HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1CIT -IF RENTON
+ ,_#
�'� � Kathy Keolker, Mayor
December 4, 2006
State Department of Ecology
Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program
Northwest Regional Office
3190 160th Ave. SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for
File No. LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was
issued by the City of Renton on December 1, 2006. The environmental review (SEPA) was completed on
October 16, 2006 and appeal period ended on November 6, 2006.
We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090.
Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions or
need additional information_
Sincerely,
A f
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
Enclosures: Copy of Master Application
Administrative Decision
Project Description
Notice of Application
Legal Description
SEPA Threshold Determination
SEPA — Notice of Action Taken
cc: Office of Attorney General
Applicant/Owner
Parties of Record
�,,,n ro„a. faf,or�in.. RENT
� N�
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
0This8 AHEAD QF THI-: CURVE
p perrontains5U°F,rerycledmatenaL.3U°�post:.onsurner
CITY OF RENTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERM
APPLICATION NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:
DATE APPROVED:
TYPE OF ACTION(S):
LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ERC
June 23, 2006
June 23, 2006
December 1, 2006
BREW
N"
�•fF-; iris
Mr�TtALl0r1
iE � �
77
[ X ] Substantial Development Permit
[ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ ] Variance Permit
Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
This action was taken on the following application:
APPLICANT:
PROJECT:
Port Quendall Company
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
5015 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton Washington
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit (SM) in order to develop property located within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake
Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State. The property is located in Northeast Renton
(Exhibit 1). The project would be the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility,
BACKGROUND: The proposal is to develop vacant land known as the North and South Baxter properties,
which are both located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The properties were used for wood processing
until 1981 and, therefore, are known to have contaminated soils present. Cleanup of the property was
prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-7KNT and South Baxter,
#00-2-11779-5KNT), negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act.
Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove
area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils,
has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction.
The long-term industrial activities on the properties also heavily impacted vegetation, wildlife habitat, wetland,
shoreline, and views of the property from Renton, Mercer Island, and the Lake.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks are a professional football franchise currently based in
Kirkland, Washington. The project would primarily consist of an office building ("Headquarters") and an
attached indoor practice facility (enclosed football field), maintenance building, turf practice fields, artificial
surface practice field, general and secure parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping.
The Headquarters office building would be two to three stories (two stories on the west side and three stories
on the south side). The maximum height of the office building on the west side would be 35 feet. The
elevation on the south side would be 50 feet.
The indoor practice facility would have an interior ceiling height of 95 feet at the center. The overall exterior
building height would be 110 feet above grade.
Shoreline Permit. doc
CITY OF RENTON
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
APPLICATION NO.:
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE:
DATE APPROVED:
TYPE OF ACTION(S):
LUA06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ERC
June 23, 2006
June 23, 2006
December 1, 2006
[ X ] Substantial Development Permit
[ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ ) Variance Permit
Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the City of Renton has granted a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
This action was taken on the following application:
APPLICANT: Port Quendall Company
PROJECT:
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
5015 Lake Washington Blvd. N. Renton Washington
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit (SM) in order to develop property located within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake
Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried Shoreline of the State. The property is located in Northeast Renton
(Exhibit 1). The project would be the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility.
BACKGROUND: The proposal is to develop vacant land known as the North and South Baxter properties,
which are both located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The properties were used for wood processing
until 1981 and, therefore, are known to have contaminated soils present. Cleanup of the property was
prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-7KNT and South Baxter,
#00-2-11779-5KNT), negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control Act.
Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the Baxter Cove
area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated soils,
has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction.
The long-term industrial activities on the properties also heavily impacted vegetation, wildlife habitat, wetland,
shoreline, and views of the property from Renton, Mercer Island, and the Lake.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks are a professional football franchise currently based in
Kirkland, Washington. The project would primarily consist of an office building ("Headquarters") and an
attached indoor practice facility (enclosed football field), maintenance building, tun` practice fields, artificial
surface practice field, general and secure parking areas, driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping.
The Headquarters office building would be two to three stories (two stories on the west side and three stories
on the south side). The maximum height of the office building on the west side would be 35 feet. The
elevation on the south side would be 50 feet.
The indoor practice facility would have an interior ceiling height of 95 feet at the center. The overall exterior
building height would be 110 feet above grade.
Shoreline Permit.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Pennit
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECR
December 1, 2006 Page 2 of 4
The fagade of the office building would be 115 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the Lake
at its closest point and 170 feet at its farthest point. The indoor practice facility would be 200 feet from the
OHWM at its closest point.
At the southwest corner of the property, approximately 115 feet of shoreline is inaccessible because of
fencing around the existing Puget Sound Energy Power Station.
Restoration of a Class 3 wetland, located coincident with the shoreline of the Lake, was a condition of
approval of a previous Model Toxic Control Act cleanup phase. This wetland, and its 50 foot (minimum)
buffer comprises approximately 590 feet of the shoreline.
A publicly accessible viewpoint, furnished with benches and other outdoor site amenities, has been proposed
for 290 feet of shoreline. This area would be within the 50 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark,
It would be accessible by a paved walkway, approximately perpendicular to the Lakeshore, adjacent to the
north property boundary. This public access to Lake Washington would be consistent with RMC 4-3-090J5,
"Use Regulations in the Urban [Shoreline] Environment." The Master Program gives priority to planning for
public visual and physical access to water in the Urban Environment. Specifically, "To enhance waterfront
and ensure maximum public use. ..commercial facilities shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront
activities where practicable, and the various access points ought to be lined to non -motorized transportation
routes such as bicycle and hiking paths."
An existing boathouse and dock, located at the northwest corner of the property would remain, but are not a
part of the proposed project and would be fenced to prevent public landside access. This fenced area would
comprise approximately 60 feet of the shoreline.
The remainder of the shoreline, approximately 755 feet, would not be accessible from either the water by boat
or land side by sidewalk. This shoreline has been very heavily impacted by the long-term industrial use of the
property (Exhibit 5). As part of the development proposal, shoreline restoration would include preservation of
significant trees, removal of exotic and/or inappropriate invasive species, and planting of vegetation suitable
for riparian habitat.
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ANALYSIS: Use allowed within shoreline setback - As a commercial
use, based on City of Renton regulations (RMC 4-3-090, "Shoreline Master Program Regulations"), the office
building is allowed within the 200 foot shoreline setback, but no closer than 50 feet (RMC 4-3-0901-5d,
"Setback"). Based on these regulations and policies, the Headquarters building is an allowed use at the
proposed location.
Regulation of building height within the shoreline setback - The Shoreline Master Program policies state
that buildings less than 75 feet in height within the 200 foot shoreline setback are not regulated (Shoreline
Master Program 4.04.021 and 9.20). Based on these regulations and policies, the Headquarters building
height is within development standards of the shoreline setback area.
Intensity of use within the Urban Environment - The western boundary of the site includes approximately
1,810 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline (Exhibit 4). The shoreline of Lake Washington has been
designated, by Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-090J2, as an "Urban Environment" under the City's
Shoreline Master Program (Exhibit 2)_ The Urban Environment is intended to be an area of high -intensity land
use. The proposed project concentrates intensive land use at the north portion of the property, leaving
approximately 82 percent of the total site, on the south portion, essentially as open space.
Provision of public access to the shoreline - Commercial development is permitted within the Urban
Environment designation provided the development provides reasonable public access to and along the
water's edge (RMC 4-3-0901-5b, "Incorporation of Public Recreational Opportunities"). For public access to
Lake Washington, an easement for a pedestrian walkway (420 feet) would be provided along the north
property boundary continuing parallel to the Lake shoreline (290 feet). The public access would be furnished
appropriately for passive recreation consisting of lake and wildlife viewing (Exhibit 6).
Shoreline Permit.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECR
December 1, 2006 Page 3 of 4
Consideration of view impacts — The proposed project will result in a large structure being located on a
property that has been essentially vacant. There would be, undeniably, impacts associated with constructing
a structure where none existed previously. The issue to be considered as part of the Shoreline Master
Program review is the impact on view corridors, given the location of the structure. The project would have an
impact on views across the property to the Lake from various locations in the area and from Mercer Island
across the Lake.
In order to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project, a visual assessment was submitted by the
project proponent. It studied impacts of the project on views and view corridors from several locations off -site.
Based on this assessment, it was determined that there would be minor impacts from properties located east
of the project or from Mercer Island. The property abutting on the south is currently vacant. Primary impacts
would be from the third floor of the Misty Cove Condominium abutting the property on the north. The most
significant impacts were on views from the third floor of the Condominium building. Misty Cove Units 302 and
312 were used to determine a range of impacts. Both units are on the top floor of the Condominium building,
with 302 closest to the Lake and 312 farthest to the east.
Detailed analysis demonstrated that although the lowest section of the Headquarters portion of the structure
was located closest to the shoreline, views from the Condominiums would be significantly improved if the
building was moved farther from the shoreline. Therefore, the entire structure was moved 62 feet to the east.
This revision significantly improved views of Lake Washington and the view corridor across the property to the
Lake.
Pollution and ecological disruption - The potential effects on water quality, water and land vegetation,
water life and other wildlife (including, for example, spawning areas, migration and circulation habits, natural
habitats, and feeding), soil quality and all other environmental aspects must be considered in the design plans
for any activity or facility which may have detrimental effects on the environment (RMC 4-3-090K2,
"Environmental Effects").
As mentioned, above, remediation of soil contamination would be on -going through the project construction
phase of the proposed project.
The shoreline wetland was previous restored during an earlier phase of site cleanup. The project proponent
has submitted a plan for shoreline restoration which would include preservation of significant trees, removal of
exotic and/or inappropriate invasive species, and planting of vegetation suitable for lakeshore riparian habitat,
followed by monitoring (Exhibit 7).
Due to the sensitive lake environment, as well as the amount of human contact anticipated as part of the sport
of football, turf areas of the project would be managed using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques.
IPM has been shown to reduce the amount of potentially harmful chemicals needed to maintain healthy plant
environments. It also reduces the need for fertilizers that could elevate nutrient levels in the lake. The project
proponent submitted a "Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan," dated September 20, 2006, that addresses
plant selection, seeding, fertilization, pest control, chemical management, and maintenance (Exhibit 8).
Surface water would be controlled through the use of sand filters. If it is necessary to use chemicals on turf
fields (if fungal outbreaks occur), stormwater would be cleansed of chemicals prior to discharge to Lake
Washington.
Conclusion - The City of Renton believes public benefits from this project would be significant. It would
provide another link to Lake Washington from Renton's developing trail system, at a location where no public
access has been available. The environmental conditions of the property, which until recently was heavily
impacted by residual effects of long-term industrial use, essentially devoid of significant vegetation, and
lacking suitable habitat would be transformed into a campus -like, healthy environment.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Exhibit 8
SEC-TW N-R:
32-24 N-5 E
WITHIN SHORELINES OF: Lake Washington
APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton
Shoreline Permit. doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECR
December 1, 2006 Page 4 of 4
The following sections of the Renton Municipal Code are applicable to the development:
Section Description
4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations
4-3-090J Urban Environment
4-3-090K General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses
4-3-090L5 Specific Use Regulations - Commercial
Staff recommends that development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and
conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply will all SEPA mitigation measures established by the Environmental Review
Committee in their determination of October 16, 2006.
2, The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval required by the Hearing Examiner as part of the
decision for the Master Plan and Site Plan Reviews.
3. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions by the State agencies.
That the permit be granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the
following:
1, The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant
from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements.
2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the
event the permittee fails to comply with any condition herein.
3. A construction permit shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the Washington State
Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review
period have been completed.
—9 4 �,, , zzfmy] — % a !�
Gr gg Zimm:njg,ublic
n, A inistr for Decembe 1, 2006
Planning / 11tIll Works
cc: Attorney General's Office
City of Renton, Plan Review (Kayren Kittrick)
City of Renton, Surface Water Utility (Ron Straka)
City of Renton, Parks (Leslie Betlach)
Applicant
Project File
Shoreline Permit. doc
0 114 1/2 1
EXHIBITI
Scale In Miles
MOTE
Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSt
This map is copyrighted by THOMAS. BROS. MAPS®. It Is
unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for
personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved.
Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility
Renton, Washington
VICINITY MAP
September 2006 21-1-20525-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
oeowr" ww Envionzw" canpwo
SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTS
EXHIBIT
2
to
NUIF7<%
E �\ '.� WETUWDS
t\ U f�I
\ VII IF��-
ExMnNG POWER
POLE LOCATION —
SOUTH PROPERTY
FENCE UNE --
PSE EASEMENT
LINE (TEID) ---
EXIf POWER
POLE LOCATION -
NEW 1- STORY
MAINTENANCE
SHED
COVERED CAR WASH PAD
EXLSTING POWER
POLE LOCATION
MAINT- PARKING
3 STAU.S
SECURITY GATE -�
11
LAKE WASHINGTON
• � '��������fl���`����f�%%%f��f� �::rf/irk%%�/ ai
INDOOR
PRACTICE
FACILITY
:UCTURE TO BE.
10VED
ACCESS WALK
.URITY FENCE
SEFMCE ROAD
GATE
PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING
L[
EXHIBIT
Q
t{Qj
LEE�GTDN - CLASS 1
GTPSY SUB WIN DRAINAGE - CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3)
PARKING COUNT
GENERAL SURFACE PARKING $1 STALLS
SECURE TEAM PARKING 161 STALLS
TOT,� y52 q� l S
T � 7 (� CT T E 4 V 5 �
i V �' `" `
~r
C1
z
u!
^ AI SMnoel PLJW-AL T1vE
'
FMVCW-t]NGNEMOM
to
• - � b tt 1! q t� % M A - 1� fi b M
'rM: M' I10/.70I 10/ao.)uM PIIQ t�wr!' my„nr-LJ vs. ��5' w -
}} N15TV to- 00NDomm1M COMPLEY
A2t
rr ROCKF
SEAWALL
->
s � tlf II
.l I
r 1 t�i i ip I
1 l
APPROXIM { I ;
GYPSY
SUBBASIN t y I
~� DRAINAGE
CULV'E P2 }
I
ORDINARY HIGH
w WATER MAR 1 �lu,�norn;�TCH
{ 'o
I
�rt NORTH
7 `,/ Q I BAXT�R
�; tl{ /P3 I a li SUGY B IN
i i I I � CU�LVE 5
N 5B'13'1*"YWn '� J1 j�"�`! fir,
SOUTH
BAXTER
aF 5 BUFFER
PSE
r"
LEGEND
+SP3 FIELD INVESTIGATION PLOT WETLAND AREA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXHIBIT
CHAIN LINK FENCE EkSTING
PAVEMENT/ROADWAY
--Fi--F—F� RAILROAD TRACKS
60 o tzo
NOR 4
SN NE OHm AW rind NVEsm naN 1'-120'
PLOTS LOCATED MOO $17/0-6 TO
e/IC/06.
AQ* Ec vLMAN-7S7%-100 APROPERTY WITH
ORDINNARYRY H1 HIGH WATER MARK AND
FIELD INVESTIGATION SAMPLE PLOTS
bAW;0a/08/06 oxraE.LL,-A FIGURE
- , t 77t! :
- . I - •`� � a v � , I �., } 7 v l •d, N � + .' t e +. ,a r.
r L I r i I • . '� � 'i r; a '�'F-rrF�ipy t•a. 'r � '' r. }
� r - ♦1 • f f f • ' y �. 1.,�W"�71•'1!�►� 3. ifi S � L �7. � i�lr r , -1
V y j�a k
r
1
_ cr � �� } ., i r'. i • -fir r5� ; ro '''o,
t o
V r 1
Fk` �
i 4 J
�n
1 � v
r
SEAHAW Its .
c
c xY
Tr'',
Z 3
sHJvavuv�5 - �
r;_
mff
JfIG 3 � i
sir. _ :r
rn
a�
r
CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
Environmental Consulting
A.C. Kindig & Co.
F-NVIKONA#tN'I' .AL CONSLJ LI ;NCi
STREAM AND LAKE STUDY
SUPPLEMENTAL STREAM AND LAKE STUDY
STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
SEAHAWKS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
AND TRAINING FACILITY
Renton, Washington
Prepared for:
Football Northwest, LLC
505 Fifth Ave South, Suite 900
Seattle, Washington 98104
Prepared by:
Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
19609 244th Avenue NE
Woodinville, Washington 98077
and
A.C. Kindig & Co.
12501 Bellevue -Redmond Road, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98005
EXHIBIT
September 20, 2006
19609 244" AVENUE NE WOODINVILLE, WA 98077 - P:425/788-0961 - F:425/788-5562
11
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Pace
1.0 PURPOSE...............................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................................1
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................. 2
3.1 Description of Proposed Action.- ................................................................................ 2
3.2 Alternatives Analysis....................................................................................................3
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Routing and Flow...............................................................4
4-2 Stream Classification .......................... :......................................................................... 6
4.3 Physical Condition........................................................................................................6
4.4 Vegetative Cover..........................................................................................................7
4.5 Ecological Functions.....................................................................................................7
4.6 Fish Use .......................... ................ ............................................................................ I I
4.7 Wildlife Use.....
..'.
5.0 SHORELINE PLANTING/MITIGATION PLAN...........................................................12
5.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Mitigation.........................................................................12
5.2 Lake Washington Shoreline Planting_ ....................................................................... 13
5.3 Maintenance and Monitoring......................................................................................14
6.0 RESOURCE VALUES TO BE RESTORED, CREATED, OR ENHANCED ..............16
6.1 Habitat Improvement Opportunity..............................................................................16
6.2 Function and Value Comparison................................................................................16
6.3 Summary.....................................................................................................................19
7.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES............................................................. 19
8.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE........................................................................................ 21
9.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE................................................................. 21
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ...................... 21
11.0 MONITORING..................................................................................................................22
11.1 Sampling Methodology.....................................................................................22
11.2 Standards Of Success....................................................................I.... I .... .................. 24
12.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN................................................................................................... 24
13.0 COST ESTIMATE............................................................................................................. 25
14.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE ..................................... 25
14-1 Planting Location... ...... ___ ....................................................................... ............... 26
14.2 Planting Type ....... ..................................................................................................... 26
14.3 Contiguous Corridors ............ __...............................................................................26
14.4 Non -Indigenous Species .................. .................26
14.5 Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions.............................................................26
September 20, 2006 CEDA ROCK CONSULTANTS. INC. and A.C. KINDICr & CO.
