prohibited, due to Terminals to its National Priorities List of health concerns. contaminated sites targeted for cteanul), T'he Quendall Terminals site was used for over 50 years for manufacturing creosote and other coal Ifyou did not receive this fact sheet at home tar products. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was and would like to be added to EPA's mailing list used to store crude oil, waste oil and diesel. Since br the Quendall Terminals site, please contact 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and Suzanne Skadowski (see below). storage yard. For More Information, Contact Suzanne Skadowski EPA Community Involvement Coordinator 206-553-6689 skado wski. suzanne ja ena, go v Lynda Priddy EPA Project Manager 206-553-1987 pridd y. lynda(&epa.go v Quendall Terminals website: http://www.epa.govIrl0earthl Click on lndexA-Z, then on Qfor Quendall Terminals. Information about the Quendall Terminals cleanup is also available at the following locations: EPA Region 10 Superfund Records Center 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA Please call 206-553-4494 for an appointment. Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA 98057 Call 425-430-6610 or visit the webpage: http: //ren tonwa.govlii ving/de fault.aspx?id=842 ff you need materials in an alternative format, please contact Suzanne Skadowski. TTY users please call the federal Relay Service. 800-877-8339 Printed on 100%post-consumer recycled paper Quendall Terminals, Renton, Washington VA� EDA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 September 2005 Quendall Terminals Site Proposed for National Priorities List The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add the Quendall Terminals site to the National Priorities List (NPL). Quendall Terminals is located at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. It is the site of a former creosote manufacturing operation where past releases of coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water, and lake sediments. Listing a site on the NPL notifies the public and other parties that EPA believes the site requires further investigation and possible cleanup actions under Superfund. Sixty-day public comment periods begins September'14 EPA will accept public comments regarding the proposed NPL listing during a60-day comment period beginning September 14, 2005. See page 3 to find out where you can get more information and how to submit comments. Why is this site being proposed for the NPL? There is extensive contamination of the soil, ground- water, and lake sediments. Primary contaminants include cancer -causing polyaromatic hydrocarbons and benzene. These compounds are found at concentrations well above cleanup levels for industrial and residential sites. Releases of pollution into bake Washington are of particular concern. The lake is used for a variety of recreational purposes. There are two swimming beaches located within one-half mile of the site. In addition, the southern end of the lake is considered prime habitat for rearing of juvenile Chinook (a federally threatened species) and other salmon stocks The Cedar River, which enters Lake Washington about 2 miles from the site, supports the largest sockeye run in the contiguous United States. What happens if the site is listed on the NPL? Once a site is listed on the NPL, it becomes eligible for remedial cleanup actions under Superfund. EPXs first step would be to evaluate all of the previous studies conducted at the site, and then determine if there is sufficient information to select a cleanup alternative. Certain community involvement activities are also required for Superfund sites. This includes conducting community interviews, preparing a community involvement plan, establishing a local information repository near the site, and notifying the public about the availability of technical assistance grants that can be used to hire a technical advisor to help local citizens better understand and participate in the cleanup. Quendall TeriPlinal.5 Srlte Site background The Republic Creosoting Company, which later became Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, manufactured creosote at the 23-acre site from 1917 to 1969. The facility refined and processed coal tar and oil -gas tar residues into creosote and other chemical products. Releases of tars and creosote products to the environment occurred in parts of the site where the transport, production and storage of the products were performed. In 1971, the site was sold to Quendal I Terminals, a joint venture of J.H. Baxter and Company and Altino Properties, Inc. Between 1969 and 1978, the site was used intermittently to store diesel, crude and waste oils. Since 1977, the site has been used as a log sorting and storage yard. In 1993, the Department of Ecology negotiated an Agreed Order with Quendall Terminals to complete a remedial investigation and risk assessment, among other tasks.The remedial investigation was completed in 1997, but the schedule for completing the remaining tasks was delayed when the City of Renton and Port Quendall Company (a Vulcan, Inc. affiliate) expressed interest in purchasing the property for redevelopment. The City of Renton and Port Quendall Company eventually decided not to buy the property, and the Department of Ecol- ogy resumed negotiations with Quendall Termi- nals in 2004 to complete the risk assessment and other tasks in accordance with the 1993 Agreed Order. These documents were not finalized before Ecology transferred oversight for the cleanup to EPA. All previous work done under the Agreed Order will be considered by EPA in developing steps for future cleanup of the site. September 2005 Why did Ecology transfer oversight of the cleanup to EPA? EPAand Ecology agreed that EPAwould have more resources available to address cleanup of this complex site. In addition, there continues to be interest in redevel- oping the site for purposes other than industrial. The property is currently zoned to allow for business and residential developments, which would require more stringent cleanup. EPA's regulations under Superfund allow us to consider future uses ofthe property in developing a cleanup plan forth site. li E Quendall Terminals is located at 4503 Lake Washington Boulevard in Renton, Washington. Quendall 7er)ninals Site Where can I find more information? Notice of the proposed NPL listing was published in the Federal Registeron September 14, 2005, You may review materials supporting the proposed listing during regular business hours atthe following locations: EPA Region 10 Records Center 1200 Sixth Avenue, 7=1, Floor, Seattle, WA Hours: M-F, 8:30am—4:30pm (by appt.) 206-553-4494 Renton Public Library 100 Mill Avenue South, Renton, WA Call ahead for hours 425-430-6610 You can also view inf'onnation online at: www.epa.- og v/superfund/sites/np_l How do I submit comments? Comments on the proposed NPL listing must be submitted to EPA Headquarters at the address listed below. Mail the original and three copies of your comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5305i) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention Docket ID # SFUND-2005-0005 [Please note you must use a different address if you sendyour comments by Express Vail or courier Refer to the Federal Register notice for more ir�orni ation.] You may also submityourcomments electronically at http.//www.regulations.00v. September 2005 What happens to my comments? EPA will consider all comments received during the public comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA will publish in the Federal Register if, and when, the site Questions? If you have questions about the NPL listing or comment process, please contact: Denise Baker Region 10 NPL Coordinator 206-553-4303 baker.denise aQUa.gov For other questions about the site, please contact: Charles Bert Community Involvement Coordinator 360-753-8073 beet.charlesnepa.gov Lynda Priddy Project Manager 206-553-1987 ri y�(@gpa.gov If you did not receive this fact sheet at home, and would like to be added to EPA's mailing list for the Quendall Terminals site, please contact EPA of one of the numbers listed above. For people ivith disabilities, please call Charles Bert at 360-753-8073 with requests. for reasonable accommodation. T !'Y users, please call 800-877-8339. EPAU. S, Environmenta I 1200 &xth Avenue, ETPA-081 Seattle, Washington98101-1128 Quendall Terminals Site Proposed for Superfund National Priorities List Renton, Washington September 2005 :EPA <> Working with you for a better environment <> ATTACHMENT H eA p1t h ba "J11V QUENDALL TERMINALS RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON EPA FACILITY M: WAD980639215 SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 VNIAA SERVICES 1 Q A ly 1 1 � Pj K`!Wl n 1 %541 0W.4 1 \ NO H i H I X WANA M& r W- 10 a� Ku 1 T"P-ow ', Dowd w 11 "Wow A� IN w0we .0i I May A ill, "WCNA 'd Manow, WhAdy" "! lu"It'in vw,� at;,Vyq,4�10, QH4 PIA TJOI 1AS VIA Ono wuloml 'www"M Av � w"Awn, , v ion v On MAY 'd A , 10 exoWnd KUMAM cyaw"v Wo in On Aqww"n am! kw�7! Q"" j"n a A a and wuwkw ,tail, o"I I l7i mh Loop I uh wh%imc- md An no 4wimm AV kro lit "M Wid, wil no a 1Aq An" w iwvawlw,. Won, 1w 4""nAwd "a kip V'"'Od it'd, to, AiliNwv Bu Mminaw w A MM W I wWpTnmv W, 4FPA W mainons, %JA aw KA i 1 w a. A MAN In"ww"MIN 1h- 40 111 �N—Wwv 0I OW)k nawww"wh! W I a, WmAw oWn —nrw I K M Inc I now owd ny dw, liII'tI,, Ike 1 , M JM PWIC QWMCI ""Aqjy Nc 11w jVY&M, 01 ll-C jociQ jojhw nww 'n-a! in 016- onmMwQ, 0"3.obc KOH 1"n"Uh w, iin! do�, 1J--,.:Ii h% Me 10015�: Walk n. I v I &W twon"Hunh j I k,�!hh ;ilW I hwmn t )0k-° )<I;1II 'l't�rrtti1)It1,; Initial Release Il ITIAI, IZEL EASE PUBLIC HEALTH ASSLSSMEN'r QUI-N1MLL TERMINALS RE-NN ON, KfNG COUNTY, WAS[IINGTON I: PA FACILITY ID. W D980G39215 Prepared by: Washington State Department health Under Cooperative Agreement with the Agency for Toxic SUbstances and Disease Registry This ii?1w-ma1ion is di'viriblaed solely jur- the purpose of}ire-dissernin ation public cv nwieni under applicable il!frrr °okra qualily guidelines. Il has not been.formally di3seminraied by the fIgency for Toxic Subsianves and Disease Regislrl= Ii does not represent and should riot be construed to represew cagy ergmcv Cleterrrcincat.i x.n Or po ficy. Quendail Terminals Initial Release Draft Table of Contents ATSDR JFRMC:ifM IA1NC TY►6iN.fy4 �aao�cu rscsrer Summary and Statement of Issues.. ........... ............ ...................... ................................ __._ I Background................................................................................................................................... 2 A. Site Description ... ............................... ................................................. ................. ............ . 2 R. Site Operations and History. .................................................. ................ ............ __ ....... 2 C. Regulatory History and Activities.. ................. _ ..................... __-- _ ...... __ ....... _ ...... _ 3 D. Land Use and Natural Resources Information............................................................ 3 E. Demographic Information................................................................................................ 4 F. Site Visit........................,.............,...................................................... ------ .................... 4 Environmental Contamination...... ................................ ____ ........... ................ ............ _ .... 5 A. On -Site Contamination.................................................................................................... 5 B. tiff -Site Contamination.................................................................................................... 5 Pathways Analysis / Public Health Implications ........... ...................... .................. .............. ...._ 5 A. Completed Exposure Pathways.....................................................................................6 B. Potential Exposure Pathways......................................................................................... 6 DISCUSSiOrl..................................................................................................................................... 9 A. Contaminants of Concern .... .-.......... ............................................................................... 9 Chemical Specific Information.................................................................................................... 9 CommunityHealth Concerns..................................................................................................... 9 Children's Health Concerns..........,......................................................................................._... 10 Conclusions....................... ..................................... ................................... ....,,.............. ........ ...... 10 Recommendations.................................................................................................................... 10 Public Health Action Plan.......................................................................................................... 10 Author........................................................................................................................................... I I Fe;tere;r~Ices.................................................................................................................................. t2 Glossary__, ................... __ .... _ ......... ........... .... _ ............ ............. QuendaA ferminals Initial Release Draft List of Tables ATSDR Table I - POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ............................................................. Quendali Terminals InIGal Release Draft � om W List of Figures Figure; 1. Demographic Statistics Within One Mile of the Site* - Renton, King County, Washington,...................................................................,......................--........... 13 Figure 2. Quendall Terminals Site Map - Renton, King County, Washington .................. 14 ATSDR Quondall Terminals Initial release Draft Sinkiinary and Statement of Issnes The Washington State Deptartrneant of Health (DOl f) has prepared this health assessment at the Iccltfcst ufIlae t .S• .l°.zavirtmmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of this health assessment is to evaluate the potential health hazard posed by contaminants in soil, lake sediment and groundwater sampling data at Quendall Terminals in. King County, Renton, Washington. DOH prepares health assessniontS under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A`lSDR). C urrp,ntly rat) completed human exposure pathways have been identified for the site.The unvfionrr ce i(al clank I`rona previous environmeni.al investigadoaas needs to he organi�zcd Ibi- complooness as the data varies significantly and there is limited laboratory quality assurancc:/gWllity control infiormattion available for the data. Qciendall Terminals poses an indeterminate public health hazard. The existing; data need to be organized to document human exposure. Currently there is potential for human exposure to occur at the: site.. EPA has oversight for the: ltcmedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RllFS) which will further characterize the nattire and extent of contamination at Quendall Terminals. As environmental data becoim available, EPA should provide the data to DOH for evaluation of €1unrua hei:11111 (4tcctS. Quendall Terminals Initial Release Draft Background ATSDR ANC The Washington State Department of I lealth (T)014) prepared this public health assessment under as cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This health assessment is mandated by the Cc)mprehensive Environmental Response, {'q ul)4a7satiorl, nand Liability Act (CF-RC LA) of 1980. On SWtc ber 14, 2005, l;;PA proposed to place Que ndaall Terminals on the National Priorities list (NPI.) in accordance with Section 105 Of CERCLA, 42 1 J.S.C. 9605, 121 The; NI'1, is I PA's list of the Nation's most contaminated N,wnrdous waste sites, also known as Stiperf"und sites. ATSDR is required to conduct a public health aasscssnieant Inr all hazardous_ waste sites proposed for inclusion on the National .Priorities las(. On April Ic), 2006, the U.S. E'arvironmentsal Protection Agency (EPA) officially listed the t Uendaall 'f'erminals site can the N111.. 'Tice p1.117I)OSc of this assessment is to determine whether the site poses a public health threat as well as make recommendations and take appropriate actions based on that determination. While as risk aasicssnicnt conducted under ETA's gemedial Tnvestiyationlhcasihility Study (RUFS) process is used to support the selection of remedial measures at a site, the Public Health; Asscs4aa'tont (111 IA) is provides the community with irift rtnEation on the site -specific public health implications, It identifies populations where further health actions or studies are needed. [3] Theretbre;, diffcrent assumptions and rnedrods tray be used that reflect the different purposes for risk aissL!�;snienLs and public health assussments. A, Site Description Qa endaall Terminals is a 25-acre property located on the southeastern shore of Lake Washington at 450' I..aake Washington Boulevard Notilt. in Renton, King County, Washington_ ' 'he 1iarbee N1 ill property and N4ay Creek border the site to the south. The former J.H. Baxter property (Port ()ttcxaa(itall rtc: w awns) borders the, site: to the north. The Burlington Northern Santa I=e: Railroad right -cal' -way borders to the: eat, and about 4,000 fieet of L ake Washington shoreline bowlers to the west. May Urvek Ilows toward the, sotathern end of the site along, the Barbee Mill property, The site is rc:laativ ly flat today Clue to lilling, and grading. The entire site has fill ragging from one foot to as nTauc.la tas 14 i%ct in placer 11, 41, The fill consist of'silt, sand, gravel, wood, brick and glass. 1T. Site Operations anti flistory The site was pert of a homestead patented to Jeremiah Sullivan in 1874 and was deeded to James C `olcaaa. n In 1 h76 11, 21, May Creek originally flowed tlirough they middle of the site. "The upland area Of the site was occupied 1>y a shingle mill prior to 191 G. 'T'he site was later deeded to Peter R illy In 1916T hc .lw ering of lake Washington in 1916 exposed more of the May Creek delta (liras incrvasing, the parcel size 11. 31. The site operated aas as coal tart relining plant bean 1916 to 1961) by Republic Creosote Company, The nsurac later changed to Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, which tuaalufacturing cre()seate; mid other tar preaclucts. T ar was purchased fi-orn Seattle Gas Company can Lake. Union and FA Quendall Tc: urinals Initial Release Draft ATSDR ua aiVLsr *onrpr shipped via rail or barged on Lake Washington to the site- The tar was pumped through transfer lines, which roan along two clocks (T-(lock and the southern pier dock) to two, 2-million gallon moragc tanks in the tank farm area. In 1971, the site Yves sold to Quendall Terminals, and the site has been used periodically for fuel stortaf,Ll -e and as s 100 Sorting yard. Quendall Terminals is a_joint venture formed by 7.I-1, Baxter and Altino Properties (owners of Barbee Mall). Currently, the northeast part of the site is used for log sorting and storage, while the southwest part is usLd ft)r staging and storage for waterfront barge operations. All of the buildings kept Ior the office building have been removed from the site_ A series of settling ponds are located aloof; the western edge for stout water management. C. Regulatory History and Activities In the 197N the Washington State Department of l: cology and municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (MFITRO) learned oldpossible contamination at the site [5]. Several investigations have been carried out can the site, starting in 1971 with the sale of the property [1, 41. In 1984, the site was inspected and ranked by .E cology. 'The site was then proposed for inclusion on the ETA's National Priorities List (;NPL), thereby making IPA the lead for site activities, In 1986, the site was removed. beam the proposed NPL sites. Since then .t,.cology has been providing oversight for the r.lcatttup under the sttate'S Model 'Taxies Curitrol Act (MT(,A). In the early 1990s, Ecology conducted studies on offshore sediments at the site [6, 7, 8]. In 1993, I1.cology negotiated an Agreed Order with Que ndalI Terminals [2]_ As part of the. Agreed Order, Quciid alI Terminals completed a remedial investigation I;1]. In 1998, the Agreed Order was taniencled when the City oi'Rento n and Vulcan Inc., expressed interest in purchasing the site, In 1999.. the City of Renton Submitted a draft Remedial Investigation and Focus Feasibility Study to I :coIogy 14 1, 1-1owever, the City of Renton and Vulcan Ine. declined the purchase: and rcdeVektpment option for the site. Ecology continued negotiations with Quendall Terminals to complete the. Disk Assessment and 1,"easibility Study. in accordance with the. 1983 Agreed Order, In late 2003). Ecology requested F11A, to evaluate the site using the Hayard Ranking System (I IRS). In late January 2005, .Ecology requested that EPA take the lead for overseeing cleanup at the :site. In September 2005, the site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL list. In April 2006, the site was a,tdd%.d as an NPL site, Currently. ETA and Quendall Terminals are in negotiations. D. Land (Jse and Natural Resources Information Quendall 1'erminals was originally Toned for industrial rase_ In the; late 1990s, the City of Renton Dater zoned this property and the surrounding; properties as "Commercial Office Residential." Quendall Terminals is allowc;cl tO continue using the property as it is used; however. they may not ch"Inge or expand the existing operation. -Plea rile iv located on the "'oudwastzrn shore of l,akc Washington, East. (if Seattle, Washington, i e I.u'i�, a�p3roxinaatc y 2K knt long and 65 in Bleep (87.6 km' i�) 1'91_ It is used fora variety of recreational. commercial, and industrial purposes, There are two swimming beaches located 3 ATSDR Quendall Terrninals trritial Release [drat€ �xithin it halt' III ile of the site. I,ake Washington is an importttr►t sport and tribal fishery resource with sevi real varieties of native and introduced lash species in the Lake Washington basin [9]. `l he lake is considered prime habitat liar rearing ofjuve.nilc Chinook (a federally threatened spocios) ravel rather s almon stocks. The Cedar liver and May Creek ether Lake Washington within 2 miles of Quendal I Terminals. The Cedar Diver supports the largest sockeye run in the LOD1i,110OUs United States. The Wa shingtoo Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and three Puget Sound Indian tribes (khackleshoot, Seaguamish, and Tulatlip tribes) cooperatively managed Lake Washington sockeye saItnon i 101. The aannuttl spawning goof for Lake. Washington is 350,000 sockeye salmon. When the rnra excee;d alai& goal, the searplus fish are available for harvest by sport and "I`rihal f5herie;s [ 101. As cat August 4, 2006, (lie current count for sockeye retearn is about 466,000 fish, E. Deg oLtraphic Information According to the 2000 census, King County had a population of 1,737,034 (U.S. Census Bureau 1990; 2000). Similarly, the: 2000 census shows the population of Renton is approximately 50,052. Approximately 5,005 persons lived within a 1-mile radius of the site. The majority of people are white ( 85%), but about 10% of the population in the area are comprised of Asian and t'tacilie lslanders (APIs). Studies have shown that APIs consume more fish than Ctxu sians. lhLn—efibre, Potential iniplications For fish consumption exist from contaminated fish in the area. Fi�lLire I presents additional demographic information for residents within a t-mile radius of ( klendall Teraninals tiite_ K Site 'visit Ou April t4, 2006. a site visit was conducted by DOIJ and EPA stag, and Robert Cugini of Quclldadl Terrnillals. The lbl lokviaig observations were made during the physical inspection of the site: • The site: is very caasy to access from the road on the eastern side or from the; lake via boat. Illegal dumping ofhouschold products occurs at this Site. A series of settling ponds are located on the northwemern of the site presumably to Oontrc)l stormwate;r runoff. l lac log sorting operation has disturbed and mixed surface and sub -surface soil in the north central and eastern portions of the site:. hhe southwc.sl coo-ner of the site is used for loadin tall=loading barges, and storage of taolcs ;ind a Lhur ccluipmtmt. ATSDR i UOM-fall Tcrmifials Initial Release grafto Ett+vironmental Contamination A. On -Site Contamination l"nvironmentarl investigations of the. Quendall Terminals site :hark identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbom (11AHs), naphthalene, benzene, toluene, ethylbenaene, and xylene (BT X) and dense non -aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) associated with coal tar, pitch, creosote, and other tar distillates contamination in subsurfaace sails, groaat-adwater, and freshwater sediments. Potential contamination sources include historical chemical storage tams areas, spill areas and loading areas. Much of the existing contarninant data are from 1990s and 1990s, and are poorly errMU)izcdi IIl'A has questioned the duality of the data. Recently, FTA has required Quendall I crminals to vak lode all the: data and compile it in one place electronically. .S`o i is Although €r rliiniba:r of environmental investigations have been conducted at the Quendall Terminals site, the data are mainly from depth and have shown soil contamination. Very few suriace samples are evident. irroz?ndivaler cvur<rl g1-0UndWater Monitoring wells were installed on -site during; previous investigations conducted.Naphthalene, I'Al]:s, BTEX and l)NAPL have been detected in on -site monitoring wells. It. Off -Site, Contamination Sitc•rounding property has been, and is currently being, evaluated for contamination as part of the I—CLICvclopialc;nt pro 'jcct ill tile; tarot. The former J.1 I. Baxter property that borders the Quendall i eriniaa�als to the. north has Undergone environmental cleanup and is now the future site of tlae Scarltle Scahaawks football team headquarters. The sawmill nta the Barbee Mill property that borders the site to the south has been dismantled and the site is slated for redevelopment. Pathways Analysis/Public Health Implications In carder to determine if exposure to contaminants from the Quendall 'l'erminals site has occearred, c�1>s}sure patilt��a}s are cv<aluated in thissection. Completed exposure pathways contain the five listed Olenwnts Below and indicate that exposure to a contaminant has occurred in the past, is currCul la Occurriraaa„ 01' ill the i'trttare. An exposure palhway contains the following; e.3c:nac.tars: • A source of contamination. * Transport of contamination throtioh an environmental medium (soil, water, air). * A point at which humans may be exposed, 5 ATsDR C1uendali T4rmisials fidtial kctease Draft MW s",VMn I � A route of human exposure (ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact). A receptor population (on -site workers or residents). PoWntial exposure pathways indicate that contaminant exposure may have; occurred in the past, could pr"'ently be: occutx-ing, or could possibly occur in the: future, However, an exposure pathway is removed from consideration if one of the rive elements is missing and will never be present. A. Completed [exposure Pathways Presently. no completed human exposure pathways have iaetn identified for the site. However, tf,c: cnvirunnaental data from previous environmental investigations needs to be organized for cxampleteness as the data varies significantly and then; is limited laboratory quality �strr,,ince rltetality control information available for the data. B. Potential Exposure Pathways `ievcral potential human exposure pathways exist at the site From contaminants present in surface soil, subsurfitce sail, groundwater, fish, and sediments. Potential, human exposure pathways that may have occurred in the past, are currently occurring, or could occur in the future at the site are listed ill Fable 1. Potential routes crfexrg7sure are ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of wind -born dust by on -site; workers or remedial workers from contaminated surface soil. 'rho extent ol'surface: wail contarnination is presently unknown. Characterization of surface sails (0 - 3 inches in depth) at the; site is necessary to assess the public health implications of the surface sail pathway. This represe:nls a draw gap, Subsul'-filce tail Pathway I`Oe atial routes of exposure are ingestion, dermal coninct and inhalation of wind -bona dust by an-Sfl yvol-kers or remedial workers from contaminated subsurfrace. soil. During excavation or reniediation at;tivitie -, soil disturbing activities may lead to contaminated subsurface soil being, exposed. Subsurface soil invesfigtatio:ns have been conducted to determine the extent of contamination on -site. However, since EPA took over the: management of this site, they r 'quested Quendall Terminals validate all then data and compile it in one place electronically. Gt•rrrtnclwwvr Patl ivoy Potential ratite°s of oxposurc to contaminated water are ingestion, inhalation, and dermal ( tonta.ecl. The number of,wells located wvitlain a f -mile raditts of Quendal l Terminals that could be used as ar soorce ot'drinkirrg water or for occupational purposes is presently unknown. It is neccss�ar'y to cfeternainc dw existence of wells to understand the public health implicztions of the ground ,titer pathway, R Quendaii Terminals Initial Release graft Sziz jace fValer Pathway ATSDR Aark C7fkMttltlt'14fi45tAi I AWML "IM M Due to the proximity of Lake 'Washington to the site, surface water runoff into the lake presents a potential fir contamination. Potential routes of exposure to contaminated surface water include accidental ingestion, and dermal contact while swimming in hake Washington. Sedirr enis Pathway Surface water runoff is a primary transport mechanism for contaminated soils into surface water and sediments. Potential routes ofexposure from contaminated sediments my include dermal contact by rernedial workers during site cleanup activities and recreational beach users. Fish Ingestion Pathway A pot.e.nhal route of exposure from contaminated fish is ingestion by recreational anglers, subsistent and trib'a fisher. fast, current, and futwe exposure from ingestion of contaminated fish harveswd from Lake Washington is possible. 11n existing frsh advisory is in place for Lake Washington northern pikeminnow, yellow perch, cutthroat trout, largemouth bass, and smallmouth bass clue to elevated mercury and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels [9]. 7 Quendad Terni;?als 1.mt�al=eic-ase Draft A=TS D R Table 1 - POTENTIAL l XPOSLIR PATHWAI'S Pathway ame Environmental Pathway Elements Time Source Environmental Point of p Route of Exposed Media Exposure Exposure Population Surface Soils Treated wood Surface Soils On -site snit I Ingestion � On -site &'. Past transfer areas. Inhalation Remedial Present 3 Dermal Contact Workers Future Subsurface Soils chemical spills Subsurface Historic Process Ingestion Remedial Future and leaks areas Soils and Storage j Inlialation Workers Areas Deil Contact Sediments chemical spills Sediment Nearby Public Ingestion Recreational Past and transfer areas Beaches & site Dermal Contact Users & Present shoreline Remedial. Future Workers Groundwater chemical spills, Groundwater Historic Process Dermal Contact Industrial fast storage and and Storage ingestion Users Present transfer areas Areas InhaIation Future: Surface Water chemical spills Surface Water Lake i Ingestion Recreational Past and transfer areas Washington Derinal Contact Users Present Future fish chemical spills Fish Tissue Lake Ingestion. Recreational Past and transfer areas Washington & Subsistence Present Users Future E:3 ATSDR Quendail Terminals Initial Pelease Draft � sf Discussion A. Contaminants of Concern Past soil s impling revealed BTl:?X PAHs etc. at various depths as well as DNAI'L Very few samples were taken from the surfaace. The data is currently not well organized. Many samples are old and validity is unknown. These issues render available environmental sampling results Unsuitable for determining contaminants or concern and for evaluating human exposures. Since l,'.PA took over the management of this site, they requested Quendall Terminals validate all the data and Compile it ira one place electronically. Consequently, contaminants of concern will, hopefully be addressed in the public rele:aw draff of this health assessment. Chelntictrl Specific Information A. Toxicological FValuation Presenll�- completed hurnata exposure pathways have not been identified at the site. The eli irrrnnieniarl data from previous environmen(al investigations needs to be organized for r owple iencss as the data varies, significantly and there is limited laboratory quality assurance/quality control information available for the data. Since EPA took over the manaagerncttt of this site, they requested Quendall Terminals validate all the data. and compile it in one place clectronically, Consequently, the toxicological evaluation will he addressed in the public release draft of this health assessment. a Health Outcome Data Evaluation ['LIVItAdV rt0 hCarlth rnrtcome d4atat have been evaluated for areas adjacent to the Quendea.11 fenllinal. sit€_ 'I'll re are no luiown completed human exposure: pathways or community health cc acorns documented alleging health effects from exposure; to contaminants present at this site:. Community lie-Ath Concerns D01 I normally identi lies community health concerns through meetings or correspondence with C011 nti:rnity members, federal, state and local officials. Somc of this information is gathered from site personnel and review ol'site documents, including record of decisions (RODS) and (:'.rrmmunit; Relations Plans_ DOH is platining to meet with representatives of the Nluckleshoot, sutlar,aniish, atria Tulaalip tribes tag discuss tribal concerns about current and or future use of lake L�4,i hingi{�n ras it gource for harvesting fish. DOH will compile any concerns that the community, may have regarding site: -related contaarnination associated with Quendall `l`iwrniinal and Lake Washington in ruture releases of this public health assessment. 