SeahaH W09-20-06 taker Strew r Report_dor Page i
I
U
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility,
?, Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Miti anon Plan
Pare
14.6 Minimum Planting Plan Performance Standards......................................................26
14.7 Based on Best Available Science..............................................................................27
15.0 COMPLIANCE WITH BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ............................................... 28
15.1 Review of the Best Available Science Supporting the Proposed Request................28
15.2 Report Authors Experience.......................................................................................32
15.3 Analysis of the Likelihood of Success of the Compensation Project .......................32
16.0 VEGETATION PROTECTION....................................................................................... 32
16.1 Design Considerations..............................................................................................32
I6.2 Significant Tree Protection during Construction.....................................................33
17.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................34
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant species selected for Lake Washington shoreline .......................................
Table 2. Cost Estimate Worksheet....................................................................................
Table 3. Riparian Habitat Functions Comparison, Existing versus Proposed Conditions
LIST OF FIGURES
....15
....25
....29
Figure1, Vicinity Map.....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Details from City of Renton Water Class Map................................................................5
Figure 3, Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on -site looking upstream at beaver damn................................5
Figure 4. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall at Lake Washington....................................................6
Figure 5. Vegetation and woody debris along the Lake Washington shoreline ..............................8
Figure 6. Upland vegetation looking to the west across the site from the railroad tracks...............9
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Platt Sets
Sheet 1
Sheet L100
Sheets CE301-302
Sheets CE201-202
Sheets CE221-224
Sheet CE245
Site Map (source: RETEC)
Conceptual Landscape Plan (source: EDAW)
Gypsy Subbasin Plan and Profile (source: Crawford)
TESC Plans (source: Crawford)
Grading Plans (source: Cranford)
Conceptual Utility & Drainage Control Plan
(source. Crawford)
Appendix 2 Resumes of Key Personnel
Appendix 3 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and R. C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahawkc/04-10-06 Lakes Arewir Repan dor Page 11
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake StudyJMltigation Plan
1.0 PURPOSE
Capping and institutional control remedial actions on the North and South Baxter site will occur
under Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees approved by the Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) in April 2000. Remedial activities will be implemented with a goal of
achieving enhanced water quality in Lake Washington. Capping of the entire site to within 25
feet of the Lake Washington shoreline requires eliminating an about 125-foot open section of the
Gypsy Subbasin Drainage that is otherwise conveyed by culvert through the site. The aging and
degraded culvert carrying the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage under the site will be replaced and
upgraded to accommodate capacity requirements of the upstream and offsite contributing basin
at buiidout. To accommodate placement of the Seahawks Headquarters building (which will
serve as part of the remedial cap on the site), the replacement culvert will be realigned around the
building foundation. This placement will require lengthening of the pipe from the existing 490
feet to approximately 860 feet. The culvert upgrade and realignment does not include
replacement of the existing outfall pipeline to Lake Washington, which will be retained in its
current condition.
Aside from capping required under the Consent Decrees and Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action
Plans to within 25 feet of the lakeshore, project features proposed under a Master Plan approval
for the site and within the Renton Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction include public access,
practice fields, a building, parking, sand filters for water quality treatment, and some roadway
area (see Appendix 1, Conceptual Landscape and Handscape Plan, Sheet L100). All features are
allowed under the Urban Environment designation afforded the project site under Renton's
Shoreline Master Program. Shoreline planting will include replacement of exotic plant species
with a diverse native shrub and tree riparian zone.
The proposed development triggers the need for both a Standard and Supplemental Stream Study
under requirements of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) because:
The proposal will alter a waterbody (Gypsy Subbasin Drainage), and
The proposed development site contains a Shoreline of the State and associated management
area.
Requirements for the studies provided in this report are described in RMC 4-5-120(D).
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located on approximately 19 acres at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard
North, adjacent to Lake Washington in the City of Renton, King County (Figure 1). The two
properties that underlie the project site are formally known as South Baxter and North Baxter.
The project is located in the SW'/ of Section 29, T24N, R05E, W.M_ The Gypsy Subbasin
Drainage crosses the site from east to west before discharging to Lake Washington. May Creek
located off -site to the south is unrelated to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and will not be affected.
September 20, 2606 CEDAROCK CONSULT,4NTS, 1A(C. and A.C. KINDIG toe CO.
SeahawksI09-20.06 Lakes Stream Repon doc Page 1
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Kenton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Description of Proposed Action
Soils across the site to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline will be capped with up to
three feet of clean soil as part of the remediation action. As part of that capping, the remaining
open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the project site wi[l be placed in a culvert. This
action will have a direct benefit of protecting and enhancing water quality in Lake Washington.
The existing Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert under the site is in poor condition and undersized
based on a history of flooding upstream (Entranco 1995, 1997). The culvert will be replaced with
a larger pipe prior to capping of the site. Portions of the pipe will be rerouted to accommodate
future building and facility locations (see Appendix 1, Plan Sheets CE301 and CE302). The final
culvert length will be 370 feet longer than what currently exists (Magnusson Klernencic
Associates, 2006),
September 20, 2006 C1;DAROCK CONSULT,4N7S, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahawki/99-10-06Lakes Swam Report doc Page 2
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitt anon Plan
The Lake Washington shoreline area will be replanted to improve functions and values and
mitigate for the lost habitat value adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage (see Appendix 1,
Conceptual landscape and Hardscape Plan, Sheet L100). Where native plants and large trees
currently exist, they will for the most part be preserved. The dense stands of exotic blackberry
and Scotch broom will be removed and replaced with native riparian species.
Included within this document is the Stream Mitigation Plan, A description is provided in
Section 5 and the draft plan is shown in the attached Conceptual Landscape and Hardscape Plan,
(Appendix 1, Sheet L100). Native plantings along the Lake Washington shoreline will increase
functions and values of the riparian area over existing conditions and will improve the shoreline
role in protecting aquatic habitat values important to Lake Washington. Net improvements in
water quality, production of organic matter including insect and vegetative material, large woody
debris frequency, bank stability, and wildlife habitat are predicted. More detail on the proposed
riparian planting program is provided in Section 5.0. The functions and values comparison
analysis is provided in Section 6. The proposed monitoring plan is provided in Section 11.
The Site Map required under RMC 4-8-120(D)(l9)(a) and Grading Plan required under RMC 4-
8-120(D)(7) are attached (Appendix 1, Site Map Sheet 1; and Grading Plan Sheets CE221
through CE224).
3.2 Alternatives Analysis
Three alternative project layouts were evaluated to avoid and minimize impacts to the Gypsy
Subbasin Drainage. These included:
• Daylighting the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage into an open channel across the site.
• Maintaining the existing open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage in an open
channel.
• Passing all of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage through the site in a culvert
The only available alternative to satisfy the capping requirements under the Consent Decrees is
also best suited to protect fish and Lake Washington habitat. The selected alternative places all of
Gypsy Subbasin Drainage passing through, the property into a culvert. This conclusion is based
on the following rationale:
• The capping requirement under the Consent Decrees is premised on avoidance of direct
contact with residual soil contamination on the property. The cap will also serve to
protect water quality in the drainage and Lake Washington from potential effects due to
erosion of surface soils. The capping and culvert completely isolate Gypsy Subbasin
Drainage and Lake Washington from the site soils.
• The on -site open section of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is a manmade ditch well below the
grade of the site with steep sideslopes. This ditch provides minimal fish habitat. Riparian
function is limited by the steep rocked channel banks. Elimination of the open ditch will
have water quality benefits and will not adversely affect fish habitat.
• The minor loss of riparian function can be mitigated by additional planting adjacent to
Lake Washington. Planting at this location will also enhance wildlife habitat by providing
September 20, 2006 C,EDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KiNDIG & CO.
Seahowks109-10-06 Lokes Srreow Reporr,doc Page 3
Cj
1�
t
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Mill ation Plan
a larger block of contiguous habitat, particularly along the southern shoreline where it
will abut a restored wetland and buffer adjacent to Baxter Cove.
* Flow can be diverted out of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel which means all
culvert construction can be conducted "in the dry" after the flow is bypassed. This
reduces the potential for adverse construction impacts.
Because of the low quality of existing onsite habitat (described further in Section 4.0) and soils
subject to required capping and institutional controls under the Consent Decrees, the proposed
action will result in a net improvement in fish habitat quality in the Lake Washington Drainage.
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a description of existing habitat conditions of the Gypsy Subbasin
Drainage channel on the property, the associated riparian buffer, and the Lake Washington
shoreline area, Known fish and wildlife uses are also described.
4.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Routing and Flow
The various waterways known collectively as the Gypsy Subbasin Drainages consist of a series
of largely man-made pipes, ditches, ponds, and open water habitat draining an area of
approximately 320 acres north of and independent of May Creek (except by flood overflow east
of I-405). The drainage collects at a single point just west of the BNSF railroad tracks west of I-
405 before discharging to the property (Entranco 1995). The culvert under the tracks is 55 feet
long, has a gradient of approximately 2 percent, and is likely a barrier to upstream fish passage.
Near the property boundary but still offsite, drainage is discharged to a small (approximately 10
foot diameter), quarry-spall lined pond. From the offsite pond, flow enters a 24-inch, 46-foot
long concrete culvert extending on -site and beneath a dirt haul road before daylighting again to
the open channel section located on -site. The open channel is a highly confined, steep -walled
ditch/trough, with a channel bed approximately 10 to 15 feet below the surrounding ground
elevation and 3 to 10 feet wide at the bottom. Substrate consists primarily of a deep anaerobic
mud except where bank sloughing and rocks spilled into the channel have replaced the mud with
a firmer bed material. The banks are heavily vegetated with a narrow strip of young hardwoods,
Scotch broom, and Himalayan blackberry. Total length of the open channel is approximately 125
feet. An approximately 4-foot high beaver dam located near the downstream end of the open
channel currently backs up water upstream to the railroad tracks (Figure 3). The drainage next
enters a 490-foot, 24-inch CMP which discharges directly to Lake Washington. The 490-foot
CMP drops approximately 0.5 foot (0.1% gradient) and at low lake elevation is perched about a
foot above the lake water surface (Figure 4). During high lake elevations, the culvert is partially
backwatered and upstream passage is possible, though not known to occur.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahnwks/04-20-06Lakes SireamReportdoc Page 4
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facifiry
Denton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Mill ation Plan
wr rr rrrrrr._
..lam.!
NE
SITE
! _ !
GYPSY.
SUBBA
.�.. DRAIN,
r ! LL
x MAY
r�
!
r CREEK
LEGEND:
% 4
Class
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
—'
-- Piped or cvlverted (does)
Q\
Figure 2. Details from City of Renton Water Class Map
Figure 3- Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on -site looking upstream at beaver dam.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, TNC. and A.0 KINDIG & CO.
Seahawks/09-10-06Lakes $bean Repurr.doc Page 5
Seahawks Coiporale Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud Lma anon Plan
Figure 4. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage outfall at Lake Washington.
4.2 Stream Classification
The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the property is shown on the City of Renton's draft Water
Class Map (Figure 2) as a Class 2 water, Class 2 waters are salmon id -bearing perennial waters
during years of normal rainfall. Lake Washington is a Class 1 water. Class 1 waters are
salmonid-bearing perennial waters also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
4.3 Physical Condition
In general, upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is low due to the disturbed nature of the
former industrial areas which currently support only limited vegetation and contain residual
contamination. The shoreline areas provide the highest habitat value in the project area, but the
habitat value of these areas are limited due to the dominance of non-native invasive plant
species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as
snags.
The portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the property provides virtually no value to fish
with 80 percent of the total length in a small culvert and the rest encompassed in a narrow ditch
some 10 to 15 feet below ground surface. The short open stretch offers some potential rearing
habitat, however, habitat quality is entirely dependent on the existing beaver dam. Without the
recently constructed daze, shallow depths, a muddy substrate, no instream structure, and little
instream cover limits the overall habitat value. With little protection from high velocities, winter
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahawkr/04-20-06 LaArf Sr,emrr Repwr.doc Page 6
fl
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and TrainingFacitity
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Siudy/MitiRation Plan
,r
y..�7 storm events would likely flush any fish from the system if they were present. Summer
conditions produce extremely low flows which also severely limit habitat quality.
4.4 Vegetative Cover
The project site is periodically cleared of vegetation and was last cleared in 1990. Young red
alder, black cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom are present on the
steep banks of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel. The vegetation provides good shading and
a fair source of allocthonous material to the watercourse. However, water quality, bank
stabilization, large woody debris input, and other fiuzetions are minimal due to the steep eroding
banks, young and exotic vegetation, and a narrow functional riparian zone, because the ditch is
so far below grade elevation.
Lake Washington shoreline vegetation within about 20-feet of the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) is dominated by Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, red alder, black cottonwood,
and various willow species which grow up to water's edge (Figure 5). Beyond this narrow
vegetated buffer, on -site vegetation consists mainly of various grasses interspersed with small
islands of trees and shrubs (Figure 6). The upland trees and shrubs are similar in character to the
immediate shoreline vegetation.
4.5 Ecological Functions
Ecological functions for the two areas impacted by the proposed action: the open portion of the
Gypsy Subbasin Drainage on the property, and the Lake Washington shoreline, are described
below along with a description of existing conditions for each function.
Water Quality
Vegetation adjacent to streams and lakes can improve water quality by filtering pollutants,
removing nutrients, and preventing sediment introduction. Native planted areas of approximately
100 feet in depth are normally required to preserve riparian water quality function where natural
routing of water through buffers is preserved and relied upon for water quality protection.
However, source control and water quality best management practices are recognized as more
important for urban settings where stormwater runoff is not reliant on riparian conditions for
treatment before discharge. Because water quality treatment function is provided by the proposed
developments in these cases, and not by the riparian areas, riparian depths can be much narrower.
Water quality function of the existing on -site riparian areas is poor. The only vegetation adjacent
to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington is relatively young (10-15 years old) and
primarily exotic. There are also steep slopes adjacent to both watercourses so the normal water
quality treatment process is virtually absent. Surface water runs directly across the narrow
riparian areas and receives very little natural treatment. In addition, residual contamination in
soils on the property can degrade water quality so flow running through the riparian buffer over
such soils is not a benefit and presents a risk to aquatic species habitat.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C'. KINDIG & CO.
Seaha--b109-20.06 Lakes Snveam Report.doc Page 7
t:
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and la��ation Plan
Figure 5. Vegetation and woody debris along the Lake Washington shoreline.
Figure 6. Upland vegetation looking to the west across the site from the railroad tracks.
FJI
September 20, 2006 CF.DAROCK CONSULTAATS, TNC and A.0 KINDTG & CD-
SeahawhI69-2D-C6 Later Soonin Repo, i Yor Page 8
H
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud IMiti atian Plan
7t Organic Material
Overhanging vegetation contributes leaves, vegetative litter, and small woody debris directly to
the channel. This material forms the source of food for aquatic invertebrates, which are in turn
eaten by fish. Terrestrial insects, another food source, also utilize riparian vegetation as habitat.
The majority of material comes from directly over the stream. Function diminishes rapidly after
about 25 feet from channels edge though some benefit is still realized up to about 50 feet away.
Vegetation overhanging the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage provides a small amount of organic
material to the watercourse. The material is carried downstream and deposited in Lake
Washington where it provides some benefit to aquatic species located there as well. The young,
sparse, and partially exotic composition of the buffer significantly reduces the overall value.
Vegetation adjacent to Lake Washington consists predominately of exotic shrub species which
overhang the water in some locations. The volume of leaf litter is minor as is the contribution of
woody debris. Because many of the species are non-native and the overall shoreline area lacks
diversity, the nutrient contribution and value as insect habitat is poor. Overall, the value of the
existing riparian vegetation is low relative to its ability to contribute food and nutrients.
Microclimate
Riparian vegetation protects streams from climate changes caused by widespread development
away from the stream, including soil and air temperature, humidity, and wind. There is no direct
link between microclimate and the condition of salmonid habitat, however, it has been suggested
that microclimate needs protection to maintain desirable assemblages of plants and animal
species, including insects, beneficial to fish. It is estimated that a riparian zone between
approximately 58 and 345 feet in the Renton area is necessary to entirely preserve natural mature
forest riparian microclimates.
The lack of any significant vegetation adjacent to either the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage or Lake
Washington provides almost no microclimate function under existing conditions.
Temperature & Shade
Overhanging vegetation shades streams, until the channels become so broad that, like Lake
Washington, most of the water surface is exposed to the sun. By intercepting solar radiation,
vegetation prevents heat energy from reaching streams, maintaining cooler water. Vegetation
also shades soil, cooling water introduced to streams through the hyporheic zone. Cool water is
an essential habitat feature for salmonids, and increases the amount of atmospheric oxygen that
will dissolve into the water, which also improves salmon habitat conditions and is essential for
salmon spawning,
Under existing conditions, 80 percent of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel across the site is
contained within a culvert where riparian shade has no effect on stream temperature. The open
portion of the channel has a narrow riparian corridor that combined with the slope aspect of the
entrenched channel, provides fair shading of the small channel.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KJWDIG & CO.
Seoharkt/09-10-06 Lakes Slream keporrdoc Page 9
11
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Miti ation Plan
;a
Riparian shading of Lake Washington has no effect on water temperature due to the large size of
the lake -
Human Access Control
One function of protected riparian zones in populated watersheds can be reducing the direct
encroachment of humans including refuse dumping, trampling of vegetation, bank erosion, and
noise. These function most effectively when the adjacent land use consists of low intensity
development; when the riparian areas are greater than 50 feet wide and planted with high quality
mixed species of native vegetation that discourages entry; and where there was a high degree of
resident education on the value of the protected riparian zones.
The blackberry covered slopes adjacent to the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and
position of the channel on fenced and signed private property prohibits human access.
The steep, densely vegetated Lake Washington shoreline is not conducive to human use under
existing conditions. The property is currently fenced with locked gates so vegetation has no role
in access control.
Lame Woadv Debris
Large woody debris (LWD) consists of downed tree stems and branches and is a functionally
important structural component of stream channels in the Pacific Northwest. In non -fish -bearing
IM stream channels such as on this project property, LWD acts as a surface for biological activity
which contributes to the productivity of a stream system. In a mature coniferous forest, the
majority (70 to 90 percent) of LWD in a stream comes from within 50 feet of the stream.
The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel contains no LWD either on- or off -site. The channel is
located in a relatively urban environment and intercepted repeatedly by culverts, including
passage through the drainage system of the adjacent I-405 interchange to the east of the site. Any
large woody debris entering the system is removed once it works downstream and blocks a
culvert. So LWD recruitment has no practical potential in this drainage.
The Lake Washington shoreline contains an abundant supply of I" that has washed up over
the years. The logs come mainly from old timber log booms and escapement from milling
operations rather than recruitment from along the shoreline. However, the existing shoreline on
the property contains no trees large enough to provide LWD recruitment for scores of years.
Channel Mi rag_ tion
The Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel is highly confined by culverts upstream and downstream
of the property, and within a steeply sloped below -grade channel on -site. Channel migration is
not possible at this location.
Bank Stability
Roots from vegetation growing along the streambank help stabilize soils and reduce erosion.
Root strength benefits are normally low beyond 40 feet from the channel.
Ilk
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.0 KINDIG & CO.
Seahawvkr/09-20-06Lakes Stream Reportdoc Page 10
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, iVashin ton Stream and Lake Stud lMiti anon Plan
The existing steep banks adjacent to both sides of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage channel on the
property have poor bank stability because the channel is so far below grade, and are constantly
eroding. An old road near the top of bank along the channel contributes additional sediment.
The Lake Washington shoreline is slowly eroding due in part to the lack of stabilizing
vegetation. Other factors such as the changing lake levels (winter and summer) managed by the
Army Corps, boat wakes, and the relatively young shoreline (due to lowering of the Lake
Washington water level in 1917) also influence erosion rates.
Wildlife Habitat
The cleared and graded property provides little wildlife habitat though the area immediately
adjacent to Lake Washington has moderate value due in part to the proximity of the lake (see
Section 4.7). The lack of a mature native canopy limits nesting and foraging habitat for most
species.
4.6 Fish Use
Fish use of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage by resident salmonids is assumed. There is anecdotal
evidence of fish sightings by a City of Renton street maintenance crew (Larry Fisher, personal
communication, March 17, 1997). No use of the basin by anadromous salmonids is known to
occur and presumed use is unlikely because of the lack of suitable habitat on the property and
poor upstream passage conditions beneath the BNSF tracks and through the 1-405 interchange
and roadway stormwater systems to the east.
Lake Washington supports a variety of anadromous salmonids, including Chinook
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisuich), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and steelhead
(O. mykiss) and cutthroat trout (O. clarki). Runs of non-anadromous kokanee (O- nerka) salmon
are also present (King County, 1993). Lake Washington contains a wide variety of non-salmonid
species, some of which are considered "warm water" species_ These include both native and non-
native species such as speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), three -spine stickleback (Gasterosteus
aculeatus), northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), yellow perch (Perca Jlavescens),
black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolomietti), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), largescale sucker
(Catostomus macrocheilus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus ihaleichthys), and prickly sculpin (Coitus
aspen) among other species (Pfeifer and Weinheirner 1992, King County 1993, Wydoski and
Whitney, 1979).
4.7 Wildlife Use
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) were observed in both the vegetated and hardscape shoreline
areas. The geese were observed nesting along the vegetated shoreline and in the osprey (Pandion
haliaetus) nest located near the PSE substation nesting platform. Puget Sound Energy moved an
osprey nest from a retired distribution pole on the Baxter site to a new nest pole platform erected
on the south side of the substation in 1993. Puget Sound Energy also placed a crossbar on top of
the first transmission pole leading away from the station to provide a safe place for the birds to
_.: perch. The osprey successfully nested on the new platform from 1993 until 1997 when the
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO.
SeekuwkfF09-20-06 Lakef .Scream Repox.doc Page 11
11
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
osprey built a new nest at the top of the wood chip elevator located on the Barbee Mill site to the
south of the property. This nest was eliminated when the mill was torn down. Osprey are present
in the area from mid -March through August. Osprey have been observed hunting small mammals
(likely mice) on the North Baxter site as well as fishing the lake. Canada geese and bald eagles
(Haliaeetus leucophalus) have occasionally been observed perching on the nest platform during
the winter months. It is assumed the bald eagles used the perch site to forage for fish and
waterfowl along the lake shoreline. Three bald eagle nest sites have been historically reported
between 0.8 and 0.9 miles west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island (WDFW 2006). Two
of the nest sites are not [mown to have been used for the last several years. The third nest was
reported active in 2006.
Beaver (Castor- canadensis) have been observed in wetland habitat along the lake shoreline and
in Gypsy Subbasin Drainage east of the site. Pond sliders (Pseudemys scripta) have been
observed on floating logs. Red -winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) were observed using
cattail habitat in the project vicinity. Snipe (Capella gallinago) were observed in the cottonwood
sapling -dominated areas. Other species of passerine birds and amphibians could be supported
along the shoreline and the narrow red alder -dominated upland shoreline area. Numerous duck
species also use the offshore area adjacent to the site.
5.0 SHORELINE PLANTING/MITIGATION PLAN
Project actions that will affect aquatic features and adjacent shoreline vegetation include:
1) Filling of the on -site portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and elimination of
existing riparian vegetation on the open channel portion,
2) Lengthening of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert under the site,
3) Removal of structures and roadways on the site.
4) Capping of the site to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline pursuant to
Consent Decree requirements,
5) Alterations to vegetation along the Lake Washington shoreline area, and
6) Construction of stormwater sand filters, five stormwater outfalls to Lake Washington,
parking, fire lane, building, practice fields, and public access within the shoreline.
5.1 Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Mitigation
Consent Decree requirements that include capping of the site and filling of the open portion of
the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage are mitigation designed specifically to avoid human and habitat
contact with surface contaminants and will improve water quality by eliminating groundwater
contact in this area. This action will directly improve fish habitat in Lake Washington. No
additional mitigation for the loss of 125-feet of stream channel for water quality function is
warranted or proposed,
Lost riparian functions from removal of vegetation adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage
channel will be mitigated by new plantings near Lake Washington contiguous with the Baxter
Cove wetland protected riparian buffer. It is estimated that vegetation within approximately 15-
feet of the steep ditch in which the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is located currently provides some
functional value to the watercourse in terms of leaf litter and other organic material. To mitigate
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS: INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Seohawks/04-20-06 Lakes Stream Reporr.doc Page 12
a
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Miti ation Plan
Ea
for the loss of function of 0.09 acres of primarily exotic vegetation, approximately 0.21 acres of
area adjacent to the Baxter Cover wetland mitigation site located within the 200-foot Lake
Washington shoreline area will be planted with a high density tree and shrub cover. This area is
currently dominated by lower -value grasses and exotic vegetation.
While the culvert carrying Gypsy Subbasin Drainage is being lengthened, much of it is also
being enlarged (see Magnusson Klemencic Associates 2006 for details). Because there is a fish
passage barrier immediately upstream of the project site, the culvert does not currently function
as an upstream fish passage conduit. If the off -site barrier is removed in the future, the longer but
larger culvert under the project site is expected to provide the same or better fish passage
conditions as currently found on the property.
`' 5.2 Lake Washington Shoreline Planting
The Lake Washington shoreline planting plan (see Appendix 1, Sheet L100) is being developed
to enhance functions and values along the shoreline. Under existing conditions, approximately
1.23 acres of the area within ,00- eet of the Lake Washington shoreline is vegetated with
exotics, upland shrubs and trees (this excludes the 0.36 acres of Baxter Cove wetland and its
regulatory buffer). This area of coverage will be maintained or extended under the planting plan.
In addition, virtually all existing shrubs are non-native and will be removed and replaced with
native species. The area of tree canopy coverage, (0.82 acres under existing conditions) will also
be matched or exceeded under the planting plan.
The planting plan contains the following features important to improving habitat quality on the
site:
• Existing non-native and invasive vegetation will be removed from the entire site.
• Existing large trees 10 inches or larger in diameter at breast height (dbh) within 100-feet
of Lake Washington have been napped (see Appendix 1, Site Map, Sheet 1) and will be
preserved wherever possible consistent with site remediation and the land -use plan.
a An area located within 100-feet of Lake Washington will be replanted as needed to meet
or exceed existing vegetation coverage (approximately 1.23 acres) along the shoreline.
4 Tree canopy coverage within 100-feet of Lake Washington (approximately 0.82 acres)
will be matched or exceeded.
9 Planting soils will be amended if necessary to provide suitable growing conditions for
new plantings.
+ Plantings along the shoreline will consist of a multi -layered approach consisting of
groundcovers, forbs, shrubs, and tree canopy layers.
• Shoreline plantings will consist entirely of native species typically found adjacent to
lakes and streams within the Pacific Northwest. All plants will be selected to provide a
combination of moderate to high shoreline protection and wildlife function.
+ Landscaping plantings selected for the project will be dominated by native species that
provide moderate to high wildlife function-
• All plantings will be established at a density that can reasonably be expected to thrive
under the growing conditions present on the site and achieve the cover objectives within
5 to 10 years.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C- KINDIG & CO.
Seahawrkr/by-2Q-661.nkesStreamReport _doc Page 13
�Fi
L
U
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Slu M/Mi gation Alan
• Supplemental watering will be provided along the shoreline until plantings are well
established and can survive on their own.
Because of the high visibility of the project, all planting, both shoreline and landscaping,
will be maintained indefinitely. On -going maintenance will occur throughout the year.
Dead and dying plants will be replaced as needed. Non-native species will be removed by
hand. Some pruning of larger hardwood trees (rather than plant removal), particularly
lower branches, may occur to facilitate shrub and groundcover growth and provide lake
views from some portions of the Headquarters Building, while retaining tree canopy.
The shoreline zone planting will take place on a declining slope, some of which will be graded to
accommodate capping of the site, training fields, and building development upslope (see
Appendix 1, Sheet L100). A typical topsoil profile (whether existing in the non -graded area or
imported in the graded fill area) will be between 12 and 18 inches. Vegetation in shoreline area
will consist of native riparian species that will be selected from the list provided in Table 1,
Landscaping for the planting beds, parking lots, and perimeter screening will also be based
almost entirely on the use of high value native vegetation and will include many of the species
noted above.
5.3 Maintenance and Monitoring
Operations and maintenance practices for protection and maintenance of the Lake Washington
shoreline area is provided in Section 9 of this document. Monitoring is described in Section 11.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC and A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahowkr/99-20-06Lakes Sreeam Reporr.doc Page 14
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facifiry
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Miti anon Plan
ti Table 1
Plant species selected for Lake Washington shoreline.
Dry Zone (upland)
Herbaceous Species — hydroseeded
a. Deer Fern Plechnum spicant
b. Pearly Everlasting Anaphalis margaritacea
C. Trailing Snowberry Symphoricarpos mollis
d. Dewey's Sedge Carex deweyana
e. Thick-headed Sedge Carex pachystachya
Woody Shrubs — 5' O.C. in groups of 3 to 9
a.
Bald Hip Rose
Rosa gymnocarpa
b.
Evergreen Huckleberry
Vaccinium ovatum
C.
Low Oregon Grape
Mahonia nevind
d.
Mock Orange
Philadelphus lewisii
C.
Red -Flowering Currant
Ribes sanguineum
f.
Snowberry
Symphoricarpos albus
Trees — 12' O.C.
a.
Pacific Dogwood
Cornus nuttallii
b.
Douglas Fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii
.
C.
Madrona
Arbutus menziesii
d.
Big -leaf Maple
Acer macrophyllum
Wet
Zone (adjacent to the shoreline)
Herbaceous Species — hydroseeded
a.
Shortawn Foxtail
Alopecurus aequalis
b.
Water Foxmil
Alopecurus geniculatus
C.
Slough Sedge
Carex obnupta
d.
Sawbreak Sedge
Carex stipata
e-
Hardstem Bulrush
Scirpus acutus
f.
Small -fruited Bulrush
Seirpus microcarpus
g.
Slender Rush
Juncustenuis
h.
Spike Bent Grass
Agrostis exarata
Wooer Shrubs — 5' O.C. in groups of 3 to 9
a.
Black Gooseberry
Ribes lacustre
b-
Bog Laurel
Kalmia microphylla
e.
Bog Rosemary
Andromedapol folia
d.
Hardhack Spirea
Spiraea douglosii
e.
Red Osier Dogwood
Cornus stolonifera
Trees — 12' O.C.
a.
Red Alder
Alnus rubra
b.
Black Cottonwood
Populus trichocarpa
c.
Sitka Willow
Sala sitchensis
(adapted from the King County Native Plant Guide and the King County, Washington — Surface Water Design
Manual).
September 20, 2006 CEDA ROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahawks/04-?0-06 Lakes Slremn Repori.doe Page 15
Seahawks Corporate Headquariers and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
F�
I
6.0 RESOURCE AND FUNCTIONAL VALUES TO BE RESTORED,
CREATED, OR ENHANCED
Aquatic and wildlife habitat on the site consist of a Class 1 lake, a Class 2 stream, and associated
riparian zones. All three features have been heavily impacted by the long history of industrial
land use and associated contamination at the site. To avoid direct contact to humans and preserve
and protect water quality in the lake and stream, the approximately 125-foot remaining open
portion of the watercourse will be culverted so that the entire Class 2 watercourse will be
culverted through the site. No further enhancements are proposed to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage.
No stormwater from the developed site after capping will discharge to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage.
The Lake Washington shoreline riparian planting plan focuses on restoring habitat function to a
degraded area. Aquatic functions described in Section 4.5 are targeted for enhancement with the
primary purpose of improving nutrient contribution to fisheries resources in Lake Washington
and providing a higher quality wildlife habitat corridor along the shoreline. This will benefit
small wildlife species including birds, amphibians, rodents, and manvmis.
6.1 Habitat Improvement Opportunity
Key to the restoration value of the riparian planting plan is the existing degraded condition of the
Lake Washington shoreline (see description in Section 4.4). The project will not disturb or
remove any significant functional benefit of the shoreline as the existing condition provides
minimal value. The net change provided by the project along the shoreline will increase habitat
value for both fish and wildlife.
The City of Renton has designated the shoreline an Urban Environment. Urban Environments
have the objective of providing for water dependent uses, including human access, along water's
edge. Under the new City Shoreline Ordinance, protected riparian zones in Urban Environments
are a function of how the shoreline is used and can range from 0 to 100 feet in width.
The proposed action will match or exceed the total area of existing trees and shrubs within 100-
feet of water's edge and will create much higher habitat quality by removing exotic species and
replacing them with native plants. Because much of the shoreline area currently consists of
asphalt, bare dirt, and patches of exotic grass, development of various project features that will
occur within the shoreline area (practice fields, building, pavement) can be completed without
adversely affecting existing habitat quality.
6.2 Function and Value Comparison
This section provides a description of riparian functions and values to be provided under the
proposed project action and compares each function to the existing condition described in
Section 4.5- Function and value determinations are based on best available science as described
in A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. (2003).
Sepieniher 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A C. KINDICr & CO.
Seahawkr/0-2-06 Lakes SlreGn; Report doc Page 16
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
Water Quality
The Consent Decree remediation requirements will benefit water quality because capping and
development of the site will protect rainfall from conveying soil into Gypsy Subbasin Drainage
or Lake Washington.
li The project stormwater management approach is based on the 2005 King County Surface Water
Design Manual. Enhanced water quality treatment is proposed for site stormwater runoff
(Magnusson Klemancic Associates 2006). Six stormwater management treatments are proposed
to serve different developed portions of the site. The six treatment areas and systems consist of
the following:
Synthetic Turf Field and BuildingiRoof Areas (one system) - These areas are non -pollution
generating surfaces. Storrnwater runoff from the synthetic turf field and building roofs
will be drained to Lake Washington as direct discharge. Precipitation landing on the field
will drain vertically through sand and gravel to subdrains that will convey the stormwater
to a site storm drain system discharging to Lake Washington.
Natural Turf Fields (one system) - Similar to the synthetic turf field, precipitation that lands
on the natural turf fields will drain vertically through sand to subdrains. The natural turf
fields, with an 18-inch layer of sand, will function as a large sand filter. An Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) Plan will be prepared that describes turf management practices
for these practice fields. One -hundred percent of storm runoff from these fields will pass
through the underlying sand, which exceeds the 2005 King County Manual enhanced
treatment requirement for treatment of 95 percent of storm runoff.
Paved Parking and Driveways (four systems) - Stormwater runoff from paved parking and
driveway areas will be treated in four large sand filters. Three of the sand filters will be
covered with grass, which will intercept fines and provide pre-trcatment and to help
maintain the surface permeability of the filter as shown by research data (A.C. Kindig
1999). Pretreatment in the fourth large sand filter will be provided by an additional six
inch top layer of sand, which will be removed and replaced once or twice annually. The
large sand filters have been designed per the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual.
Overall, the net effect of remediation and development on the property will be improvement of
water quality in Lake Washington.
Food
The enhanced Lake Washington shoreline area is expected to provide significantly better nutrient
contribution than under existing conditions due primarily to the increased presence of native
species along the shoreline and the more diverse source of leaf litter and insect habitat this
provides. The existing 20-foot wide swath of Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom
interspersed with a relatively sparse native tree canopy layer provides little of the normal year-
round organic nutrient contribution or supply of small woody debris contributed by a native
species buffer. The insect population and benthic invertebrate community is different than native
fish evolved to require.- Because most organic material falls vertically or is carried a short
distance by wind, the region providing the greatest nutrient benefit to the aquatic environment is
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seohaw ka/4F-?0-ad Lakes 5lrea n Reporr,doc Page 17
T
Seahauwks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
.Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud Mitigation Plan
directly over and within 50-feet of a waterbody. Therefore, the enhanced shoreline area ranging
from between 20-feet to about 200-feet and averaging about 50-feet will provide an important
new nutrient source and will improve habitat quality along the lakeshore.
The loss of the narrow riparian buffer adjacent to the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage will slightly
reduce the amount of nutrients contributed by this drainage to Lake Washington. However, the
primarily exotic and relatively sparse nature of the buffer is not a significant source of material
and the loss will more than be made up by proposed planting adjacent to Lake Washington.
Microclimate
Microclimate is a big picture climate control issue extending for up to many hundreds of feet
from the lake. Neither the existing buffer nor the proposed buffer will have much effect on this
habitat variable.
Temperature and Shade
With large lakes such as Lake Washington, shade is not a significant variable influencing water
temperature. The proposed shoreline enhancements with some overhanging vegetation will
provide localized shading along the shoreline and should benefit temperatures in shallow areas
immediately adjacent to the shore, but the overall effect will be negligible.
Placing the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage into the culvert essentially provides 100 percent shading
for this creek though the difference in water temperature being delivered to Lake Washington
will be negligible.
Human Access Control
Urban Environment designated shoreline areas are intended to encourage human access to
water's edge, though in this case access will be controlled by walkways, fencing, and perhaps
some thorny native vegetation, rather than solely reliant on vegetation. The proposed shoreline
area will have little function in limiting human access control in this situation. This is
comparable to the existing condition where fencing rather than vegetation is used to limit access
along the shoreline -
Lame WoodDebris
Large woody debris contribution is not a significant function of riparian buffers in the urban
environment due to the liability of allowing large old trees to fall randomly near densely
populated areas. However, smaller woody debris can function as substrate for macro invertebrates
and as an organic nutrient source. Under the proposed enhanced shoreline area, both coniferous
and deciduous trees will be planted as future sources of organic debris- Neither of these benefits
would occur under the existing condition where the site is periodically graded.