9 ATSDR i trnciK9El rerminals Initial Release graft C:hildren's Health Concerns Tht unique vulnerabilities of infants and children demand special attention in corarntmities that have contamination of their water, lbod, soil, or air. The potential for exposure and subsequent adverw health effects ofitel3 increases for younger children compared with older children or adults, A I'SD Z and DOI l recognize that children are susceptible to developmental toxicity that can occur at levels much lower than those causing other types of toxicity. Conclusions An indeterminate publie health hazard exists for Quendall Terminals. Existing data are not sufficient Ior evaluating burn an expo sure. A potential for hunatan exposure exists at the site:, but uxisting daata are not sufficient for evaluating potential exposures. Recommendations Quendaall Te-nninrals validate all tlae envirr,inne ntal data and compile it in one place electronical ly. 2. l:urther characterize the extent of surface soil contamination within Quendall Terminals. �. Sample and analyze resident fish for site related contamination, 4. identify drinking; water wells within one mile of the site. Publics Flealth Action Plan FhC Publie 1 lealth Action Plan (I HAPj for Quendal I Ten-Dinals identifies actions to be tA-eja by DOI I and other parties subsequent to the completion of this preliminary public health as - sment. "1'he purpose of the PHA P is to ensure that this ,public health assessment not only identifics public health hazards, but provides' a plan of action designed to mitigate and prevent �idversA: Duman health effects resulting lron7 exposure to hazardous substances in the ctivi ronment. 1, EPA has oversight for the RI/FS, which will further characterize the nature and extent of contamination at Quendal l 'Ferminals. As environmental data becomes available, EPA will provide the data to DOII for evaluation of human health et ects. w?. Ia'A Is presently planning additional sampling as part of the on -going Remedial Irivestigadon rand l"e.asibility Study (RI/PS) furQucndall Terminals that should address thesc d al a galas. a, UPA is presently planning fish sampling as part of the on -going RU S for QUendall Ferminarls that should address this data gap. 10 Quendall Terminals Initial Release Draft ATSDR +�+cnac�s, �asmv Author Lenford O'Garro Washington State.f7eP ifirnent of Health Office of Environmental Health Assessments Site Assessment Section Designated Reviewer Wayne Clifford, Manager Site Assessment Section Office of Environmental Health Assessments Washington State Department of Health ATSDR Technical Project Officer Robert Knowles, Commander Cooperative Agreement Program Evaluation Branch Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 11 Quendall Terminals Initial Release Draft References ATSDR";, Final Remedial lnvcstigation, QLIcndall Terminals Uplands, Renton, Washington, ` OILIMC I and 11, 1lart Crowser, April 10, 1997. 2. State of W�tshing,ton Department of Ecology, August 27, 1993, Agreed Order No. '1'i1 92TC-N335, In the Matter of Remedial Action by Quendall Terminals. 3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Hazard Ranking System Documentation, Record, Quendall '.terminals, August 15, 2005. 4, Frail Remedial Investigation and Focused Feusibility Study ror the; Quendall 'rerrninais Property, Prepared by Exponent for the City of Renton, November 1999. 5. Que:ndall Terminal (UD#2 X-3) - NOAA's Coastal Hazardous Waste Site Reports: Washington. lift ://ar,c:hive.orr.notia. ►ov/c r/wastesitesll'DF-,/1985l uendall Terminal. df 6, 1 ff"ects of I'olveyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PA11s) its sediments from Lake WzLslhingto.n on freshwater bioassay organisms and benthic macroinvertebrates, Publication No. 92-cO1: Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington, June 1992. 7. Distribution and Significance of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Lake Washington Sediments Adjacent to QuendalI Terminalslf.1l. Baxter Site, Publication No. 91-0 39: Washington State Department of Ecology: Olympia, Washington, May 1991. 8. I.eSUIN Of'SeciiMent:: Sttnlpling in the J.H. Baxter cove, Lake Washington —Jwic 1991 Publication No. 92-c50: Washington State Department of Ecology: Olympia, Washington. May 210. 1992. 9. Final Deport, h.valuation of Coatarnimmts in Fish from Lake Washington king County, Washington. Washington State Department of Health: September 2004, 10, Washington Department of Dish and Wildlife (WDFW), Lake Washington Sockeye. ltttl�:if�cli'�y.wrE,�.��}��iisl��socke}�elllc4vashintro.ltim I I . IJS l-Invironmental Pro tcction Agency. Guidelines for Carcinogen Disk Assessment (Rovie Draft). NCFA-F-0044 July 1999. Available at inteniet: 11 ATS DIZ Agency for'l-oxic Stibstances and Disease .Registry. ATSDR fact Sheet: Cancer. updated August 30, 2002. Atlanta: US Department of lealth and I1un an Semices_ Available at internit: littp., Nk. w.atsdr.ccic. tc�v/CC)M/c anct r-ts lttt E. 12 Quendati Terminals initial Release Draft ATSDR •40 -Atilt n 1AM F'47,u e 1. D,�mo,fra hic StZLiStiCs Within Ontt Mile of the Site"* - .Renton, .King C OUnty, 11�ashit�r.;tcstt. E c , € I� zF c �rT { -lE d Q .. ..�.. - .ice s F � r € i FtE 4l€CEfEf ( Calcuiatr`'d usilig the arc+a proportion technique. Source: 2000 U.S. CENSUS 13 �......__._._.. ................_...... jotal Population .......... . , 5U05 Whita 4232 € alaCic 73 ,. American Indian EskEmo, Rtat 20 Asian or Pacific Islander 5(13 ,......_......._..... Other Race ........ .....s 30 : i&paNG tar €n i43 Children Aged 6 and Younger 41$ Adults Ag rid 65 and (alder 534 FerrnalesAged 15-44 96[i6 Total Aged over 18 3898 `Total Agent under 18 1108 ;TotalHouSmg Units 2127 QUendall Terminals Initial Release Draft Figurc I Quendall Terminals Site \slap- Kenton, Kind; County, Washington. E z E t E y " E i � W�NIi 6'f Ma i 4?lE:E �IEI(iE E E igill k"'m € € E { CIE E IEES j Ei 11€IEiEIL�FIEEE EI 6IE€ f f'i f.t �i'I,:t �' € d I EE sfEte tiL €EE E E EE' i€ i i �'fE Hf� ..................... _ ., �kenu,�<•x�nr � Ef ' ;- €'€� � i=tiF€ €f�'��p�.`fb ��' �E�� €€ E ai4�kit•=: u`ce's _«>_11 _,.gq A;- �T' 0 P" °s[E]C Bah 7 Y:k 6' l�•A Y`[i f . I .. 5 i 1 E E c. E � - t E €t € s ,1, a •. f .. ............... I :: 3 Fg`-.�PEIE�C�i1R E 4� � E IE t IE E E 14 Quendall Terminal,; Initial release Draft Glossary ATSDR Agency for ToxicThe principal federal public health agency involved with hazardous wale 5itlisttlnres and Diseaseissues, responsible for preventing or reducing the harmful effects of Registry (Ai5l3R) exposure to hazardous substances on human health and quality of life. A`I'SDR is part of the U.S. Department of Flealth and Human Services. i AquiferAn underground formation composed of materials such as sand., soil, or gravel that can stare and/or supply groundwater to wells and springs. The concentration of a chemical in air, soil or water that is expected to 'Cancer tusk rValuation, cause no more than one excess cancer in a million persons exposed over a Guide (f. REG) lifetime. The C REG is a comparison value used to select contaminants of potential heahli concern and is based on the canner x1ope factor (CSF). C'iiNCCt' Slope Factor number assigned to a cancer causing chemical that is used to estimate Its ? agility to cause cancer in humans. I Carcinogen Any substance that causes cancer. Calculated concentration of a substance in air, water, foocL or soil that is unlikely to cause harmful (adverse) health effects in exposed people. The Comparisou value CV is ilsed as a screening level during the: public health assessment process. Substances found in amounts greater than their CVs might be selected for further evaluation in the public health assessment process, s Contaminant i A substance that is either present in an environment where it does not belong or is present at levels that might cause harmful (adverse:) health licrnta l C=attt:lct Contact with (touching) the slain (sew route ol'exposure). flit; aniotint of a substance to which a Berson is exposed over some time Period. Dose is a measurement of exposure. Dow is often expressed as t)r�se milligram (amount) per kilogram (a measure ol'body weight) per d (a (far Chemicals that arc not € measure of time) when people eat or drink contaminated water, fnod, or 'of r;tctiusective) soil. In general, the greater the close, the greater the likelihoodan effect. 3 An `exposure close" is how much of a substance is encountered in the environment. An "absorbed dose" is the amount of a substance that � actually got into the body through the eycs,,ikin, stomach, intestines, or Iulws. Emvirouniental -Media A concentration in air, soil, or water below which adverse non -cancer I`.Ytlillati011 Guide' - hoalih i„tleC1S are no! expected to occur. The EMrG is a comparison value . (F:Nil''< used to select con mininilnts of potential healt#f concerti and is based on A I'SIM's aiir imal risk level (1•SIRL) Qiiendall Terminals initial Release Or -aft ATSDR A' w 's Em v i ro n men to l Protection Afcncy (1.1'A) United States Environmental Protection Agency_ Lx posurr Contact with a substance by swallowing, breathing, or tottelting the skin or eyes. Exposure may be short-term (acute exposure), €3f intermediate duration„ or long term„[chronic exvosureJ,... Groundwater Water beneath the earth's surface in the spaces between sail particles and between rock surfaces [compare With Surface water]. Any material that poses a threat to public health andlor the environawnt. Hazardous substance I}'picot hazardous substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive. i 7"he act of swallowing; something through eating drinking, or mouthing tngcstiunc objects. A hazardous substance can enter the body this way (see route of exposurej. The amouot «fan environmental ntediurn that could be ingested typically ingcstion rate on ij daily basis. (3nits for I are usually liter/day for water, and nrwday for soil. The act of breathing. A hazardous substance can enter the body this way [see route of exposure). Compounds composed orminertl materials. including elemental salts and metals such its iron, aluminum, mercury, and zinc. L01Vest Ohserved Adverse l M01 Level (LOAFL) ["lie lowest teswd &se of at substance that has been reported to cause harmful (adverse) htatlth effects in people or animals. I A drinking water regulation established by the rLderal Safe Drinking Water Maximum contntnninant Act. It is the maximum permissible concentration ofa contaminant in watcr Level (MC L) that is delivered to the free flowing, outlet of the ultimate user of a public water system. MC Ls are enforc€:able standards. Soil, water. air, plants, animals. or any ether part of the environment that Media can ccmtaiian contaminants. 3 16 Cat►,,ndall Terminals Initial Release Dratt Minimal Risk Level (MRL) Mudel "I oxics Cstntrol Act (MICA) No apparent public health hazard iko Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAF1,) Oral reference dose (Rfl)) organic Peats per billion (ppb)/Parts 1wr million (pprn) Plume Reference DOW Media tvaluatiun Guide (Itmr(;) ATSDR An ATSDR estimate ofdaily human exposure to a hazardous substance at or below which that substance is unlikely to pose a treasurable risk of harmful (adverse), noncancerous effects. MI±:L.s are calculated for a route of exposure (inhalation or oral) over a specified time period (acute, intermediate, or chronic). MRLs; should not be used as predictors of harmful (adverse) health effects [see reference dose]. The hazardous et+aste cleanup law for Washington State. A category used in AT'SDR's public health assessments for sites where human exposure to contaminated media might be occurring, might have occurred in the past, or might occur in the future. but where the exposure is not expected to cause any harmful. health effects_ 'cite highest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) health effects on people or animals. An amount of chemical ingested into the body (Le., dose) below which health effects arc not expected. RfDs are published by EPA, Compounds composed of carbon, including materials such as solvents, oils, and pesticides that are not easily dissolved in water. t!nits commonly used to express low concentrations of contaminants. For example, 1 ounce of trichloroethylene (TCE) in I trillion ounces of water is I ppm. l ounce. of ` -Cb in I billion ounces of water is l ppb. If one drop of TCE is mixed in a competition size swimming pool, the: water will contain at}aut I ppb of TCI,. A volume of substance that motes front its source to places farlher away from (lie sutlrce. flumes can be described by the; volume of air or water they occupy and the direction they move. For example, a plume can be a column of'smoke li-ont a chinincy or a substance moving with groundwater. A concentration in air, soil, or water below which adverse non-canctr health effects are not expected to occur. The KML•G is a comparison value used to select contaminants of potential health concern and is based on E la'A's oral reference dose (RtTM). i 'rite way people come: into cxrnlact with a hazardous substance, T7►rt:c, Route of expos►►re r►atitca of exposure are breathing (inhalation], eating or drinking [iagestittnj, or contact with the skin [dermal contactj. 17 3 i ATSDR c�[ KGYT�� 9�S�iTZi C�uk,fIriatl eli-Iiinc)is Irlitial ReleaseDraft A°f6 EA49x4tM Surface Witter Water on the surface of the earth, s ich as in takes, river's, streams, ponds, and springs [compare with groundwater]. i - i Organic compounds that evaporate readily into the air. VO s include Vnlarile or#;<ttyic sabstances such as benzene, toluene, methylene chloride, and inerhyl clylorotczrin. i Quendail Terminals Initial Release Draft co r"tification ATSDR �F This Quendall'Terminals Health.Assessment was prepared by the Washington State Department of l lealth under a cooperative agreement with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). It is in accordance with approved methodology and procedures existing at the tinic the health assessment was begun. Editorial review was completed by the Cooperative Agreement patiner. Technical �xs�f ect Officer, CAT, SPAR, DHAC P/ ATSDR The Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, has reviewed this public health asscssnient and concurs with the 'find ijigs. 19 ATTACHMENT I KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL King County Department of Natural Resources January 24, 2005 1.1.1 PROJECTS REQUIRI%vG DRAINAGE REVIEW 1.1.1 PROJECTS REQUIRING DRAINAGE REVIEW Drainage review is required for any proposed project (except those proposing only maintenance) that is subject to a King County development permit or approval, including but not limited to those listed at right, AND that meets any one of the following conditions: 1, The project adds or will result in 2,000 square feet10 or more of new impervious surface, OR 2. The project proposes 7,000 square feett0 or more of land disturbing activity, OR 3. The project proposes to construct or tnodify a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth, or receives surface and storm water runoff from a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12 inches or more in size/depth, OR 4. The project contains or is adjacent to a flood hazard area as defined in KCC 21 A.06, OR 5. The project is located within a Critical Drainage Area," OR 6. The project is a redevelopment project proposing S 100,00012 or more of improvements to an existing high - use site, OR 7. The project is a redevelopment project on a single- or multiple -parcel site in which the total of new plus replaced impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation and frontage improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. If drainage review is required for the proposed project, the type of drainage review must be determined based on project and site characteristics as described in Section 1.1.2. The type of drainage review defines the scope of drainage requirements that must be evaluated for compliance with this manual. King Administrative Subdivision (Short Plat) Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Conditional Use* Clearing Commercial Building Experimental Design Adjustment" Formal Subdivision (plat) Franchise Utility Right -of -Way Use Grading Preapplication Adjustment' Right -of -Way Use Shoreline Substantial Development* Single Family Residential Building Special Use* Unclassified Use" Urban Planned Development Zoning Reclassification* Zoning Variance* *Note, if the proposed project will require subsequent permits subject to drainage review, then DDES may allow the drainage review to be deferred until application for the later permits_ 1 ° The thresholds for new impervious surface and land disturbing activity shall be applied by threshold discharge area and in accordance with the definitions of these surfaces and activities. 11 See Reference Section 3 for a list of Critical Drainage Areas. 12 This is the "project valuation" as declared on the permit application submitted to DDES. The dollar amount of this threshold is considered to be as of January 8, 2001 and may be adjusted on an annual basis using the local consumer price index (CPI). Note: January 8, 2001 is the effective date of the ESA 4(d) Rule for Puget Sound Chinook salmon. 2045 Surface Water Design Manua] I I/01/2006 1-9 1.2.3 I0J3CORE R) QUJREMENT#3: FLOW CONTROL 1.2.3 CORE REQUIREMENT #3: FLOW CONTROL .All proposed projecls, including redevelopment projects, must provide onsite flow control facilities or e flow control BMPs or both to mitigate the impacts of storm and surface water runoff generated by new 0 impervious surface, new pervious surface, and replaced impervious surface targeted for flow mitigation R as specified in the following sections. Flow control facilities must be provided and designed to perform E as specified by the area -specific flow control facility requirement in Section 1.2.3.1 (p. 1-30) and in M E accordance with the applicable flow control facility implementation requirements in Section 1.2.3.2 T (p. 1-41). Flow control BMPs must be provided as directed by the flow control BMPs requirement in Section 1.2.3.3 (p. 1-46) and applied as specified by the flow control BMP requirements in Section 5.2. Intent: To ensure the minimum level of control needed to protect downstream properties and resources from increases in peak, duration, and volume of runoff generated by new development. The level of control varies depending on location and downstream conditions identified under Core requirement #2. ❑ EXEMPTIONS FROM CORE REQUIREMENT #3 There are three possible exemptions from the flow control provisions of Core requirement #3: 1. Basic Exemption A proposed project or any threshold discharge area within the site of a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) If the project is a redevelopment project, less than 5,000 square feet of new plus replaced impervious surface will be created, AND c) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface will be added. 2. Impervious Surface Exemption for Transportation Redevelopment Projects A proposed transportation redevelopment project or any threshold discharge area within the site of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria: a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface will be added, AND c) The total new impervious surface within the project limits is less than 50% of the existing impervious surface. 3. Cost Exemption for Parcel Redevelopment Projects A proposed redevelopment project on a single or multiple parcel site or any threshold discharge area within the .rite of such a project is exempt if it meets all of the following criteria -- a) Less than 2,000 square feet of new impervious surface will be added, AND b) Less than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface will be added, AND c) The valuation of the project's proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation improvements) is less than 50% of the assessed value of the existing site improvements. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 1-29 KING COUNTY,. WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES This section presents the methods, criteria, and details for design and analysis of detention facilities. These facilities provide for the temporary storage of increased surface water runoff resulting from development pursuant to the performance standards set forth in Core Requirement #3, "Flow Control" (see Section 1.2.3). There are three primary types of detention facilities described in this section: detention ponds, tanks, and vaults. The information presented in this section is organized as follows: Section 5.3.1, "Detention Ponds" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.1.1 (p. 5-18) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.1.2 (p. 5-30) Section 5.3.2, "Detention Tanks" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.2.1 (p. 5-31) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.2.2 (p. 5-32) Section 5.3.3, "Detention Vaults" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.3.1 (p. 5-35) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.3.2 (p. 5-36) Section 5.3.4, "Control Structures" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.4.1 (p. 5-38) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.4.2 (p. 5-43) Section 5.3.5, "Parking Lot Detention" Section 5.3.6, "hoof Detention" Section 5.3.7, "Simple Detention Pond for Cleared Areas" "Design Criteria," Section 5.3.7.1 (p. 5-50) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.3.7.2 (p. 5-55) 5.3.1 DETENTION PONDS Open ponds are the most desirable detention facilities for controlling runoff from developed areas. The design criteria in Section 5.3. 1.1 are for detention ponds. However, many of the criteria also apply to infiltration ponds (Section 5.4.2), and water quality wetponds and combined detention/wetponds (Section 6.4). Dam Safety Compliance Detention ponds and other open impoundment facilities must comply with requirements for dam safety (WAC 173-175). Under current regulations (as of September 1998), if the impoundment has a storage capacity (including both water and sediment storage volumes) greater than 10 acre-feet above natural ground level and a dam height of more than 6 feet, then dam safety design and review are required by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). If the storage capacity is less than 10 acre-feet above natural ground level, then the facility is exempt from WDOE review. If the dam height is less than 6 feet but capacity is greatcr than 10 acre-feet, then WDOE reviews on a case -by -case -basis to determine the hazard potential downstream in the event of a failure. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/24/2005 5-17 SECT[ON 5.3 DETENTJON FACILITIES 5.3.1.1 DESIGN CRITERIA Standard details for detention ponds are shown in Figure 5.3.1.A (p. 5-26) through Figure 5.3.1.13 (p. 5-29). Control structure details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-40. General 1. Ponds must be designed as flow -through systems (however, parking lot storage may be utilized through a back-up system; see Section 5.3.5, p. 5-49). Developed flows must enter through a conveyance system separate from the control structure and outflow conveyance system. Maximizing distance between the inlet and outlet is encouraged to promote sedimentation. 2. Pond bottoms shall be level and be located a minimum of 0.5 feet below the inlet and outlet to provide sediment storage. 3. Outflow control structures shall be designed as specified in Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). 4. A geotechnical analysis and report may be required on slopes over 15%, or if located within 200 feet of the top of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. Side Slopes 1. For facilities to be maintained by King County, interior side slopes up to the emergency overflow water surface shall be no steeper than 3H:1 V unless a fence is provided (see "Fencing," p. 5-20). See Section 6.4.4 for side slope requirements for internal berms in combined ponds and wetponds. 2. Exterior side slopes shall be no steeper than 2H:1 V unless analyzed for stability by a geotechnical engineer. 3. Pond walls may be vertical retaining walls, provided: (a) they arc constructed of reinforced concrete per Section 5.3.3 (p. 5-35); (b) a fence is provided along the top of the wall; (c) at least 25% of the pond perimeter will be a vegetated soil slope not steeper than 3H:1 V; and (d) the design is stamped by a licensed structural civil engineer. 4. For privately owned and maintained facilities, the entire pond perimeter maybe retaining walls, and building foundations may serve as one or more of the pond walls. Embankments 1. Pond berm embankments higher than 6 feet shall require design by a geotechnical engineer. 2. For berm embankments 6 Feet or less, the minimum top width shall be 6 feet, or as recommended by a geotechnical engineer. 3. Pond berm embankments must be constructed on native consolidated soil (or adequately compacted and stable fill soils analyzed by a geotechnical engineer) free of loose surface soil materials, roots, and other organic debris. 4. Pond berm embankments greater than 4 feet in height must be constructed by excavating a key equal to 50% of the berm embankment cross -sectional height and width. This requirement may be waived if specifically recommended by a geotechnical engineer. 5. The berm embankment shall be constructed of soil placed in 6-inch lifts compacted to at least 95% of maximum dry density, within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content, modified proctor method ASTM D1557, with the following soil characteristics: a minimum of 20% silt and clay, a maximum of 60% sand, a maximum of 60% silt and clay, with nominal gravel and cobble content. Note: In general, excavated glacial till is well suited for berm embankment material. 6. Anti -seepage collars must be placed on outflow pipes in berm embankments impounding water greater than 8 feet in depth at the design water surface. 1 1; 01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-18 5.3.1 8BDETENTION PONDS —DESIGN CRITERIA Overflow In all ponds, tanks, and vaults, a primary overflow (usually a riser pipe within the control structure; see Section 5.3.4.2, p. 5-43) must be provided to bypass the 100-year, 15-minute developed peak flow over, or around the restrictor system. This assumes the facility will be full due to plugged orifices or high inflows; the primary overflow is intended to protect against breaching of a pond embankment (or overflows of the upstream conveyance system, in the case of a detention tank or vault). The design must provide controlled discharge directly into the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. 2. A secondary inlet to the control structure must be provided in ponds as additional protection against overtopping should the inlet pipe to the control structure become plugged. A grated opening ("jailhouse window") in the control structure manhole functions as a weir (see Figure 5.3.1.B, p. 5-27) when used as a secondary inlet. Note: The maximum circumferential length of this opening shall not exceed one-half the control structure circumference. The "birdcage' overflow structure as shown in Figure 5.3.1.0 (p. 5-28) may also be used as a secondary inlet. Emergency Overflow Spillway 1. In addition to the above overflow requirements, ponds must have an emergency overflow spillway sized to pass the 100-year, 15-minute developed peak flow in the event of total control structure failure (e.g., blockage of the control structure outlet pipe) or extreme inflows. Emergency overflow Spillways are intended to control the location of pond overtopping and direct overflows back into the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point. Emergency overflow spillways must be provided for ponds with constructed berms over 2 feet in height, or for ponds located on grades in excess of 5%. As an option for ponds with berms less than 2 feet in height and located at grades less than 5%, emergency overflow may be provided by an emergency overflow structure, such as a Type Il manhole fitted with a birdcage as shown in Figure 5.3,LC (p. 5-28). The emergency overflow structure must be designed to pass the 100-year developed peak flow, with a minimum 6 inches of freeboard, directly to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. Where an emergency overflow spillway would discharge to a slope steeper than 15%, consideration should be given to providing an emergency overflow structure in addition to the spillway. 3. The emergency overflow spillway shall be armored with riprap in conformance with Table 4.2.2.A. The spillway shall be armored full width, beginning at a point midway across the berm embankment and extending downstream to where emergency overflows re-enter the conveyance system (see Figure 5.3.1.B, p. 5-27). Design of emergency overflow spillways requires the analysis of a broad -crested trapezoidal weir as described in Section 5.3.1.2 (p. 5-30). Either one of the weir sections shown in Figure 5.3. LB (p. 5-27) may be used. Access Requirements 1. Maintenance access road(s) shall be provided to the control structure and other drainage structures associated with the pond (e.g., inlet, emergency overflow or bypass structures). Manhole and catch basin lids must be in or at the edge of the access road and at least three feet from a property line. Rims shall be set at the access road grade. 2_ An access ramp is required for removal of sediment with a trackhoe and truck. The ramp must extend to the pond bottom if the pond bottom is greater than 1500 square feet (measured without the ramp) and it may end at an elevation 4 feet above the pond bottom, if the pond bottom is less than 1,500 square feet (measured without the ramp), provided the pond side slopes are 3:1 or flatter. Intent: On large, deep ponds, truck access to the pond bottom via an access ramp is necessary so loading can be done in the pond bottom. On small deep ponds, the truck can remain on the ramp for loading. On small shallow ponds, a ramp to the bottom may not be required if the trackhoe can load a 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-19 SECTION 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES truck parked at the pond edge or on the internal berm of a wetpond or combined pond (trackhoes can negotiate interior pond side slopes). 3. The internal berm of a wetpond or combined detention and wetpond may be used for access if it is no more than 4 Feet above the first wetpool cell, if the first wetpool cell is less than 1500 square feet (bottom area measured without the ramp), and if it is designed to support a loaded truck, considering the berm is normally submerged and saturated. 4. Access ramps shall meet the requirements for design and construction of access roads specified below_ 5. All control structures shall have round, solid locking lids with S/s-inch diameter Allen head cap screws (see KCRS Drawing No. 2-022 and 2-023)_ 6. Access shall be limited by a double -posted gate if a fence is required, or by bollards —that is, two fixed bollards on each side of the access road and two removable bollards equally located between the fixed bollards. Design of Access Roads Access roads shall meet the following design criteria: 1. Maximum grade shall be 15% for asphalt paving and 12% for gravel or modular grid paving. 2. Outside turning radius shall be 40 feet, minimum. 3. Fence gates shall be located only on straight sections of road. 4. Access roads shall be 15 feet in width on curves and 12 feet on straight sections. 5. A paved apron shall be provided where access roads connect to paved public roadways. The apron shall be consistent with driveway details in KCRS. Construction of Access Roads Access roads shall be constructed with an asphalt, concrete or gravel surface, or modular grid pavement. Access roads must conform to King County road design and construction standards for residential minor access streets. Modular grid pavement shall meet manufacturer's specifications. Fencing 1. A fence is required at the emergency overflow water surface elevation, or higher, where a pond interior side slope is steeper than 3H:1V, or where the impoundment is a wail greater than 24 inches in height. The fence need only be constructed for those slopes steeper than 3H:1 V. Intent: To discourage access to portions of a pond where steep side slopes (steeper than 3: 1) increase the potential for slipping into the pond, and to guide those who have fallen into a pond to side slopes that are flat enough (flatter than 3:1 and unfenced) to allow for easy escape, 2. For privately owned and maintained facilities, fences are recommended, but not required, for slopes steeper than 3: l _ Note, however, that other regulations such as the Uniform Building Code may require fencing of vertical walls. Fence material and construction specifications outlined below do not apply to private facilities. 3. Fences shall be 6 feet in height. For example designs, see WSDOT Standard Plan L-2, Type 1 or Type 3 chain link fence. Exception: The fence may be a minimum of 4 feet in height if the depth of the impoundment (measured from the lowest elevation in the bottom of the impoundment, directly adjacent to the bottom of the fenced slope, up to the emergency overflow water surface) is 5 feet or less. For example designs, see WSDOT Standard Plan L-2, Type 4 or Type 6 chain link fence. 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-20 5.3.1 8BDETENTION PONDS DESIGN CRITERIA 4. Access road gates shall be 16 feet in width consisting of two swinging sections 8 feet in width. Additional vehicular access gates may be required as needed to facilitate maintenance access. 5. Pedestrian access gates (if needed) shall be 4 feet in width. 6. For fences to be maintained by the County, fence material shall be vertical metal balusters or 9 gauge galvanized steel fabric with bonded vinyl coating. For steel fabric fences, the following apply: a) Vinyl coating shall be compatible with the surrounding environment (e.g., green in open, grassy areas and black or brown in wooded areas). All posts, cross bars, and gates shall be painted or coated the same color as the vinyl clad fence fabric. b) Fence posts and rails shall conform to WSDOT Standard Plan L-2 for Types 1, 3, or chain link fence. 7. For metal baluster fences, Uniform Building Code standards shall apply. 8. Wood fences are allowed in subdivisions where the fence will be maintained by homeowners associations or adjacent lot owners. Fence maintenance requirements shall be a condition of subdivision approval, and a statement detailing maintenance responsibilities and requirements must be recorded with the plat. 9. Wood fences shall have pressure treated posts (ground contact rated) either set in 24-inch deep concrete footings or attached to footings by galvanized brackets, Rails and fence boards shall be cedar or pressure -treated fir or hemlock. 10. Where only short stretches of the pond perimeter (< 10%) have side slopes steeper than 3: 1, split rail fences (3-foot minimum height) or densely planted thorned hedges (e.g., barberry, holly, etc.) may be used in place of a standard fence. Sigriage Detention ponds, infiltration ponds, wetponds, and combined ponds to be maintained by King County shall have a sign placed for maximum visibility from adjacent streets, sidewalks, and paths. The sign shall meet the design and installation requiremcnts illustrated in Figure 5.3.1.D (p. 5-29). Right -of -Way 1. Open detention ponds shall not be located in dedicated public road right-of-way. 2. Detention ponds to be maintained by King County shall be in a tract dedicated to King County (see Section 1.2.6). Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to an acceptable access location. Setbacks I. A setback of 5 feet from the toe of the exterior slope, retaining walls and rockeries to the tract or property line is required for County -maintained ponds and recommended for privately maintained ponds. 2. The tract or property line on a detention pond cut slope shall be setback 5 feet from the emergency overflow water surface. 3. The detention pond water surface at the pond outlet invert elevation shall be setback 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainfields. This setback may be reduced with written approval of the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health. Seeps and Springs Intermittent seeps along cut slopes are typically fed by a shallow groundwater source (interflow) flowing along a relatively impermeable soil stratum. These flows are storm driven and should discontinue after a few weeks of dry weather. The KCRTS model accounts for this shallow groundwater component, and no 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-21 SECTION 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES special provisions are needed when directing these flows through the flow control facility. However, more continuous seeps and springs, which extend through longer dry periods, are likely from a deeper groundwater source. When continuous flows are intercepted and directed through flow control facilities, adjustments to the approved facility design may be required to account for the additional base flow (unless already considered in design). If uncertain at the time of construction, the situation may be monitored while the facility is under maintenance and defect financial guarantee. Adjustments to the facility may be required prior to the release of the financial guarantee_ Planting Requirements Exposed earth on the pond bottom and interior side slopes shall be sodded or seeded with an appropriate seed mixture. Alt remaining areas of the tract must either be planted with grass, or be landscaped in accordance with the standards below and mulched with a 4-inch cover of hog fuel or shredded wood mulch.7 Landscaping Landscaping for aesthetic purposes is encouraged, but not required, for most stormwater tract areas containing ponds maintained by King County (see below for areas not to be landscaped). However, if provided, landscaping must adhere to the criteria that follow so as not to hinder maintenance operations. Landscaped stormwater tracts may, in some instances, be used to satisfy requirements for recreational space. In other instances, "naturalistic" stormwater facilities may be placed in open space tracts. For more information, see page 5-25. If landscaping is proposed in the stormwater tract of a County -maintained pond, the following requirements shall apply: 1. No trees or shrubs may be planted within 10 feet of inlet or outlet pipes or manmade drainage structures such as catch basins, spillways or flow spreaders. Species with roots that seek water, such as willow or poplar, should be avoided within 50 feet of pipes or manmade structures. 2. Planting is restricted on berms that impound water either permanently or temporarily during storms. Note: This restriction Floes not apply to cut slopes that form pond banks, only to berms. a) Trees or shrubs may not be planted on portions of water -impounding berms taller than four feet high. Only grasses may be planted on berms taller than four feet. Intent: Grasses allow unobstructed visibility of berm slopes for detecting potential dam safety problems such as animal burrows, slumping, or fractures in the berm. b) Trees planted on portions of water -impounding berms less than 4 feet high must be small, not higher than 20 feet mature height, and have a fibrous root system. Table 5.3. LA gives some examples of trees with these characteristics. Intent: These trees reduce the likelihood of blow -down trees, or the possibility of channeling or piping of water through the root system, which may contribute to dam failure on berms that retain water. 3. All landscape material, including grass, must be planted in good topsoil. Native underlying soils may be made suitable for planting if amended with 2 inches of well -rotted compost tilled into the top six inches of soil. Compost used should meet Ecology publication 94-38 specifications for Grade A compost quality. 4. Soil in which trees or shrubs are planted may require additional enrichment or additional compost top -dressing. Consult a nurseryman, landscape professional, or arborist for site -specific recommendations. 7 Shredded wood mulch is made from shredded tree trimmings, usually from trees cleared onsite. It must be free of garbage and weeds and may not contain excessive resin, tannin, or other material detrimental to plant growth. l l /0l /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-22 5.3.1 813DETENTION PONDS DESIGN CRITERIA 5. For a naturalistic effect as well as ease of maintenance, trees or shrubs must be planted in clumps to form "landscape islands" rather than evenly spaced. 6. The landscaped islands must be planted above the 100-year water surface and must be a minimum of six feet apart, and if set back from fences or other barriers, the setback distance must also be a minimum of six feet. Where tree foliage extends low to the ground, the six feet of setback should be counted from the outer drip line of the trees (estimated at maturity). Intent: This landscape design must allow a 6-foot wide mower to pass around and between clumps. 7. Evergreen trees and trees that produce relatively little leaf -fall such as Oregon ash, mimosa, or locust are preferred. Large -leaf deciduous trees may not be planted where branches could extend over interior pond slopes. 8. All trees shall be set back so branches do not extend over the 100-year water surface of the pond to prevent leaf -drop into the water. 9. Drought tolerant species are recommended. 10. Landscape areas within the tracts of County -maintained ponds in residential subdivision developments shall be designated "to be maintained by the homeowner's association." TABLE 5.3.1.A SMALL TREES AND SHRUBS WITH F WOUS �t O.TS Small Trees 1 High Shrubs Low Shrubs *Red twig dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) *Snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus) *Serviceberry (Amelanchier ainifolia) *Salmonbeny (Rubus spectabilis) Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) Rosa rugosa (avoid spreading varieties) Highbush cranberry (Vaccinium opulus) Rock rose (Cistus spp.) Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) Ceanothus spp. (choose hardier varieties) *Filbert (Corylus cornuta, others) New Zealand flax (Phormium penax) Fruit trees on dwarf rootstock Rhododendron (native and ornamental varieties) Ornamental grasses (e.g., Miscanthis, Pennisetum) Native species Guidelines for Naturalistic Planting Stormwater facilities may sometimes be located within open space tracts if "natural appearing" (see page 5-25 for details). Two generic kinds of naturalistic planting are outlined below, but other options are also possible. A booklet discussing stormwater ponds and landscaping possibilities is available at the Water and Land Resources Division; when completed, it should be consulted for additional ideas_ Native vegetation is preferred in naturalistic plantings. Note: These landscaping criteria must be followed unless a landscape professional judges that long-term quality of the open space would be improved by deviating from the criteria, AND that if the facility is maintained by the CoUWY, maintenance would not be made more difficult by the deviations. Open Woodland In addition to the general landscaping criteria above, the following requirements must be met: 2005 SuifaCc Watcr Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-23 SECTION 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES 1. Landscaped islands (when mature) should cover a minimum of 30% or more of the tract, exclusive of the pond area. 2_ Tree clumps should be underplanted with shade -tolerant shrubs and groundcover plants. The goal is to provide a dense understory that need not be weeded or mowed. 3. Landscaped islands should be placed at several elevations rather than "ring" the pond, and the size of clumps should vary from small to large to create variety. 4. Not all islands need have trees. Shrub or groundcover clumps are acceptable, but lack of shade should be considered in selecting vegetation. Note: Landscaped islands are best combined with the use of hog fuel or shredded wood mulch for erosion control (only for slopes above the flow control water surface). It is often difficult to sustain a low -maintenance understory if the area was previously hydroseeded. Northwest Savannah or Meadow In addition to the general landscape criteria above, the following requirements must be met. 1. Landscape islands (when mature) should cover 10% or more of the tract, exclusive of the pond area. 2. Planting groundcovers and understory shrubs is encouraged to eliminate the need for mowing under the trees when they are young. 3. Landscape islands should be placed at several elevations rather than "ring" the pond. 4. The remaining tract area should be planted with an appropriate grass seed mix, which may include northwest meadow or wildflower species. Native or dwarf grass mixes are preferred. Table 5.3. 1.13 below gives one acceptable dwarf grass mix. Grass seed should be applied at 2.5 to 3 pounds per 1000 square feet. Note: Amended soil or good topsoil is required for all plantings. 5. Creation of areas of emergent vegetation in shallow areas of the pond is recommended. Native wetland plants, such as sedges (Carex sp.), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), water plantain (Alisma sp.), and burreed (Sparganium sp.) are recommended. if the pond does not hold standing water, a clump of wet -tolerant, non-invasive shrubs, such as salmonberry or snowberry, is recommended below the detention design water surface. Note: This landscape style is best combined with the use of grass or sod for site stabilization and erosion control. TABLE 5.3.1.E STORMWATER TRACT "LOW-GROW"SEEDMIX Seed Name Percentage of Mix Dwarf tall fescue 40% Dwarf perennial rye "Barclay" * 30% Red fescue 25% Colonial bentgrass 5% If wildflowers are used and sowing is done before Labor Day, the amount of dwarf perennial rye may be reduced proportionately to the amount of wildflower seed used. 1 1/01/2000 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-24 5.3.1 8BDETENTION PONDS — DESIGN CRITERIA Detention Ponds in Recreational Tracts Projects required to provide on site recreational space per KCC 21A.]4.180 may combine the detention pond tract with the recreation space tract to receive a 50% reduction in required onsite recreational space. To receive the 50% credit, the following criteria must be met as required by KCC 21 A.14.180.D: l . The proposed stormwater tract must be dedicated or reserved as a part of a recreational space tract. 2. The stormwater pond must be constructed to meet the following requirements: a) Side slopes shall not exceed 33 percent unless they are existing, natural, and covered with vegetation. b) A bypass system or an emergency overflow pathway shall be designed to handle flow exceeding the facility design and located so that it does not pass through active recreation areas or present a safety hazard. c) The stormwater pond shalt be landscaped in a manner to enhance passive recreational Opportunities such as trails and aesthetic viewing. d) The stormwater pond shall be designed so that it does not require fencing per the fencing requirements on page 5-20. 3. Where a tract is jointly used for recreational space and King County maintained drainage facilities, the County is only responsible for maintenance of the drainage facilities, and an access easement shall be provided for that purpose, Detention Ponds in Open Space Open space areas reserved through the four -to -one program may be used to site "natural appearing' stormwater facilities if they are found to be compatible with the open space value and functions, and if they are located on a "small portion of the open space" (Amended policy I-204, King County Comprehensive Plan). Conscientious application of the "Guidelines for Naturalistic Plantings" (p. 5-23) typically will produce natural -appearing stormwater facilities. A site -specific assessment is needed, however, to determine whether the stormwater tract would be compatible with the open space value and functions, 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-25 SECTION 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES FIGURE 5.3.1.A TYPICAL DETENTION POND access ramp ' into pond see Section 5.3.1.1 I' for specifications compacted embankment emergency overflow spillway rip rap I per Table 4.4.1A I tract lines as required alternate emergency outflow structure for ponds not required to provide a spillway (Figure 5.3.1.C) 5' min. see Figure 5.3.1.13 A for section cut diagrams NOTE: This detail is a schematic representation only. Actual configuation will vary depending on specific site constraints and applicable design criteria. 1 I -0112006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-26 5.3.1 SSDETENTION PONDS DESIGN CRITERIA FIGURE 5.3A.B TYPICAL DETENTION POND SECTIONS 11 control structure emergency overflow W overflow WS� p p pond design WS v debris barrier see figure 4.2.1.D ti" sediment storage W. top width of berm 6' min. 12'/15' min, for access road 2 min. Tb:ment existing _ _ _ —ground profile maximum elevation key, if required 10-yr W_S. SECTION A -A NTS circumference length of opening sized for 100 yr flow sin overflow W.S. S. Framelgrate for secondary inlet. Provide vertical bars in frame @ 4" O.C. (other flow systems SECTION a -a acceptable if approved by DDES) See also the separate overflow NTS structure shown in Figure 5.3.1.0 SECTION B-B has 2 options L 10 I1 (as required for 6" depth) 10 1:6" min 2" asphalt emergency overflow water surface (for spillway on access roads) (see Figure 5.3.1.E) SECTION B-B T1' rock lining Emergency Overflow Spillway NTS overflow WS design W5 emergency overflow WSy compacted embankment 2005 Surface Water Design Manual SECTION C-C NTS rock lining per Table 4.4.1.A 11 /01/2006 5-27 SECTION 5.3 DETENTION FACILITIES FIGURE 5.3.1.0 OVERFLOW STRUCTURE 314" diameter smooth bars equally spaced (4" O.C. max_) At 15° (lyp) see note 1 � 4 hook clamps evenly placed see detail below CI AAI VICIM lower steel band 314" x 4" wide formed to fit in groove of C.B. riser 24" upper steel 1see� rid 314" x 4" note 1 wide Am type 2 CB 45° smooth C.B. riser vertical bars SECTION A -A hook clamp NTS anchored to C.B. riser DETAIL HOOK CLAMP NTS Provide maintenance access by welding 4 crossbars to 4 vertical bars as shown. Hinge upper ends with flanges/ bolts and provide locking mechanism (padlock) on lower end. Locate steps directly below 314" dia. smooth round bars welded equally spaced. Bars shall be welded to upper & lower bands (24 bands evenly spaced see note 1) standard galvanized steps or ladder NOTES: 1. Dimensions are for illustration on 54" diameter CB For different diameter CB's adjust to maintain 45, angle on "vertical" bars and 7" o.c. maximum spacing of bars around lower steel band. 2. Metal parts must be corrosion resistant; steel bars must be galvanized. 3. This debris barrier is also recommended for use on the inlet to roadway cross -culverts with high potential for debris collection (except on type 2 streams) 4. This debris barrier is for use outside of road right-of-way only. For debris cages within road right-of- way, see Drawing 2-028 KCRS. 11/01l2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-28 5.3.1 8BDETENTION PONDS DESIGN CRITERIA FIGURE 5.3.1.D PERMANENT SURFACE WATER CONTROL POND SIGN Permanent Surface Water Control Pond Sign 4X- ------------- T ...__ /�y-�� r�}pp '111is pond is in ntarpare. Sto F1iwate fia tTi, 3�cPd i=rrc Y�arr S;rsrrs. l=ic trtra�w! /�y� aw++i is YK wkcc+: w�:l 3i1i ue5t ,tc�§n uTrA to ? Pond tiPh'vj be gWvoi yliz '. Tkn K ps rxool j c;c:'9xwoo. q-ro 24' 3} I hgoi�2. •-;uxWli� �a ;+>t� k+ttscat: l3rpa:mm.r.' \Meal r1.^+.vAx. rxitiiirx � �4.✓ Kartv camty tlaznte:3�i:�:: sl i..+r i:M-ri36J. i 4 + r SPECIFICATIONS: Size: 48 inches by 24 inches Material: 0.125-gauge aluminum Face: Non -reflective vinyl or 3 coats outdoor enamel (sprayed). Lettering: Silk screen enamel where possible, or vinyl letters. Colors: Beige background, teal letters. Type face: Helvetica condensed. Title: 3 inch; Sub -Title: 1'/2-inch; Text: 1 inch; Outer border: 1/8 inch border distance from edge: 1 1 4-inch; all text 13/4 -inch from border. Posts: Pressure treated, beveled tops, 1112 -inch higher than sign. Installation: Secure to chain link fence if available. Otherwise install on two 4"x4" posts, pressure treated, mounted atop a gravel bed, installed in 30-inch concrete filled post holes (8-inch minimum diameter), with the top of sign no higher than 42 inches from ground surface. Placement: Face sign in direction of primary visual or physical access. Do not block any access road. Do not place within 6 feet of structural facilities (e.g. manholes, spillways, pipe inlets). Note: If the facility has a liner to restrict infiltration of stormwater, the following note must he added to the face of the sign: "This facility is lined to protect groundwater quality. " In addition, specific hiftrniutiora ahoart the liner rnrrst he added to the hack of the sign as specified in Section 6.2.4, 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-29 SECTION 5.3 2BD) TENTfON FACILITIES 5.3.1.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS Detention Volume and Outflow The volume and outflow design for detention ponds shall be in accordance with the performance requirements in Chapter I and the hydrologic analysis and design methods in Chapter 3. Restrictor orifice structure design shall comply with Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38)_ Note: The design water surface elevation is the highest elevation that occurs in order to meet the required outflow performance for the pond. Detention Ponds in Infiltrative Soils Detention ponds may occasionally be sited on till soils that otherwise meet the basic criteria of "sufficient permeable soil" for a properly functioning infiltration system (see Section 5.4.1, p. 5-59). These detention ponds have a surface discharge and may also utilize infiltration as a second pond outflow, Detention ponds sized with infiltration as a second outflow must meet all the requirements of Section 5.4 for infiltration ponds, including a soi is report, performance testing, groundwater protection, presettling, and construction techniques_ Emergency Overflow Spillway Capacity The emergency overflow spillway weir section shall be designed to pass the 100-year runoff event for developed conditions assuming a broad -crested weir. The broad -crested weir equation for the spillway section in Figure 5.3.I .E, for example, would be: ]r2 Z ]!2 8 5?2 Qtoo = C (2g) [ l3 LH + 115 (Tan 0) H ] (5-1) where Qloo — peak flow for the 100-year runoff event (fps) C = discharge coefficient (0.6) g = gravity (32.2 ft/See) L = length of weir (ft) H = height of water over weir (ft) 0 = angle of side slopes Assuming C = 0.6 and Tan 0 = 3 (for 3:1 slopes), the equation becomes: Qioo = 3.21 (LH 3,2 srz t 2.4 H ) (5-2) To find width L for the weir section, the equation is rearranged to use the computed Q100 and trial values of H (0.2 feet minimum): L 3r� [Qtoo I (3.21 H -)] - 2.4 H or 6 feet minimum FIGURE 5.3.1.E WEIR SECTION FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SPILLWAY (5-3) emergency overflow o 3, min overflow water surface water 0.5' min. 3 3 surface e 1 - 1 0.2' min. H J �I \ per Table 4.4.1 A l_ 1 l/0112006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-30 5.3.2 9DDETENTION TANKS 5.3.2 DETENTION TANKS Detention tanks are underground storage facilities typically constructed with large diameter corrugated metal pipe. Standard detention tank details are shown in Figure 5.3.2,A (p. 5-33) and Figure 53.2.13 (p. 5- 34). Control structure details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-38, 5.3.2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General 1. Tanks shall be designed as flow -through systems with manholes in line (see Figure 5.3.2.A, p. 5-33) to promote sediment removal and facilitate maintenance, Exception: Tanks may be designed as back-up systems if preceded by water quality facilities since little sediment should reach the inlet/control structure and low head losses can be expected because of the proximity of the inlet/control structure to the tank. 2. The detention tank bottom shall be located 0.5 feet below the inlet and outlet to provide dead storage for sediment. 3. The minimum pipe diameter allowed for a detention tank is 36 inches. 4. Tanks larger than 36 inches may be connected to each adjoining structure with a short section (2-foot maximum length) of 36-inch minimum diameter pipe. 5. Outflow control structures shall be as detailed in Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). Note: Control and access manholes shall have additional ladder rungs to allow ready access to all tank access pipes when the catch basin sump is filled with water (see Figure 5.3.4.A, plan view, p. 5-40). Materials Pipe material, joints, and protective treatment for tanks shall be in accordance with Sections 7.04 and 9.05 of the WSDOT/APWA Standard Specification as modified by the King County Road Standards and AASHTO designations. Such materials include the following: • Lined corrugated polyethylene pipe (LOPE) • Aluminized Type 2 corrugated steel pipe and pipe arch (meets AASHTO designations M274 and M36) • Corrugated or spiral rib aluminum pipe and pipe arch • Reinforced concrete pipe • Narrow concrete vaults (see Section 5.3.3, p, 5-35). • Corrugated steel pipe and pipe arch, Aluminized or Galvanized' with treatments 1 through 6 • Spiral rib steel pipe, Aluminized or Galvanized with treatments 1 through 6 • Structural plate pipe and pipe arch, Aluminized or Galvanized with treatments I through 6 Structural Stability Tanks shall meet structural requirements for overburden support and traffic loading if appropriate. H-20 live loads must be accommodated for tanks lying under parking areas and access roads. The King County Roads Standards may have different live load requirements for structures located under roadways. Metal ' Galvanized metals leach zinc into the environment, especially in standing water situations. High zinc concentrations, sometimes in the range that can be toxic to aquatic life, have been observed in the region. Therefore, use of galvanized materials should be avoided. Where other metals, such as aluminum or stainless steel, or plastics are available, they shall be used. if these materials are not available, asphalt coated galvanized materials may then be used. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-31 SECTION 5. 1 213DETENTION FACILITIES tank end plates must be designed for structural stability at maximum hydrostatic loading conditions. Flat end plates generally require thicker gage material than the pipe and/or require reinforcing ribs. Tanks shall be placed on stable, well consolidated native material with a suitable bedding. Backfill shall be placed and compacted in accordance with the pipe specifications in Chapter 4. Tanks made of LCPL require inspection for defonnation prior to installation as well as continuous inspection of backfilling to one foot above the top of the tank. Tanks shall not be allowed in fill slopes, unless analyzed in a geotechnical report for stability and constructability. Buoyancy In moderately pervious soils where seasonal groundwater may induce flotation, buoyancy tendencies must be balanced either by ballasting with backfill or concrete backfill, providing concrete anchors, increasing the total weight, or providing subsurface drains to permanently lower the groundwater table. Calculations must be submitted that demonstrate stability. Access Requirements 1. The maximum depth from finished grade to tank invert shall be 20 feet. 2. Access openings shall be positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location within the tank. 3. All tank access openings shall have round, solid locking lids with 5/8-inch diameter Allen head cap screws (see KCRS Drawing No. 2-022 and 2-023). 4. Thirty -six-inch minimum diameter CMP riser -type manholes (Figure 5.3.2.13, p. 5-34) of the same gage as the tank material may be used for access along the length of the tank and at the upstream terminus of the tank if a backup system. The top slab is separated (1-inch minimum gap) from the top of the riser to allow for deflections from vehicle loadings without damaging the riser tank. 5. All tank access openings must be readily accessible by maintenance vehicles. Access Roads Access roads are required to all detention tank control structures and risers. The access roads shall be designed and constructed as specified for detention ponds in Section 5.3.1 (p. 5-20). Right -of -Way Detention tanks to be maintained by King County but not located in King County right-of-way shall be in a tract dedicated to King County. Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to accommodate an access road to the facility. Setbacks Setbacks (easement/tract width) and building setback lines (BSBLs) for tanks shall be the same as for pipes (see Section 4.1). 5.3.2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS Detention Volume and Outflow The volume and outflow design for detention tanks shall be in accordance with the performance requirements in Chapter 1 and the hydrologic analysis and design methods in Chapter 3. Restrictor and orifice design shall be according to Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). 1 1 /012006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-32 inlet pipe (backup systems, where allowed] � I AA - 0/ control structure 5.3.2 9BDETENTION TANKS FIGURE 5.3.2.A TYPICAL DETENTION TANK optional parallel tank ---_---------I----------------- y `. 36" , access risers t _ (max spacing shown below) - '. •� - - - -- - ---------� �' min. diameter 2' min. same as inlet pipe " A flaw 3fi" �- O inlet pipe (flow through) access risers See Figure 5.3.2.B type 2 CB required for flow through system only 2' max. 0 �r 2' min 2' min control structure (FROP-T shown) min. 54" dia. Type 2 CB see Section 5.3.4 PLAN VIEW NTS "Flow -through" system shown solid_ Designs for "flow backup" system and parallel tanks shown dashed 100' maxim 50' max y / access risers Offsediment storage level 36" min. detention tank diameter (typ) size as required NOTE: All metal parts corrosion resistant. Steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated (Treatment 1 or better). SECTION A -A NTS "Flow through" system shown solid. 2' max. �r 2" min. diameter air vent pipe welded to tank (required if no access riser on tank) 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-33 SECTION 5.3 2BDFTENTI0N FACILITIES FIGURE 5.3.2.B DETENTION TANK ACCESS DETAIL standard type 2-60" diam. CB concrete top slab 36" CMP riser standard locking M.H. frame & cover see K.C.R.S. dwg. no. 2-022 compacted pipe bedding M.H. steps 12" O.C. weld or bolt standard M.H. steps PLAN NTS frame locking lid (marked "DRAIN') mounted over 24" diam. eccentric opening maintain 1° gap between bottom of slab & top of riser —provide pliable gasket to exclude dirt riser, 36" diam. min., same material & gage as tank welded or fused to tank max detention tank SECTION NTS NOTES: 1. Use adjusting blocks as required to bring frame to grade. 2. All materials to be aluminum or galvanized and asphalt coated (Treatment 1 or better). 3. Must be located for access by maintenance vehicles. 4. May substitute WSDOT special Type IV manhole (RCP only), 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-34 5.3.3 10BDETENTlON VAULTS 5.3.3 DETENTION VAULTS Detention vaults are box -shaped underground storage facilities typically constructed with reinforced concrete. A standard detention vault detail is shown in Figure 5.3.3.A (p_ 5-37). Control structure details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-38. 5.3.3.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General l . Detention vaults shall be designed as flow -through systems with bottoms level (longitudinally) or sloped toward the inlet to facilitate sediment removal. Distance between the inlet and outlet shall be maximized (as feasible). 2. The detention vault bottom shall slope at least 5% from each side towards the center, forming a broad "v" to facilitate sediment removal. Note: More than one "v" maybe used to minimize vault depth. Exception: The vault bottom may be flat if removable panels are provided over the entire vault. Removable panels shall be at grade, have stainless steel lifting eyes, and weigh no more than 5 tons per panel. 3. The invert elevation of the outlet shall be elevated above the bottom of the vault to provide an average 6 inches of sediment storage over the entire bottom. The outlet must also be elevated a minimum of 2 feet above the orifice to retain oil within the vault_ 4. The outflow system and restrictor device shall be designed according to the applicable requirements specified for control structures in Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). Materials Minimum 3,000 psi structural reinforced concrete must be used for all detention vaults. All construction joints must be provided with water stops. Structural Stability All vaults shall meet structural requirements for overburden support and H-20 traffic loading_ Vaults located under roadways must meet the live load requirements of the King County Road Standards. Cast - in -place wall sections shall be designed as retaining walls. Structural designs for vaults must be stamped by a licensed structural engineer unless otherwise approved by DDES. Vaults shall be placed on stable, well -consolidated native material with suitable bedding. Vaults shall not be allowed in fill slopes, unless analyzed in a geotechnical report for stability and constructability. Access Requirements 1. Access consisting of a frame, grate and locking cover shall be provided over the inlet pipe and outlet structure. Access openings shall be positioned a maximum of 50 feet from any location within the vault; additional access points may be required on large vaults. If more than one "v" is provided in the vault floor, access to each "v" must be provided. 2. For vaults with greater than 1250 square feet of floor area, a 5' by 1O'removable, locking panel shall be provided. Alternatively, a separate access vault may be provided as shown in Figure 5.3.3_A (p. 5-37). 3, For vaults under roadways, the removable panel must be located outside the travel lanes. Alternatively, multiple standard locking manhole covers (see KCRS Drawing No. 2-022 and 2-023) may be provided. Spacing of manhole covers shall be 12 feet, measured on center, to facilitate removal of sediment. Ladders and hand -holds need only be provided at the outlet pipe and inlet pipe, 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-35 SECTION 5.3 213DETENTION FACILITIES and as needed to meet OSI IA confined space requirements. Vaults providing manhole access at l2-foot spacing need not provide corner ventilation pipes as specified in Item 10 below. 4. All access openings, except those covered by removable panels, shall have round, solid locking covers (see KCRS Drawing Nos. 2-022 and 2-023), or 3-foot square, locking diamond plate covers. For raised openings where the depth from the iron cover to the top of the vault exceeds 24 inches, an access structure equivalent to a Type 2 catch basin or Type I manhole shall be used (see KCRS Drawing Nos. 2-005 and 2-007). The opening in the vault lid need not exceed 24 inches in diameter. 5. Vaults with widths 10 feet or less must have removable lids. 6. The maximum depth from finished grade to the vault invert shall be 20 feet. 7. Internal structural walls of large vaults shall be provided with openings sufficient for maintenance access between cells. The openings shall be sized and situated to allow access to the maintenance "v" in the vault floor. S. The minimum internal height shall be 7 feet from the highest point of the vault floor (not sump), and the minimum width shall be 4 feet. Exceptions: • Concrete vaults may be a minimum 3 feet in height and width if used as tanks with access manholes at each end, and if the width is no larger than the height. • The minimum internal height requirement may be waived for any areas covered by removable panels. Ventilation pipes (minimum 12-inch diameter or equivalent) shall be provided in all four corners of vaults to allow for artificial ventilation prior to entry of maintenance personnel into the vault. Access Roads Access roads are required to the access panel (if applicable), the control structure, and at least one access point per cell, and they shall be designed and constructed as specified for detention ponds in Section 5.3.1 (p. 5-20). Right -of -Way Detention vaults to be maintained by King County but not located in King County right-of-way shall be in a tract dedicated to King County. Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to accommodate an access road to the vault. Setbacks Setbacks to tract/easement lines for vaults shall be 5 feet; adjacent building setback lines shall be 10 feet. For privately owned and maintained vaults, building foundations may serve as one or more of the vault walls. 5.3.3.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS Detention Volume and Outflow The volume and outflow design for detention vaults shall be in accordance with the performance requirements in Chapter l and the hydrologic analysis and routingidesign methods in Chapter 3. Restrictor and orifice design shall be according to Section 5.3.4 (p. 5-38). 