Channel Mi ation
Channel migration zones are not associated with managed ditches and large managed Iakes as are
found on or adjacent to the property. The proposal will have no effect on channel migration.
Seplember 20, 2006 CEDAR OCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
SeahawWO9-20-06 Lykes slremt; ReporLdoc Page 18
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington _ Stream and Lake Study/tVitigatian Plan
Bank Stability
The immediate shoreline will remain relatively unchanged. With the types of plants proposed for
the enhanced shoreline area arrangement, and the relatively low energy lakeshore environment
(relative to flowing channels), root strength in the enhanced area is expected to provide good
protection of the shoreline from wind -induced waves and boat wakes. The proposal will have
little effect on bank stability -
Wildlife Habitat
I Wildlife habitat for most species will improve significantly under the proposed condition as the
relatively sparse and exotic shoreline vegetation is replaced with a diverse native planting
regime. Native plantings in a multi -story canopy provide a much higher wildlife habitat value
especially when they are planted in large contiguous. groupings and are associated with aquatic
habitat as is proposed in the southwest corner of the site. Native species provide superior
feeding, roosting, and nesting opportunities for birds. The resultant woody debris and
herbivorous ground cover is better for amphibians, reptiles, and small rodents. The loss of
riverine habitat associated with filling the 125-foot stretch of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage will
result in less habitat opportunity for species preferring moving water. But other than the beaver
that has established a small dam in this system, the rip -rap lined banks and exotic species
dominated shoreline does not provide good quality habitat. The proposed shoreline enhancement
area along Lake Washington will improve the overall quality of habitat for most wildlife_
Wetland
The only wetland on the project site is in the Baxter Cove area which will remain untouched
under the proposed development action. The buffer of the wetland will be altered to no less than
a 40 foot width, and averaging will be used to maintain an average buffer width of 50 feet as
allowed under the J.H. Baxter Property Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (Associated Earth
Sciences, Inc. 2000). Uplands contiguous with the protected wetland buffer will be planted with
high density tree and shrub habitat (see Appendix 1, Sheet L100).
6.3 Summary
Value for all habitat functions under the proposed development is expected to be equal to or
greater than under existing conditions. This is primarily due to the relatively sparse and non-
native dominated vegetation along the shoreline, and the low value of the remaining portion of
the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage currently existing on the property. The quality of vegetation will
increase greatly as native groundcovers, shrubs, and trees are planted and maintained-
7.0 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES
Ecology is the lead agency under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) for all cleanup
actions under the Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees between the State of Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Port Quendall Company dated April 2000. The SEPA
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 2000 for the capping and
institutional control remedial actions to be performed under the April 2000 Feasibility
Ilk Study/Cleanup Action Plan for the J.H. Baxter North Property and the April 2000 Cleanup
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Se4hawksI09-20-06 Lokes &reamn Report doc Page 19
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
Action Plan for the J.H. Baxter South Property as required by the Consent Decrees, The Consent
Decrees and Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plans require capping of the entire site to within
25 feet of the Lake 'Washington shoreline. An Engineering Design Report (EDR) for the North
Baxter property and an amended EDR for the South Baxter property are under preparation for
Ecology review and approval to implement the Feasibility Studies/Cleanup Action Plans_
Ecology's approval of the EDR will include its determination that substantive requirements of
state and local permits and approvals are met under the Consent Decrees, although
implementation of Consent Decree requirements procedurally exempts these permits and
approvals. These include a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and site grading, filling, utility trenching, and building approvals
from the City of Renton. A Notice of Intent to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for discharge of construction runoff and a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan for construction will be submitted to Ecology, however all stormwater runoff
during site construction will discharge to the sanitary sewer under a Sanitary Discharge Permit
from King County Industrial Waste as required by the Consent Decrees.
Discussions with the Army Corps began with a pre -application meeting on January 15, 1997 for
remediation of the combined Quendall and North and South Baxter properties. During
subsequent consultation, the Army Corps indicated they would decline jurisdiction over filling of
the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage. Consultation to confirm the Army Corps continues to decline
jurisdiction over Gypsy Subbasin Drainage alterations is being sought by the proponent. No
other actions require federal approval.
Ecology's approval of the EDR documents will procedurally exempt WDFW requirements for an
HPA. However, the applicant met with WDFW, Ecology, and the City of Renton on August 9,
2006 to discuss preliminary plans for fill of a 125 foot section of Gypsy Subbasin Drainage
pursuant to capping requirements of the Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plan, realigning the
culvert and providing for conveyance of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage flows through the
property at full buildout of the basin upstream of the North Baxter property, construction of new
stormwater outfalls to Lake Washington, and substantive mitigation requirements for the Gypsy
Subbasin Drainage fill_ It was agreed for the purposes of complying with WDFW's substantive
requirements that a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for the various
, improvements will be submitted as part of this Lakes and Streams Report for the City of Renton.
This Lakes and Streams Report is a requirement of the City of Renton under its Critical Areas
Ordinance for the development planned for the North and South Baxter properties. Renton must
issue a Shoreline Substantial Development permit, perform SEPA review, issue a Master Plan
approval, and issue other building permits for construction elements of the proposed Seahawks
Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility that are not requirements of the Consent Decrees
with Ecology. This Lakes and Streams Report is required to assess impacts and riparian
functions and values for alterations to the Lake Washington Shoreline, and includes functional
impacts and mitigation for the alteration to Gypsy Subbasin Drainage required by capping under
the Consent Decrees.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO-
Seahawks/D9-20-66Lakes SereajnReporf.doc Page 20
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Miti anon Plan
8.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction is expected to begin in November of 2006 with demolition of existing structures,
clearing and grubbing. Capping and grading will begin soon thereafter and be complete by June
2007. The new Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert will be constructed and placed into operation
during the fall/early winter of 2006 and the existing open portion of channel will be filled once
the new culvert is active. Building construction will begin in January 2007 and be complete by
July 2008.
9.0 SITE PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Riparian plantings in the shoreline enhancement area and throughout the site will be monitored
and maintained continuously after construction under a landscaping contract the project owner
will maintain. Maintenance will proceed consistent with Ecology restrictive covenants in place
after completion of cleanup activities under the Consent Decrees and will include replacement of
dead and dying plants, removal of exotic plant species, watering as necessary, and trash
collection. Riparian planting maintenance and monitoring will occur for 5 years after
construction, but ors -going maintenance will continue indefinitely as the site is maintained for the
new Seahawks headquarters.
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
The overall environmental goal for the Stream Mitigation/Riparian Planting Plan will be to
provide a viable riparian plant community adjacent to Lake Washington that increases habitat
functions and values for regional fish and wildlife. Specific functions are described in Section
4.0. More specific objectives include:
• Create 53,453 square feet of vegetated shoreline area consisting almost exclusively of
native plants.
0 Remove and control invasive and exotic plants from the site.
• Eliminate water contact with surface soils.
+ Additional important features for the riparian planting plan are listed in Section 5.2
Monitoring will be conducted for the purpose of ensuring the plant community as designed and
planted complies with these objectives. Monitoring and performance standards are described in
Section 11.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. K]NDIG & CO.
Seahawks109-20-06 Lakes Stream Reporr.doc Page 21
Seohawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake SlHgyl itigation Plan
11.0 MONITORING
The purposes of the habitat monitoring program are: (1) to ensure that design goals and
objectives along with applicable permit specifications are met; (2) to document physical and
biological characteristics of the newly planted riparian shoreline area, and (3) to ensure
consistency with Ecology restrictive covenants in place after the completion of cleanup activities
under the Consent Decrees.
The monitoring process will consist of three distinct phases: (1) construction monitoring; (2)
compliance monitoring; and (3) long-term monitoring. The following sections describe elements
of the monitoring program.
11.1 Sampling Methodology
Monitoring of shoreline vegetation will be conducted using the techniques and procedures
described below to quantify the survival, relative health and growth of plant material as well as
the successful creation of an area meeting goals described in Section 10. An annual monitoring
report submitted following each year of monitoring will describe and quantify the status of the
riparian planting at that time.
Construction Monitoring
Compliance success is increased with early and frequent coordination and communication
between the appropriate parties. Coordination meetings could include the fisheries biologist,
landscape architect,
, project engineers, regulatory agency representatives, and contractors.
A pre -construction meeting of personnel responsible for the design and those responsible for
establishment of the riparian planting and construction along the shoreline is recommended. The
purpose of the meeting will be to review the intent of the riparian planting plan, establish a
pathway of communication during construction, agree upon the construction sequence, and
address and resolve any questions.
The landscape architect and project biologists should be present on -site as necessary to review
project implementation. Duties will include: (1) assist in identifying and marking the limits of
clearing and grading, where applicable; (2) inspect the plant materials and recommend their final
placement before planting; (3) determine the correct type and application rate of amendments to
the soil, if needed; (4) make adjustments in planting plans, as needed, in response to field
conditions; (5) ensure that aquatic related construction activities are conducted per the approved
plan and permits; and (6) resolve problems that arise during restoration, thus lessening problems
that might occur later during the long-term monitoring phase.
Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring consists of evaluating work areas immediately after planting and
restoration work is completed along the shoreline. Objectives are to verify all design features
September 20, 2006 CEDAR OCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
SeahawkrlW 0-06Lakes SlreamRepori.doc Page 22
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mill atian Pfan
have been correctly and fully implemented, and that any changes made in the field are consistent
with the intent of the design.
Evaluation of the planting areas will be done by the landscape architect using evaluation
standards and criteria discussed below. After grading and planting of the shoreline area is
complete, a walk-through survey will be completed to ensure species selection, plant location,
and planting methods met all requirements of the landscape plan and any additional permitting
conditions. .
A quantitative assessment of the plants established in the shoreline area (including plant counts
and cover -abundance, as appropriate) will be recorded in representative sample plots for baseline
data. This information will be used to document "time -zero" conditions from which the long-
term monitoring period will begin. At each point, fixed-point photos will be taken during
monitoring visits to provide physical documentation of the condition of the riparian planting
areas. Photographs will be taken from all sample plot locations established during the first
monitoring site visit (compliance) and thereafter each visit of the monitoring period from the
established location points.
The compliance monitoring phase will conclude with preparation of a compliance report from
the landscape architect and project biologists. The report will verify that all design features have
been correctly, fully, and successfully incorporated- Substantive changes made in the planting
plans will be noted in the compliance report and on the drawings for use during the long-term
monitoring phase. Information on changes should include details describing what was done,
where, why, at whose request, and the result of the change. Locations of monitoring stations
established for the compliance monitoring will be identified on the as -built plans. The planting
plans, with the compliance report, will document "as -built" conditions at the time of construction
compliance. The compliance report and as -built drawings will be submitted to the City of Renton
and Ecology.
Lang -term Monitoring
Long-term monitoring will begin after acceptance of the compliance report by the City of Renton
and will be conducted for five growing seasons. Monitoring will evaluate establishment and
maintenance of plants in the shoreline area to determine if goals and objectives of the
mitigation/riparian planting plan have been met.
Monitoring will be conducted annually each year during the five-year monitoring period. A final
site check and summary report will be prepared in the fifth year of monitoring.
At each sample station, plant species will be identified, individual shrubs and trees counted
(where appropriate) to document survival, and an estimate of cover and abundance made using
commonly accepted methods. The plantings will be examined to document survival rate of each
species planted, signs of stress, damage, or disease as well as signs of vigor, and rates of
colonization by other plants. Special attention will be paid to species considered to be exotic or
invasive (e.g., reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom).
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahawks/09-30-06 lakes Swam Report, doe Page 23
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington i Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
All wildlife observed during the monitoring will be recorded, with notes made regarding habitat
use patterns and activities. Any evidence of breeding or nesting activities will be noted.
Monitoring reports will be prepared for submittal to the City of Renton and Ecology at the end of
each monitoring year- The monitoring report will document the changes occurring within the
mitigation/riparian planting areas and make recommendations for improving the degree of
success or correcting any problems noted during monitoring. Monitoring reports will document
W, how the riparian planting is meeting the goals and objectives of the plan.
11.2 Standards Of Success
Success standards for the Lake Washington riparian shoreline area are relatively simple and
straightforward due to the absence of complicated hydrologic regimes. Of primary concern is
ensuring the establishment and viability of a functional plant community dominated by native
species. As such, mitigation/riparian planting success will be determined if the following goals
are met;
a A total of 53,453 square feet of mitigation/riparian planting is present within 100-feet of
the Lake Washington shoreline and 9,005 square feet of mitigation planting is present
between 100 and 200 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline.
• Within the mitigation/riparian planting area there is ninety-five (95) percent survival after
Year 1, ninety (90) percent survival after Year 3, and eighty (80) percent survival for all
planted woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) at the end of Year 5.
• Within the mitigation/riparian area there is not more than 2 percent cover of non. -native
invasive species at the end of each year.
• No significant areas of erosion (defined as shoreline material loss of greater than one
cubic yard) will occur along the Lake Washington shoreline.
Volunteer native, non-invasive species will be included as acceptable components of the
mitigation if they are thriving at the end of Year 5.
EkL 12.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
If monitoring results indicate any performance standards are not being met, it may be necessary
to implement all or part of a contingency plan. Such plans are prepared on a case -by -case basis to
reflect failed mitigation characteristics. A contingency plan would be developed based on a
specific failure to meet success standards described in Section 11.2 of this plan. The contingency
plan could include recommendations for additional plant installation, erosion control,
modifications to the watering regime, and plant substitutions including type, size, and location,
consistent with Ecology restrictive covenants in place after the completion of cleanup activities
under the Consent Decrees. City and Ecology approval would be requested before
implementation of the plan.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A_C. KINDIG & CO.
SeuhawkY109-20-06 Lakes Stream Repon.doe Page 24
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facifiry
,Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Alan
Contingency/maintenance activities may include:
0 Replacing plants lost to vandalism, drought, or disease, as necessary.
• Replacing any plant species with a 20 percent or greater mortality rate with a similar
species approved by the City.
• Irrigating certain areas only as necessary during dry weather if plants appear to be too
dry, with a minimal quantity of water.
• Reseeding the shoreline riparian planting area with an approved grass mixture as
necessary if erosion/sedimentation occurs.
Removing all trash or undesirable debris from the wetland and planting areas as
necessary.
13.0 MITIGATIONIRIPARIAN PLANTING COST ESTIMATE
Table 2
Cost Estimate Worksheet'
Items
Trees
Units
134
Unit Cost
$50 ea
Totat
$6,700
Large shrubs
1,274
$30 ea
$38,211
Small shrubs
1,330
$17.50 ea
$23,275
Native grass
26,144
$1.25 sq.ft.
$32,680
Irrigation
52,289
$1 foot
$52,299
Fine grading
52,289
$0.25 sq.ft.
$13,072
Topsoil
1,292
$26 cu.yd
$33,592
Mobilization
1
$24,768 ea
$24,768
Landscape architect oversight
100
$100/hr
$10,000
Maintenance
5
$3,000 year
$15,000
Monitoring
5
$2,000 year
$10,000
Base Cost -
$259,587
30% Contingency -
$77,876
Total Cost -
$337,463
—'. — a�jj iJAA 41 U, Yiankin6 Psaii p1cpaAcu uy unYY.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A. C. KINDICr & CO.
Seahakks/09-20-06Lakes SereamRepan.doc Page 25
t
Seahowks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Penton, Washington _ Y W Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plant
14.0 COMPLIANCE WITH THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE
RMC 4-3-050 L(3)(c)(ii) provides criteria for approval of a Stream and Lake Mitigation/Riparian
Planting Plan. This section discusses how the conceptual plan meets those requirements.
14.1 Mitigation Location
Mitigation for all proposed environmental impacts will take place on -site as recommended as the
preferred mitigation location under the RMC.
14.2 Mitigation Type
Proposed mitigation/riparin planting consists of several of the preferred options under subsection
L3c(ii)(b). These include a net reduction in impervious surface from the Lake Washington
shoreline area, improving biological functions of the shoreline, increasing native planting along
the shoreline (which is a recommended watershed improvement), and improving water quality in
Lake Washington. There are no options to daylight streams or remove manmade salmonid
migration barriers within the project site, however, the larger culvert being provided under the
site may improve fish migration characteristics somewhat. As demonstrated in Section 6.2 of this
report, the riparian planting provides for equivalent or greater biological functions of the Lake
Washington shoreline.
14.3 Contiguous Corridors
All riparian planting has been located to preserve or achieve contiguous riparian and wildlife
corridors to the greatest extent practicable along the Lake Washington shoreline. All proposed
riparian planting consists of one contiguous habitat corridor along the shoreline.
14.4 Species
Non -Indigenous
g p cues ,
No non -indigenous plant, wildlife, or fish species shall be introduced. All species to be utilized
for riparian planting are native species selected to provide a combination of moderate to high
aquatic protection and wildlife function.
14.5 Equivalent or Greater Biological Functions
Existing and proposed ecological functions of on -site riparian habitat is discussed in Section. 6.2
of this report. Compliance with best available science is discussed in Section 15.0. The
evaluation of functions and values found a net gain in riparian habitat quality_
14.6 Minimum Mitigation/Riparian Planting Plan Performance Standards
RMC 4-3-050 F(S) contains additional mitigation requirements which the applicant must meet.
The applicant shall:
Demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, the supervisory ca abili and the financial
resources to caLry out the mitigation project. To this end the applicant has contracted with
EDAW Seattle to provide the riparian planting landscape design. The plan was reviewed for
functional benefit to the aquatic environment by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. Both firms have
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.0 )UNDIG & CO.
Seahv-,W09-20-06 Lnkes Stream Repore doe Page 26
I
r
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washin ton Stream and Lake Stud /Mill ation Plan
extensive experience designing, supervising construction, and monitoring results of riparian
planting projects. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix 4. The applicant,
Football Northwest, LLC, is a large established company with substantial financial resources.
Demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during the
monitoring period if the mitigation project fails to meet projected goals. Monitoring for this
project is relatively simple. No complicated wetland, hydrologic, or fish surveys are required -
Ali corrections will consist of replacement of dead and dying plants as necessary and
possible minor repairs to infrastructure (fences, signs, etc.) and the shoreline along Lake
Washington.
• Protect and manage, or provide for the protection and management, of the mitijaation area to
avoid further development or degradation and to provide for loniz-term persistence of the
mitigation area. The applicant is developing the project as their future headquarters and will
be located on -site. They have a vested interest in maintaining the vegetation in excellent
condition as it will be visible from the headquarters building and practice facilities.