1 1 /01 /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-36 FIGURE 5.3.3.A TYPICAL DETENTION VAULT NOTE: AUI vaunt areas must be within Stt' cf an amass pdnt opening with OSHA confined space MT 5% A �I warning I 10, L flow ., 5% I fit,__ -------____--------- ------------ FA 10' openN I i for vaults 1250 sf I i PLAN VIEW or greater ltoorarea NTS L-- — optional 5' x 10' access vault frames, grates and round solid covers may be used in marked DRAIN with locking molts. lieu of top access Sae KCRS dwgs. 2-022, 2-M / forspecificalion 7 wall Ilange T" III �tYPicah � _�• DFSIC'N W S flaw s �— handholds, 12' -K— © steps or ladder 12' f o see KCRS dwg. 2-01 f o 6"sediment storage � 2 mn jf�21 nn SECTION A -A NTS- 4' min. NOTES: t. All metal parts most be corrosion resistant. If substitutes not available, steel parts must be galvanized and asphalt coated { Treatment I or bell" . 2. Provide water step at all cast -in -place construction joirds. Precast vaults shall taus approved rubber gasP.et system. 3. Vaults < 10' wide must use wmuvabte lids, 4. Prefabricated vault sedions may require strudural modifications to support 5' x 10' opening aver main vault. A tematively, soc:m can be provided via a side vestibule as shown. 5.3.3 I OSDETENTION VAULTS I I II outlet pipe fly. ` V min. ventilation pipe -19ow—'u�l restrictor flow �.. capacity of oullel pipe net less than developed 100-yr design how goer grate with 2' x 2' hinged across door (1"x 114' galvanized metal barn A J 2005 Surface Water Design ]Manual 11/01/2006 5-37 SECTION 5.3 213DETENTION FACILITIES 5.3.4 CONTROL STRUCTURES Control structures are catch basins or manholes with a restrictor device for controlling outflow from a facility to meet the desired performance. Riser type restrictor devices ("tees" or "FROP-Ts") also provide some incidental oil/water separation and fulfill the spill control requirements specified for pipe systems in Section 4.2 and as set forth in Core Requirement #4 (see Section 1.2.4). The restrictor device is usually a multiple orifice design consisting of two or more orifices and/or a weir section sized to meet performance requirements. Standard control structure details are shown in Figure 5.3.4.A (p. 5-40) through Figure 5.3.4.0 (p. 5-42). 5.3.4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA Multiple Orifice Restrictor In most cases, control structures need only two orifices: one at the bottom and one near the top of the riser, although additional orifices may best utilize detention storage volume. Several orifices may be located at the same elevation if necessary to meet performance requirements. 1. Minimum orifice diameter is 0.5 inches. Note: In some Instances, a 0.5-inch bottom orifice will be too large to meet target release rates, even with minimal head. In these cases, the live storage depth need not be reduced to less than 3 feet to meet performance. 2. Orifices shall be constructed on a tee section as shown in Figure 5.3.4.A (p. 5-40) or on a baffle as shown in Figure 5.3.4.13 (p. 5-41). 3. In some cases, performance requirements may require the top orifice/elbow to be located too high on the riser to be physically constructed (e.g., a 13-inch diameter orifice positioned 0.5 feet from the top of the riser)_ In these cases, a notch weir in the riser pipe may be used to meet performance requirements (see Figure 5.3.4.E, p. 5-44). 4. Consideration shall be given to the backwater effect of water surface elevations in the downstream conveyance system. High tailwater elevations may affect performance of the restrictor system and reduce live storage volumes, Note: The KCRTS program, version 4.0 and later, supports the design of a partially tailivatered control structure by using a headwater/tailwater (HW/TW) data file generated using the KCBW program. The user can specify the use of a HW/TW file within the "Point of Compliance Setup, " located within the "Edit Facility" menu screen. Riser and Weir Restrictor 1. Properly designed weirs may be used as flow restrictors (see Figure 5.3.4.0 and Figure 5.3.4.E through Figure 5.3.41). However, they must be designed to provide for primary overflow of the developed 100-year peak flow discharging to the detention facility. 2_ The combined orifice and riser (or weir) overflow may be used to meet performance requirements; however, the design must still provide for primary overflow of the developed I00-year peak flow assuming all orifices are plugged. Figure 5.3.4_H (p. 5-48) may be used to calculate the head in feet above a riser of given diameter and flow. Access Requirements l . An access road to the control structure is required for inspection and maintenance, and shall be designed and constructed as specified for detention ponds in Section 5.3.1 (p. 5-20). 2. Manhole and catch basin lids for control structures shall be locking, and rim elevations shall match proposed finish grade. 1 I /01/2000 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-38 5.3.4 11 BCONTRQL STRUCTURES — DESIGN CRITERIA 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-39 SECTION 5.3 213DETENTION FACILITIES FIGURE 5.3.4.A FLOW RESTRICTOR (TEE) removable watertight frame, grate & solid cover coupling or flange marked "DRAIN" with locking bolts 2" ruin. see note 3 & KCRS t elevation per plans dwgs 2-022, 2-023 1' min. under } pavement 16" max. vertical bar � rt 6"min. grate for �•► t ` 6"min. secondary inlet ax. fr place welded to elbow desi n W.S.v � with orifice as specified elbow restrictor,see detail �� 1 pipe supports I I handholds, steps or ELBOW RESTRICTOR DETAIL see Note 6 ladder see KCRS NTS .5 x D dwg. 2-006 _ T min. 2' min. I outlet pipe Inlet I J. see notes 1 & 5 Pipe invert and elevation shear gate with control per plans I ----" E 12" rod for cleanoutldrain (rod bent as required 1' section of pipe 12" for vertical alignment attached by gasketed E with cover) see KCRS band to allow removal 112" dwg. 2-026 restrictor plate r with orifice diameter as specified (not needed if SECTION A -A ISOMETRIC for spill control only) NTS NTS 2' min. clearance to any portion of frop-T NOTES: including elbows 1. Use a minimum of a 54" diameter type 2 catch basin. 2. Outlet Capacity: 100-Year developed peak Flow. �- 3. Metal Parts: Corrosion resistant. A � _ _ A Non -Galvanized parts perferred. 7 4 Galvanized pipe parts to have asphalt treatment 1. j} Sri angle as r�necessa 4. Frame and ladder or steps offset so: � S � �` f additional ladder rungs see note 7 (in sets) to allow access A. Cleanout gate is visible from top. elbow restrictor 2' min. / to tanks or vaults when B. Climb -down space is clear of riser and see detail f catch is filled with water ceanout gate. C. Frame is clear of curb. 5. If metal outlet pipe connects to cement PLAN VIEW concrete pipe_ outlet pipe to have smooth O.D. equal to concrete pipe I.D_ less 114". NTS 6. Provide at least one 3" X .090 gage support bracket anchored to concrete wall. (maximum T-0" vertical spacing) 7. Locate elbow restrictor(s) as necessary to provide minimum clearance as shown. 8. Locate additional ladder rungs in structures used as access to tanks or vaults to allow access when catch basin is filled with water. 1 1 /0 V2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-40 Frames, grates and round solid covers marked "drain" with locking bolts. See KCRS dwgs. 2-022, 2-023 1' min. I'min. under pavement max w.s. overflow conditions elbow restrictors see detail below iA L 5.3.4 11 BCON TROL STRUCTURES -- DESIGN CRITER1.4 FIGURE 5.3.4.13 FLOW RESTRICTOR (BAFFLE) SECTION A -A NTS PLAN VIEW NTS attach shear gate control rod to support bracket on inside of tame grate elevation _ access opening per plans DESIGN W.S. handholds steps or ladder see KCRS dwg. 2-011 2'-0" min 2' 0' min removable water -tight coupling igrouted i 8" min. plate welded 16"max. to elbow with orifice as specified ELBOW RESTRICTOR DETAIL NTS '==1©W. V S � 1 SECTION B-B NTS ISOMETRIC NTS 6" min. F — shear gate with control rod for drain see KCRS dwg. 2-026 —orifice plate 10 gage minimum galvanized steel with orifice diameter 1" minimum less than diameter of concrete hole NOTES: outlet capacity: 100 year developed peak flow metal parts: corrosion resistant steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated catch basin: type 2 minimum 72" diameter to be constructed in accordance with KCRS dwg. 2-005 and AASHTO M-199 unless otherwise specified orifices: sized and located as required with lowest orifice a minimum of 2' from base 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-41 SECTION 5.3 213UETENTION FACILITIES FIGURE 5.3.4.0 FLOW RESTRICTOR (WEIR) 11 Frames, grates and round solid covers marked "DRAIN" with /// locking bolts. o See KCRS Dwgs. 2-022, 2-023 1' min. av o 6" min. f+IfIF-{ DESIGN W.S. ===- I.E. weir, inlet pipe and drain = crown outlet pipe n I weir shapeas needed for I; I1 N performance �� shear gate with control rod for N drain. See KCRS dwg- 2-026 SECTION B-B SECTION A -A NTS A � —L---- Locate additional ladder - rungs (in sets) to allow access to tanks or vaults when catch is filled with water ISOMETRIC NTS frame/grate elevation per plans outlet pipe NTS handholds, •� steps or ladder (2 places) �r see KCRS dwg. 2-006 --- LA '--► B PLAN VIEW NTS NOTES: Outlet Capacity: 100-year developed peak flow. Metal Parts: corrosion resistant steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated. Catch Basin: type 2 Min, 72' diameter to be constructed in accordance with KCRS dwg 2-005 and AASHTO M-199 unless otherwise specified. Baffle Wall: to be designed with concrete reinforcing as required. Spill Control Requirements: see Section 4.2. r� shear gate Locate horizontal for clearance with ladder. Attach rod to support bracket on inside of access opening l I /O i /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-42 5.3.4 11 BCONTROL STRUCTURES —METHODS OF ANALYSIS 5.3.4.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS This section presents the methods and equations for design of control structure restrictor devices. Included are details for the design of orifices, rectangular sharp -crested weirs, v-notch weirs, sutro weirs, and overflow risers. Orifices Flow through orifice plates in the standard tee section or turn -down elbow may be approximated by the general equation: Q = CA 2gh (5-4) where Q = flow (cfs) C — coefficient of discharge (0.62 for plate orifice) A — area of orifice (sf) h = hydraulic head (ft) 2 g = gravity (32.2 ft/sec ) Figure 5.3A.D illustrates a simplified application of the orifice equation, assuming a water surface at the top of the riser and that the 2-year water surface represents the head in the outlet pipe. 9 FIGURE 5.3.4.D SIMPLE ORIFICE orifice (b) Q = CAb g2 h + CA t ig,. = CJ2—g ( Ab'�+ AI�) hb hb= distance from hydraulic grade line at the 2-year flow of the outflow pipe to the overflow elevation. The diameter of the orifice is calculated from the flow. The orifice equation is often useful when expressed as the orifice diameter in inches: d — �36'882 (5-5) where d � orifice diameter (inches) Q = flow (cfs) h = hydraulic head (ft) 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-43 SECTION 5.3 213UETENTION FACILITIES Rectangular, Sharp -Crested Weir The rectangular, sharp -crested weir design shown in Figure 5.3.4.E may be analyzed using standard weir equations for the fully contracted condition. FIGURE 5.3.4.E RECTANGULAR, SHARP -CRESTED WEIR riser D L PLAN NTS SECTION NTS 312 Q = C (L - 0.2H)H (5-6) where Q — flow (cfs) C = 3.27 + 0.40 HIP (ft) H,P are as shown above L — length (ft) of the portion of the riser circumference as necessary not to exceed 50% of the circumference D — inside riser diameter (ft) Note that this equation accounts for side contractions by subtracting 0.1Hfrom L for each side of the notch weir. 1 1/01 /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-44 5.3.4 11 BCONTROL STRUCTURES WETHODS OF ANALYSIS V-Notch, Sharp -Crested Weir V-notch weirs, as shown in Figure 5.3.41, may be analyzed using standard equations for the fully contracted condition. 2.9 2.8 2.7 Cd 2.6 2.5 2.4 FIGURE 5.3.4.F V-NOTCH, SHARP -CRESTED WEIR A4-1 Y Ht A *J SECTION A -A NTS Q = Cd (Tan 6!2)Y512, in cfs Where values of Cd may be taken from the following chart: 600 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Y (in feet) 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-45 SEC) -ION 5.3 213DETENTION FACILITIES Proportional or Sutro Weir Sutro weirs are designed so that the discharge is proportional to the total head. This design may be useful in some cases to meet performance requirements. The sutra weir consists of a rectangular section joined to a curved portion that provides proportionality for all heads above the line A-B (see Figure 5.3.4.G). The weir may be symmetrical or non -symmetrical. see x equation below h, A me FIGURE 5.3AG SUTRO WEIR Z B a x see equation below b T ( 4 d p T Symmetrical Non -symmetrical discharge For this type of weir, the curved portion is defined by the following equation (calculated in radians): x = 1 - ? Tan Ja (5-7) b where a, b, x and Z are as shown in Figure 5.3.4.G. The head -discharge relationship is: Q = Q b Q= Q b 2ag �h, — a� (5-8) 3 Values of Cj for both symmetrical and non-symtnctrical Sutro weirs are summarized in Table 5.3.4.A (p. 5-47). Note: When b > 1.50 or a > 0.30, use Cd = 0. d. 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-46 5.3.4 11 SCONTROL STRUCTURES HEYHODS OF ANALYSIS TABLE 5.3.4.A VALUES OF Cd FOR SUTRO WEIRS Cd Values, Symmetrical a (ft) b (ft) 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.50 0.02 0.608 0.606 0.603 0.601 0.599 0.598 0.597 0.613 0.617 0.611 0.615 0.608 0.612 0.6055 0.610 0.604 0.608 0.6025 0.6065 0.602 0.606 0.6185 0.617 0.6135 0.6115 0.6095 0.608 0.6075 0.619 0.6175 0.614 0.612 0.610 0.6085 0.608 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Cd Values, Non -Symmetrical b (ft) a (ft) 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.25 1.50 0.02 0.614 0.612 0.609 0.607 0.605 0.604 0.603 0.619 0.623 0.617 0.621 0.614 0.618 0.6115 0.616 0.610 0.614 0.6085 0.6125 0.608 0.612 0.6245 0.623 0.6195 0.6175 0.6155 0.614 0.6135 0.625 0.6235 0.620 0.618 0.616 0.6145 0.614 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-47 SECTION 5.3 2BDETENTION FACUTIPS Riser Overflow The nomograph in Figure 5.3.4.H may be used to determine the head (in feet) above a riser of given diameter and for a given flow (usually the I00-year peak flow for developed conditions). J FIGURE 5.3.4.H RISER INFLOW CURVES 100 0.1 HEAD IN FEET (measured from crest of riser) 10 Qwair 9.739 Di„lar2 Q.,,.e=3.782 D2H112 Q in cfs, D and H in feet Slope change occurs at weir -orifice transition 1 1 /01 /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-48 5.3.5 PARKING LOT DETENTION 5.3.5 PARKING LOT DETENTION Private parking lots may be used to provide additional detention volume for runoff events greater than the 2-year runoff event provided all of the following conditions are met: 1. The depth of water detained does not exceed 1 foot at any location in the parking lot for runoff events up to and including the 100-year event. 2. The gradient of the parking lot area subject to pending is 1 percent or greater. 3. The emergency overflow path is identified and noted on the engineering plan, and the path complies with Core Requirements #1 and #2 (see Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2). 4. Fire lanes used for emergency equipment are free of ponding water for all runoff events up to and including the 100-year event. Note: Flows may be backed up into parking lots by the control structure (i.e., the parking lot need not function as a flow -through detention pond). 5.3.6 ROOF DETENTION Detention ponding on roofs of structures may be used to meet flow control requirements provided all of the following conditions are met: I . The roof support structure is analyzed by a structural engineer to address the weight of ponded water. 2. The roof area subject to ponding is sufficiently waterproofed to achieve a minimum service life of 30 years_ 3. The minimum pitch of the roof area subject to ponding is'/4-inch per foot. 4. An overflow system is included in the design to safely convey the I00-year peak flow from the roof. 5. A mechanism is included in the design to allow the ponding area to be drained for maintenance purposes or in the event the restrictor device is plugged. 2005 Surface Water Design Manua] 11/01/2006 5-49 SECTION 5.3 213DETENTION FACILITIES 5.3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEARED AREAS This simplified alternative to the standard detention pond (Section 5.3.1) may be used to satisfy the flow control facility requirement only for a conversion of forest to pasture or grass, provided that all of the following conditions are met: 1. The total area draining to any one pond must be no larger than 3 acres and must consist primarily of vegetated land (e.g., forest, meadow, pasture, grass, garden, crops, etc.) free of impervious surface. If more than 3 acres of cleared area (i.e., area converted from forest to pasture/grass) is proposed to be served, multiple simple detention ponds must be used. 2. The area served by the pond must not be located within a Flood Problem Flow Control Area as determined in Section 1.2.3.1. 3. The pond must not drain to a severe erosion problem or a severe flooding problem as defined in Section 1.2.2, Core Requirement #2. 4_ The pond must be constructed in accordance with the design criteria and methods of analysis specified in this section. 5.3.7.1 DESIGN CRITERIA Typical details of the simple detention pond are shown in Figure 5.3.7.A (p. 5-52) and Figure 5.3.7.B (p. 5-53). General 1. The dispersal trench at the outlet from the storage pond may not be placed closer than 50 feet from the top of slopes, 20% or greater. 2_ The pond, berm and dispersal trench must be fenced to prevent Iivestock disturbance. 3. Runoff discharge toward landslide hazard areas must be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer or a qualified geologist. The discharge point may not be placed on or above slopes greater than 20% or above erosion hazard areas without evaluation by a geotechnical engineer or qualified geologist and DDES approval. Berming and Excavation 1. To the extent feasible, the pond shall be excavated into the ground with minimal berming on the downslope (outlet) end of the pond. An excavated pond is easier to construct and maintain and is less likely to cause problems during severe storm events. 2. Where berms are used, the top of berm shall be a minimum of 3 feet wide. The soil shall be well compacted and planted with an erosion -control seed mix as soon as possible. 3. Whether created by excavation or berming, all pond side -slopes shall be gently sloped, no steeper than 3 feet horizontal per 1 foot of vertical drop. 4. Prior to constructing the berm, the underlying ground shall be scrapped clean of organic material. 5. At a minimum, a hand -level shall be used to ensure the berm and outlet structure are constructed at the correct relative elevations. 6. The bottom 6 inches of the pond shall retain standing water in the pond between storms to create a permanent pool. The volume of the permanent pool is not counted towards the required detention volume, which is above the permanent pool. 7. The water depth of required detention volume above the permanent pool should average about 18 inches and must be no deeper than 24 inches. 1 1/01/2006 200S Surface Water Design Manual 5-50 5.3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEARED AREAS DESIGN CRITERIA Simple Outlet Control Structure 1. Materials Required: a) PVC pipe, 4 inch diameter or greater as needed. b) PVC pipe cap. c) Small plastic or concrete catch basin with grate, minimum 12-inch width. 2. Construction Method: a) Drill or cut a hole just below the rim of the catch basin, sized to connect the PVC pipe. b) Install the catch basin into the bottom of the pond. The catch basin should be located within a few feet of the berm at the downslope end of the pond. The top of catch basin must be a minimum of 6 inches above the bottom of the pond to create the permanent pool. AIign the hole in the downslope direction of discharge. c) Dig a trench for the pipe from the catch basin to the location of the flow spreader. d) Connect the PVC pipe to the catch basin, PVC pipe should extend about 4 inches into the basin. e) Drill the appropriate size hole into the PVC cap. Clean hole to remove burrs, without increasing the size of the opening. 0 Connect the drilled cap to the end of the PVC pipe extending into the catch basin. g) Extend the PVC pipe to the location of the flow spreader. The pipe shall be laid with a slight slope towards the flow spreader. A slope of/, inch per foot of pipe is recommended and should not exceed 2 inches per foot_ h) Backfill the trench over the PVC pipe and compact well. Avoid placing large and/or sharp rocks in the trench to minimize potential for damaging the pipe during compaction. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-51 SECTION ? 3 2BDETENTION FACILITIES 3' min ber a) top wid CL 0 FIGURE 5.3.7.A SIMPLE DETENTION POND - PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW NTS 1 l/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-52 5.3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEARED AREAS DESIGNCRITERIA FIGURE 5.3.7.E SIMPLE DETENTION POND — SECTION VIEWS catch basin grate small catch basin 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-53 SECTION 5.3 2BDETENTION FACILITIES 3' grass typical of all disturbed areas compacted ° 10" high berm \�.. earthern natural ground line / ;� � material notched 2" x 10" x 8' long 4" PVC pi spreader board PVC pipe outlet n 8' board 2"x10" imbeded 6" into the ground maximum water level before overflow 18" screen or hardware / cloth secured to bucket 3 i11 i cap with` '5 gallon plastic all slopes 3:1 or flatter drilled orifice bucket SECTION A -A NTS spillway 6" lower than berm 6' compacted,earthern rrtateria SECTION B-B NTS SECTION C-C NTS flow spreader all slopes 3:1 or flatter 1 1/01/200( 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-54 5.3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEARED AREAS—METHODSOPANALYSIS 5.3.7.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The detention volume and orifice sizing for the simple detention pond shall be determined as described in this section. This determination is based on where the pond is located within the County and bow much cleared area (i.e., area of forest converted to pasture or grass) is served by the pond. Detention Volume The map in Figure 5.3.7.0 (p. 5-56) provides the minimum pond volume required based on 10,000 square feet of cleared area. To determine the total pond volume required, locate the project site on the map and multiply the number from the map by the amount of cleared area that will be served by the pond (if the cleared area is measured in units of square feet, remember to divide the actual area by 10,000 before multiplying with map value). If the project site is located between the lines shown on the map, select the closest line to the project site. If located midway between two lines, the average value may be used. To determine if the constructed pond has adequate storage, the pond area must be determined by field measurements. If all side slopes are at 31-1:1 V or flatter, the pond's bottom area may be used to determine the pond volume, Vr, above the permanent pool using the following equation. The resulting volume, Vl, must be equal to or greater than the required volume determined from Figure 5.3.7.C. V,= 1.5A,,+3.4P where V, = total pond volume available (cu ft) Ah = bottom area of pond (sq ft) P = bottom perimeter of pond (ft) (5-9) A more accurate volume determination can be made with field measurements and area calculations taken at two elevations. The first elevation at which the pond area is measured is at the top of the permanent pool. The second area measurement is taken at the overflow spillway elevation. V, = d (A,, + Ab ) 2 (5-10) where V, = total pond volume available (cu ft) A,, = area of pond (sq ft) measured at the lowest elevation of the overflow spillway (Ab) A b = area of pond (sq ft) measured at the top of the permanent pool d = depth of reservoir (ft) = 1.5 feet Orifice Sizing Figure 5.3.7.D provides the orifice diameter to be drilled into the PVC cap. If the orifice diameter matches the PVC pipe diameter, no cap is required. Otherwise, the PVC pipe diameter must be greater than the required orifice diameter. If the project site is located between the lines shown on the map, either select the closest line to the project site or interpolate between the two values. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11101/2006 5-55 SECTION 5.3 2BDETENTION FACILITIES F=-- FIGURE 5.3.7.0 SIMPLE DETENTION POND - MINIMUM VOLUME 1� ST 1,0 Rainfall Regions and IL(I Regional Scale Factors im-,wpurated Area 1 94 Rpmrlake scad Ck ... . . ........... .. . ......... j IN (Scw" in N(Ab B("Ild 91014v Fr(xn 11gurc, 1,29) mreel %(3ragc, pi 4 OJAX) wqwin 1"A deOrtm ST I lot I Ana I A LA 1.0 LANDSIBURG LA 1.2 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-56 5.3.7 SIMPLE DETENTION POND FOR CLEARED AREAS ---METHODS OFANALYSIS FIGURE 5.3.7.1) SIMPLE DETENTION POND - ORIFICE SIZE 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1I/01/2006 5-57 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 5.4 INFILTRATION FACILITIES This section presents the methods, criteria, and details for design and analysis of infiltration facilities. These facilities are used where soils are suitable for soaking the increased runoff from development into the ground. Such facilities usually have a detention volume component to allow for temporary storage of runoff while it is being infiltrated. This detention volume is typically dependent on the infiltration capacity of the soils and the required facility performance. There are five types of infiltration facilities allowed for use in complying with Core Requirement #3, "Flow Control": infiltration ponds, infiltration tanks, infiltration vaults, infiltration trenches, and small infiltration basins. In general, ponds are preferred because of the ease of maintenance and the water quality treatment that surface soil and vegetation provide. Tanks and trenches are useful where site constraints prevent use of a pond, and small infiltration basins are simple to design but have limited uses. The information presented in this section is organized as follows: Section 5.4.1, "General Requirements for Infiltration Facilities" Section 5.4.2, "Infiltration Ponds" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.2.1 (p. 5-67) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.2.2 (p. 5-68) Section 5.4.3, "Infiltration Tanks" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.3.1 (p. 5-70) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.3.2 (p. 5-71) Section 5.4.4, "Infiltration Vaults" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.4.1 (p. 5-73) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.4.2 (p. 5-74) Section 5.4.5, "Infiltration Trenches" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.5.1 (p. 5-75) "Methods of Analysis," Section 5.4.5.2 (p. 5-75) Section 5.4.6, "Small Infiltration Basins" "Design Criteria," Section 5.4.6.1 (p. 5-77). 5.4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITIES This section presents the design requirements generally applicable to all infiltration facilities. Included are the general requirements for detennining acceptable soil conditions, detemnning infiltration rates, and providing overflow protection, spill control, presettling, groundwater protection, protection from upstream erosion, and construction. ❑ SOILS The applicant must demonstrate through infiltration testing, soil logs, and the written opinion of a geotechnical engineer that sufficient permeable soil exists at the proposed facility location to allow construction of a properly functioning infiltration facility. The basic requirement is a minimum of 3 feet of permeable soil below the bottom of the facility (bottom of pond or excavation for tank) and at least 3 feet between the bottom of the facility and the maximum wet - season water table. Test pits or borings shall extend at least 5 feet below the bottom of the infiltration 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 1/24/2005 5-59 SECTION 5.4 313INFILTRATION FACILITIES facility, and at least one test hole should reach the water table. If the water table is very deep, the test hole need not extend more than one-fourth the maximum width of the pond below the bottom of a pond, or more than 5 feet below the bottom of a tank. If there is any question about the actual wet -season water table elevation, measurements shall be made during the period when the water level is expected to be at a maximum. Any requirements associated with impacts to an erosion hazard area, steep slope hazard area, or landslide hazard area should also be addressed in the soil study. The geotechnical engineer shall provide a report stating whether the location is suitable for the proposed infiltration facility, and shall recommend a design infiltration rate (see "Design Infiltration Rate" below)_ ❑ MEASURED INFILTRATION RATES Infiltration rate tests are used to help estimate the maximum sub -surface vertical infiltration rate of the soil below a proposed infiltration facility (e.g., pond or tank) or a closed depression. The tests are intended to simulate the physical process that will occur when the facility is in operation; therefore, a saturation period is required to approximate the soil moisture conditions that may exist prior to the onset of a major winter runoff event, Testing Procedure I . Excavations shall be made to the bottom elevation of the proposed infiltration facility. The measured infiltration rate of the underlying soil shall be determined using either the EPA falling head percolation test procedure (onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems, EPA, 1980; see Reference Section 6-A), the double ring infiltrometer test (ASTM D3385), a single ring at least 3 feet in diameter, or large scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) as described in the August 2001 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Large single ring and PIT tests have been shown to more closely match actual full-scale facility performance than smaller test methods. 2. The test hole or apparatus shall be filled with water and maintained at depths above the test elevation for the saturation periods specified for the appropriate test. 3. Following the saturation period, the rate shall be determined in accordance with the specified test procedures, with a head of 6 inches of water. 4. The design engineer shall perform sufficient tests to determine a representative infiltration rate. At a minimum, three small-scale tests shall be performed for each proposed infiltration facility location, and at least 2 tests per acre (minimum of 4 tests) shall be performed for a closed depression. If large- scale tests are performed, the number of tests may be reduced at the discretion of the review engineer. 5. A minimum of two soils logs shall be obtained for each tank and for each 10,000 square feet (plan view area) of proposed pond infiltration surface area. Soils shall be logged for a minimum of 5 feet below the bottom of each proposed infiltration facility. The logs shall describe the SCS series of the soil, indicate the textural class of the soil horizons throughout the depth of the log, note any evidence of high groundwater level (such as mottling), and estimate the maximum groundwater elevation, if within the limits of the log. ❑ DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE In the past, many infiltration facilities have been built that have not performed as the designer intended_ This has resulted in flooding and substantial public expenditures to correct problems_ Monitoring of actual facility performance has shown that the full-scale infiltration rate is far lower than the rate determined by small-scale testing. Actual measured facility rates of 10% of the small-scale test rate have been seen. It is clear that great conservatism in the selection of design rates is needed, particularly where conditions are less than ideal. The design infiltration rate shall be determined using an analytical groundwater model to investigate the effects of the local hydrologic conditions on facility performance. Since this analysis may be excessively costly for small projects such as short plats or commercial projects 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-60 5.4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITIES of less than 1 acre, the groundwater modeling requirement may be replaced with use of the simplified analysis method described below along with full-scale testing of the completed facility to verify performance. Groundwater modeling (mounding analysis) of the proposed infiltration facility shall be done using the design infiltration rate and the estimated maximum groundwater elevation determined for the proposed facility location_ MODRET or an equivalent model must be used unless DDES approves an alternative analytic technique. Developed condition hydrographs should be exported from the KCRTS model of the project site for the groundwater mounding analysis. Test hydrographs should include at a minimum the full year 8 synthetic record and at least one other runoff event that is the highest volume, peak -flow event identified through KCRTS analysis of the infiltration facility. Note that an iterative process may be required beginning with an estimated design rate, KCRTS sizing, then groundwater model testing. Simplified Method A simplified method may be used for detemuning the preliminary design infiltration rate by applying correction factors to the measured infiltration rate. The correction factors account for uncertainties in testing, depth to the water table or impervious strata, infiltration receptor geometry, and long-term reductions in permeability due to biological activity and accumulation of fines. Equation 5-9 has been developed to account for these factors. This equation estimates the maximum design infiltration rate additional reduction in rate beyond that produced by the equation may be appropriate. Note that the design infiltration rate I�P51g1 must not exceed 20 inches/hour. ldesign = Imensured x Fteattng x Fgeonnelry x Fnlugging (5-11) Correction factor F,eS,;,,g accounts for uncertainties in the testing methods. For the EPA method, Testing — 0.30; for the ASTM D3385 method or large-scale testing, F, ,il , = 0.50 Fgeo,1e„ y accounts for the influence of facility geometry and depth to the water table or impervious strata on the actual infiltration rate. A shallow water table or impervious layer will reduce the effective infiltration rate of a large pond, but this will not be reflected in a small scale test. Clearly, a large pond built over a thin pervious stratum with a shallow water table will not function as well as the same pond built over a thick pervious stratum with a deep water table. FgeOmet,}, must be between 0.25 and 1.0 as determined by the following equation: FgeO,,1C,J, = 4 Di + 0.05 (5-12) where D = depth from the bottom of the proposed facility to the maximum wet -season water table or nearest impervious layer, whichever is less W = width of the facility F,,rugg;ng accounts for reductions in infiltration rates over the long term due to plugging of soils. This factor is: • 0.7 for loams and sandy loams • 0.8 for fine sands and loamy sands • 0.9 for medium sands • 1.0 for coarse sands or cobbles, or any soil type in an infiltration facility preceded by a water quality facility. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-61 SECTION 5.4 313INFILTRATION FACILITIES ❑ PERFORMANCE TESTING Where the design is based on the Simplified Method, before acceptance of the facility by King County, the completed facility must be tested and monitored to demonstrate that the facility performs as designed. If the facility performance is not satisfactory, the facility will need to be modified or expanded as needed in order to make it function as designed. Where a groundwater mounding analysis was used in the design, small-scale infiltration testing in the bottom of the facility to demonstrate that the soils in the constructed facility are representative of the design assumptions is required. ❑ 100-YEAR OVERFLOW CONVEYANCE An overflow route shall be identified for stormwater flows that overtop the facility when infiltration capacity is exceeded or the facility becomes plugged and fails. The overflow route must be able to safely convey the 100-year developed peak flow to the downstream conveyance system or other acceptable discharge point in accordance with conveyance requirements in Section 1.2.4. Where the entire project site is located within a closed depression (such as some gravel pits), the requirement to identify and analyze a 100-year overflow pathway may be waived by DDES if (1) an additional correction factor of 0.5 is used in calculating the design infiltration rate, (2) the facility is sized to fully infiltrate the 100-year runoff event, and (3) the facility is not bermed on any side. Intent: to address situations where the infiltration facility may be a highly permeable onsite closed depression, such as a gravel pit, where all stormwater is currently, and will remain, fully infiltrated. ❑ SPILL CONTROL DEVICE All infiltration facilities must have a spill control device upstream of the facility to capture oil or other floatable contaminants before they enter the infiltration facility (see Section 4.2.1.1). If a tee section is used, the top of the riser should be set above the 100-year overflow elevation to prevent oils from entering the infiltration facility. ❑ PRESETTLING Prescitling must be provided before stormwater enters the infiltration facility. This requirement may be met by either of the following; • A water quality facility from the Basic WQ menu (this alternative is recommended; see Section 6.1.1 for facility options). • A presettling pond or vault with a treatment volume equal to 0.75 times the runoff from the mean annual storm V, (see Section 6.4.1.1 for information on computing V,.). If water in the WQ facility or presettling facility will be in direct contact with the soil, the facility must be lined according to the liner requirements in Section 6.2.4. If the presettling facility is a vault, design of the vault shall be the same as required for presettling cells in sand filter vaults (see Section 6.5.3.2). The settling pond or vault shall be designed to pool water 4 to 6 feet deep with an overflow capacity sufficient to pass the developed 100-year peak flow. Settling facilities must have a length -to -width ratio of at least 3:1. The inlet(s) and outlet should be situated to maximize the length of travel through the settling pond or vault. Berms or baffles may be used to lengthen the travel distance if site constraints limit the inletioutlet placement. Inlets should be designed to minimize velocity and turbulence. Roof runoff need not be treated before entering an infiltration facility. 1 I/01 /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-62 5.4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITIES ❑ PROTECTION FROM UPSTREAM EROSION Erosion must be controlled during construction of areas upstream of infiltration facilities since sediment - laden runoff can permanently impair the functioning of the system. Erosion control measures must be designed, installed and maintained with great care. Various strategies may be employed to protect infiltration facilities during construction, as described below. Projects may be phased to limit clearing and minimize the time that soils are exposed. An alternative to this approach is to serve the undeveloped area with a large sediment trap on an undeveloped tract with the trap left in place until all clearing and construction is complete and all permanent landscaping is in place. See Erosion and Sediment Control Standards (detached Appendix D) for design details. At the completion of all construction, the sediment trap must be cleaned out (taking care that no sediment enters the drainage system) and filled in, and the flow routed to the permanent drainage system. Another alternative for subdivisions is to stage excavation of the pond as follows: Bottom elevation of the pond prior to paving of plat roadways: 3 feet above the final pond bottom elevation. At this stage of rough grading, the facility may be used to meet sediment retention requirements. 2. Bottom elevation of the pond during and after paving and prior to construction of 80% of the houses: 18 inches above the final pond bottom elevation with upstream sediment retention, as needed. At this stage, the pond will serve as an interim flow control facility pending final stabilization of the site. Note that KCC 9.04.090 requires that flow control facilities be operational prior to the construction of any improvements. ❑ FACILITY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Excavation of infiltration facilities should be done with a backhoe working at "arms length" to minimize disturbance and compaction of the completed infiltration surface. If the bottom of the facility will be less than three feet below final grade, the facility area should be cordoned off so that construction traffic does not traverse the area. The exposed soil should be inspected by a soils engineer after excavation to confirm that soil conditions are suitable. Two simple staff gages for measuring sediment depth should be installed at opposite ends of the bottom of ponds_ The gages may consist of 1-inch pipe driven at least one foot into the soil in the bottom of the pond, with 12 inches of the pipe protruding above grade. 0 OFFSITE GROUNDWATER LEVEL IMPACTS Potential impacts to groundwater levels off the project site should be considered. In general, replacing vegetation with impervious cover will increase the total annual volume of runoff generated on a site. Infiltrating this runoff will tend to increase ground water recharge, which may affect groundwater levels offsite. The impacts of infiltration could include increased water to landslide hazard areas, increased groundwater resources available, increased water levels in closed depressions, and higher groundwater levels. Higher groundwater levels offsite could result in increased flooding of basements, or impaired functioning of infiltration systems resulting in surface water flooding. Evidence of offsite groundwater flooding problems should be examined during the offsite analysis required under Core Requirement ##2 (see Section 1,2.2). In general, groundwater level impacts will be very difficult to reduce, and there are no specific requirements that apply in many cases. The design engineer is encouraged to consider whether there are any feasible approaches to reduce groundwater flooding impacts, such as moving facilities or changing facility geometry, retaining forest cover, minimizing impervious coverage, or fixing downstream problems. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-63 SECTION 5.4 3BINFILTRATION FACILITIES ❑ GROUNDWATER PROTECTION The protection of groundwater quality is recognized as an issue of greater concern than in the past, and groundwater protection standards are changing rapidly. Increased safeguards are often required. The applicant should check the Critical Aquifer Recharge (CARA) map, sole source aquifer designations, and wellhead protection areas mapped by the Washington State Department of Health, to determine if the project lies within a groundwater protection area. The groundwater protection requirements of this manual set forth in Chapter 1 call for implementing one of the following actions when infiltrating runoff from pollution -generating surfaces: 1. Provide water quality treatment prior to infiltration as specified in Core Requirement #8 and Special Requirement #5, or 2. Demonstrate that the soil beneath the infiltration facility has properties that reduce the risk of groundwater contamination from typical stormwater runoff. Such properties are defined below depending on whether the project is located outside of or within a groundwater protection area. Note: The soil properties given below are primarily for groundwater protection and do not necessarily satisfy other protection needs. For example, projects infiltrating runoff within a quarter -mile of a Sensitive Lake may still be required to provide water quality treatment to meet the resource protection needs of the Sensitive Lake. See Core Requirement #8 (Section 1.2.8) for additional WQ requirements. Soil Properties Required for Groundwater Protection Outside of Groundwater Protection Areas For infiltration facilities located outside of groundwater protection areas, acceptable groundwater protection is provided by the soil if the first two feet or more of the soil beneath the infiltration facility meets one of the following criteria: a) The soil has a measured infiltration rate less than or equal to 9 inches per hours or is logged as one of the classes from the USDA Textural Triangle (Figure 5.4. LA, p. 5-65), excluding sand and loamy sand. Soil texture classes other than sand and loamy sand may be assumed to have an infiltration rate of less than or equal to 9 inches per hour without doing field testing to measure rates,10 b) The soil has a cation exchange capacity" greater than 5 and an organic content12 greater than 0.5%. c) The soil is composed of less than 25% gravel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve. The portion passing the #4 sieve must meet one of the following gradations: • At least 50% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 2% must pass the #100 sieve, or • At least 25% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 5% must pass the #200 sieve. Note: These soil properties must be met by the native soils onsite. Soil may not be imported in order to meet groundwater protection criteria without an approved adjustment. ' See discussion of the measured infiltration rate on page 5-60. 10 Criteria (a) is based on the relationship between infiltration rates and soil texture. However, there are many other factors, such as high water table, presence of impervious strata or boulders close to the surface, etc., which also affect infiltration rate. When any such condition is suspected because soils are coarser than expected from the measured infiltration rate, a sieve analysis should be done to establish soil characteristics. The judgment of a geotechnical engineer, geologist or soil scientist shall determine whether a sieve analysis is warranted. The sieve analysis must meet Criteria (c) above to be considered protective. 11 Cation exchange capacity shall be tested using EPA Laboratory Method 9081. 12 Organic content shall be measured on a dry weight basis using method ASTM 02974 for the fraction passing the #40 sieve. 11 /01 /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-64 5.4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INFILTRATION FACILITIES Soil Properties Required within Groundwater Protection Areas For projects located within groundwater protection areas, acceptable groundwater protection is provided by the soil if the first two feet or more of the soil beneath the infiltration facility meets one of the following criteria: a) The soil has a measured infiltration rate less than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour or is logged as one of the classes from the USDA Textural Triangle (Figure 5.4. LA, p. 5-65), excluding sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam. Soil triangle texture classes other than sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam may be assumed to have an infiltration rate of less than or equal to 2.4 inches per hour without doing field testing to measure rates,13 b) The soil has a cation exchange capacity greater than 5 and an organic content greater than 0.5%, and the infiltration rate must be less than or equal to 9 inches per hour. c) The soil has a measured infiltration rate less than or equal to 9 inches per hour, and it must be composed of less than 25% gravel by weight with at least 75% of the soil passing the #4 sieve. The portion passing the #4 sieve must meet one of the following gradations: • At least 50% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 2% must pass the #100 sieve, or • At least 25% must pass the #40 sieve and at least 5% must pass the #200 sieve. Note, The above soil properties must be met by the native soils onsite. Soil may not be imported in order to meet groundwater protection criteria without an approved adjustment. FIGURE 5.4.I.A USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLE 100% CLAY 90 l------ \ 10 80------'F------ 20 TO 'E 30 clay , ii► �I 40 A. / 54 ------ ----- --- -silty• 50 40 sclay clay 60 Y yr' clay loam silt clay, Q 3e7 loam 70 ---J - ----- loam ' 20 loam ---- -- ----------- ---- 80 sill to sandy loarri .loam. so oarny silt , 100% SAND sang sand, ° i00% SILT 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Percent SAND 13 Concerns regarding Criteria (a) and the correspondence between the measured infiltration rate and soil textures are the same as discussed for projects outside sole -source aquifer areas. 2005 Surface Watcr Design Manual 1 1/01/2006 5-65 SECTION 5.4 3131NFILTRATION FACILITIES Infiltration near Water Supply Wells The design engineer should consider the following when designing infiltration facilities near water supply wells: 1. In no case should infiltration facilities be placed closer than 100 feet from drinking water wells and 200 feet from springs used for drinking water supplies. Where water supply wells exist nearby, it is the responsibility of the applicant's engineer to locate such wells, meet any applicable protection standards, and assess possible impacts of the proposed infiltration facility on groundwater quality_ If negative impacts on an individual or community water supply are possible, additional runoff treatment must be included in the facility design, or relocation of the facility should be considered. 2. All infiltration facilities located within the one-year capture zone of any well should be preceded by a water quality treatment facility. Infiltration near Steep Slopes and Landslide Hazard Areas The following restrictions apply to the design of infiltration systems located near a slope steeper than 15%. 1. Infiltration facilities (excluding individual lot systems) shall be placed no closer to the top of slope than the distance equal to the total vertical height of the slope area that is steeper than 15%. Where infiltration facilities are proposed within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or a landslide hazard area, a detailed geotechnical evaluation may be required. 2. Individual lot infiltration and dispersion systems rather than a centralized infiltration facility should be used to the extent feasible, except for lots immediately adjacent to a landslide hazard area. The runoff from such lots should be discharged into a tightline system, if available, or other measures should be implemented as recommended by a geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, or DDES staff geologist. 11/01/2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-66 5.4.2 16BINFILTRATION PONDS 5.4.2 INFILTRATION PONDS Infiltration ponds may be constructed by excavating or constructing berms. See Figure 5.4.2.A (p. 5-69) for a typical detail. General The following criteria for ponds are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: 1. The proposed pond bottom must be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and have at least 3 feet of permeable soil beneath the bottom. 2. Infiltration ponds are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 3. The infiltration surface must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Maintenance access shall be provided to both the presettling pond or vault (if provided) and the infiltration pond. 5. An overflow structure such as that shown in Figure 5.3.1.0 (p. 5-28) shall be provided. In addition, infiltration ponds shall have an emergency spillway as required for detention ponds in Section 5.3.1.1 (p. 5-18). 6. The criteria for general design, side slopes, embankments, planting, maintenance access, access roads, fencing, signage, and right-of-way shall be the same as for detention ponds (see Section 5.3.1, p. 5-17), except as required for the infiltration design. Setbacks 1. The toe of the exterior slope of an infiltration pond berm embankment shall beset back 5 feet from the tract, easement, or property line. 2. The tract, easement, or property line on an infiltration pond cut slope shall be set back 5 feet from the emergency overflow water surface. 3. The infiltration pond design water surface shall beset back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainfields. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle - King County Department of Public Health. 4. The infiltration pond design water surface shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area, unless an approved geotechnical report recommends closer placement. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 5. Building setback lines for adjacent internal lots shall be 20 feet. These may be reduced to the minimum allowed by zoning if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on structures so located. 6. The infiltration pond design water surface shall be set back 20 feet from external tract, easement or property lines. This may be reduced to 5 feet if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on existing or future structures located on adjacent external lots. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-67 SECTION 5.4 'INFILTRATION FACILITIES 5.4.2.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The size of the pond shall be determined using the hydrologic analysis and routing methods described for detention ponds in Chapter 3. The storage volume in the pond is used to detain runoff prior to infiltration. The stage/discharge curve shall be developed from the design infiltration rate determined according to Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). At a given stage the discharge may be computed using the area of pervious surface through which infiltration will occur (which will vary with stage) multiplied by the recommended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units)_ Berms (which should be constructed of impervious soil such as till), maintenance access roads, and lined swales should not be included in the design pervious surface area. Note: The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide a preliminary pond volume for a given side slope, storage depth, design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). 11 /01 /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-b$ 5.4.2 16BTNFILTPA.TION PONDS FIGURE 5.4.2.A TYPICAL INFILTRATION POND access road see Section 5.3.1,1 tracUeasement A for specifications inflow pipe lines as required I I settling pond if required connecting for details spillway see Figure 5.3.1.113 R i ? infiltration jond rT „ „ „ outflow/ overflow structure emergency overflowsee Figure5.3.1.E t 5' minimum _y A PLAN VIEW overflow/emergency overflow provided per Section 5.3.1.1 existing ground 12715'ifH>_6' 6' if H < 6' (typ) FAM"I H � 3:1 slope (typ) SECTION A -A NOTE: n I zi Detail is a schematic representation only. Actual configuration will vary depending on specific site constraints and applicable design criteria. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-69 SECTION 5.4 3BINFILTRATION FACILITIES 5.4.3 INFILTRATION TANKS Infiltration tanks consist of underground pipe that has been perforated to allow detained stoTmwater to be infiltrated. figure 5.4.3.A (p. 5-72) shows a typical infiltration tank. lk�fi �Z y WKS) ti 10 of :7 n General The following criteria for tanks are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: 1. The proposed tank trench bottom shall be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and have at least 3 feet of permeable soil beneath the trench bottom. 2. Infiltration tanks are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 3_ The infiltration surface elevation (bottom of trench) must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth)_ 4. Spacing between parallel tanks shall be calculated using the distance from the lowest trench bottom to the maximum wet season ground water surface (D) and the design width of the trench for a single tank (W). The tank spacing S = W2/D, where S is the centerline spacing between trenches (or tanks) in feet. S shall not be less than W, and S need not exceed 2W. 5. Tanks shall be bedded and backfilled with washed drain rock that extends at least 1 foot below the bottom of the tank, at least 2 feet beyond the sides, and up to the top of the tank_ 6. Drain rock (3 to 1 `/2 inches) shall be completely covered with filter fabric prior to backfilling. 7. The perforations (holes) in the tank must be one inch in diameter and located in the bottom half of the tank starting at an elevation of 6 inches above the invert of the tank. The number and spacing of the perforations should be sufficient to allow complete utilization of the available infiltration capacity of the soils with a safety factor of 2.0 without jeopardizing the structural integrity of the tank. &. Infiltration tanks shall have an overflow structure equipped with a solid bottom riser (with clean -out gate) and outflow system for safely discharging overflows to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. 4. The criteria for general design, materials, structural stability, buoyancy, maintenance access, access roads, and right-of-way shall be the same as for detention tanks (see Section 5.3.2, p. 5-31), except for features needed to facilitate infiltration. Setbacks 1. Tanks shall be set back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainftelds. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle - King County Department of public Health. 2. All tanks shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 3. Building setback lines for adjacent internal lots shall be 20 feet. These may be reduced to the minimum allowed by zoning if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on structures so located. 4. Infiltration tanks shall be set back 20 feet from external tract, easement, or property lines. This may be reduced to 5 feet if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on existing or future structures located on adjacent external lots. 1 1 /01 /20(k 5-70 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5.4.3 17BINFILTRATION TANKS 5.4.3.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The size of the tank shall be determined using the hydrologic analysis and routing methods described in Chapter 3, and the stage/discharge curve developed from the recommended design infiltration rate as described in Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). The storage volume in the tank is used to detain runoff prior to infiltration with the perforations providing the outflow mechanism. At any given stage, the discharge may be computed using the area of pervious surface through which infiltration will occur multiplied by the recommended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). The area of pervious surface used for determining the potential infiltration from the tank shall be computed by taking the lesser of the trench width, or two times the width of the tank, and then multiplying by the length of the tank (assuming infiltration through the bottom of the trench only), Note. The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide a preliminary tank length for a given tank diameter, storage depth, design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-71 SECTION 5.4 3BINFILTRATION FACILITIES outlet pipe .4 1-4-- filter fabric top only riser for infiltration only for detention/infiltration see Figure 5.3.2.A overflow structure min. 54" dia. type 2 C.B. see Section 5.4.1 FIGURE 5.4.3.A TYPICAL INFILTRATION TANK optional parallel tank access risers (max spacing 100-ft) I —'------------'IT setling vault or ______ type 2C.B. rp pL7P4 _° Pone q p° Q aaC pC a if required c p access users —4r Inlet pipe vd ee Figure 5.3.2. GI(flow through) ;pAI outletloverflow washed rock bedding structure and backfill to top of tank, PLAN VIEW min 2' beyond edges NTS optional design for parallel tank shown dashed —100' max—► max+ 2.0' �I It 6" min dead storage II1 �/O O O O O o g O O O O O O �c n. °Oi74poOpo cp 4 Q P4°ap0 Q6 detention tank 1" holes as size as required required 36" min. dia. (typ.) SECTION A -A NTS NOTES: • All metal parts corrosion resistant. Steel parts galvanized and asphalt coated (treatment 1 or better). • Filter fabric to be placed over washed rock backfill. 2" min. diameter air vent pipe welded to tank (required if no access riser on tank) type 2 C.B.or settling vault if required 4 -- T 4' min. washed rock bedding and backfiil to top of tank 11/0 i /2006 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-72 5.4.4 18BINFILTRATION VAULTS 5.4.4 INFILTRATION VAULTS Infiltration vaults consist of a bottomless concrete vault structure placed underground in native infiltrative soils. Infiltration is achieved through the native soils at the bottom of the structure. Infiltration vaults are similar to detention vaults. A standard detention vault detail is shown in Figure 5.3.3.A (p. 5-37). Overflow riser details are shown in Section 5.3.4 beginning on page 5-38. 5.4.4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA General The following criteria for vaults are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: 1. The proposed vault bottom shall be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and have at least 3 feet of permeable soil beneath the bottom. 2. Infiltration vaults are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 3. The vault bottom must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Infiltration vaults shall have a solid bottom riser (with clean -out gate) and outflow system for safely discharging overflows to the downstream conveyance system or another acceptable discharge point. Structural Stability All vaults shall meet structural requirements for overburden support and H-20 vehicle loading. Vaults located under roadways must meet the live load requirements of the King County Road Standards. Cast - in -place wall sections shall be designed as retaining walls. Structural designs for vaults must be stamped by a licensed structural engineer unless otherwise approved by DDES. Bottomless vaults shall be provided with footings placed on stable, well -consolidated native material and sized considering overburden support, traffic loading (assume maintenance traffic, if placed outside ROW), and lateral soil pressures when the vault is dry. Infiltration vaults shall not be allowed in fill slopes unless analyzed in a geotechnical report for stability. The infiltration surface at the bottom of the vault must be in native soil. Access Requirements Same as specified for detention vaults in Section 5.3.3.1 (p_ 5-35). Access Roads Same as specified for detention vaults in Section 5.3.3.1 (p. 5-35). Right -of -Way Infiltration vaults to be maintained by King County but not located in King County right-of-way shall be in a tract dedicated to King County. Any tract not abutting public right-of-way will require a 15-foot wide extension of the tract to accommodate an access road to the vault. Setbacks 1. Infiltration vaults shall be set back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system draintields. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle - King County Department of Public Health. 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/0I/2006 5-73 SECTION 5.4 3131N'FILTRATION FACILITIES 2. Infiltration vaults shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 3. Building setback lines for adjacent internal lots shall be 20 feet. These may be reduced to the minimum allowed by zoning if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on structures so located. 4. Infiltration vaults shall be set back 20 feet from external tract, easement, or property lines. This may be reduced to 5 feet if the facility soils report addresses the potential impacts of the facility phreatic surface on existing or future structures located on adjacent external lots. 5.4.4.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The size of the vault shall be determined using the hydrologic analysis and routing methods described in Chapter 3 and the stage/discharge curve developed from the recommended design infiltration rate as described in Section 5.4.1 (p. 5-59). The storage volume in the vault is used to detain runoff prior to infiltration. At any given stage, the discharge may be computed using the area of pervious surface through which infiltration will occur (the exposed soil comprising the vault bottom) multiplied by the recommended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). Note: The KCRTS program "Sue a Facility" module can provide preliminary vault volume (modeled as an infiltration pond with vertical side slopes) for a given storage depth, design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). 1 1 /01 /20W 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-74 5.4.6 20RSMALL INFILTRATION BASINS 5.4.5 INFILTRATION TRENCHES Infiltration trenches can be a useful alternative for developments with constraints that make siting a pond difficult. Infiltration trenches may be placed beneath parking areas, along the site periphery, or in other suitable linear areas. AM1101*3W11419rr3:1n General The following criteria for trenches are in addition to the general requirements for infiltration facilities specified in Section 5.4.1: 1. The proposed trench bottom must be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high groundwater level and 3 feet below finished grade. 2. There must be at least 3 feet of permeable soil beneath the trench bottom. 3. The infiltration surface elevation (bottom of trench) must be in native soil (excavated at least one foot in depth). 4. Infiltration trenches are not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1). A geotechnical analysis and report may be required if located on slopes steeper than 15% or within 200 feet of a steep slope hazard area or landslide hazard area. 5. Trenches shall be a minimum of 24 inches wide. 6. Trenches shall be backfilled with 1 t/2 - 3/4-inch washed rock, completely surrounded by filter fabric and overlain by a minimum 1 foot of compact backfill. 7_ Level 6-inch minimum diameter rigid perforated distribution pipes shall extend the length of the trench. Distribution pipe inverts shall be a minimum of 2 feet below finished grade. Provisions (such as clean -out wyes) shall be made for cleaning the distribution pipe. S. Alternative trench -type systems such as pre -fabricated bottomless chambers that provide an equivalent system may be used at the discretion of DDES. 9. Two feet minimum cover shall be provided in areas subject to vehicle loads. 10. Trenches shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet, measured on center. Setbacks 1. Trench systems shall be set back 100 feet from proposed or existing septic system drainfields. This setback may be reduced to 30 feet with approval from the Seattle - King County Department of Public Health. 2_ Trench systems shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope hazard area. The facility soils report must address the potential impact of infiltration on the steep slope hazard area. 3. Structures shall be sett back 20 feet from individual trenches. This may be reduced if the facility soils report addresses potential impacts of trench phreatic surface on structures so located. 