• Provide for project monitoring and allow City inspections. The applicant will contract with a
consultant to monitor all the shoreline planted areas. City inspections will be allowed.
• Avoid mitigation proposals that would result in additional future mitigation or re lato
requirements for adjacent properties, unless it is a result of a code requirement, or no other
option is feasible or practical. The proposed riparian planting does not move the location of
any natural feature towards adjacent properties. Thus no off -site property owners will be
affected.
For on -site or off -site mitigation proposals, abutting or adjacent propeM owners shall be
notified when wetland creation or restoration stream relocation critical area buffer increases
flood hazard mitigation, habitat conservation mitigation, or geologic hazard mitigation have
the potential to considerably decrease the development potential of abutting or adjacent
,properties. For example, if a created wetland on a propeity would now result in a wetland
buffer intruding onto a neighboring ra a the neilzhboring prQPeT!Yowner would be
notified. The development potential of abutting or adjacent property owners will not be
affected in any way by the proposed shoreline planting plan for this project.
14.7 Based on Best Available Science
Compliance with best available science is described in Section 15.0.
September 20, 2006 CRDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A,C. KINDIG & CO.
8eahawkt/09-20-06 Lakes Srreanr Reportdoc Page 27
7
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lady/Mitigation Plan
15.0 COMPLIANCE WITH BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
15.1 Review of the Best Available Science Supporting the Proposed Request
Mitigation plantings proposed for the Lake Washington shoreline are both wider and better
vegetated than under existing conditions. Functions and values of both aquatic and upland
riparian habitat will be improved over existing conditions based on wider buffers, native species
plantings, and water quality improvements. A summary of proposed riparian functions in
comparison to existing riparian functions is provided in Table 3.
Riparian areas are generally recognized as having four major elements necessary to protect the
aquatic environment:
• Maintenance of stream baseflows;
• Maintenance of water quality;
• Contribution to in -stream structural diversity; and
• Contribution of biotic input including insects and organic matter.
Best Available Science (BAS) is unanimous in its recognition that wider riparian areas provide
increasing value to aquatic habitat (Pollock and Kennard 1998). Since the relationship between
riparian width and riparian function is exponential, the incremental functional benefits of
increasing riparian width decreases as buffers become wider. Under proposed conditions for
Lake Washington, the riparian planting area will range from a minimum of about 20 feet to a
maximum of about 200 feet (horizontal distance)_ Because the planted area will be wider than
under current conditions, and because species quality, quantity, and diversity along the shoreline
will be improved over existing conditions, the proposal is consistent with the RMC requirement
to utilize BAS to improve water quality, fish, and wildlife habitat. As described below using
BAS, the proposal will create a functional riparian corridor fully capable of protecting the major
habitat elements.
Baseflow
The proposed shoreline area will have no effect on baseflow because of the size of Lake
Washington and its position at the downstream end of the watershed. Water levels in Lake
Washington are not controlled within the immediate riparian zone of the lake.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and.4. C. KINDIG & CO]
Seakawks/09-20-06 Lakes Stream Reporc.doe Page 28
d
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
Table 3
Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions
Water Quality Low to
Moderate
Food Low
Microclimate Low to
Moderate
Temperature Low to
& Shade none
Human Low
Access
Large Woody Low
Debris
Channel Low
Migration
Bank Stability Low to
Moderate
Existing condition lacks
width, plant density, and plant
diversity. Lack of native
vegetation also a minus.
Sparse non-native vegetation
provides little beneficial leaf
litter and small organic
debris.
Existing shoreline area has
little effect on microclimate.
Not a significant issue for
large Class I waterbodies.
Lake Washington is a public
access area so access control
not a habitat function issue
Site periodically cleared so
unlikely to have any
significant future LWD
contribution_
Controlled lake level and no
surface channels on -site. No
potential for channel
migration
Exotic species dominated
shoreline. Banks partially
protected by large logs.
Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species
Habitat dominated riparian vegetation
of relatively low value as
bird, amphibian, reptile, and
rodent habitat.
Aaapiea rrorn: AA-, Mndig & Uo and Ledarock Consultants, Inc. 2003.
Future development is not
dependant on riparian
function for water quality
because it employs the
2005 King County Surface
Water Design Manual, so
width for water quality
treatment is not required.
Native vegetation is a plus
Vegetation optimized with
a diverse mix of native
species. High habitat value
near lake.
Proposed shoreline area
will have little effect on
microclimate.
Not a significant issue for
large Class 1 waterbodies.
Lake Washington is a
public access area so access
control not a habitat
function issue
Planting that will contribute
some minor woody debris
in the future.
Controlled lake level and
no surface channels on -site.
No potential for channel
migration
Root strength increased
with native shrubs and
trees. Banks partially
protected by large logs.
Native plantings in a dense
multi -story contiguous
canopy will provide high
wildlife habitat value.
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Proijosed action
will have higher
value
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Pro osed action
will have higher
value
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Proposed action
will have higher
value
Proposed action
will have highest
value
September 20, 2006 CEDRROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A,C. KINDIG & CO(
Seahaw&109-20-06 Lakes Streorr: Page age 27
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and TrainingFacility
Factl'
Renton, Washington- Stream and Lake Stud /anti ation Plan
Water Quality
Water quality as it relates to aquatic habitat consists of various components including chemistry
(pH, D.Q., metals, etc.) and temperature (the beneficial dissolved and particulate organic
nutrients that are also a component of water quality are discussed in the Biotic Input section).
Water Chemistry
Riparian widths ranging from 30 to 100 feet are described in the literature as satisfactory for
removing the majority of sediment and pollutants from surface water (summarized in Knutson
and Naef 1997). However, under the current conditions, on -site natural pathways to the stream
are largely absent due to the flat nature of the site and the isolated steely banked below -grade
channel. Under the proposal, the site will continue to avoid discharge to Gypsy Subbasin
Drainage because the hydrologic flow path through the site will be a piped drainage systems that
will bypass the riparian area and convey offsite discharge directly to Lake Washington. For Lake
Washington, sheet flow drainage that occurred in the past will be intercepted and treated as
required by the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual before discharge at outfalls
constructed to Lake Washington. Much of the natural riparian functions for hydrologic and water
quality functions (peak flow attenuation, base flow releases, and water quality treatment) will be
removed from riparian area control by the storm drain system. Storm water detention and water
quality treatment requirements are regulated for new development and redevelopment within the
City without reliance on riparian buffer function. The proposed riparian zones will provide
equivalent water chemistry protection as existing riparian areas, and remediation including site
capping and fill of the remaining portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage will result in overall
water quality improvements.
Temperature and Shade
Stream riparian zones provide shade and absorb solar radiation that would otherwise reach
streams and increase water temperatures- For these reasons, shade provided by riparian zones can
be important to maintaining water temperatures that are favorable for salmonids. However,
research on the effects of shade on stream water temperatures shows a considerable amount of
variability based on topographic elevation, adjacent land uses, vegetation type, and numerous
other factors (Pollack. and Kennard 1998). Sullivan et al. (1990) concluded that once streams
traveled 25 miles from their watershed divides, they were generally too wide for trees to shade
their surfaces or exercise control over water temperature. This is particularly true in large, deep
lakes like Lake Washington. The proposed shoreline area will provide equivalent water
temperature protection as the existing riparian zone.
Instream Structural Diversity
In -stream structural diversity is provided by large pieces of wood falling into the waterbody.
Large woody debris (LWD) consists of downed tree sterns and branches and is a functionally
important structural component of stream channels and lakes in the Pacific Northwest (Bisson et
at. 1987, Beschta et al. 1987, Sullivan et al. 1987, Bilby and Ward 1991, Fetherston et al, 1995,
Naiman and Beechie 1992).
September 20, 2006 CEDA ROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. and A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahawkr/69-20-o6 Lakes Stream Report -dos Page 30
Seahavvks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Miti ation Plan
The existing riparian zone contains no trees that would potentially contribute LWD to the lake, in
part because the site is periodically cleared. Under the proposed shoreline area, conifers capable
of reaching the size necessary to function as LWD will eventually grow to maturity and senesce.
Some of these trees will fall into Lake Washington and increase structural diversity.
To help protect the shoreline from erosion, the applicant has proposed adding a few pieces of
LWD to the shoreline. This will contribute to LWD accumulation in the area and provide some
immediate benefit. The proposed shoreline area will improve habitat quality provided by LWD
over existing conditions.
Biotic Input
Vegetation and insects falling into the creek form an important component of the aquatic
ecosystem food chain, especially in smaller stream channels. The majority of material comes
from directly over, or within a very short distance of the stream. FEMAT (1993) suggests most
leaf material is contributed by trees located within approximately 50 feet of the channel edge.
Under existing conditions there is very little biotic input to the creek. Vegetation is generally
sparse and non-native. With the proposed future riparian shoreline area being wider, more
diverse, and consisting almost entirely of native species, the contribution of vegetative litter and
insect population abundance should increase significantly. The proposed shoreline area will
increase biotic input over existing conditions.
Noise and Visual Disturbance
Riparian zones protect sensitive areas from direct human impact by limiting easy access to the
stream and by blocking the transmittal of human and mechanical noise. Riparian zones provide
visual separation between streams and the developed environment, blocking glare and human
movement from fish species (Young 1989). Riparian zones function most effectively when the
adjacent land use consists of low intensity development; when riparian areas were greater than
50 feet wide, and planted with high quality mixed species of native vegetation that discourage
intrusion (Cooke 1992). Other authors recommend controlled human activity within riparian
zones, such as restricting human disturbance to footpaths, or roadway crossings within 25 feet of
the stream, and allowing active recreation and bike paths within 25 to 50 feet of the stream
(Schueler 1995),
However, the City of Renton has designated the portion of Lake Washington in which the project
is located as an Urban Environment under its Shoreline Master program where human
recreational activities are to be encouraged. Therefore, the shoreline area is not being designed to
function as a division between the lake environment and controlled human use. The proposed
shoreline area will provide equivalent disturbance protection as existing riparian areas.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC- and A.C. KTVDIG & CO.
Seahax-ks/04.20-06 Lakes Stream Reporf.doc Page 31
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Trainee Facility
tj,
Renton, Washix ton Stream and Lake Stud /Miti atiox Plan
F
15.2 Report Authors Experience
The applicant has contracted with EDAW to provide riparian planting design and with A.C.
Kindig & Co., which included Cedarock Consultants in the biological analysis for the project.
These firms have extensive experience with riparian planting design, construction supervision,
and long term project success monitoring. Resumes of key personnel are provided in Appendix
4.
15.3 Analysis of the Likelihood of Success of the Compensation Project
The proposed mitigation/riparian planting project is relatively straightforward and will benefit
from having the applicant situate their headquarters on the site_ The development is a high profile
project expected to receive extensive and ongoing media coverage. With the Seahawk's
headquarters on -site and the playing fields and players lounge immediately adjacent to the
mitigation/riparian planting area, it is in the applicant's best interest to provide long term
maintenance of the riparian plantings beyond what might normally be provided for a similar
project where the site is sold and the developer leaves.
There are no fish habitat or high quality wetlands involved in the riparian planting project.
Riparian planting consists primarily of planting native species in good quality riparian soils. The
area is watered naturally throughout most of the year and supplemental watering will be provided
as necessary. Upland plants will be selected that have adapted to the normal Pacific Northwest
wet winter and dry summer seasons_
The mitigation/riparian planting site will be monitored for five years to ensure plant species
selected and utilized for the project are thriving. Those that are not in satisfactory condition
during this period will be replaced_ After five years, all healthy plants are expected to continue
growing without additional maintenance. However, maintenance will continue as needed to
remove debris and replace dead specimens, and manage understory branches of selected
hardwood trees.
Overall, the likelihood of success for the riparian planting project is considered to be high.
16.0 VEGETATION PROTECTION
16.1 Design Considerations
The Consent Decrees and Feasibility Study/Cleanup Action Plans require capping of the North
and South Baxter properties to within 25 feet of the Lake Washington shoreline, This will
necessitate removal of all existing vegetation under the capped area. The site was last cleared in
1990, so existing vegetation consists predominately of grass, shrubs, and young trees. The largest
existing trees consist of 8 to 10-inch diameter cottonwood which are found within 25-fect of the
shoreline, These trees will for the most part be preserved except where slopes necessary for
grading will bury the rootballs.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS. INC. and R.C. KJNDIG & CO.
Seuhawkr/0g-?0 06 Lakes Stream Repo,e.dac Page 32
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington _ Stream and Lake Study/Mitigation Plan
16.2 Significant Tree Protection during Construction
As noted previously, all existing trees will be removed from the site as necessary for capping
except those found within approximately 15 to 25-feet of the shoreline. Within this area,
Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom form dense thickets which have to be removed to
accommodate conversion to a native landscape under the shoreline riparian planting plan.
The following measures will be implemented during construction to protect significant trees
found along the shoreline while all other vegetation is removed.-
• All significant trees on the project site within 100 feet of the shoreline will be identified
and located (see Appendix 1, Site Map (Sheet 1), for 10 inch and larger trees).
• prior to clearing, all trees to be retained shall be flagged.
• Prior to grading and throughout construction, a temporary plastic net fence shall be used
to identify the protected area of any significant tree designed for retention. The height of
such fencing shall be adjusted according to the topographic and vegetative conditions of
the site to provide clear visual delineation of the protected area. The size of the protected
area around the tree shall be equal to one foot diameter for each inch of tree trunk
diameter measured four feet above the ground_
• At no time during construction shall the following be permitted within the significant tree
protection area: (a) impervious surfaces, fill, excavation, or storage of construction
materials; (b) grade level changes, except in limited circumstances where proposed
improvements are determined by an arborist to be non -detrimental to the tree root
systems.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS INC. and A.C. MDIG & CO.
SeohawW09-20-06 Lakes Stream Repoador Page 33
,Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud lMR anon Plan
17.0 REFERENCES
A.C. Kindig 1999. Sand Filter Turf Cover Testing, in Chapter 5, MountainStar Master Planned
Resort EIS Water Quality and Fisheries (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), June 30, 1999.
A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. Best available science literature review
and stream buffer recommendations. Consultant report prepared for the City of Renton.
February 27, 2003.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 2000. An Addendum to the Quendall and Baxter Properties
Mitigation Analysis Memorandum dated February 17, 2000. J.H. Baxter Propety
Mitigation Analysis Memorandum. October 2, 2000.
Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.W., Holtby, L.B., and T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream
temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In Salo, E.0 and
T.W. Cundy [eds.] Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions.
University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington, 47lp.
Bilby, R.E. and J. W. Ward. 1991- Characteristics and function of large woody debris in streams
draining old growth, clear-cut, and second growth forests of southwestern Washington.
Can. J. of Fish. Aquat. Sci., 48:1-10.
Bisson, P.A. Bilby, R.E. Bryant, M.D- Dolloff, C.A., Grette, G.B., House, R.A. Murphy, M.L.,
Koski, K.V. and J.R. Sedell. 1987, p. 87-94- In Salo, E.0 and T.W. Cundy [eds.]
Strearnside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington,
College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 471p.
Cooke, S.S. 1992. Wetland buffers -a field evaluation of buffer effectiveness in Puget Sound.
Pentec Environmental, Inc. Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands
and Coastal Zone Management Program, Olympia Washington.
Entranco. 1995. Gypsy Subbasin Analysis. Technical Memorandum No. 2. City of Renton. April
1995.
Entranco. 1997. Gypsy Subbasin Drainage Improvements Design Memorandum. City of Renton,
September 1997.
Federal Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) 1993. Aquatic ecosystem
assessment, Volume 5,
Fetherston, K.L., R.J. Naiman, and R.E. Bilby. 1995. Large woody debris, physical process, and
riparian forest development in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest.
Geomorphology 13:133-144,
King County, 1993. Sammamish River corridor conditions and enhancement opportunities. King
County Surface Water Management, Seattle, WA. 54 p. plus appendices.
Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef 1997- Management recommendations for Washington's priority
habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181p,
September 20, 2006 C'EDAROC-K CONSULTANTS, INC. and R.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seahnwksl09-20-06 Lakes Stream Repari.doc Page 34
I
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud lMiti ation Plan
} IN
Magnusson Klemancic Associates, 2006. Stormwater Technical Information. Seahawks
Headquarters and Training Facility Renton, Washington. August 24, 2006,
Naiman, R.J., T-J- Beechie, et al. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy
watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. Pages 127-188 In R.J. Naiman,
editor. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change.
Spring er-Vcrlag, New York. pp. 127-188.
Pfeifer, B. and J. We'inheimer. 1992. Fisheries investigations of Lakes Washington and
Sammamish, 1980-1990. VI Warmwater fish in Lakes Washington and Sammamish
(draft report). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Pollock, M. and P.M. Kennard. 1998. A low -risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed
to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State:
Version 1.1. 10,000 Years Institute: Bainbridge Island, Washington.
Schueler, Y. 1995. Site planning for urban stream protection, Washington D.C., Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments and the Center for Watershed Protection.
Sullivan, K. J. Tooley, K. Doughty, J.E. Caldwell, P- Knudsen. 1990. Evaluation of prediction
models and characterization of stream temperature regimes in Washington.
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Report TFW-WQ3-90-006, Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, Washington.
Sullivan, K., Lisle, T.E., Dolloff, C.A., Grant, G.E. and L.M. Reid. 1987. Stream channels: The
link between forests and fishes, p. 143-190. In Salo, E.0 and T.W. Cundy [eds.]
Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington,
College of Forest Resources, Seattle, Washington. 471p.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2006- Priority habitats and species
database search (T24N, R05E, S29). August 18, 2006. Olympia, Washington,
Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishes of Washington. University of Washington
Press, Seattle, WA. 220 p.
Young, M.J. 1989. Buffer delineation method for urban palustrine wetlands in the Puget Sound
Region. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, 1NC. and A. C. KINDIG & CO.
SeahawksI09-2o-56Lakes Sheam Report doc Page 35
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters & Training Facility ��uR� 9 2
Preliminary Shoreline & Gypsy Creek Vegetation Zone (100') Calculations
EDAW, Inc.
August 29, 2006
SHORELINE ZONE COVER
Approximately 142,000 sf in 100' zone (including existing wetland and wetland buffer'.
Existing Conditions
SQ. FT.
Currently Proposed Conditions
SO. FT.
Diff.