5.4.5.2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS The sections and lengths of trenches shall be determined using the hydrologic analysis and routing methods for flow control design described in Chapter 3. The stage/discharge curve shall be developed from the design infiltration rate recommended by the soils engineer, as described in Section 5A.1 (p. 5-59). Storage volume of the trench system shall be determined considering void space of the washed rock backfill and maximum design water surface level at the crown of the distribution pipe. At any given 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 11/01/2006 5-75 SECTION 5.4 3BfNFILTRATION FACILITIES stage, the discharge maybe computed using the area of pervious surface through which infiltration will occur (trench bottom area only) multiplied by the recommended design infiltration rate (in appropriate units). Note: The KCRTS program "Size a Facility" module can provide a preliminary total trench bottom area far a given trench depth (from spring line), design infiltration rate, and allowable release rate through a control structure (if applicable). The program assumes 30% void space in the trench backfzll. l I/O ] /200G 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5-76 ATTACHMENT J APPENDIX C SMALL PROJECT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks January 24, 2005 SECTION C.? FLOW CONTROL BtvtPs C.2.5 RAIN GARDEN Rain gardens, also known as "bioretention," are excavated or otherwise formed depressions in the landscape that provide for storage, treatment, and infiltration of stormwater runoff. The soil in the depression is enhanced to promote infiltration and plant growth. Plants adapted to wet conditions are planted in the enhanced soil. Figure C.2.5.A (p. C-58) shows a plan view and section of a typical rain garden system. Applicable Surfaces Subject to the minimum design requirements and specifications in this section, rain gardens may be applied to any impervious surface such as a roof, driveway, parking area, road, or sidewalk, and to any non-native pervious surface such as a lawn, landscaped area, or pasture. Design Considerations Rain gardens may overflow occasionally in large storm events or more frequently if located in very poorly drained soils or areas with very high water tables. In very well -drained soils, water may drain too quickly to support water loving plants and ponding may be of short duration. Conditioning the soil in the rain garden with abundant compost will enhance the growth of plants and help the soil to more readily admit water. Operation and Maintenance See Section C.2.5.3 (p. C-60). C.2.5.1 MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS All of the following requirements must be met in order for a rain garden to be applicable to a target impervious surface or new pervious surface: 1. A minimum water storage volume equivalent to 3 inches (0.25 feet) of runoff depth from the impervious surface area served is required. In other words, the volume in cubic feet shall equal 0.25 times the square footage of the impervious surface area served (see example calculation in Section C.2.5.2 below). For rain gardens serving new pervious surface, a minimum water storage volume equivalent to 0.5 inches (0.04 feet) of runoff depth is required. 2. The water storage area, containing the minimum required storage volume, shall be 12 inches deep at overflow and have side slopes no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical. The overflow point of the water storage area shall be at least 6 inches below any adjacent pavement area. The overflow point must be situated so that overflow does not cause erosion damage or unplanned inundation. 3. If a containment berm is used to form the water storage area, the berm must be at least 2 feet wide and 6 inches above the 12 inches of water depth. A catch basin or rock pad must be provided to release water when the pond's water level exceeds the 12 inches of water depth. The catch basin may discharge to the local drainage system or other acceptable discharge location via a 4-inch rigid pipe. The rock pad may be used with or without a constructed drainage system downstream. If a rock pad is used, it must be composed of crushed rock, 6-inches deep and 2 feet wide (perpendicular to flow) and must extend at least 4 feet or beyond the containment berm, whichever is greater. The rock pad must be situated so that overflow does not cause erosion damage or unplanned inundation. 4. Amended soil consisting of minimum of 4 inches of compost tilled into the upper 12 inches of soil or 12 inches of imported sand/compost blend is required in the rain garden. Tilling and amending to greater depth is desirable. 5. Water tolerant plants such as those in Table C.2.5.A shall be planted in the pond bottom. Plants native to Western Washington are preferred. 1 /24/2005 2005 Surface Water Design Manual — Appendix C C-56 ATTACHMENT K SOUND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. Engineering, Surveying, GPS Construction Modeling and Land Development Services P.O. Box 1705 • 1 1 1 1 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 202, Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone (360) 404-201C • Fax (360) 404-2013 . E-Mail: officeCa)sdg-lic com TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL For Hawk's Landing L.L.C. April 28, 2009 Prepared By: Sound Development Group, L.L.C. 1111 Cleveland Ave., Suite 202 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone: (360) 404-2010 Fax: (360) 404-2013 Email: office@sdg-Ilc.com Project No. 8115 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREP SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED Pi LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. DATE: BY: V ' V,,SOG"OF81 115 - Hawks Lendm; - Hawks Landic,tdralrltir.doc - - gS-ENGINEER R UNDER MY DIRECT UNDER THE U TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Project Overview............................................................................................................... 1.1 Purpose and Scope................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Post -Development Conditions................................................................................ 6 2.0 Conditions & Requirements Summary.............................................................................. 2.1 Core Requirements................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location ............................................... 7 2.1.2 C.R. #2 — Off -site Analysis.......................................................................... 7 2.1.3 C.R. #3 — Flow Control................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System.................................................................... 8 2.1.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion & Sediment Control........................................................ 8 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance & Operations.......................................................... 8 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability .............................................. 8 2.1.8 C.R. #8 — Water Quality............................................................................... 9 2.2 Special Requirements............................................................................................ 2.2.1 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements ................................ 10 2.2.2 S.R. #2 — Floodplain/Floodway Delineation ................................................. 10 2.2.3 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities............................................................ 10 2.2.4 S.R. #4 — Source Controls................................................................... ...... 10 2.2.5 S.R. #5 — Oil Control.................................................................................... 10 3.0 Off -Site Analysis............................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Downstream Analysis............................................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Task 1 — Study Area Definition and Maps ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Task 2 — Resource Review.......................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Task 3 — Field Inspection............................................................................. 12 3.1.4 Task 4 — Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions ............. 12 4.0 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design ........................................... 13 2 5.0 Conveyance System Analysis and Design........................................................................ 13 6.0 Special Reports and Studies............................................................................................. 14 7.0 Other Permits.................................................................................................................... 14 8.0 CSWPPP Analysis and Design......................................................................................... 15 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure................................................................. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping............................................................... 16 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration .................................................. 16 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report ......................................................................... 16 8.5 Inspection Sequence.............................................................................................. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments......................................................... 18 8.7 Utilities................................................................................................................... 18 8.8 TESC Conclusion................................................................................................... 18 9.0 Bond Quantities, Facility Summary, and Declaration of Covenant .................................... 19 10.0 Operations and Maintenance Plan.- .......................... I .................................................... 19 11.0 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 19 APPENDICES AppendixA — Exhibits.................................................................................................................. 20 Figure A-1 — Vicinity Map..... .................................................................... ........................ 21 Figure A-2 — Flood Insurance Rate Map — Firmette.......................................................... 22 Figure A-3 — Pre -Developed Condition Map..................................................................... 23 Figure A-4 — Developed Condition Map............................................................................ 24 Figure A-5 — NRCS Soil Survey Information..................................................................... 25 FigureA-6 — WSDOT Basin Map...................................................................................... 26 Figure A-7 — Downstream Aerial....................................................................................... 27 FigureA-8 — TIR Worksheet............................................................................................. 28 Figure A-9 — Facility Summary (not included)................................................................... 29 Figure A-10 — Bond Quantity Worksheet (not included) .................................................... 30 Figure A-11 — Draft Declaration of Covenant Form (not included) .................................... 31 Appendix B — Geotechnical Report.............................................................................................. 32 Appendix C — Water Quality Calculations (not included)............................................................. 33 Appendix D — Maintenance and Operations Plan (not included) ................................................. 34 Appendix E — Legal Description................................................................................................... 35 Appendix F — Conveyance Calculations and Detail (not included) .............................................. 36 3 L 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the proposed 3.06-acre project is to demolish the existing structures within the current project boundary, relocate existing onsite utilities and construct a 5-story 122,000 square foot hotel. Associated utilities will be provided to the new hotel to accommodate required fire, water, stormwater, power, cable and sanitary sewer requirements. Existing impervious areas within the development area will be demolished and re-used/recycled or removed. It is assumed that the site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be less than that of the existing site conditions. The developed runoff from the pollution generating impervious areas will be treated with Low Impact Development: rain gardens. The Western Washington Hydrology Model will be utilized to determine the required treatment stormwater runoff to size the proposed rain gardens, and can be found in Appendix C. As discussed with Alex Jones, with the King County Surface Water Department, the KCRTS is not appropriate to size rain gardens. Modifications will be made to the existing on -site Washington Department of Transportation conveyance system to re-route the existing system around the new building structure and site improvements. 4 1.2 Existing Conditions The site is located at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, west of Highway 405. King County parcel number: 3224059049. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The project site basin is approximately 3.06 acres. Existing soils onsite consist of Norma Sandy Loam, with a Hydrologic group of "D", per the NRCS soil survey, A geotechnical engineering study was prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. in February of 1991 and is attached to this report as Appendix B. This report describes the soils on -site, and will be updated upon site design. An on -site topographic survey was conducted by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc, in 1995. This survey was used as a base map to delineate the on -site drainage and grading for the new site plan. Sound Development Group has verified that there are no apparent major modifications to the existing on -site conditions. This office also completed an off -site topography to be utilized in the proposed off -site road improvements, in January, 2009. The project site currently supports four separate buildings, vehicle parking, utilities and associated landscaping. The existing buildings will be dismantled, recycled/re-used and removed from the site. Currently, the site is approximately 85 percent impervious. The majority of the 15 percent pervious area includes the landscaped road frontage along Lake Washington Boulevard. 1.3 Post -Development Conditions Upon completion of construction, the proposed project site will consist of a new 5-story, 29,412 square foot footprint hotel, with underground parking garage. The new hotel will be provided with proposed storm and sanitary sewer, water and other appropriate utilities. Road improvements will be completed along Lake Washington Boulevard to include curb, gutter and sidewalk. Stormwater runoff from the site development will be treated with rain gardens. A portion of the southern entrance to the site, from Lake Washington Boulevard will be conveyed through a proposed basic treatment system in compliance with the King County Stormwater Design Manual, prior to discharging to the proposed public storm system. 6 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Core Requirements 2.1.1 C.R. #1 — Discharge at the Natural Location Currently, based on the topographic survey information and records, stormwater from the majority of the existing site sheet flows to the north and west. The water is captured within the roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard, or within an existing onsite storm system, and discharged to said ditch. The water captured within the tight -lined system is conveyed discharged off -site to the existing ditch. The ditch conveys the stormwater south to an existing 24" culvert, which discharges to May Creek. Discharge from the developed site will occur at approximately the same location within the existing roadside ditch, utilizing the existing culvert to May Creek. 2.1.2 C.R. #2 — Off -site Analysis A Level 1 Upstream / Downstream Analysis, is discussed in Section 3 of = this report. The analysis, upon site design, will include: • Defining and mapping the study area; • Reviewing available information on the study area; • Field inspecting the study area; and • Analyzing the existing drainage system including its existing and i predicted problems, if any. 2.1.3 C.R. #3 — Flow Control The site will not provide flow control, as required under KCSWDM 1.2.3.1.A, due to the decrease of impervious area after development. The project site within the work limits is currently almost completely impervious (85%) with the exception of a few small landscaping islands. The developed project will provide a maximum of 85% of impervious surface. Therefore, the peak discharge from the developed condition will be equal or less than that of the existing site conditions. N 2.1.4 C.R. #4 — Conveyance System The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW of Lake Washington Boulevard, while the existing private systems will be demolished / removed. Due to essentially equivalent impervious areas in the pre -developed and developed conditions, flow characteristics should be unchanged. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin. 2.1.5 C.R. #5 — Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan will be developed for this site in accordance with the KCSWDM and the City of Renton requirements. The existing paved northern entrance to the site will be used as the construction entrance. Construction work limits will be determined and shown in Appendix A, Figures A-3 and A-4, upon design. The erosion and sediment control plan will be included in Section 8 of this Technical Information Report. 2.1.6 C.R. #6 — Maintenance and Operations See Appendix D of this report for further discussion on maintenance and operations requirements. 2.1.7 C.R. #7 — Financial Guarantees and Liability Financial guarantees meeting King county guarantee requirements will be provided under separate cover. See Appendix A in the future, Figure A-7 for the Bond Quantity Worksheet. 2.1.8 G.R. #8 - Water Quality Water quality treatment, as required by Core Requirement #8, will be implemented and designed to target pollution -generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) and a portion of the non -pollution -generating impervious surface (NPGIS). It is intended to capture the proposed roadway/parking runoff, as well as a good portion of the NPGIS, within several individual rain gardens. The rain gardens will be designed utilizing Western Washington Hydrology Model, Version 3, to treat 91 % of the site runoff. The proposed rain gardens will meet the requirements of the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, Section 6.1. 9 2.2 Special Requirements 2.2.1 S.R. #1 — Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements NIA. 2.2.2 S.R. #2 — Floodplain/Floodway Delineation FEMA Map Panel No. 53033C0664 F, dated May 16, 1995, was consulted and shows that the site is not within a 100-year floodplain. Note that the site is located in a Zone X (see Appendix A, figure A-2). 2.2.3 S.R. #3 — Flood Protection Facilities To our knowledge, the existing site does not contain flood protection facilities, nor does the proposed project intend to construct any. 2.2.4 S.R. #4 — Source Controls This project does not require Source controls; therefore, Special Requirement No. 4, Source Control, does not apply. 2.2.5 S.R. #5 — Oil Control This project does not fit the classification of a high -use site; therefore, Special Requirement No. 5, Oil Control, does not apply. 10 Jk 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.1 Downstream Analysis 3.1.1 Task 1 — Study Area Definition and Maps The project site represents a portion of the May Creek watershed basin. (See Appendix A, Figure A-1, for the Vicinity Map.) The site currently drains south to May Creek, and eventually to Lake Washington. A boundary and topographical survey of the project site has been completed and is included in the project submittal. A Pre -Developed Condition Map is included in this report in Appendix A, Figure A-3. An upstream and downstream inspection / site visit was conducted to determine the relative basin that contributes to the shared discharge location. The contributing basin appears to include a portion of Interstate 405, associated on -ramps, Lake Washington Boulevard and the project site. The approximate 1-405 basin has been included in Appendix A — Figure A-6. The 1-405 basin is captured in a series of ditches, culverts and catch basin — pipe networks, and conveyed west to ex CB 2604 per the attached Developed conditions map. It is then tightlined south and west to the existing roadside ditch along Lake Washington Boulevard. The ditch conveys the water south, approximately 450' to an existing 24" CPP culvert. The culvert discharges the stormwater directly into the buffer of May Creek. May Creek flows to the west from the above discharge point, beneath an existing Lake Washington Boulevard bridge, beneath an existing railroad trestle, then south and west to discharge to Lake Washington. The downstream flow path of May Creek has been included in Appendix A — Figure A-7. May Creek appear to be well vegetated, with no conveyance or erosion problems. 11 3.1.2 Task #2 — Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to discover any existing or potential problems in the study area: 1. FEMA Maps. 2. Critical Areas Map and Wetlands Inventory Map: A critical areas report is being prepared. 3. Soils Information: The geotechnical report for the project site was consulted, and no special conditions apply. (Refer to the Geotechnical Report in Appendix B.) 4. Drainage Complaints: City records will be consulted to determine if any drainage complaints are on file. 5. Erosion Problems. There are no erosion problems at the site due to the fact that it is almost 100 percent impervious. 3.1.3 Task #3 — Field Inspection Sound Development Group staff walked the project site on March 12, 2009. There was no rain at the time of this inspection. The site was observed to be comprised of primarily concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Minimal landscaping in the parking area was observed. 3.1.4 Task #4 — Drainage System Description and Problem Descriptions The drainage system consists of sheet flow to an existing roadside ditch and catch basins to a closed conveyance systems. The existing roadside ditch appears to have standing water during times of no precipitation. The existing discharge culvert from the ditch has a higher inlet elevation than the inlet culvert, as well as several of the upstream catch basins contributing to the ditch. This will contribute to conveyance problems, ditch and pipe siltation, and possible clogging of the existing system, and should be remedied. There are no known overtopping problems at this site, or within May Creek. 12 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN This site is will meet flow control requirements. See Section 2.1.3 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. This site is will meet the Water Quality Core Requirement. See Section 2.1.8 for further discussion. Sizing calculations and design will be provided upon site design. 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The existing WSDOT drainage system onsite will be relocated within the public ROW. Due to no change within the WSDOT basin, flow characteristics should be unchanged, and existing sizing will be utilized. The proposed storm conveyance system will be analyzed and sized to convey the proposed and future basin upon site design. 13 60 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Critical Area Investigation by Graham and Bunting. 7.0 OTHER PERMITS SEPA Checklist - City of Renton Building Permit -- City of Renton Notice of Intent to Discharge (NOI) — DOE Clearing and Grading Permit — City of Renton 14 8.0 CSWPPP ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.1 Construction Sequence and Procedure The proposed project will include an erosion/sedimentation control plan designed to prevent sediment -laden runoff from leaving the site during construction. Currently, the site is approximately 85% percent impervious. Maintaining existing surfacing where construction allows, will help ensure erosion/sedimentation control. Additional control can be achieved by cover measures and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. Prior to the start of any construction activity upon the site, erosion control measures shall be installed in accordance with this plan and the construction documents. The best management practices will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. The planned construction sequence for erosion control is as follows: 1. Stake and flag the clearing limits. 2. Schedule and attend a pre -construction meeting with the City of Renton, the Owner, and Engineer. 3. Identify existing entrance(s) to be used as construction entrance(s). 4. Provide catch basin sediment protection. 5. Provide miscellaneous demolition within the clearing limits as necessary to construction project. 5. All on -site erosion and sediment control measures shall be inspected at least once every 5 working days, each working day during a runoff producing rain events, and within 24 hours after a runoff producing rain event. The contractor shall repair or replace erosion control measures as required. 7. As necessary, adjust temporary erosion control measures as work progresses. 8. Install stormwater facilities, fine grade areas to receive surfacing and provide the surfacing indicated on the plans. 9. Stabilize all remaining disturbed areas. 10. Contact the City of Renton for final inspection. 11. Remove sediment from catch basin sumps. Remove remaining temporary erosion control devices when the area has been permanently stabilized with vegetation and surfacing, and the removal is approved by the City and the Owner. 15 8.2 Soil Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Structural control measures will not be used on this site due to the fact that it consists almost entirely of existing concrete, asphalt, and buildings within the work limits. Specifically, during the period of May 1 through September 30, the contractor will not be allowed to leave soils unprotected for more than 15 days, and immediate seeding will be required for areas brought to finish grade with no further work planned for the next 30 days. Areas to be paved may be armored with crushed rock subbase in place of other stabilizing measures. The area of clearing will be limited to the amount that can be stabilized by September 30 of that year. During the period of October 1 through April 30, all disturbed soil areas will be covered or stabilized within 2 days or 24 hours when a major storm event is predicted. Cover measures may include mulching, netting, plastic sheeting, erosion control blankets, or free draining material. The extent of clearing shall be limited to the amount of land that can be covered or stabilized within 24 hours. Soil stockpiles shall be stabilized by plastic covering. In order for the TESC facilities to function properly, they must be maintained and sediment removed on a regular basis. Inspection and sediment removal shall be performed on all TESC facilities as described in the inspection schedule located in Section 9.4 of this report. 8.3 Permanent Erosion Control and Site Restoration Permanent site stabilization and erosion control will be accomplished through the following measures: 1. Paving of driving and parking surfaces. 2. Landscaping (including hydroseeding). 8.4 Geotechnical Analysis and Report Geotechnical analysis has been completed for this site and is contained in Appendix B. 16 8.5 Inspection Sequence The Contractor shall inspect the temporary erosion control facilities prior to commencement of construction. During construction, the Contractor shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining TESC facilities. Erosion control facilities shall not be allowed to fall into disrepair. All TESC facilities shall be inspected, as a minimum, according to the following schedule. Dry Season: Once a week. Wet Season: Daily, and after every storm event that produces runoff. Needed repairs shall be made within 24 hours or immediately, if possible. If necessary, the Engineer or City will instruct the Contractor to provide additional facilities as warranted during field inspections. The Contractor shall provide the name and contact information for the designated Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead to the City of Renton prior to beginning construction. Additionally, the following inspection/maintenance schedules shall be utilized to ensure the TESC facilities are functioning as designed. Plastic Covering: • Plastic sheeting shall be inspected once a week during both the wet and dry season. Torn sheets must be replaced and open seams repaired. • If the plastic begins to deteriorate due to ultraviolet radiation, it must be completely removed and replaced. • When the plastic is no longer needed, it shall be completely removed. • If tires are used to weight down the plastic sheeting, they must be disposed of properly. Inlet Protection: • Catch basin filter inserts shall be inspected frequently, especially after storm events. If the filter becomes clogged, it should be cleaned or replaced. • Inserts shall be replaced when tears are detected. If the erosion control facilities are damaged, or if the CESCL, project Engineer or City determines that existing controls are inadequate, the contractor shall install additional measures as required. 17 8.6 Control of Pollutants Other Than Sediments The contractor shall be responsible for controlling pollutants at the work site. Key elements such as centralized areas for equipment and concrete truck washing and temporary storage of debris and other stockpiled materials are the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor may elect to follow the detailed guidance on control of non - sediment pollutants as outlined in the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Department of Ecology, February 1992, Section 11-3 (included as Appendix E). 8.7 Utilities In general, in order to prevent conflicts between the utilities, the sanitary sewer system shall be installed first due to the depth of the installation. The storm system shall then be constructed and the water system shall follow. During trenching activities, no more than 500 feet of open trench shall be allowed at any time. Excavated material shall be placed on the uphill side of the trench except where limited by safety or space requirements. Trench dewatering, if required, shall discharge to a sediment -trapping facility. 8.8 TESC Conclusion Erosion control procedures as described in this report and illustrated on the design plans, if properly implemented, should mitigate anticipated erosion effects from the development of this project. 18 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARY, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT A Bond Quantity Worksheet, TIR Worksheet, Facility Summary Form, and Draft Declaration of Covenant Form will be provided in Appendix A upon site design. 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance and operation of storm facilities is the responsibility of the Owner. All drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with King County maintenance standards. A Maintenance and Operations Plan will be provided in Appendix E upon site design. 11.0 CONCLUSION This site will be designed to meet KCSWDM guidelines for stormwater management. The existing conveyance system will be reused and rerouted as necessary to facilitate the new building footprint. The storm drainage calculations and modeling provided in this report will meet King County standards for sizing stormwater conveyance systems and treatment facilities. This analysis is based on topographic surveys, supplied data and records. These documents are referenced within the text of the analysis. The analysis has been prepared utilizing procedures and practices within the standard accepted practices of the industry. We conclude that this project should not create any new problems within the existing downstream drainage system. The backwater problem within the existing ditch and it's contributory system should be remedied. This project should not noticeably aggravate any existing downstream problems due to either water quality or quantity. 19 APPENDIX A Exhibits Figure A-1 Vicinity Map Figure A-2 Flood Insurance Rate Map Figure A-3 Pre -Developed Condition Map Figure A-4 Developed Condition Map Figure A-5 NCRS Soil Survey Information Figure A-6 WSDOT Basin Map Figure A-7 Downstream Arial Figure A-8 TIR Worksheet Figure A-9 Facility Summary Figure A-19 Bond Quality Worksheets Figure A-11 Draft Declaration of Covenant Form 20 Figure A-1 Vicinity Map 21 P. 4 . �.� VS4�o yP SE 76 ST NE 44 TH ST TM •� ��.� NE 4.3RD ST PROJECT �p SITE z N. 407H ST WL Q x t� Q N J8TN ST. r-+ .SHEET DfSC #77DN SU[E• NONE TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT DRAwNBY.• T.zFJWL! VICINITY MAP AV A ms a4if. MAY 2009 PROJECT 'z HAWK'S LANDING • CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL MDRAINDAV FOR SHET HAWK'S LANDING LLC. 1 OF 1 Figure A-2 Flood Insurance Rate Map 22 JOINS PANEL 067E LIMIT OF 1DFTAI1,M STUDY f Yzon1E x--�I • ZONE AE t —ZONE X LO Lu MEADOW r N- pvV- NORTH XQ NORTH 38TH STREET Z z 2 NORTH 37TH STREET 0 NORTH 37TH STREET C Lu z a NORTH 36TH STREET z NORTH 3rrH STREET w z +NORTH 351-H STREET APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 500 0 500 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 864 OF Tn5 [SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTEM PMM_uwry NUABER PANEL 071 snc cawsv. -.O NOSrPpWt1FD IAIE45 S]DOTI [E!J F nEFf�py, OT" OF 0.t00!! OMi F P ur z Z) w 4 52 ? MAP NUMBER 0 53033CO664 f J MAP REVISE 0: MAY 16,1995 32Ina t } KIN Federal Emergency Management Agency UNINCORP This is an olAciel copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map. A was extracted using F-Mrr On Urte. This map does not rerect changes or amendments which may hays Won made subsequent to the date on the title dock. Far the IateRt product Information at»ut National Flood Insurance Program food maps check the FERIA Flood Map Store at www.mac_fema.aa Figure A-3 Pre -Developed Condition Map 23 11 Figure A-4 Developed Conditions Map 24 Figure A-5 NCRS Soil Survey Information 25 47' 3158" 47' 31' 38" i.. Hydrologic Soil Group --King County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING - CROWN PLAZA) Np N N Map Scales 1:4.220 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. n M N Meters 0 50 100 200 300 F A Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 USIA Natural Resources 2911111111111 Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 5l7=O9 Page 1 of 4 47' 31' 57' 47' 31' 38" Hydrologic Soil Grou"ng County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Map Scale: 1:4,220 if printed on A size (8.5" x 111 sheet. C Area of Interest (ACI) The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Solis Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map _ Soil Map units measurements. Soil Ratings Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service A Web Soil Survey URL: http:!lwebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov 0 AID Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 0 g This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. BID Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington C Survey Area Data: Version 4, Nov 21, 2006 1 CID Date(s) aerial images were photographed- 7/24/2006 D The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Not rated or not available compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting Political Features of map unit boundaries may be evident. 