Wetland
21.638
Welland
21,638
0
Wetland Buffer (existing restoration planting)
6,555
Wetland Buffer (existing restoration planting)
6,555
0
Riparian Tree- Shrub Cover
35.664
High Density Riparian Planting (native tree & shrut))
42,919
7,255
Riparian Shrub Cover Only (primarily invasive)
21.177
Low Density Riparian Planting (native shrubs & grasses)
10,534
-10,643
Grass (native and non-native)
35.364
Field Turf & Grasspave
30,984
-4,380
Landscape Planter (native plants)
0
Landscape Planter (native plants)
4.211
4,211
Building
2,129
Building
6,159
4,030
Pavement
26,148
Pavement
18,188
-7,960
Sand Filter
0
Sand Filter
7,612
7,612
TOTAL
148,675
TOTAL
146,800
Notes: 1. Overlap of tree canopy and pavement or water cause total to equal more
than the approx. 142.000sf butter area.
2. 10.074 sf of high density riparian planting is
proposed at SW comer of
Site adjacent to wetland buffer (within 200' of shoreline).
GYPSY CREEK COVER
Approximately 24,000 sf in 100' zone (on either side of 120' long stream segment
Existing Conditions SQ. FT
Riparian Tree+ Shrub Cover
14,403
Riparian Shrub Cover Only (primarily invasive)
2,156
Grass (native and non-native)
6.831
Landscape Planter (native plants)
0
Building
0
PavemenVgravel
610
Currently Proposed Conditions
SQ. FT.
Diff.
High Density Riparian Planting (native tree & shrub)
0
-14,403
Law Density Riparian Planting (native shrubs & grasses)
0
-2.156
Field Turf & Grasspave
0
-6,831
Landscape Planter (native plants)
6.796
6,796
Building
963
963
Pavement
16,241
15,631
TOTAL 24,000 TOTAL 24,000
k
ill
F. 4
F. 4
i i
. �.
A t
= hit
� A ;V
<<
►".
it
1
,
• - ' PsMhis A
s r'-
�q{,
,
�•—T i5 .�
.. � fa
J�
Eon
E?.-a
UN
13
Out
co
oil
I 4crro III,; i .11n,
ti
MI
R OD
E Sl MEINT-4lT ?RC NSTRUCTION =�
5eahawks Practice Facilityl l;I�'
FOOTB&L NORTHMST LLC
A.C. Kindig & Co.
ENV I�KON MTAL CCNSL�LT ING
SEAHAWKS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Emm
,..
and TRAINING FACILITY
TURF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN
(IPM)
Prepared for:
Football Northwest LLC
505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Prepared by
A.C. Kindig & Co.
12501 Bellevue -Redmond Road, Suite 110
Bellevue, Washington 98005
425-638-0358
Fax: 425-455-8365
September 20, 2006
Project No. 283
EXHIBIT
8
' f Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMJ
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1
2.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT.................................................................................2
2.1 Components and Strategy.................................................................................................2
2.2 Turf Seeding Species and Varieties..................................................................................3
2.3 Turf Fertilization...............................................................................................................3
2.4 Turfgrass Pest Control Under IPM...................................................................................6
3.0 PRACTICE FIELD STAFF....................................................................................................15
4.0 MAINTENANCE/OPERATIONS CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT.....................................15
4.1 State Requirements for On -Site Chemical Storage and Chemical Handling..................15
4.2 State Requirements for Maintenance Area Drainage Control........................................19
5.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................20
LIST OF TABLES
Table I Typical maintenance fertilization program....................................................................... 4
Table 2 Summary of pest control measures................................................................................... 7
Table 3 Pest Tolerance Thresholds................................................................................................ 8
Table 4 Pesticide application rates and intervals.........................................................................10
Table 5 Pesticide chemical characteristics summary...................................................................12
APPENDIX A
Pesticide Assessments
Chipco 260T
Heritage
Primo Maxx
Prograss
September 20, 2006 R.C. XINDIG & CO.
Page i
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turflntegrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
AND TRAINING FACILITY
TURF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN (IPM)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This IPM addresses management techniques and anticipated chemical uses on the Seahawks
Headquarters turf practice fields. While the management of the practice fields is described
according to current plans, modification of the management techniques described in this IPM
should be anticipated to address site -specific turf needs that develop, new and perhaps superior
turf management chemicals that may be developed and approved for turf use in Washington
State, or new IPM approaches as they develop. Seahawks turf management will allow for the
use of new or alternative products that are shown to be more effective, exhibit greater target
specificity, are less mobile, and/or can otherwise reduce environmental risk in the future.
Management techniques covered by this IPM include the following practices:
• Turf Practice Field Management Techniques
• IPM Strategy and Chemicals
• Maintenance Chemical Use, Storage, and Disposal
• Accidental Spill and Response
An IPM program is key to modern turf sports field durability and maintenance and for achieving
environmental objectives. IPM focuses on the use of best management practices (BMPs) to
create healthy and disease -resistant sports field turf by use of durable and disease resistant turf
species and varieties, physical control of drainage and light, adaptive fertilization and watering
regimes, and cultural control of soils. Healthy turf minimizes disease which reduces the use of
fungicides and herbicides when proper application methods, judicious chemical selection, and
proper irrigation methods are employed (Petrovic 1995). In addition, pest damage threshold
levels are established under IPM, and chemical treatment occurs on an as -needed basis, if at all,
for weed or insect pests as a backup control treatment only cultural controls fail to prevent their
outbreaks. Fungus diseases are more ubiquitous and form the exception, requiring routine
seasonal prevention treatment to prevent outbreaks that would increase need for higher curative
fungicide doses and could render the sports fields unsuitable for the stress of Seahawks practice
requirements.
Pest damage levels and comparison to response thresholds will be determined through on -site
monitoring of the turf by the practice field manager and staff.
September 10 2006 A.C. UNDIG & CO.
Page 1
-x
r
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turflntegrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
2.0 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
2.1 Components and Strategy
Chapter 17.15.010 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) defines IPM as "a coordinated
action process that uses the most appropriate pest control methods and strategy in an
environmentally and economically sound manner to meet... programmatic pest management
objectives. " IPM is achieved through the use of combined and balanced strategies of cultural,
biological, physical or mechanical, chemical, and other control technologies (King County 1993;
King County 1999). IPM turf management'strategies stress turf disease resistance, turf health,
pest tolerance limits, and alternatives to pesticides to minimize their use. For example, the
Seahawks IPM seeks to control all insect pests by cultural methods; no insecticides are expected
to be necessary. Likewise, IPM is designed to be flexible by including adaptive modifications to
optimize turf health and disease resistance while reducing impacts to the surrounding
environment. Healthy turf is less susceptible to disease and pests, and in the long-term, requires
less fertilizer and pesticide treatment. By its nature, IPM avoids and/or minimizes off -site
transport of pesticides and fertilizers.
The following approach and steps define the IPM process that will be employed at the Seahawks
Headquarters and Practice Fields (Washington State University [WSU] 1980; Berndt 1992; King
County 1999; Chapter 17.15.10 RCW):
(1) Information Gathering: Regional pests expected to require management on the
practice fields have been, to the extent possible, identified and anticipated in this
IPM. Pests include insects, plants, and plant pathogens, including fungi, bacteria,
viruses, and nematodes.
(2) Monitoring: The practice field manager will assess the type, timing, and extent of
any observed pest problems on a near -daily basis. These observations will
indicate when and what pest control measures are required given pre -defined pest
tolerance levels.
(3) ]determine Economic Injury and Action Thresholds: The relationship between
pest populations, the amount of damage, and the cost effectiveness of various pest
control options have been assessed by the practice field manager to establish pest
tolerance thresholds below which treatment is not initiated. Cultural, physical or
mechanical practices will be employed in preference to chemical control measures
to the extent practicable. Chemical controls will be used when they are
determined by the practice field manager to be the most environmentally
responsible control method, the safest method to address the pest problem, and
where other control tactics cannot be relied upon to meet pest tolerance levels.
September 20, 2006
:4_C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 2
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Wanagement Plan (IPM
(4) Record Keeping: Records describing the process and methods employed to
address pest problems are kept by the practice field manager.
(5) Treatment Evaluation Evaluations of the strategies employed and their
effectiveness in controlling pest problems are part of adaptive management by the
practice field manager.
2.2 Turf Seeding Species and Varieties
Turf varieties were selected based on their growth habit, vigor, disease resistance, and resistance
to weed encroachment. The practice fields Will be comprised on three varieties (80%) Kentucky
Bluegrass and three varieties (20%) of Perennial Rye. All the varieties selected have been shown
to be resistant to fungus diseases (primarily using Leaf Spot as an indicator for resistance), and
for superior shear strength to be durable to the turf stresses from Seahawks practice. Use of this
turf blend will give resilient turf, reducing weeds and turf diseases needing treatment, and
minimizing fertilizer losses from the actively growing root zone.
2.3 Turf Fertilization
During fertilizer applications, field maintenance personnel will adhere to all applicable
Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) and Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
The three main nutrients in turf fertilizer are phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen. The potential
for adverse impacts to water quality from the delivery of phosphorus and nitrogen to Lake
Washington has been considered by the practice field manager. This concern is mitigated by
IPM as a source control measure, and by increasing sand depth under the practice fields to 18
inches to equal sand filter treatment for water quality for 100% of the turf drainage. This level of
water quality treatment will be superior to that usually employed for phosphorus -sensitive lakes
(Lake Washington is not determined to be phosphorus sensitive) and for sensitive fish habitat
under the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual approved by the Washington State
Department of Ecology as ensuring compliance with state surface water quality standards under
WAC 173-201A. The fertilization program includes nutrients and trace minerals (Table 1) to
maximize turf health and vigor to minimize pesticide need. Off -site nutrient transport will be
avoided through reliance on granular slow release fertilizer for most applications, application
rates and application frequencies, and through course irrigation and drainage control. Trace
minerals and organics will be used to ensure the turf have all requirements necessary to make use
of the fertilizer nutrients during the growing season, which minimizes nutrient loss from the turf
rooted zone. From time to time, soil chemistry analysis may be conducted by the practice field
manager to determine turf growth requirements if warranted.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 3
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IP"
Table 1
Typical Maintenance Fertilization Program
Product
Soluble % or
Slow Release %
Application
Month
Nitrogen (N)
Ibsl1 000 ft'ly ear
Phosphorus (P)
Ibsl1 000 ft2l ear
Potassium (K)
lbsll 000 Wl ear
% Liquid
% Granular
Fertilizer
100%
Slow —100%
March
1.0
0.25
1.0
April
1.0
0.25
1.0
May
1.0
0.25
1.0
June
1.0
0.25
1.0
July
1.0
0.25
1.0
August
1.0
0.25
1.0
September
1.0
0.25
1.0
October
1.0
0.25
1.0
Roots 1-2-3
100%
Soluble — 100%
Every 28 days
March through
December
Trace minerals and organics' at 5.87 oz11,000 ft2
Speedy Green
100%
Soluble— 100%
° °
Soluble nitrogen (15/%), iron (6%), and magnesium (0.5/ in
natural organic acid chelate solution at 5.87 oz11,000 ft
liquid humics, seaweed extracts, iron, manganese, zinc, magnesium phosphate -citrate, organic surfactant
September 20, 2006 A4 C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 4
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
Nitrogen M
Turfgrass requires nitrogen in the largest amount in terms of physiological functioning relative to
other essential nutrients with the exception of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (Beard 1973).
Nitrogen is required for plant tissue growth, enzyme production, and carbohydrate utilization,
and is also an essential component of chlorophyll, amino acids, proteins, and protoplasm (Brady
1984). Nitrogen occurs naturally in soils in four major forms: organic nitrogen, ammonium
nitrate (NI 4NO3), soluble inorganic ammonium, and nitrate compounds (NO-3). Surface soils
are mostly comprised of nitrogen sources associated with the decomposition of organic matter.
Some clays have the ability to fix nitrogen between their layers.
There are many types of synthetic inorganic and organic nitrogen fertilizers that have slow
release forms. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become
completely liberated and available for turf utilization. Several types of slow release nitrogen
include: urea formaldehyde, isobutylidene diurea (IBDU), sulfur -coated urea, and mixtures
using natural organic sources.
Nitrate -nitrogen added to soils, either naturally by plants and animals or by fertilizers, may
follow four pathways (Brady 1984):
(1) incorporation into microorganisms;
(2) assimilation into higher plants;
(3) loss to subsurface drainage (ground water); or
(4) escape to the atmosphere in gaseous form.
The rate and frequency of fertilizer application and the type of applied fertilizer are significant
factors that affect the potential for applied nitrogen losses from turf and are therefore adjusted to
minimize water quality impact (Cohen et al. 1990). Fertilization guidelines will be followed as
described in this IPM, thereby allowing for the proper allocation in the amount, distribution, and
timing of nitrogen fertilizers to maximize nitrogen utilization by the course turf and, therefore,
minimizing the potential for runoff into the drainage system.
Phosphorus 4
Phosphorus is an essential macronutrient found in all living cells (Beard 1973). Phosphorus is
involved in many physiological functions within turfgrass including-
(1) energy transformations in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP);
(2) incorporation into the genetic material of the cell nucleus; and
(3) carbohydrate transformations, such as the conversion of starch to sugar.
The probability of phosphorus escaping from the practice field soils and environs is low because
of the chemical characteristics of phosphorus and the irrigation system controls to prevent
overwatering. Phosphorus is readily mineralized and immobilized (attracted and adsorbed by
ionic reactions with cations) by iron, aluminum, and calcium which naturally exist in sand that
September 20, 2006 R.C. KIIVDIG & CO.
Page 5
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turflntegrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
will be placed to 18-inch depth under the practice fields. Plant available phosphorus will only be
applied in amounts necessary to provide adequate nutrient levels for optimal turf growth.
Overfertilization and overwatering are contributing factors to phosphorus leaching and will be
avoided through IPM.
Potassium M
Potassium is essential for normal turfgrass growth and development processes (Beard 1473).
Physiological functions of potassium within turfgrass include-
(1) carbohydrate synthesis and translocation;
(2) amino acid and protein synthesis;
(3) regulating transpiration;
(4) controlling the uptake of certain nutrients; and
(5) regulating transpiration.
A common form of potassium in fertilizers is potash (K7CO3), which is soluble and readily
available to turf. Different forms of potassium fertilizer include: potassium chloride (KCI);
potassium sulfate K2SO4potassium magnesium sulfate; manure salts(mainly KCl kainit
(mainly KCl); and potassium nitrate (KNO3).
The application of potassium fertilizers has little probability of locally altering water quality. In
its available form, potassium is not prone to leach from soils. Most potassium fertilizers do not
alter soil pH and are held in the soil by cation exchange processes. Once in the soil, potassium
(K) replaces other soil elements such as calcium. (Ca) and hydrogen (H). There are abundant
anion binding sites in soils for the single charge cations such as Ca , K+, and H+. While K+
additions would compete with Ca and W for binding sites, there is no reasonable expectation
that this displacement would alter soil chemistry away from the immediate point of application.
2.4 Turfgrass Pest Control Under IPM
r
Overview
Turfgrass pests and diseases requiring control on the Seahawks practice fields are identified in
Table 2, as are the management methods (i.e. cultural, physical/mechanical, biological, etc.) that
will be employed to minimize chemical control methods. Turfgrass pests and diseases not listed
in Table 2 are either not expected to occur, or not expected to require chemical control measures
on the practice fields.
September 20 2006 p A.C. KIND1G & CO.
Page 6
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
Table 2
Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields
Physical I
Disease or Pest
Cultural Control
Mechanical
Chemical Control
Control
Turfgrass Control
Primo Maxx
Turf growth suppressant
Overseeding with
(Trinexapac-ethyl)
and Annual Bluegrass
desirable
during growing
Poa annua control
turfgrass;'
Promote vigorous
season
Prograss
turf root growth to
(ethofumesate) for
with soil nutrient
curative post -
Weeds
and irrigation
emergence control
Annual Bluegrass
control, to out-
of annual
compete Poa
bluegrass in fail
annua,
and in spring if
warranted.
Fungus Diseases
Brown Patch
(Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight)
Corticum Red Thread
(Laefisaria fuciformis)
Dollar Spot
(Lanzfa spp. And
Moellerodiscus spp.)
Fusarium Blight
Chipco 26GT
(Fusarium spp.)
(Iprodione)
Fusarium Patch
Good air
as preventative
(Microduchium nivale)
Gray Snow Mold
y
Promote vigorous
circulation;
method of control
(Typhula spp.)
turf root growth t0
e;
Good drainage;
fail and spring
Helminthosporium
with soil nutrient
Avoid shading;
(Dreschlera spp.)
and irrigation
Avoid irrigating in
Necrotic Ring Spot
late afternoon;
(Leptosphaeria korrae)
control, to out-
Limit thatch;
Pink Snow Mold
compete weeds.
Maintain soil pH
(Fusairum nivale)
<7
Rust
Puccinia coronata
Fungus Diseases
Brown Patch
(Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight)
Heritage
Fusarium Patch
(azoxystrobin)
(Microduchium nivale)
as preventative
Rust
method of control
(Puccinia coronata).
in fall and winter
Take -all Patch
Gaeumannom es raminis
September 20, 2006 AC. KINDIG & CD.
Page 7
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turflntegrated Pest Management Plan (IA"
Table 3
Pest Tolerance Thresholds
Pest
Tolerance Threshold
Fungus Diseases
Zero tolerance
Broadleaf Weeds
Five weeds per 1,000 ft
No pesticide management proposed
Annual Bluegrass
One square foot patches
Insects
No pesticide management proposed
Turf pest or disease tolerance thresholds are established by this IPM plan to determine when
curative action is warranted, which may require chemical management (Table 3). With the
exception of fungus diseases, pests are not managed for total eradication at all times.
Under IPM, cultural control methods (Table 2), in combination with disease and pest tolerance
thresholds (Table 3), take priority over chemical control methods to minimize the use of
chemicals to manage turfgrass weeds. No chemical control is proposed for insects or broadleaf
weeds. Cultural methods include all management activities that prevent pests from developing
due to the enhancement of desirable vegetation which out -competes or otherwise resists pests
and disease, including but not limited to irrigation, seeding, and fertilizing. Periodic soil testing
as warranted, addition of soil amendments (i.e., trace minerals) as indicated, and fertilization at
rates that match turf growth requirements are cultural methods whereby the practice field
manager will provide for vigorous turf root growth and disease resistance.
Vigorous root growth allows turf to crowd out broadleaf weeds and self -repair damage from
common turf pests such as European cranefly (Tipula paludosa). Avoidance of phosphorus and
potassiurn deficiencies can prevent or minimize the occurrence of take -all patch
(Gaeumannomyces graminis) fungus disease. Irrigation control and avoidance of overwatering,
as well as control of the irrigation timing, are other means used by the practice field manager to
prevent excessive soil and grass moisture conditions that can otherwise lead to fungus diseases,
leaching of nutrients from the rooted zone, and invasion of annual bluegrass (Poa annua).