0 Cities Water Features 771 Oceans - Streams and Canals Transportation +++ Rails interstate Highways N US Routes Major Roads .y Local Roads Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5f7/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —King County Area, Washington Hydrologic Soil Group HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — King County Area, Washington Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres In A01 Percent of Aol AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes C 21 6.4% Bh Bellingham silt loam D 0.2 0.6% InC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes A 1.8 5.6% No Norma sandy loam D 28.1 87.1 % Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 32.1 99.7% Totals for Area of Interest 32.2 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (AID, BID, and CID). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/7/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —King County Area, Washington Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff- None Specified Tie -break Rule. Lower HAWK'S LANDING - CRQWNE PLAZA USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/7/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Representative Slope —King County Area, Washington (HAWKS LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA) 47' 31' Se' 47. 3 r 38" Map Scales 1 4.229 if printed on A size {6.5" x 11"} sheet. M { �N'l 0 50 i00 200 300eters N Feet 0 200 400 500 1.200 USDA Natural Resources 2" Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 2.2 NaRional Cooperative Sail Survey 5f712009 Page 1 of 3 47' 31'57" 47. 31' 38" Representative Slope —King County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (,apt} Map Scale: 1:4,220 if printed on A size (8.5" X 11-) sheet. C Area of Interest (AQI) The soil surveys that comprise your AOt mere mapped at 1:24,000. soils Soil Map Units Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map u measurements. Soil Ratings Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 0-5 Web Soil Survey URL: hftp://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov 5 -15 Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1 ON NAD83 15 - 3o This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. 0 3Q - 45 45 - 60 Soil Survey Area: }Sing County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 4, Nov 21, 2006 Not rated of not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 Political Features The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were 19 Cities compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Water Features imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting !""I oceans of map unit boundaries may be evident. Streams and Canals Transportation f Rails N Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads .y Local Roads LISDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 517l2009 AM Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Representative Slope —King County Area, Washington Representative Slope HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA Representative Slope —Summary by Map Unit — King County Area, Washington Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating (percent) Acres In AOI Percent of AOI AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 11.0 2.1 6.4% Bh Bellingham sill loam 1.0 0.2 0.5% InC Indianola loamy fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes 10.0 1.8 5.6% No Norma sandy loam 1_0 28.11 87.1 % Subtotais for Soil Survey Area 32.1 99,7% Totals for Area of Interest 32.2 100.0% Description Slope gradient is the difference in elevation between two points, expressed as a percentage of the distance between those points. The slope gradient is actually recorded as three separate values in the database_ -� A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used. Rating Options Units of Measure_ percent Aggregation Method. Dominant Component Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule_ Higher Interpret Nulls as zero: No USDA am —Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 517/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail) —King County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA) 47' 31' 56' 47' 3139' Map Scafe: 14,220 it printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet, m ry N Meters D 5,)200 o I'll 300 h Feet 0 200 400 800 1.200 :USDA Natural Resources Tt Conservation Service Web SoV Survey 2.2 National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/7/2009 Page 1 of 4 47' 31' 5T' 47' 31' 38" ILI Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail) —King County Area, Washington (HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest tA01► Map Scale: 1:4,220 if printed on A size (8.5" x 11 ") sheet. 171 Area or Interest (AOi) The soil surveys that comprise yourA01 were mapped at 1:24,000. Soils _ Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Soil Map Units measurements. Sell Ratings Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service ® Very severe Web Soil Survey URL: http:/Avebsoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov 0 Severe Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 [] Moderate This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. ® Slight Soil Survey Area: King County Area, Washington Not rated or not available Survey Area Data: Version 4, Nov 21, 2006 Political Features Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006 $ Cibes The orthophoto or other base map on whirr the soil lines were Water Features compiled and digitized probably differs from the background 7-71 Oceans imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting Streams and Canals of map unit boundaries may be evident. Transportation +a-F Rails I interstate Highways r US Routes Major Roads �y Local Roads USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/7/2009 011110 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail) —King County Area, Washington Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail) HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA Erosion Hazard (Road, Tratl�— Summary by Map Unit— King County Area, Washington Map unit Map unit name Rating Component name Rating reasons jnumeric Acres In Percent of symbol (percent) values) AOI ADI AgC Alderwood gravelly Moderate Alderwood (95%) Slopeferodibility (0.50) 2.1 6.4% sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Bh Bellingham silt Slight Bellingham (85%) 0.2 0.5% loam InC Indianola loamy Moderate Indianola (100%) Siopeferodibility (0.50) 1.8 5.6% fine sand, 4 to 15 percent slopes No Norma sandy loam Slight Norma (90%) 28.1 87.1% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 32.1 99 7% Totals for Area of Interest 32.2 100.0% Erosion Hazard (Road, Trallj— Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres In AOI Percent of AOI Slight 28.2 87.6% Moderate 3.9 12.1 °k Totals for Area of Interest 32.2 100 0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5/7/2009 am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Erosion Hazard {Road, Trail) —King County Area, Washington HAWK'S LANDING - CROWNE PLAZA Description The ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails. The ratings are based on soil erosion factor K, slope, and content of rock fragments. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The hazard is described as "slight," "moderate," or"severe." A rating of "slight" indicates that little or no erosion is likely; "moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely, that the roads or trails may require occasional maintenance, and that simple erosion -control measures are needed; and "severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, that the roads or trails require frequent maintenance, and that costly erosion -control measures are needed. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey orthe Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site. Rating Options Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff`, None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 5f712009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Figure A-6 WSDQT Basin Map 26 IM Figure A-7 Downstream Aerial 27 Figure A-8 TIR Worksheet l KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Port Quendall Company Phone Address 1111 3rd Ave Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 96101 Project Engineer Pat Severin Company Sound Development Group LLC Phone 360-404-2010 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Landuse Services Subdivison / Short Subd_ / UPD © Building Services M/F / Commerical / SFR ❑ Clearing and Grading © Right -of -Way Use ❑ Other Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION naw+ti � i+Qa;u luy —yl Uw,C rlaia Project blame DDES Permit # Location Township 24 Range 5 Section Site Address 4350 Lake Washington, Blvd. Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline ❑ COE 404 Management ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural ❑ RockeryNaultl FEMA Floodplain ❑ ESA Section 7 ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Other Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review Full / Targeted / Type (circle one): Full / Modified / (circle): Large Site Small Site Date (include revision Date (include revision dates): dates): Date of Final: Date of Final: Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one), Standard / Complex / Preapplication / Experimental / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) Date of Approval: 2005 Surface Water Design Manual I 1/1/05 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: es / No Start Date: 1001 O Completion Date: Describe: Site will be monitored, per NOI regiii rament s _ Part8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan Special District Overlays: Drainage Basin: may Creek Stormwater Requirements: Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS ❑ River/Stream ❑ Steep Slope ❑ Lake ❑ Erosion Hazard ❑ Wetlands ❑ Landslide Hazard ❑ Closed Depression ❑ Coal Mine Hazard ❑ Floodplain ❑ Seismic Hazard ❑ Other ❑ Habitat Protection Part 10 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Alderwood Gray.Loam 6-15 moderate Rellingaam gilt am F 7ndjanalalnamy fine sand 4-�S mnrlPratp_ NnrmA Sandy Loam 0-In gj i ❑ High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) ❑ Sole Source Aquifer ❑ Other ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Additional Sheets Attached 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 2 111105 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE ❑ Core 2 — Off site Analysis ❑ Sensitiiv/Critical Areas ❑ SEPA ❑ Other ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT Bad water_in road side ditch Cre Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET(provide one TIRSummary Sheetper Threshold Discharge Area Threshold Discharge Area: name or description) Core Requirements (all 8 apply) Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: I Offsite Analysis Level 1 / 2 / 3 dated: Flow Control Level: 1 / 2 / 3 or Exemption Number (incl. facility summary sheet Small Site BMPs Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: Contact Phone: After Hours Phone: Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: Private 1 Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required'. Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes 1 No Liability Water Quality Type: Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basicm / Bog (include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No. Landscape Management Plan: Yes / No Special Requirements as applicable) Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA / SDO / MDP / BP / LMP / Shared Fac. / None Requirements Name: Flood plai n/Floodway Delineation Type: Major /Minor /Exemption /None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control Describe landuse: (comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls: ZOOS Surface Water Design Manua] 3 I/1105 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Oil Control High -use Site: Yes 1 Treatment BMP: Maintenance Agreement: Yes 1 No with whom? ructures Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Clearing Limits © Stabilize Exposed Surfaces ® Cover Measures ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Protection ❑ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure ® Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities ® Sediment Retention ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and open space ❑ Surface Water control preservation areas ❑Other © Dust Control ❑ Construction Sequence Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS Note: Include Facility Su mary. and Sketch Flow Control Type/Description - Water Quality Type/Description ❑ Detention ❑ Infiltration ❑ Regional Facility ❑ Shared Facility ❑ Small Site BMPs ❑ Other ❑ Biofiltration ❑ Wetpool ❑ Media Filtration ❑ Oil Control ❑ Spill Control ❑ Small Site BMPs ❑ Other raingarden 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 111105 4 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 15 EASEMENTSITRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Access Easement ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Native Growth Protection Covenant ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Tract ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other ❑ Other I, or a civil engineer under y supervision, visited a site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into s sheet and the ac T nical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge th for ion provide e ' c J . 2005 Surface Water Design Manual 5 1/1/05 Figure A-9 Facility Summary we Figure A-1 Q Bond Quality Worksheet 30 L Figure A-11 Draft Declaration of Covenant Form 31 Appendix B Geotechnical Report 32 r l W PREPARED FOR WELLS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY MAY CREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 February 6, 1991 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 1361h Place Northeast, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 222 East 26th Street, Suite 103 Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 (206) 272.6608 � TABLE OF-CONMENUS � E-5144 - INTRODLJMON' PAGE V� -~------~---~----------`--~-~~-~'~~~----~~~-----..'.. 1 u SITE CONDITION -~---''~~-^------'--~~-----^^^'~'~-`'~--'-----~'.-~_-_... 2 Surface................ -~~~^~^^~~~^~~'~~~'-'~~~~~~~''-'--~-^--~~~~'~~^'-~---..................... 2 � JSubsurface............................ '--^^~'----''-'~'~-'~~'--'^-'~~^-~~---'~—^~^^~---~~,.... 2 ' ......................................................................`............................ ........................ � - Se!sMLc Considerations ~~-~~-~~~~~'~~~-~----~'~'`^-^~-~~............................................... 3 -8 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDA"ON -_~.^~_~~ ~.~.~.~~_-.--...~~~-_~-_, Gd0nJeml'~-~'~^~-~`^~~~~~~-'-~~~^~~~~-~--~---'~-~^'~~~'~~~--~~'--_....... ........... 3 3 -Site ~ 8 - Prelparation and General Earthwo -^--------~-~~~-'--- --' -- ' ''~--^'~---~ Pre -Load and Surcharge Proggra ...................... ........................................... ......... ...... _~._- _.______._________,_____,,~^._____..______.__~._~,____^~..~~~ Slabaon-Grade Floors .................................................... ^^--^-^'~^^'-~'—'''-'----'—~-----~----'--'`^-.^-.,-._'-- Sit.......................................................— ~~---'--'-~—~--~''----- 4 / i � 6 7 � 7 7 � u ~�~ NU Utilities......................................................... ....................................................................................... Pavement Areas ~~-___-----_--.-~._~-.~~.~-_~._------'...~�-~--_- '--~��~'~' ......................................... Services �~^�~ '--- -'--'_----~~-----------~'-~~~-~~'—`'~~^'^'~ � 9 , ^ � y . gAdditional ^ l� APPENDICES r / N Appendix A - Field Exploration ' Appendix B'Laboratory Testing � ~ � U. &=J � « � ^ N�w � � K -- ° Earth Consultants, Inc. ` ILLUSnATIONS r E-5144 L4 Plate 1 'Vicinity Map Plate 2 Plate 3 Test Boring Ucation Plan Typical Monitoring Plate Detail Plate 4 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate S Typical Utility Trench Fill j Plate Al Legend Plate A2 through A13 Boring Logs ir Plates B1 and B2 Grain Size Analyses Plate B3 Atterberg Limits Test Data I t Plates 134 and BS Consolidation Test. Data Lj L Earth ConSuitants, Inc. February 6, 1991 Wells Development Company 11100 Northeast Eighth Street Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Attention: Mr. David Grein Gentlemen: lot rI Earth Consultants Inc. SIrr rh.d 1 molt Y'I, 1 114-'g 116 i A%m1Ill IN f.41 it Fi1rIV� E-5144 We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, May Creek Business Park, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 30, 1990 proposal and authorized by Mr. Wells on January 8, 1991, Our study indicates that the site is underlain by approximately one to three feet of loose to medium - dense iiIl consisting of silty sand and sand with gravel. Underlying the fill, a soft saturated sandy silt, loose to dense silty sand and some organic silt was encountered to depths of 12 to 16 feet. Below these strata, dense to very dense silty sand and stiff silts were encountered to a maximum exploration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, and the soil conditions encountered, it is our opinion that the proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread footing foundations, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program 'is completed first. All the foundation footings should bear upon at least two feet of compacted structural fill after the till induced settlements have been completed. 1805. 136Ih Place ti E . Suite 101, Bellevue. *ashinglon 98005 222 [. 26;h Dec. Suae 101 T.Cofra. i'lasturnion 9E•1114 8 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY A ay k:reek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 2 We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this initial phase of project development, and we look forward to working with you in the future phases. In the meantime, should you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of farther assistance, please call. Very truly yours, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. /' `I&&usl Aaron McMichael Staff Engineer % ��'�`SCi�►EA''y. Theodore J. Schepper, P.E. � ` z i Director, Geotechrucal Services tu •_04Elm DB/AM/TJS/ah i Qw. °'��sStotz�`-�.�� P144-ROlf Enclosure Earth Consultants, Inc, GEOTECHNICAjL ENGINEERING STUDY MAY CREEP: BUSINTSS PARK Renton, Washington E-5144 INTRODUC ION General This report presents the results of the Geotechrdcal Engineering Study completed by ECI for the proposed May Creek Business Park. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, on this basis, to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Projw.t Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. From our discussions and review of the project site plan we understand that you intend to construct three warehouse/office buildings. The proposed buildings will consist of first -floor warehouse facilities with second -story office space. The project will also include paved parking areas and paved access roadways to all the warehouse facilities. Based on the preliminary design, the buildings will be constructed at finished floor elevation 32. The site's present grade ranges from approximately 26.0 to 34.0 feet in elevation from west to east. Based an the building information provided to us, maximum total dead plus live loads are expected to be as follows: o Wall loads - 3 to 4 kips per Iineal foot, dead plus live o Maximum Column loads - 150 laps, dead plus live o warehouse Slab loads - 250 pounds per square foot (psf) If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we recommend that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be retained to perform a general review of the final design. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 Business Part: Page 2 Eehruan- 6, 1991 M CONDITIONS Surface The proposed site is situated on a parcel of land that is east of Lake Washington Blvd. North, west of interstate 405, north of May Creek, and south of the intersection of Northeast 44th Street and Lake Washington Blvd. The property is approximately 720 feet in length along the west, 745 feet along the east, 310 feet along the north, and 730 feet along the south. The site is presently occupied by Pan Abode Inc., as a lumber processing facility. An office, model home, three warehouses, and a production building are located on the site. The remaining area is paved predominantly with asphalt; isolated sections are paved in concrete. The asphalt is in poor to fair condition. Some areas of the asphalt have numerous cracks and show signs of a soft soil subgrade. It is our understanding that the existing structures will be removed in sequence as construction of the new facilities begins. The site is relatively flat and slopes gently from the north and east to the west sides of the property. Elevations at the site range from 26 to 34 feet above sea level. The adjacent roadways that border the property to the north, east, and west are all higher in elevation than the subject site. The south side of the property parallels May Creel: and is several feet higher in elevation than the creek. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling 12 borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2_ Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A 4 through A 13, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in the appendix of this report. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. In general, during our field study we encountered two to three inches of asphalt pavement that is underlain by one to three feet of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. Below the asphalt pavement and fill, a saturated silty sand with soft seams of sandy silt and organic silt was encountered to a depth of about 12 to 16 feet below the ground surface. Dense to very dense silty sand and stiff silt were encountered below these soils to a maximum exploration depth of 24 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater The groundwater seepage level observed while drilling ranged from approximatel} 10 to 1.5 feet below the existing surface and are shown on the boring logs. Groundwater levels were measured at 4 to 7 feet below the ground surface during an earlier Hart Crowser, Inc. eeotechnical sttudv of the site. The Hart Crowser, Inc. study was completed during September of 1985. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY },:la; ,':eek Business Park February b, 1991 E-5144 Page 3 The groundwater seepage level is not static; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the flow and level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. However, fluctuations in the groundwater seepage flow should be expected, with higher levels typically developing during the wetter winter months. Seismic Conditions The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the (UBC) Uniform Building Code. In their present condition, the upper ten feet of some on -site soils do have the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. However, with addition of the proposed preload fill, we have calculated that the potential for soil liquefaction would be minimal. Our liquefaction analysis was based on an analytical procedure presented in "Soil Dynamics" by Shamsher Prakash. Additionally, soil conditions are classified as a type S3 by the UBC with a corresponding S factor of 1.5. DISCUSSION TO REC MENDATI NS eneral Based on the results of our geotechnical study, it is our opinion that the proposed warehouse buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing upon a compacted structural fill, provided that a preload and partial surcharge program is completed first. The preload and surcharge program is designed to induce settlements equivalent to those that are anticipated due to the slab. and column loading. These recommendations are based on the amount of structural fill necessary to bring the finished floor slab surface to Elevation 32. With current grades, the site will require approximately one to five feet of structural fill to attain the proposed subgrade elevation. A small section of the parking area in the southeastern portion of the property will require excavation of approximately two feet. No other site cuts appear necessary. If the finish floor elevation of the buildings change, ECT should be notified and allowed to re-evaluate otir recommendations. 6 Due to the poor condition of the site's near surface soils, we recommend that a minimum of two feet of compacted structural fill be placed below all footings. A minimutn of one foot of compacted structural fill will be required beneath all slab -on -grade and pavement areas. 'lire majority of the site will require more than two feet of structural fill to obtain the proposed subgrade elevation, Only in the southeast sections of the east and south buildings does it appear necessary to over excavate and replace with structural fill. This requirement should be verified by observation at the time of construction. Earth Consuhants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY 4Ceek Business Paek February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 4 After the required structural fill has been placed, two feet of surcharge material should be applied to the southeast building areas. The surcharge will be required on areas where less than two feet of fill material will be needed to bring the building pads to subgrade elevation. Groundwater seepage waF encountered during our field study from 2.0 to 3.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Therefore, a subfloor capillary break and perimeter footing drains should be installed. Additionally, the pavement area located centrally between the three buildings and the southeast section of the site should be provided with subsurface drainage to increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. Specific details concerning the parking area subsurface drainage is presented in the subsequent Site Drainage Section of this report. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the Wells Development Corp. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures, foundations, slabs, existing utilities lines, surface vegetation, all organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Where structural fill depths will be two feet or greater, it is our opinion that removal of existing asphalt from below slab -on -grade areas would not be necessary. It will be necessary, however, to remove the asphalt from below interior and perimeter footing locations. In these areas the asphalt removal should extend laterally a distance of two feet from the edge of the footing. Following the stripping and excavating operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed within +2 percent of their optimurn moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also Eartt, Consuilanls, Ino. GEO`lTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY eek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page a be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of their maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D-1557-78. Beneath pavements, the upper 12 inches should be compacted to a nvnimurn of 95 percent per this same standard. Based on our laboratory test results, the moisture content of the on -site sails at the time of our exploration was well above optimum. Therefore, unless the moisture content can be reduced, it will be necessary to use imported granular soil as structural fill. Ideally, particularly during wet weather conditions, structural fill should consist of a free -draining granular material. This material should have a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. Given the fine-grained nature of the native soils, it is strongly recommended that earth wort: operations be undertaken and completed during the dry summer months. Pre -load and Surcharge Prograrct As discussed, we recommend that pre -load and partial surcharge program be implemented prior to construction of the facilities. As indicated earlier in this report, we recommend that two feet of surcharge material be placed above the southeastern building slab areas where less than two feet of fill will be necessary to bring the pads up to the subgrade elevation. In other areas, where the fill depth will range from three to five feet, additional surcharge would not be necessary. The program is designed to pre -consolidate the compressible soils, in a manner that will limit post construction movements to within a tolerable range. Based on our analyses, we estimate that the preload and surcharge fill material will induce approximately two to three incites of settlement across the building foundation area. Based on the results of our laboratory testing of the site soil samples, we estimate that this settlement should take about four weeks to occur. The surcharge material, where placed, may be removed when the required settlement rate has been reached, A smaller settlement than estimated could indicate that the soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely,.a larger settlement than that estimated could be interpreted as indicating f the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and additional measures, such as more surcharge or a longer surcharge period will be needed to obtain satisfactory results. As stated, it is important to note that surcharge fill is in addition to the fill required to bring the site to subgrade. The surcharge and fill should extend, at full height, a minimum of five feet from the building perimeters, and then slope outward at 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). Earth Consultants, Inc, Gl✓OTF-CHNICA.L ENGINEERING STUDY ;c...reek Business P;:rk February 6, 1991 E-3144 Page 6 Surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements except that the material should have a total density of one -hundred -twenty (120) pcf. However, if the surcharge material is to be used for structural fill in other areas after completion of the surcharge program, it should meet the requirements for structural fill. The definition for structural fill can be found in the site preparation and general earth work section of this report. Prior to placement of the fill and surcharge, we recommend installation of six settlement mariners within each building surcharge area to monitor the magnitude and rate of such settlement. A typical settlement monitor is illustrated on Plate 3. These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment. The settlement markers should be surveyed, as soon as the markers are installed, by Earth Consultants, Inc, personnel or a licensed surveyor. Monitoring should be done during preload fall and surcharge placement at daily intervals, depending on the progress of the falling operation. Readings should then be taken on a weekly basis after completion of the preload fill and surcharge placement until the settlement has stabilized. The initial reading should also show the natural ground elevation, and readings taken during preload, and surcharge placement should also show the changing ground elevation. Settlement readings should be evaluated by Earth Consultants, Inc. if a licensed surveyor performs the settlement monitoring, Foundations Following successful completion of the preload and surcharge program, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional, continuous, or individual spread footings. These footings should bear on at least two feet of compacted structural fill. The compacted fill material should extend at least one foot beyond the footing perimeters. For frost protection and support considerations, we recommend that foundation elements be bottomed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior foundations should be provided with a minimum of twelve (12) inches of final cover. The foundation elements can be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot. With foundation elements obtaining support as described, and with structural loading as expected, estimated total post construction settlement falls in the range of one-half inch for the slab areas, and three-quarters inch for the column areas. A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing pressure can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEGTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 7 Passive earth pressures may be assumed to be equal to 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight. To calculate base sliding resistance, a coefficient of friction equal to 036 may be used. Lateral resistance has been calculated for compacted granular fills. Additionally, since movement is required to mobilizc full lateral resistance, we have applied a factor of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 for the passive resistance and coefficient of base sliding, respectively. All footing excavations should be examined by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated in this report. Slab -on -Grade Floors With site preparations completed as previously described, suitable support for slab -on -grade construction should be provided. The slab should be provided with a minimurn of six (6) inches of free draining sand or gravel, in areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand should be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Excavations and Slopes Based on the preliminary grading plans, the site would not require cuts except for a small area located in the parking area of the southeast section of the site. We anticipate that this area will require approximately two feet of excavation and will have enough room to create a gentle slope to the property line. Soil conditions at the site fall into category "C" in accordance with current OSHA regulations. Therefore, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height must be sloped at a minimum inclination of 15:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. Site Drainage The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces must be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of Earth Consultants, fnc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGIME1 RING STUDY May Creel: Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 8 at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in areas that are to be paved. In paved areas, a minimum drainage gradient of one and one-half percent should be used. We recommend the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by EM's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, be mare clearly defined. It is likely that seepage will be encountered in utility trenches excavated approximately two feet below the existing ground surface. if seepage is encountered, we recommend your contractor slope the bottom of the excavations to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive discharge point, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump by a system of permanent connector trenches. We recommend you install footing drains around the building perimeter just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. We recommend you install cleanouts at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. As previously mentioned, the parking area centrally located between the three proposed buildings and towards the southeast site corner should be provided with subsurface drainage, This drainage will increase the long-term stability of the pavement subgrade soils. The system should consist of an excavated trench at the base of which a four -inch perforated drain pipe wrapped in fabric is placed. The pipe should be slotted and have a smooth interior surface, and sloped at not less than one-half percent to a permanent discharge point. The fabric wrap should consist of Miraii 140-N filter fabric or equivalent. The pipe should be bedded and backfilled in a clean, free draining aggregate meeting the grading requirements for a class 2 fine concrete aggregate per the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications. Ile drain pipe invert should be set at a minimum of four feet below the final pavement elevation. The drainage aggregate should extend a minimum of four inches below the pipe and laterally a minimum of twelve inches to either side of the pipe. Additionally, the drainage aggregate backfill should continue to the pavement subgrade elevation. The proposed grading plan indicates that the storm sewer system includes three lines which span most of the area of concerts. Consideration could be given to installing the subdrain system in the same trenches excavated for the storm sewer. Alternatively, a single separate line can be constructed Earth Consultants, Inc, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-5144 ,May Creek Business Park Page 9 February 6, 1991 with collected water taken to a point of permanent discharge, With cuts required in the southeast section of the site, and considering the groundwater level, it would be prudent to install the subdrain in this area prior to excavation. Utilities Trench baclfill beneath building, parking, and roadway areas may consist of native granular soils or imported materials provided they are near optimum moisture content as determined by our field technician. During wet weather, we recommend using an imported structural fill, as described earlier. Compaction requirements for bedding and backfill are described in detail on Plate 5, Typical Utility Trench Fill. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared Bubo ade for pavements, we recommend the top one foot of the existing site fills and any structural fill that will be added to the site should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78), as described in the Site Preparation section of this report- 'It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet, or unstable subgrade may exist. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly -loaded areas; Two inches of AC over three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB) material. Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life, and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck -trafficked areas the following sections: Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones,.., if needed. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the desi;n information provided to us by you, and our experience Earth Consultants, Inc. I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUD` May Creek Business Park February 6, 1991 E-5144 Page 10 and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings, Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and to the extent of variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additi naI SerAces We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earl#, Consultants, Inc. I � $/y'�,•a �� 6`R�E' a >:'�r 2tY 7H if 1TH IT tt f-L( -` I ♦4 a i ^ �4 „ t+ f l ! �7 f]k gun A4i D" " 5E � �� fE fsTml ��2)"D I bLO •, Irr j t'�sslx r� iT 'n [{tN' :. 1 •; kH4)q tE1!'! i i !! l}d n ALaSYAi GAMLAND I a $(�171M t a tt rTirMf *t / MAX ! PEERFDAD `ft'Sr WTW 1T fR.•1tQ t• r1X•1 �. ; f• ///I +•� Dot s, Ulm it CAEJT SE B1e S .u'.c ' TN T 1 H E G > • r . Y. � fi' .� •. SE � �� • SE �l57 tSTT ?lr�J'rn �Ti'TET ` N 4 � Q Pill 1 M� n SJl ail r i x bL' nsTM $T .r W - :+r;; ."-:'•,"'_:�'.:y Pr:;)'•r?"; lry items IT 6. ST ti 1flH J � m �{'� F,o . I� f• WI�IQt _.K,! i SF [�1xM c �' 2w dJ• •;' O i s s! -..�. 1 ..-. — T T2H0 T "CFIi > :••.• 'r tr r 1 n n,5r s I 2 I llff.p a • of 3I 7sfR .4 [ dr f t� { r .. s Eir y� W C .� 6•t TS L y 11 N r ;e �:r fi 5E S1E -. �' " �i rt � 3 ? T ,rr• n � i w :..'::`. CLAAxE I kF SE 73TH REACH * I 5 h v I i 114' PARK ~l E J •LRD IT T NE «._ of M r 3T 1 L� . ` � r I 5 7; H Fr° I rCENNrflAU I rfACN PR a 36Tt, I \ I 'a Sou"' r1U1NY I T p i 12 Reference King County / Mop 27 By ihomOS Br-thers Maps Doted IM I � -- -- - - -- -- Vicinity ..Map el)v Earth Consultants Inc. May Creek Business Pork {�IfurrrtTwurlllfiR*rr*.GnrltiN.ktmx.rnnr5v..frrwnn Rerun, Washington ?raj, No. 5144 Drwn. GL5 pate Jan, '91 Checked 09 Dale 1/24/91 Plate 1 s SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SURCHARGE - R tPREWAD FILL. ill Itv :[li=lihll� kEM lil NOTES: • Base consists of 3%4- inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled Sig - inch diameter hole. • Bedding material, if rewired, should consist of Traction Sand. • Marker rod is 1'2 -- inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. • Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. • Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 - inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is not attached to rod or base. * Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. e Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press - fit plastic couplings. • Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. s Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL I� ' Eanh Col-isulttiZtS j ic. MAY CREEK SUSINESS ?AP.K r,...........� ..,,r. -NTOn, V,ASHINGTON Proj. No. 5144 1 Drwn, GLE Date Feb' 91 Checked AM Dated 2-1-91 plate 3 SCHEMATIC ONLY - HOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SLOPE TO DRAIN 1�.e E Inc min. Ch ,i= . ::.. •a .'y' � n'S•'•:k'. �'�. •�' r G • e 777 �,p. ,++•+••' �•�••��•'•�'• .,ice' p.e + c 4 inch min. diameter�� n'•e' ,.'i: !� �`� i a a n a •. n e ... r � • • P v O DO Op + - �r ..•ea•a-a• 0.♦b ea•a 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch in. 18 inch min, 2 inch min, + LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other tow permeability ":�•�": material. Gravel backfill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications, Section 9-03.12121 , or Fine Aggregate for Portlind Cement Concrete ; Section 9-03.1121. Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a b positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Cho not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. -~ — Impermeable visgeen barrier or other impermeable material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL. i ;+1 Earth Consultants inn. �111:+ PAY CREEK BUSINESS PART: ,l fnrrti•+4Lwrrrn,C-+M uacn.+..m.xN K++n. RENTON, WASHINGTON # Proj,No. 5144 1 Drwn. GLS ' Date Peb'91 I Checked AM # Dated 2-1-91 1 Plate 4 1 Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas T . is TVaries " ' I t Foot Minimum 80" '' .• : 90 ''. -- ' Varies PIPE o•.o p; -:. 6'k- Bedding 0. 0R1- OO.V nAc •.* -* •n•�:% `7 Varies LEGEND: ,.'• r� Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab .�s: - • navt c,a +e'• o • , . Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On -Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Densily as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-7J3 (Modified Prootar), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text, Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and Dying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL A Eanh Consultanis Inc. ruY cs>~etc susaNEss PARK i+..i ;�,i1/rn'rnv: rnFrrrnfr*y�+ri+.a}n.timm�w.w r, +. REENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No, 5144 prwn• GLS pate Feb' 91 Checked Xt-1 pate 2--1-91 Plate 5 APPENDIX A E-S 144 FIELD] -EX-PLQRATION Our field exploration was performed on January 15 through January 17, 1991. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling 12 borings to a maximum depth of 24.0 feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Subterranean Drilling, Inc., using a truck mounted mobile B-fit drilling, Continuous -flight, hollow -stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping from existing buildings on the Site. Approximate boring elevations were determined by a topographic map provided by Wells Development, Inc. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A3, Legend. Logs of the borings represented in the Appendix on PIates A4 through A13. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-15$6. The split spoon samples were driven with a one - hundred -forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants. Inc, GRAPH LETTER MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Gravel .•',,.•°... r •• �7 GW We+ •Gfaaec Gravels, Grave, -Sinn And clear. Gravels • �',• � 9W Mlrclures. Lillie Or No Finas Gravelly (I,t11e d+ no Pines 1 i• e• • GP Poorly Grad ed Graves. rtarel- laifae So -is ~ ♦' + 9p Sand Mtxlwea, L:tlle Of No F,nes G+aloe tl + e a GM silty Gravels, Gravel •Sind Soils More Than 501. Coarse Grevat5 with 9M Sill Mixtures Fraction Fines ( appreciable r� Ca `i Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sano Rewrite On amount of 1,ne3 f No A Sieve sC Clay Mixtures Sano : ;�•".' •.'. SW Werl-Greard Santis. Grav'tuy And Clean Sand SW Sands. Little Or No Fines More Than Sandy Soils I little or no lines I SP Poony-Grataed Sandy. Gravelly 501, Material Sp Sands.. Little Or No Fines Larger Than No 200 Sieve More Than 50% Coarse :•;•i.•.,;-•->-•' -i -i' i-:. •'i'i'1': '''1,':; SM Silty Sanas, Sand- Sill Mixtures Size Fraction Sands Won F,Ma { apnrrslable • I:I:I:Ia SM Passing Not Sieve ,rnouril of fines) Clayey Sandy. Sand • Clay Mixtures lnofgan,c B,tisd Very Fine Sanda,ROCk FfoLr.Sirly- Clayey F,nc Sanas: Clayey Sias wir Slipnt Plasticity Fine Sills Llouttl Lirnit Frn Inorganic Clays Of Low To +Aamum Plasticity, Grained Sails And Less Than 50 Grays Gravelly Days, Sandy Clays. Silly Clays, Lean f Sas And Organic IOrganic Silty Clays Qf Low Plasticity Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Dwofnaceous FineMor More loan Sand Or Silty Sods lThan si Smeller Tnan Silts LicuiC Limit And CH Inpryane Clays Cl' High No. 200 5,eve Gays Greaser Trion 58 Ch Plasticity, Fal Clays Size �- OH Organic Clays OI Medwrn To High on Plastr icy. Organic Sills Highly Organic Soils • "°_ _ ��~ _ ., pj' �t Peat, Humus. Swamo Soils With High Organic Contents Tpdaoil �:r ;..."^ Humus And DuH Layer Fill Hignly Variable COhaf;lhents The Discussion in The Text Of This Reopf: Is Necessary For A Proper Understancing 01 The Neivre Of The Malarial Presented In The Attachao Loos Notes : Dust symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab -- oratory testing, lower case lever symbols designate classifications nor verified by laboratory testing. I 2 0.0, SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER II7A' f,D. RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED �1 WATER LEVEL (DATE) WATER OBSERVATION WELL C TORVANE READING, tsf qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic h. ILL LIQUID LlIvItT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX l Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND �il}i,J�`�Ir / r.. �il•�,YI.I,k...1. lA.�r�N.FI/,�,,,nw.,,,,I.�IY.',Ilul? Proj• No, 5144 1 Date Feb 191 1 Plate �,1 • BORING rva.�—� � Lagged By _. nH Date i-15-41 Bev, 26.us 5' Depth {N} Graph C5 Soil Description Sample Blows M FL SP Gray brown fins- to medium SAND with ,ravel, trace salt, dense, wet � 23 1� 5 I 10 29 nl Gcay SILT, nediun stiff, saturated 18 :�• r_:; -�•.• 3��:{�: 5m Gray silty medium SAbIb, dense, saturated I'oh 50 Organic SILT, lag 1 S ,;� f. • r, ter :S "�,:I sn Gray silty r,Iediun S3ND, lUQ;tp, i saturated with organics, r]aasr' 6 20 Boring terminated a;, 24 feet below PYisting grade. Groundwaer encountered at 2 feet during drillinc,. Boring backfilled with cuttinSs, bentonite and concrete. 1 M SVFtUPUCi condnrans 0*01060 MD'V"M Wr 00"r"l-ons eI In@ dmr and IocarrOn o1 Inn rx"rai0 y roe. rndopjwd oy etp�roN Irrts, ir,rryfn. inC ).0"rnam'grey ire mat MKr%Nrnr nter 441" at inner umes and kO &,on4," 04nn01 *ucot mlpons,O,Iny Idr ]hr m a,mir0telal,en by o1mm of wwr wivn or"vAw an Imo I04 �I , BORING LOG I !J"j" Earth Consu1t�1`1tS Inc. HAY CREEK 71USJNS£IS Pt,IZJ; j/Vr.cwrn �uEnarwrn r.,Mlns�ers, arrr,ur c.,r., f??''NTDN, WASHINGTON Proj. No, 5144 Drwn. GLS Date I Feb' 91 FChecked pB pate '-i -9 ] Plate A2 BORING NO.. - Logged By RE Date Bev. 27l Graph CS US Soil Description Depth Sample (N) Blows :" asahalt concrete sp Light brown fine to coarse SAND, trace � 15 silt and 5zavel, nedium dense, saturated S -very dense with graved 4a -grades to gray, dense FI 10 21 ML. Gray sandy SILT, medium stif`, ' II saturated I 9 l I! 5 15 f I� 59 sp Gray nediun to coarse SAND withI gravel, trace silt, very dense 213 .';•r::: sp (very dense) I r 63 Boring terminated at 24 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite and concrete. S,rpsurlece mndnom pepiGed reoresem our o:nerralwns M tte Isar ao0 ,oee,ron or vus saolornory hole, madded by enprneerrna Yens, ■nsrysif, enc rpaQe m. They ere nal odc" arky teWeaenu"or inner urrw s .np Iaratou. Nt cinmm ■mocl rrsponsrbarty tot IN use d rmerprotelion by plMrs pI mSarnuan pres nmo on pus let ,� BORING LOG yJ Earth Consultants inc. Illif� i'1' Ga.cm.cs�kn4vxrrs.i.rvWGK+aLIn.,rrvrr,xA+.v,uu:. r IlY Ck>rF.l: 5l'SIIti�SS ? •1R}; REXTON, tIASHIWGT—, � Proj. No. 5144 Drwn. GLS Date Feb' 91 Checked D5 Gate 2-1-91 kate 13 BORING NO..�-.� Logged By DF Date -' 5-91 Elev. 2 F r ` Graph L'S5 Soil Description th Sample (N) Blows W} FL i sp Gray -brown medium to coarse SAND with •� •I a=evel and silt sazurat.-) `III I I ril Gray sandy SiL.', trace gwavr:l, medium, g 25 saturated 5 Illi�ll -lenses of peat 7 43 rtil Gray sandy ST_LT, mediun stiff, saturated 15 1 23 . so -ray medium LoPgoarse SAND with gravel, sn Gray silty medium S1iNA, nediur:� dense I t. saturated 12 , f iJ '.� .. 15 ## 'i sp Gra_� nediun SAND with gravel, nedium •�„ � dense, Saturated 13 ': 2G k• .' ••:i Sri Gray silty nediun SAND, trace gravel, I' 6 i loose, saturated r ml I Gray sandy SILT, medium stiff, saturated) i7 sr rsdtl]ec'�v' nedxt1n S_AND dense trace ar ve:.cI..;'?•;.� Boring terminated at 24 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite and concrete. SYDl Yr1�f7 aDMflmRi Plp.nep r{pr�xE fy DYr OSMfYI[IOni l� Tar Irma anE IDCE11an d I1111 Ei DIDfE70fy hwc TODff IED ty Fn44lMfrmp 141U, Erla"Ki. one hMEQemorm T" are W. r+cssunry,E416,"Ma1M V o1Mr $Orr" a50 YSCa11ar1Y Ine UUVX l M[ 00 rE4,6r1SID4frY 1Dr I M Y,e a VU910 VIMM by Vhort al IKIVMElmn pri msa an IDy log l �71'il� Consultants Inc. 80RiNG LOG ;'.Ay CRE1, AU5IhESS PARE: ! 1� UY*Irm caI tinFuren. CfsdYll.a E Lns+rnM�+WY �C FF TD\ W A.'ifi k rxRu> , I1yD :: 3� Prof. No, 5144 TDrwn. GLS Date Feh'91 Checked DE Date 2-1--91 plate ;S BORING NO. Logged By n-i Dale 1-1s-91 Elev. 7°- fN} Graph CS Soil Description D` }t#i Sample Blows Ij � �} Ft. SM Brown fine to nedium silty SAND with travel, medium dense, saturated -grades to dense -grades to gray with gravel aI Gray sandy SILT, trare gravel, medium dense,•saturated sm Gray silty nedium SAND, trace gravel, ►��; #� medium dense, saturated -grades to gray brown with L gravel, very dense 11) 23 5 20 25 10 5 20 10 15 Baring terminated at 19 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling,. Baring bac}.filled with cuttings and bentonite. 41 Suesun&Csi cohdanra aeaterad ffl m n our Co-wMhan3 el InC tnhe snO lrxation of Ines ■iprontory We. modihsd ay i•gln rinq Inn. iWyi u. anC ridge" ni. I" art n . nKassarny rCyr—n mr q q- ¢ner ImWi snd 6"*ftl. V e unrol aecom responcradny tar the "e or nnerwilelon br mrNn or .wKinufan wir5rnw an Iha Iqg �,. .-. SOR NG LOG l Earth Consultants Mc. ��,y CREEK BUSINESS s �l Rf: Fr?"TOn. WASHINGTON Proj, No. 5144 1 Urwn, GLS Date 1'eb' 9l i Checked D° I Dale 2-1-91 1 plate A5 BORING NO. �,yL Logged By n2 Date 1-15-9i Elev. 1n I US D {► Graph CS Soil Description Soil h) Sample p Blws o FL :��'�i•�� '•' •zsna2l: cnrcrcil• Hrnwrt silty coarse $,:.;ii with gravel, wet to gn S 27 AiI Gra ;and} s1;.T, ;cft, saturated, 1i trace cravc1 5 I � 2 95 LI,=52 i oh Brawn organic SILT, scat, saturated PL=51 f `I� r11 Gray SILT, nediun, dense, saturated I `I sn Grav nediurn to coarse SAND with gxavel, trace silt, very dense, 38 saturated 15 sn Gray silty medium SAND with gravel, dense, saturated 27 Boring terminated at IS feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 1.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with euttings and bentonite. SUbWMJC. COn49b0Fd 04ME19a ee6r.1tm 6srr 6bserM1a1lpns LI the V" and 16Carmm d Ws .;a,* oq haia. m66d*C by *K4N .nnq 11"U, .na",S. inc rA"rf.. Thwart W n.Cetaanly I.praylrrl. " W Pher and Rd ,ons. Wi Commi ■cG Ct r.soonslpllny 1oi 7M me d mrerprnairo py Prom 61 mlwmwan pieserntd on" MIt. Ea.rtfCo� suites Inc. �c. BORING LOG MAY CREE9 SUSINSSS P",RK RE'NTON, WASHINGTO N ?raj, No, 5144 Drwn. GLS j date r(-tb191 I Checked DF• t Date 2-1-91 1 Plate n5 BORING NO. Logged By nR Date '_1 -°n-°n Elev. Graph us Soil Descr'sptionDepth] Sample (N) Blows { j Ft. 2" asphalt concrete sp Red brown medium to coarne SAND wit'. gravel, saturated I_ 7 36 ;-,1 Gray SILT, �.- ;,r sand, -. t, witurated Graoes to brot,'n silt.' SIIi�D, coarse, saturacao T I 7 52 S5n ni IGrades to gray with sand, medium naturatRC ;,,, to nrcar:ics {:(€ •G sn Gray silty medium SAND trace organics, li nediun dense, saturated :...� . ...� nl Gray SxLT, nediu;z, saturated .1- g -graves to stir= T� 18 I 15 sn Gray silty raediun to coazse SAND, c•. 3:I:f4:l: trace gravel, dense, saturated F 1 ra __T_i__ Boring terninated at In feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Boring bac?`_illed with cuttings, bentonite and concrete. i J l $u�f tlrlaee camdom oeo w•t.E Mof L"M 4,rr 60'MMl-ont Al 1ne nme rno *cw,pn o7 in,s .toforstory hde. fr"Hov by *69.r�,,M t.= . tn.IY1,1. ar1C 1„GQrrrN n; Inn e,e no1 ae•crssrr.y rraea.rme+r.. a e+n., Nm & Ono tocat, . Wt o+amr..oeow rt+ooneioury 101 tr.r us, er +nrtot.ul on bf okrMm 01 i K+IonnJlon prexmeo on ton q� r-� 1 1i Earth ConsultantsInc. BORING LOG Y C7iE1: i3i)SI\ECS PAR): I P'_:YtiTd\, S•1A5[iii—TON Proj. No. 5144 Drwn, CLS Date r'r.h'91 Checked h-1t Date 2-1-91 Pate A? BORING NO..B��T Logged By up Date . i -16-91 Elev. Graph Soil Desmiption Depth Sample tN1 Blows W rSS FL 2" asphalt concrete �.� 1tiss '•'rS� �}ti:�Sti Gray silty mediur+ SAND with gravel, loose, saturated T nl Gray brown sandy SILT, trace organics, l��lll`I soft, sanizated 4 39 LL=4 4 Pi.=29 _ Gray SXLT, loose, saturated 40 PI=15 It ,i�l� 10 I i) ml Gray --brown 5IL7', trace sand and organics, soft, saturated 4 50 14 sn Gray Silty nedium SAND, trace gravel, r-il'1111111111 Med],um dense, saturated -,grades to dense 1 15 L I sm f Gray silty SAND with gravel, very f dense, saturated r I 1 1 35 subsv,Lea eonddo,u debtiw tapf *M ow bb"rwIUx ns at btb bme and W C oi% W INS "p4ar"D y twit. modd.4 by bngmae,lnp lash. &""4, 04 ludpe,nbn:, 71\ey A,$ ntr. nbsessanIV tep,esb, _ OI blMr I,met end 6WA%WM$. Wt unw.. bC4op1 rot oorw QOny tbl tM Ina w u &i&relalmm or Ixnary a MW MW*M p,eaambd on V-s W9. r' /r} BORING LOG 1 ti Far, COnsult�]ts Inc, '.Ay CRF,E': BQ51NESS PARK Ilifl 1 `.a I�) l RENTON I WASHINGTON lit. r'�`•�,_i 1 1�•t11�xM>ok�WusTn.(:.Y.etlI�1.M Eal�r..vr.-ne;y !'SNIK.\ w' 1 I Proj. No. 5144 Drwn. GLS 1 Date Z'vb'91 Checked DR Date '`1-gl Plata AS BORING NG...$ Logged By D' [)ate =-16-91 Elegy. 3G' LL GraphI �CSS Soil Description Q` ) Sample ft Bbws {%? Pt }j�` - ?!•f � S111 wet I 4 32� I �I= n,1 Gray sandy SILT, soft, saturated 5 +j i 27 i 19 sp Gray medium SAND, dense, saturated 1D _ 1 g nl Gray brown SILT, trace sand, medi=. stiff, saturated I 13 iS (grades to stiff) C L Boxing germinated at 19 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feet during drilling. Boring backfille8 with cuttings and bentonite. 16 5608WrIaCf mndAq dammed mortsa7m our cbsarrerrone al Ine lima and Ocjm n pI ton eaplorslary We. modtlrao by ■np ltrep lens, anatysq, and rvopernam. They em rw, Ast"380y Imlirsor mum C. whot it1 i and 1oCarmnl. iY• CJnnpr aC'CDM mponsLmmy lot lne use or ,nlarpraraton Qy alnars of tnbrmmmn ofa Trued on 41e bp. �. BORING LOG 'il.•1 �`? r�or aFm•�n c,,rin..►t�,,, ,�., .,x., F,4 RENTON r WASHINGTON Proj, No. 5144 Drwn. GLS Date Feb' 91 I Checked DE Date 2-1-91 Plate .,9 BORING NO. Logged By DR Date ' -16-91 Elev. 28— GraphCS us Soil Ae=ipCon Depth Sample {N} Blows {°Wk) Ft. 2" asphalt concrete ,n Rud-brown coarse SAND with gravel, logs, *i�� ne � un rirr.sF. w C l•;�ic;ir;.r' rr-- ;,n Brown silty medium to coarse SAND, :i:}yyy}}ti•;•5�k 100sm, saturated s'3 F -grddes to gray brown, trace g silt I 6 3-own SILT, trace organics, medium stiff, saturated sn Brown silty medium SAND, loose, saturato 10 35 .� nl Gray of>diun SILT, trace sand, medium stiff, saturated 7 28 ' 15 ##! sn Gray silty medium SAND, dense, .}5 #* saturated 27 1-4 i; 1 20 Gray neditsn coarse SAND, very dense, E;•s:::f.-:,. saturated 53 Boring terminated at 21..5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2.5 feet during drilling. Aoring back_i?led with cuttings and bentonite. ss,MJnaCs mnoennY eemeea norvurn mn oDxnnrrona it 1ne omt And geatgn d 1nn eRaorafary nde, moanwe M enpa le-o srrm, ■nellvs. •nc J1dPaf%tN. Ihy err no, n assaeiy rwiv ntr..r a mhrr sm % ann 1oei oNz+ Ny C4nr4 eceoa, sreoor"uay W rM v M Of mieraeuiwn W aP441 V nrcmWaw Prr moa an tna lap Earth Consultants inc. BORING LOG i 1i:.� th � � 1[1V+CIIFJMYRr/�(i{.�ChaFlY'artvirfSlYMkTMS MAY CRDEY, BUSINESS PApI'N RENTON, WASHINGTON Pro!, No. 51A4 Drwn. GLS Date Feh'91 Checked DP pate 2-7-91 1 Plate A10 I BORING NO.R--10 Logged By L'P DM 1-16-91 Elev. us Depth W Graph CS Sdil Descrip�on (ft) Sample B lovw ft Ft. aspnalr c0rcrere S P Browri SAND with silt an4 gravel, loose. wet Ill Gray -brown sandy SILT, soft, saturated 4 cra,,;-)rown siltv nediun SAM, loose, 5 sacurazed 22 n1 ;rown SILT, soft, saturatod Sri Brown silty r9ediun SM14D, loose, .�I- saturated r SID Brown raQdiuri SAND with silt, mediurt dense, saturated 10 ...... T 7 89 Brown orq�nic SILT, soft, sava Fatec., I trace woon zM77717A SIM Gray -brown silty medium SAND, trace R-113 J.z*:'11�i 1 gravel, louse, saturated T 6 1) 1 0 h . Brown organic SILT,sof saturazed -t, �U) 15 sm Gray silty nediun SAND, riedi,.ri dense, saturated I i5 oh I Brown organic SILT, dense I ; A ni Gray S15,T, nedium stiff, satura tell 20 S,-n Grav silty SANID, dense, saturated T 23 Binring terminated at 24 feuz betiuw existing c;ra6e. Groundwater encountered at 3.5 feet during drillinq. Boring hackfilled with cnttins7,, bentonite and concrete. $v05unJC,- COMC44ns Cepl" mto-mmeW kystratsons At %he 1,Mt Atw loCaliam. a! JhiX *xDigrajoty r*14, rnQdd,*d by Ong~ IPT'q t&FU. a na"u, bnC I�Wqemfal� 7?wy art m 01 rwevsMANY reN�Mwm,e of Cow Pm�$ omit �ipons. V" t4nmai jkczew rjPio*n4,Wny Loi th# us& Gr mvolpltw�n t7 alf4r, 0 mL0rmmA3*M V�nued an thm IDg. BORING LOG Earth Consuliants Inc, MAY CREEK �,USINESS P,;R]', RENTON, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 5144 D-rw--n, —1-Dale I Chocked D8 Date 2-1-91 I Plate BORING NO. �. Logged By OF Date i --' 6-91 EIeV. 27 I ± Graph C5 Soil De=iOon Depth Sample {lp Blows IW j Ft 2" Z3_ hal', concrete r.M G.av-bror'7 silty `ine to nediun SAND, 25 with lemn es of silt, loose, saturated : brown T-grades to p 1 6 23 .1 Brown SILT, trace peat, soft, saturated 10 T 5 28 sp Brown t_iediun SAND, loose, saturated nl Grav S.inLT, mediustiff, saturatedT. - ,' srz Gray silty medium SAND, loose, 9 E €:: saturated nl Grav SILT, soft, saturated and T brown _k[_ sn Gray silty medium SAND, very dense, 20 T saturated 5oring 'terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 3 feer- curing drilling. Boring, backfilled with cuttings and bentoni:.e. 14 40 SUClU Ar.9 Conae.Ml 6t0iC1N "0qM*rn al+, ObSomwons W u umt Ana bctlwn of lnu "Wanrkory Mlt. m dirwd hp vrgww& nQ fms. "ot"u. int luageme W. They sfe 70; fretesser,ly Itwr rnslrw of other limes new hC=m5m1 5Ye r hal ACzcpl,AaaonsrW)nr rw the ws■ G rnler01e141*t by oth4a a' IMMW,On OryerAW on by !Op r- BORING LOG i Earth Consulta.nts 111G. h_Z1' CREEK BUSINESS PARK ��,. 11^ fir' <.wrttwulna•ren.tnwpst,a ,,mxn�nwrw w»n ;ZEN%t1'ON, WASHINGTON t Proj. No. 5I44 Drwn. GLS Date Fe.b'91 Checked DA pate 2-1-91 Plate AL2 BORING NO. Logged By OF' Date , - ; _"'- Bev, (N) Graph C5 Soil Description ��t' Sample Blows {W� Ft. k;k 'i2i 2" asphalt C011rrnte �.�.1. Brown -gray silty medium SAND with ,ravel, saturated j, GrMv -andy SILT, medium so?L tr7 2tiff, , � � 24 ,Ilfffill,� saturated Brown SILT :�•:'�.'•;': loose, saturated ml Brown GILT, soft, saturated 'L=38 38 , r riLC29 13 PI= 9 so Brown mediun SAND, dense, saturated ;iijjf�ti� r-,l Gray and brown sandy SILK", so t, lt} 3 saturated ':i: ; f; sn Gray ni'_ty n;-- ium SAND, nndium dense, saturated L 15 nl Gray sandy SILT, stiff, saturated Boring terminated at 19 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite and ..Unc:ete. 23 • -''= r"t :-,_�.-.r ct�•: r_ IRVO ft out a]St,Yario 1% a: Ynt 1-1 IN location of In,s aaolomlory hNc, rneCifHy u+ang-n" rng twg. anstn's. anc 107 .: '". +•r n� ^Krtaar, v rt9/narra7we <x cn,r I,r % ano 16UIXWn, Wt tine accept rtapansroamr xv rM wte ar rmptjprm4hcoh br ul"rn DI � r G LO BORING LO L_imh Consultants inc. ;u BORING : ss �,•.Rx v v y ns a.u,w l.,, ni.+n�,u•K *„nsi� 71 R..r \TOE, 1%ASi.l,.GTC?\ P70i. No. :.; Drwn. Date '.'e'�' ,1 Checked DR Date 2-1-9, 1 Plate x,A3 A1PPENDIX B E-5144 LABORATORY TESTING General We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analyses and Atterberg Limits, on representative samples. Moisture determinations and consolidation tests were performed on representative samples. A brief description of each of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log, or on a separate data sheet contained in this Appendix. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of thirty (30) days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Soil Classification As mentioned earlier, all soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they are obtained. They are subsequently packaged and returned to our Bellevue office, where they are independently reexamined by one of our engineers and the original description is verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of information obtained from classification tests, the samples are described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM Test Method D-2487-83. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual boring log and are qualitative only. The attached Legend Plate A3, provides pictorial symbols that match the written descriptions. Moisture Densih, Moisture content and tests were performed on several samples obtained from the borings. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the existing in -place moisture content of the soil sample tested. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Metliod. Earth Consultants, Inc, The information obtained assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are presented at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. Particle Size kn2lvsis Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on several of the shallow soil Samples to determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The test is performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422-63. The information gained from this combined analysis allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in -place materials. The results are presented on Plates B1 through B2, and classification symbols are provided as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs. Several consolidation tests were conducted on two relatively undisturbed representative samples taken with the Shelby Tube sampler to evaluate the consolidation characteristics of the site soil. In addition, the time readings were taken at several points of loading to evaluate the time rate of settlement, The results of this test are shown on Plates 134 and B5, Consolidation Test Data. Earth Consultants, Inc i SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZLOI-OPENINGININCIIES NUM001 OF MESH FIER INCH, U.S.STANOARD GRAW SIZE IN MM. rm 100 UWE Ell�i = USE r� OG=C� N r 1M mpljl� 9 L 9 DESCRIPTION Gray 1)vorly graded SAND with gravel Gray sandy SILT Gray silty SAND a 0 u 5 L7 r to ly O = J ro m fT f C7 CD 0 c m tZ LU ? 0 i7 J _. c- }; r_ m t*I b O ny m 0 n V -v [3r m m7a z --I -n Gt1 z rn ,0 nl 0 -4 36 20 wSIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 511E OF OPENING IN INC11E5 I NUMBER Dr- MESA PER INCIi- U.S, STANDARD I GRAIN 512E IN h,{4t r. p 0 O ID M N to0 a m N O , m r' n `� d m N m d LO W O R N 0 ii O Q Q C O O 0 O o 6 20 .0 m 30 7J Cl m 40 -I 0 to m Ua X Ou 70 fT, Z 00 { r �L 4 O O C7 0 O G P W tl M O N 0 m in r V m N r G6 1n v V] NW W * cl NW - - O O O O O W -0n tN G a O O O a GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 4 O o 0 0 0 0 0 CODDLES COARSEGl1AVEl FINE COARSE MEOIRi FINE FINES SAND KEY Boring or f]EPTFI USCS OESCnIPTION Moisnrrc L. L TCst PI I. Rio.(ft.) Comcrit O I , O 3-5 2.5 ML Gray sandy SILT 27 G-'""-- B--12 5 Brown SILT 33 F' I. 1pe, z S c 6 m c 0 8 to w a 10 M 0 U 12 14 16 . . . . . . . . . . . min ■ 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6 �� QINN �-min �'��MIN milli ME N� v PRESSURE, kips Depth IUSCS -- ' Soil Description Liquid Limn Plasuc , Limit %6 Piasucny Index io Mpisaure Conteni. W%' Dry Densely. 1pcil 80.43, I SE1orE 41.0 Ater 30.0 Dark crav SILT 44 29 15 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA ; 'q MAY CREEK BUSINESS PARS: } uFNTan, SaASiiINGTON Consultants Inc.i CCOLOGY Proi. No. 5a44 pate Feb'91 I Plate B4 1 1111d 'I 'II IIIIIIII ' illl! I �IHI1-11 jill I Il i CL Illiillll II II IIIIII ,a II 12 14 IIIIIII I IIIII I I I IIIIII I III. 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6 kips a• m a 'p U 2 1 0.8 1.6 3.2 6.4 12.8 25.6 PRESSURE, Boring Deplh Liquid Plestrc . Plasllcrty Moisture Dry Key No. (ft.) USCS Soil Description I-mlt Limit Index I Content, W" iDensny oa ao ioI Rofnra i Aftar I 1Pcfl 0 1 B-12 1 c-7� I ML Brown SILT ,l ,� Earth Consultants Inc. GEOTECH14ICAL ENGINEERING Sr GEOLOGY 38 1 29 j 9 f41.0 121.2 183.2 CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA KALY LREEK BUSINESS PARK RENTON, WASHINGTON Proi. No. 5144 Date Feb'91 Plate B5 Appendix C Water Quality Calculations 33 Appendix D Maintenance and Operations Plan 34 Appendix E Legal Description 35 Form WA-5 (6176) Commitment EXHISIT 'A' LEGAL, DESCRIPTION; PARCEL A: File No.: NCS-377730-WA1 Page No. 2 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED NORTHEAST 44TH STREET (SOUTHEAST 80TH STREET), IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 880 47' 36" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF, 797.2 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO HIGHWAY ENGINEERS STATION 4+65.6 AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 4210056 AND 7811221071; THENCE SOUTH 010 12' 24" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE ON THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID VACATED S.E.' 80TH STREET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 01° 12' 24" WEST 256.50 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 204 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE X-LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 590 02' 16" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE SOUTH 880 47' 36" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 2-A AS CONVEYED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4664242; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO PAN -ADOBE INC., BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4856255; THENCE NORTH 620 59' 05" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 4210056 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON PARCEL B. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED 44TH STREET NORTHEAST (SOUTHEAST BOTH STREET), IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; THENCE NORTH 010 12' 24" EAST 30.00 FEET; y�R. THENCE NORTH 880 47' 36" WEST 563.68 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF A TRACT AS DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 300 21' 54" EAST 35.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5; - THENCE NORTH 880 47' 36" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 342,24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 440 14' 51" EAST 1,115.92 FEET, SAID POINT ♦;J� BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7811221071; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID ARC 201.65 FEET TO THE R-A LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED UNDER RECORDING NO. M221071; 78 11221071 THENCE SOUTH 320 59' 47" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE, 11.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF Firct Amprkan 'rWw Inctrranr^v /'nnm,anw Form WA-5 (6/76) Commitment File No.: NCS-377730-WAI Page No, 3 180.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 68.23 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE ON THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET A DISTANCE OF 58.06 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID VACATED S.E. 80TH STREET WHICH IS NORTH 880 47' 36" WEST OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 88" 47' 36" EAST 77.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. First American Title Insurance Company Appendix F Conveyance Calculations 36 ATTACHMENT L um • i1 +• � �'t1 • X r t ti +e 1y14. Y - si4T ..• AOr Jf 1J , 1• F '1 i ✓' r i lY , 1 L 1 Ala- i •a ,��. e i L �•� r a .,' •L. ji i•eA�C'.-y.