Physical, mechanical, or management methods are also used to control pests. For example,
avoiding aerifier holes during the annual period of egg laying by armyworm (Pseudaletia
unipuncta) or black cuMorm (Agrotis ipsilon) moths prevents the females from depositing their
eggs in the turf rooted zone. Taking this precaution eliminates any need for further control of
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 8
r
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMj
these pests to prevent turf damage that would interfere with practice field resilience and use.
Even allowance for good air circulation through surrounding plantings can help minimize
conditions leading to fungus disease, which is one reason some understory trimming (but not of
the canopy) of native trees along the Lake Washington shoreline is proposed.
Chemical Control of Turfgrass Diseases and Weeds
Despite the emphasis on cultural and physical/mechanical control practices and pest tolerance
thresholds, annual bluegrass that cannot be hand eradicated and diseases are expected to occur on
the practice fields, which will require the use of pesticides. A list of pesticides that will be used
on the practice fields is provided in Table -4, indicating application rates and preventative or
curative strategies employed for each. Preventative applications are those made over the entire
., practice fields to prevent a disease from occurring. Curative applications are spot -applied only
with hand pressure sprayers to diseased areas (fungus) or to broadleaf weeds that cannot be hand
pulled because they re -sprout from roots left behind or are too high in number to otherwise
control due to invasion by offsite seed stock. This pesticide list may change over time as new
chemical products with lower toxicity, greater specificity, less persistence, or less mobility
r become available.
L. .111- The pesticides that will be used were selected using the following hierarchy:
1. Can cultural controls or alternative control methods be expected to adequately
control any diseases or pests without pesticides?
a. YES for insects; No insecticides proposed.
b. YES for rodents and burrowing animals; No rodenticides proposed.
c. YES for most weeds; No broadleaf pesticides proposed.
d. NO for annual bluegrass (Poa annua).
e. NO for fungus diseases.
2. What are the fungus diseases and weed pests expected for the practice fields?
a. These are identified in Table 2.
b. Tolerance thresholds are identified in Table 3.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 9
"••�wR I� OSC`?'.=7n hR'�� w'w•.+T+ M1e".=.^'�nl? � efs�..,�m :. �-n''R •..� .-,� r'-..- `;� 5,•5.";'_ ., '�s', .i'µbibji�
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
Table 4
Pesticide Application Rates and Intervals
Product
Category
Application Rate
Application Season &
Curative o r 3
Comments
Frequency_....Preventative
4.0 fl. oz./1,000 fe
Fall through Spring;
Preventative applications
Chipco 26GT
Fungicide
Not more than 35ofl. oz.11000 ft31 yr
Once per 2 to 3 weeks for
Preventative
when conditions favor
S applications per year
preventative control
disease development
Spring and fall; Two
Used in rotation with other
Heritage
Fungicide
0.4 fl. oz./1,000 ff
applications 28 days apart (4
Preventative
fungicides to prevent
applications total)
disease resistance
Herbicide
Through the growing season
Enhances establishment of
desirable grasses by
Prima Maxx
(growth
0.25 fl, oz./1,000 ftz
(March to October); about
Curative
suowre
ppression of Poa annua
inhibitor)
once every 4 weeks
Fall; 2-3 applications at 21-
Post -emergence control of
Prograss
Herbicide
1.5 fl. oz./1,000 fe
28 day intervals;
One spring application if
Curative
Poa annua (annual
needed
bluegrass)
'Curative use means spot applicatons (hand sprayers) after disease or weed problem is detected.
3 Preventative use means application to practice fields to prevent diseases when conditions arc prone to their occurrence.
September 20, 2006 A.C. J IMDIG & CO.
Page 10
s�
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
c. The need to treat in advance of a disease known to readily occur, or the ability
to only respond with curative treatments to diseased areas after the disease
occurs is identified in Table 4.
3. For those pests expected to occur and requiring pesticides to adequately control,
what are the appropriate pesticides?
a. Only Washington State and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approved management chemicals for specific diseases or weeds on turf are
legal to use.
b. Among the products legal for a specific disease or weed and for turf
application, products with the lowest persistence, lowest mobility, and lowest
toxicity to non -target, off -site species such as fish, other aquatic species, birds,
and bees were preferred for any specific disease or weed problem (Table 5).
i. Lowest mobility is generally ranked with the most importance if all
other factors are near equal between choices, because if the product
stays where applied, longer persistence is not a problem and toxicity is
not a problem. Indeed, longer persistence plus low mobility would
mean that a small amount of product will have a lasting intended effect
on the turf disease.
ii. In some cases, depending on season of expected use (low rainfall
periods), low persistence can similarly offset higher mobility,
particularly if the aquatic toxicity is very low.
iii. For preventative chemicals with broadscale application, low mobility,
and/or very low aquatic toxicity were always important criteria.
iv. For curative chemicals with spot application only to diseased areas or
weeds, moderate to low toxicity was sought in combination with either
low to moderate persistence or low to moderate mobility, to the extent
possible. See also the discussions and references provided for each
proposed product in Appendix A.
V. For fungus diseases, rotational use of two or more fungicides is usually
required to prevent or respond to disease resistance to any one
treatment.
September 20, 2006
A. C. KI 'DIG & CO.
Page I I
111w�► c+ I !o-vo� 6reaQ�R
ri
Seattle Seahcrwks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
Table 6
Pesticide Chemical Characteristics Summary
Pesticide
Product/Active
Category
EPA Registration
Mobility
Persistence 4
Movement
Toxicity
Ingredient
No
Ratio
Chi co 26GT
Fungicide
432-888
Low
Short-lived
Low
Slight
Heritage
Fungicide
10182408
Low
Short-lived
Low6
High
azox strobin
Primo Maxx
Turf Growth
100-937
High
Very short to short-
nla
Slight
Trinexa ac-eth 1
Su ressant
lived
Prograss
Herbicide for
(ethofurnesate)
Poa annua
45639-00062
High
Moderately short-lived
Moderate
Slight
control
4 Ranking criteria from King County (1993)
5 Ranking criteria from Vogue et al. (1994); derived from Groundwater Ubiquity Score (GUS) relating pesticide persistence (half-life) and soil sorption
coefficients (Kos). GUS = togljhalf-life} x (4-Iag,QK.).
Koc data not available for GUS computation, however EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet reports "..field dissipation studies indicate... moderately immobile and
relatively non persistent under actual use conditions. "
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 12
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPA)
Fungus -Diseases
The diseases listed in Table 2 are common fungi on Pacific Northwest turf that are expected to
require chemical control. There are no effective alternatives to fungicide control for these
diseases once they take hold, although careful turf culture will increase turf resistance. If
allowed to occur, small patches of fungus disease on the practice fields would be spread by the
heavy practice foot traffic and by mowers to all areas of the fields. Because of the intense use of
these fields and the need for the turf to stand up to considerable stress from football practice,
V fungus disease that weakens the turf mustbe avoided and there is zero tolerance for their
occurrence. On the rare occasions when fungus infestations are not readily identifiable by the
practice field manager, samples will be setit to Washington State University's Puyallup turf
extension service for analysis. Laboratory results are usually available within 48 to 72 hours to
guide control measures on the fields. The fungus disease chemicals proposed for preventative
use on the practice fields are listed and evaluated in Appendix A. The list of fungicides may
r change over time as new products become available that meet the environmental objectives of
the Lake Washington setting and the practice fields.
�Yeeds
Cultural controls or manual removal are expected to be sufficient to control broadleaf weeds. If
threshold levels for broadleaf weeds are exceeded and cultural/hand control measures are not
. effective, use of broadleaf pesticides may need to be considered; however experience with the
practice fields in Kirkland indicates this is very unlikely, Over time, annual bluegrass is
expected to invade the practice fields from off -site seed stock sources. Because this annual
turfgrass species lacks the resistance characteristics necessary for practice field durability but
would tend to dominate the turf over time, it will be controlled by curative treatments to kill new
seedlings in the fall and if warranted spring, and by use of a turf growth suppressant to impede
the ability of annual bluegrass that does establish each year to dominate the desirable turf species
and varieties.
Insects
The European cranefly is the most common Pacific Northwest turf pest (OSU 2006b). The
European cranefly larvae feed on grass roots during warmer periods from fall to spring, causing
the turf to brown and die. Cultural control measures (Table 2) are expected to control insects
below tolerance thresholds (Table 3), and consequently no insecticide use is proposed.
Manufacturer application guidelines and directions will be adhered to during all pesticide
applications, and all pesticides will be applied by Washington State licensed applicators. See
Table 4 for summaries of the pesticides that would be used. See Appendix A for detailed
September 202 , DO C. 6 A.KLIVDIG & CO.
ptem
Page 13
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
2 urf Integrated Pest Management Plan (lPM)
environmental assessments based on the best available science for each pesticide. Weather
forecasts will be used when undertaking any pesticide applications.
Sprayers and spreaders would be used according to application rates, intervals, and seasonal
applications guidelines noted in Table 4 and Appendix A.
Sprayers
Two common forms of sprayers exist, tractor -drawn or mounted, and hand sprayers. Tractor -
drawn sprayers are only used for large area applications. Maintenance personnel will adhere to
all applicable WISHA and OSHA regulations during all management chemical applications.
Tractor -drawn or mounted sprayers have a series of down -aimed nozzles that spray directly onto
the turf. Tractor -drawn or mounted spray equipment use will only occur on non -windy days to
prevent wind -throw off of the turf.
Hand Pressured Sprayers
Two types of hand pressure sprayers may be used. backpack or hand carried. Hand sprayers are
used for curative spot treatments. Due to their target site specificity, application of management
chemicals via hand sprayers allow for controlled pesticide applications regardless of wind
conditions.
Spreaders
Spreaders are generally used for application of fertilizers and seed. Tractor units and/or smaller
walking spreaders or truckster mounted spreaders may be used.
Identification of Chemical Hazards to Staff and Public
Pesticide and fertilizer container labeling will be in accordance with Chapter 16-201-170
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Chapter 16-229-180 WAC. Persons applying
management chemicals will comply with use regulations described in Chapter lb 228-185 WAC.
The practice field manager will keep appropriate chemical information on file for inspection
(Chapter 16-228-190 WAC).
Cleanup of all spraying equipment will adhere to Washington State Department of Agriculture
(WSDA) regulations. Tanks of spray equipment and spreaders will be filled with water three
times and sprayed over the turf after pesticide application (Chapter 16-201-190 WAG; Chapter
16-229-400 WAC), before being returned to the wash drain pad. Only as much pesticide as will
September 20, 2006 -- A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 14
Seattle Seahawkr Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM
be used in a single application would be placed in the application equipment. Should excess
mixed pesticide occur, the surplus will be immediately collected for reuse (Chapter 16-201-230
WAC; Chapter 16-229-250 WAC), or if not reusable, will be disposed of in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Hazardous Waste Management
Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the Water Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW), and
King County Code 9.12 (see also the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual BMP
discussion in Section 6.3).
3.0 PRACTICE FIELD STAFF
A qualified turf manager selected by the Seahawks will be responsible for implementation of this
IPM. The manager's background may include education or experience in turfgrass management
current with industry standards and science, certification(s) in pesticide application, and
awareness of pertinent environmental issues and concerns related to turf management. The
practice field manager will be responsible for training permanent and/or seasonal assistants in the
pest management strategies and specific maintenance standards implemented under the IPM
program.
All persons who apply pesticides will be licensed per requirements of the Washington Pesticide
Control Act (RCW 15.58), Washington Pesticide Application Action (RCW 17.21) and
regulations in 16.201 WAC and 16.228 WAC. Such licensing does not apply to grounds
maintenance staff using only general use pesticides on an occasional basis not amounting to a
regular occupation. Pesticide applicators must undergo 40 hours of continuing education every 5
years to maintain licensing. Applications of products in Appendix A would be the job of
licensed applicators.
4.0 MAINTENANCE/OPERATIONS CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT
A permanent operations structure for storage of course equipment and management chemicals
will be constructed in accordance with all applicable state and local requirements.
4.1 State Requirements for On -Site Chemical Storage and Chemical Handling; Secondary
Containment of Management Chemicals
Spill Prevention
Turfgrass management chemicals will be stored in a maintenance building in accordance with
WSDA's Rules Relating to Secondary and Operational Area Containment for Bulk Pesticide
(Chapter 16-229 WAC) and fertilizer Bulk Storage and Operation Area Containment (Chapter
16 201 WAC). A separate area roofed will be used for the mixing and loading of management
chemicals. The area used for such operations, at a minimum, will be a roofed area adjoining the
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 15
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPAI)
chemical storage facility. Spill prevention measures will be employed to prevent environmental
and human health risks through inappropriate use of management chemicals or accidental spills.
Key elements in spill prevention for the maintenance building include the following:
Fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers will be stored in a maintenance
building designed to prevent the release of chemicals (Chapter 16-201-020 WAC;
Chapter 16-229-020 WAC). The floor of the building will be lined to prevent
leakage and sloped to a liquid -tight collection point or sump that allows easy
removal of spilled or deposited material (Chapter 16-201-030 WAC; Chapter 16-
229-040 WAC). The facility will also be constructed with a watertight ceiling
and walls that prevent chemicals leaking from the building (Chapter 16-201-028
WAC; Chapter 16-229-030 WAC).
• Within the secondary storage facility, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and
fertilizers will be secured in storage containers resistant to corrosion, puncture, or
cracking (Chapter 16-201-100 WAC; Chapter 16-229-100 WAC). The storage
containers will be labeled (Chapter 16-201-170 WAC; Chapter 16-229-180
WAC) and ventilated (Chapter 16-229-160 WAC) in accordance with state
regulations.
+ Within the storage facility, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers will
be stored in their original containers with labels intact. Copies of the product
labels and MSDS will be inserted in a logbook.
The maintenance building will not have discharge outlets or valves (Chapter 16-
201-050 WAC; Chapter 16-229-060 WAC). Fungicide, herbicide, insecticide,
and fertilizer mixing will be completed in a site constructed to contain 125
percent the capacity of the largest storage container. The mixing/loading site will
use concrete curbs or other means for spill containment (Chapter 16-201-190
WAC; Chapter 16-229-210 WAC). The floor of the mixing/loading site will be
constructed of concrete or other material with similar permeability. The floor will
be sloped to a liquid -tight collection point or sump that allows spilled or deposited
material to be easily recovered (Chapter 16-201-190 WAC; Chapter 16-229-210
WAC).
• Discharges of fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers occurring within
the maintenance building will be immediately recovered (Chapter 16-201-080
WAC; Chapter 16-229-090 WAC) and reused per product label if possible, or
otherwise disposed in an approved off -site location consistent with the Hazardous
Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the Water Pollution Control
Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW).
September 20, 2006
A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 16
N
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
• No other commodity except pesticides (including fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides), pesticide .rinsate, or recovered pesticide discharges will be stored
within the pesticide secondary containment facility (Chapter 16-229-070 WAC).
The pesticide secondary containment facility may share an impermeable wall or
portion of a wall with the fertilizer secondary containment facility. Fertilizer
rinsate will be stored in the fertilizer secondary containment facility.
• All management chemical storage areas will be secured by a locked door to
provide reasonable protection against vandalism or unauthorized access (Chapter
16 201-160 WAC; Chapter 16-229-170 WAC).
• Precise records of chemical applications will be maintained on Form AGR 4253
as required by the WSDA.
• Pesticides will be applied according to regulations specified in Chapter 17.21
RCW, Washington Pesticide Application Act and Rules Relating to General
Pesticide Use (Chapter 16-228-190 WAC).
• Fungicide, herbicide, and insecticide mixing and application will be performed
according to the manufacturer's instructions and under the direct supervision of a
licensed applicator.
• Cleaning and maintenance of chemical application equipment that comes in direct
contact with any pesticide or fertilizer will be performed in a site constructed to
contain 125 percent the capacity of the largest storage container. The site will use
concrete curbs for rinsate containment (Chapter 16-201-190 WAC; Chapter 16-
229 210 WAC). The equipment wash pad located adjacent to the maintenance
building will be roofed and drain to the sanitary sewer, not the stormwater system.
A spill response plan will be activated for spills or leaks of management chemicals that occur
despite prevention measures listed above. This plan would comply with applicable federal, state
(Chapter 16-201-260 WAC; Chapter 16-229-280 WAC), and city laws. Major provisions of the
proposed accidental spill response plan are the following:
Accidental Spill Response Procedure
The following items must be in place and an inventory of these items posted in the
chemical storage area:
(1) Telephone numbers for emergency assistance, including the City of
Renton law enforcement and fire departments.
September 20, 2006
A.C. KLNDIG & CO.
Page 17
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest ,Management Plan (JP*
(2) Sturdy gloves, footwear, and apron that are chemical resistant to most
pesticides, such as foil -laminate gear and protective eyewear.
(3) An appropriate respirator, if any of the spilled materials require such
during handling activities or for spill cleanup (reference MSDS on file for
tt'.' each product used).
(4) Containment "snakes", or booms, to confine the leak or spill to a small
area.
(5) Absorbent materials, such a spill pillows, absorbent clay, dry peat moss, or
sawdust to soak up liquid spills.
(b) Seeping compound to keep dry spills from drifting or wafting during
cleanup.
(7) A shovel, broom, and dustpan made from nonsparking and nonreactive
material.
(8) Heavy-duty detergent.
(9) A fire extinguisher rated for all fire types.
(10) Any other spill cleanup items specified on the labels of any products used.
(11) A sturdy plastic container with a tightly closing lid that will hold the
quantity of spilled material from the largest pesticide container being
handled.
Spill Responding
Employees will be required to have proficiency in spill response procedures.
W, (1) Reporting the Spill
As soon as possible after a spill has been identified, the practice field
manager will be notified and have responsibility for reporting all spills to
the list of responsible parties, the city Emergency Agency responsible for
rapid response, and Ecology's Hazardous Substance Information Office.
The following will be reported:
(a) Name and phone number of reporting party
September 20 2006 A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 18
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPH)
(b) Time and location of spill
(c) Identity and quantity of material released
(d) Status of cleanup and containment.
(2) Controlling the Spill
On -site responders will: (a) protect themselves with appropriate
protective clothing and eyewear; (b) stop the source of the spill; (c) protect
others by warning them of the spill; and (d) stay at the site until the spill is
cleaned up.
(3) Containing the Spill
On -site responders shall: (a) confine the spill as quickly as possible; (b)
protect water sources and water resources; (c) absorb liquids with
absorbent material; and (d) cover dry materials to prevent them from
becoming airborne or solubilized.
(4) Cleaning up the Spill
On -site responders shall: (a) cleanup the spill; (b) decontaminate the spill
site; (c) neutralize the spill site; (d) decontaminate equipment; and (e)
decontaminate themselves.
4.2 State Requirements for Maintenance Area Drainage Control
A large capacity, curbed concrete basin will be used for pesticide and fertilizer mixing and be
sloped to drain to a sump system to prevent management chemicals and rinsate from escaping
the area if a spill occurs. Spill response measures and supplies will be defined and available
(Chapter 16-201-260 WAG; Chapter 16-229-450 WAC). Any sump contents will be recovered
by manually activated pumps (Chapter 16-229-400 WAC) and properly reused, or if reuse is not
possible, disposed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not
limited to the Hazardous Waste Management Act (Chapter 70.105 RCW) and the Water
Pollution Control Act (Chapter 90.48 RCW).
Fueling and equipment maintenance areas will be constructed so that outside drainage will be
excluded from entering such areas. Fuel storage tank(s) will meet all design, maintenance, and
inspection provisions required by Ecology (Chapter 173-360 WAC). An approximately 250-
gallon tank of biodiesel with an electric pump for field tractors and vehicles will be located in the
maintenance area, along with an approximately 100-gallon gasoline tank and pump for
equipment field vehicles. Activities in the equipment garage will include routine equipment
maintenance, which may include the changing of oil, brake fluid, batteries, and
antifreeze/coolant, and motor or undercarriage cleaning. Closed sump drainage will be provided
September 20, 2006 .4.C. KI,'VfJIG & CO.
Page 19
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
and any sump contents will be pumped out manually and disposed in an approved off -site
location.
Washing the exteriors of sprayers, mowers, and paint machines will occur in a roofed bay with a
concrete floor, draining to the sanitary sewer. Sprayers will undergo three rinses over the turf
before washing in the roofed bay. This equipment will not be washed outside of the wash bay.
Wastewater from the wash -down bay will not discharge into stormwater drainage facilities.
5.0 REFERENCES
Personal Communications
Heintzelman, D. 1998. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. Personal communication with Jennifer
Goldsmith (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), July 1, 1998.
Ortego, L. 1998. Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company. Personal communication with Jennifer
Goldsmith (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), July 7, 1998.
Shultz, M. 1998. Zeneca Ag Company. Personal communication with Jennifer Goldsmith
(Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.), August 18, 1998.
References Cited
Abrams, R. 1991. Toxic fairways: risking ground water contamination from pesticides on Long
Island golf courses. New York Environmental Protection Bureau, New York State
Department of Law, July 1991.
Balogh, J.C. and W.J. Walker. 1992. Golf course management and construction: environmental
issues. Lewis Publishers, 951 pp,
Beard, J.B. 1973. Turfgrass: science and culture. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Berndt, W.W. 1992, A best management practices development manual, turfgrass maintenance
section. Prepared for Beak Consultants Incorporated, September lb, 1992.
Brady, N.C. 1984. The nature and property of soils, 7th edition. MacMillan Press, New York,
New York.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 20
Seattle Seahawkr Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turflntegrated Pest Management .Plan (IPM)
Cohen, S.Z., S. Nickerson, R. Maxey, A. Dupay, and J.A. Senita. 1990. A groundwater
monitoring study for pesticides and nitrates associated with golf courses on Cape Cod.
Groundwater Monitoring Review 10:160-173.
Federal Register. July 10, 2000A. 65(132): 42472.
Gustafson, D.I. 1989. Groundwater ubiquity score: a simple method for assessing pesticide
leachability. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8:339-357.
Horsley, S. and J.A. Moser. 1990. Monitoring ground water for pesticides at a golf course — a
case study on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Groundwater Management Research, Winter
1990.
King County. 1993. Best management practices for golf course development and operation.
Prepared by the King County Environmental Division. Bellevue, Washington.
King County. 1999. Tri-County integrated pest and vegetation management: Guidelines.
http://www.metroke.gov/hazwaste/ipm/ipmguide.htm.
Oregon State University. 1996. EXTOXNET Extension toxicology network pesticide
information profiles.
Oregon State University OSU). 2006a. Pacific Northwest plant disease management handbook.
Extension Service.
Oregon State University (OSU). 2006b. Pacific Northwest weed control handbook. Extension
Service.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 15.58 RCW. Washington pesticide control act.
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 17.15 RCW. Integrated pest management.
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 17.21 RCW. Washington pesticide application
act. Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 70.105 RCW. Hazardous waste management.
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.
Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Chapter 90.48 RCW. Water pollution control.
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.
September 202006 A.C. KfNDIG & CO.
Page 21
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
Sygenta. 2000. Material Safety Data Sheet and Label for Primo Maxx. EPA Reg. No. 100-937.
Sygenta. 2006. Material Safety Data Sheet and Label for Heritage Fungicide. EPA Reg. No.
100-1093.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Pesticide fact sheet for Heritage
fungicide. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
Vogue, P.A., E.A. Kerle, and J.J. Jenkins. 1994. Extension properties database. Oregon State
University.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 16-201 WAC. Fertilizer bulk storage and
operational areas containment rules. Washington State Department of Agriculture,
Olympia, Washington.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 16-228 WAC. Pesticide Regulations.
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Olympia, Washington.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 16-229 WAC. Secondary and operational
area containment for bulk pesticide. Washington State Department of Agriculture,
. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Chapter 173-360 WAC. Underground storage tank
regulations. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Washington State University (WSU). 1980. Revised 1991. Concepts of integrated pest
management: Extension Bulletin 0753. Cooperative Extension. College of Agriculture.
Watershed Company, The. 1993. Fish habitat assessment and anticipated fisheries -related
impacts of the proposed Blakely Ridge master plan development. Prepared for
Blackhawk/Port Blakely Communities.
Wauchope, R.D., T.M. Buttler, A.G. Hornsby, P.W.M. Augustijn-Beckers, and J.P. Burt. 1992.
The SCS/ARSICES pesticide properties database for environmental decision -making.
Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 123:1-171.
.
September 20 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
F
Page 22
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
TurfTntegrated Pest Management Plana (Y"
APPENDIX A
PESTICIDE ASSESSMENTS
September 20. 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT — Chi eo 26GT
Cate or . Fungicide. Active ingredient is Iprodione (23.3%)
Application Target Preventative foliar treatment fungicide recommended for the control of a
large number of fungus diseases on turf.
Label Recommended Application Frequency Chipco 26GT should be applied when conditions
favor disease development, or when the disease is first noted. Applications are recommended at
label instructed rates as long as required.
Label Recommended Application Rate: Application rate is dependent on the fungus disease. The
application rate varies between 3 and 8 A oz per 1,000 fly. See the label application rates for the
fungus disease to be targeted. Do not apply more than 35 fl. oz per 1,000 f� per year or more
than 6 applications per year.
R Mobili Using the ground water ubiquity score (GUS) method of Gustafson (1989), Iprodione
has a "low" pesticide movement rating (Vogue et al. 1994). The GUS score includes soil half
life, water solubility, and sorption coefficients as factors, and has correlated well with monitoring
data once point sources of contamination are ruled out. Other investigators, the U.S. EPA and
the USDA Soil Conservation Service have also attributed low mobility potential of Iprodione
(Horsley and Moser 1990, Abrams 1991). A ground water monitoring study for pesticides from
golf courses over sand deposits on Cape Cod included i rodione
g Y os
p P p r but it was never detected in
any of the monitoring wells (Cohen et al. 1990).
Persistence: Iprodione has a soil half-life of 14 to 30 days and an aquatic half life of 3 to 7 days
(Heintzelman, D,, personal communication, July 1, 1998). These range from "very short lived"
to "moderately short lived" in classification (King County 1993). Vogue et al. (1994) and
Wauchope et al. (1992) both list a soil half-life of 14 days for iprodione.
Tom: The LC5096 for rainbow trout is 92.2 mg/L (Ortego, L. personal communication, July
7, 1998), which is classified as only "slightly toxic" by King County (1993) and Balogh and
Walker (1992).
Evaluation Summary: Based on (1) low mobility and movement ratings, (2) short-lived
persistence, and (3) slight toxicity to rainbow trout, Chipco 26GT is an excellent fungicide for
preventative and curative control of some of the most ubiquitous turf fungus diseases without
risk of unintended environmental impact.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KWDIG & CO.
Page A-1
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT - Heritage
Category: Fungicide. Active Ingredient: azoxystrobin (50%).
Application Target Preventative treatment fungicide with systemic and curative properties on
turf.
Label Recommended Application Frequency. Heritage should be applied prior to disease
development. Applications are recommended at label instructed rates as long as required.
Label Recommended Application Rate: Application rate is dependent on the fungus disease. The
application rate varies between 0.2 and 0.7 fl. oz per 1,000 ft`. See the Iabel application rates for
the fungus disease to be targeted. Do not apply more than 3.7 fl. oz per 1,000 W per year.
Mobility: The chemical structure of azoxystrobin would suggest moderate mobility in sand and
loamy sand soils. The potential mobility and persistence of some of its degradates, based on
laboratory and some field studies, are similar to pesticides with known potential to leach into
ground water under some conditions. For this reason the EPA placed a ground water advisory on
the label. However, the EPA (1998) also notes that "upgradable, supplemental field dissipation
studies indicate that Azoxystrobin was moderately immobile and relatively non persistent under
actual use conditions." Azoxystrobin has relatively low binding affinities on coarse, textured
soils (loamy sand and sand), but approximately five times higher binding affinity on finer -
textured soils (EPA 1998).
Data supplied by the manufacturer lists the Koc as 1,690 (Schultz, M., personal communication,
1998), which ranks as low mobility using the King County (1993) system. Using the GUS index
method of Gustafson (1989), azoxystrobin has a low pesticide movement rating. The GUS score
is an empirically derived value that relates sorption in soil based on the sorption coefficient
(Koc) and pesticide persistence (half-life).
Potence: Azoxystrobin is stable to hydrolysis, but does photo -degrade with a half-life of 11
to 17 days in aquatic environments (EPA 1998). Photo -degradation on soil results in a half-life
of 11 days. Both of these degradation rates in the presence of sunlight are characterized as short
lived (King County 1993). The dissipation of azoxystrobin is mainly dependent on sunlight
(photo -degradation), and secondarily dependent on microbial metabolism. In the absence of
light, degradates, but not the azoxystrobin itself, could be more persistent and mobile. However,
these degradates prove to be nearly nontoxic.
JAX ity Azoxystrobin is considered highly toxic to rainbow trout (LC5096 of 0.47 mg/L) (EPA
1998; Syngenta (2006). The EPA (1998) notes that azoxystrobin is of low acute and chronic
toxicity to humans, birds, mammals, and bees, but is highly toxic to freshwater fish and
invertebrates. However, its degradate products are practically nontoxic to only slightly toxic to
rainbow trout and daphnids. Degradate R234886 has an LC5046 of greater than 150 ppm for
rainbow trout and greater than 190 ppm for daphnids. Degradates R401553 and R402173 have
LC5096 values of greater than 50 ppm to daphnids.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page A-2
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Afanagement Plan (IPM}
Evaluation Summary: Based on the relative immobility of the parent compound azoxystrobin,
and the relative non -toxicity of its degradates, Heritage is environmentally safe for use on the
practice fields.
Restrictions to Use:
• The label recommends Heritage be restricted to two applications, 28 days apart in the
spring and fall for curative/preventative treatment on turf.
• The label recommends that application be restricted to a 48-hour forecast of dry weather.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KINDIG & CO.
Page A-3
I .
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated .Pest Management Plan (IPM)
PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT -- Primo Maxx
Category. Turf growth suppressant. Active ingredient is Trinexapac-ethyl (Cyclopropyl)
Application TarlZet: Slow the rate of turf growth and aid suppression of invasive Poa annua.
Label Recommended Application Frequency: Multiple applications can be made as needed by
local conditions of grass growth rates, but should not exceed the maximum described below.
Label Recommended Application Rates: Approximately 50% growth suppression is likely to
occur without grass yellowing for 4 weeks at rates of about 0.25 to 0.50 fl. oz. / 1,000 ff per 4
weeks. Applications at half these rates are recommended where Poa annual control is a primary
objective in order to prevent yellowing, and can be made at higher rates for brief periods during
periods of very rapid grass growth. Multiple applications should not exceed 7.0 fl. oz. / 1,000 ft
per year.
Mobility: Cyclopropyl mobility is rated as "high" with Koc values that range from 59 (sandy
loam) to 629 (clay) based on data supplied by the manufacturer, Syngenta (2000).
persistQn= The soil half-life for Cyclopropyl at between pH 5 and 7 is 8 days in the dark and
about 4 days in the light. These half-lives rate as "very short-lived" to "short-lived" persistence
(King County 1993).
Toxicity The manufacturer reports an LC5096 for rainbow trout as 68 mg/L and greater than
142.5 mg/L for water fleas (Daphnia magna) (Syngenta 2000) . This toxicity rates as "slightly
toxic" to "practically nontoxic", respectively (King County 1993).
Evaluation Summary Although highly mobile, the use of Primo MAXX for routine treatment as
a growth inhibitor is an environmentally safe product for use on the practice fields due to its low
persistence and slight- to non -toxicity.
September 20, 2006 A.C. KJADIG & CO.
Page A-4
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM
PESTICIDE ASSESSMENT: Prograss
Category: Herbicide. Active ingredient ethofumesate (19%).
Curative post -emergence control of annual bluegrass.
Label Recommended Application Frequency: Maximum of four applications per year; two to
three in the fall at 21 to 28 day intervals, and one subsequent application in the spring if needed.
Label Recommended &121i�ation Rate 1.5 fl. oz per 1,000 ft2 per application, to a maximum of
four applications per treated area.
Mobility: Ethofumesate has Koc values ranging from 210 for sand up to 160 for silt clay loam
(U.S. EPA 1995). These would be classified as "high mobility" (King County 1993).
Ethofumesate has a "moderate" pesticide movement rating using the GUS index method of
Gustafson (1989) reported by Vogue et al. (1994).
Persistence: Ethofumesate has a reported field dissipation half life of 21 days (Balogh and
Walker 1992). Microbial and chemical degradation accounts for 66 percent of the dissipation,
and leaching accounts for 31.2 percent. Half life in sandy load soils is reported to range from
122 days to 285 days, which is highly persistent. However, Vogue et al. (1994) report a soil half
Iife of 30 days for this product, which is more consistent with the moderately short-lived ranking
from field dissipation studies.
Toxigit : Ethofumesate has a rainbow trout LC5096 of 17.5 mg/L, which is classified as "slightly
toxic" (King County 1993).
Evaluation Summary: Although highly to moderately mobile, and moderately persistent, the
slight toxicity of this product combined with the proposal to limit applications to greens on a
curative basis combines to make it an environmentally safe element of the IPM.
1�
1. September 20, 2006 At C. KIIaDIG & CO.
Page A-5
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEGUN[NG AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, WHICH POINT IS
MARKED BY AN IRON PIPE AND IS 920 FEET, MORE OR LESS, NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT,
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF. 156 FEET,
THENCE EAST 62 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY,
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LllNM 156 FEET TO THE BEGINNING
POINT OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED,
TI-M'NCE NORTH 58*20' WEST 460 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 67.40' WEST 210 FEET TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE OF LAKE WASHINGTON
AS NOW ESTABLISHED AND THE TERMINUS OF THE LINE,
ALSO
THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST,
W M , iN KING COUNTY, WASHiNGTON. AND ADJACENT SHORE LANDS OF THE SECOND
CLASS IN FRONT THEREOF LYING WESTERLY OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY'S EIGHT OF WAY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
LIM
rn BEGINNING AT THE QUARTER CORNER ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 29,
�
THENCE NORTH 89"58'36" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF
1 i 13 01 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S
c� RIGHT OF WAY,
THENCE NORTH 2944'54" EAST, ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, 949.63 FEET TO AN IRON
PIPE WHICH POINT IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,
THENCE SOUTH 29°44'54" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 100 03 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 59024'36' WEST 103916 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INNER HARBOR LINE
c� OF LAKE WASHINGTON,
THENCE NORTH 44620'00" EAST ALONG SAID INNER HARBOR LINE 102 95 FEET Ti O A POINT
FROM W1 1CH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING SEARS SOUTH 59424'36" EAST,
THENCE SOUTH 59024'36" EAST 1013 23 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING,
EXCEPT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
BEGINNING AT THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY
THENCE SOUTH 29144'54" WEST ALONG THE. WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY 100.01 FEET,
THENCE NORTH 59624'36' WEST 100.01 FEET;
THENCE. NORTH 56"28'50" EAST I I 16 FEET TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 59024'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET,
EXHIBIT
9
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss.
County of King
Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 7«' day of December 2006, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a
sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid,
addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition.
Signature:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of 2006.
Application, Petition or Case No.:
vv�Tm rl
N ary Public in and for e State of Washington
siding at ic v—,- , therein.
Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training
Facility LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
IT
{ �Ir
I
i�
0
•
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
December 7, 2006
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
CONTACT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
Football Northwest
505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Port Quendall Company
505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Ray Colliver
505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility
File No.: LUA 06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015,
4801, and 4635 Ripley Lane)
Applicant requested Master Plan and Site Plan Review for the
development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and
Training Facility. The project would be a single building
consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels and
89,423 sf indoor practice facility. There would be up to four
outdoor practice fields. The zoning designation is
Commercial -Office -Residential.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve with
conditions
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on November 14, 2006.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining
available information on file with the application, field
checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The following minutes are a summary of the November 21, 2006 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor
of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 2
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and Exhibit No. 4: Zoning Map
South Baxter Properties
Exhibit No. 5: Mitigation Site Plan - Alternative Exhibit No. 6: Plan Diagrams
Plan
I Exhibit No. 7: North and South Building Elevations I Exhibit No. 8: South View Transverse Section I
I Exbibit No. 9: Base Site Plan I Exhibit No. 10: Building Location Options
I Exhibit No. 11: Green Screen Wall A I Exhibit No. 12: Green Screen Wall B
Exhibit No. 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit I Exhibit No. 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302,
302 Base Site Plan
Exhibit No. 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Exhibit No 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302,
Mitigated Site Plan I Comparison
Exhibit No. 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit j Exhibit No. 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312,
312 I Base Site Plan
Exhibit No. 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, I Exhibit No. 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312,
Mitigated Site Plan Comparison
Exhibit No. 21: Daily Shadow Studies -- Base Plan Exhibit No. 22: Daily shadow Studies — Mitigated
Alternative Plan
Exhibit No. 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Existing f Exhibit No. 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies Base
Conditions I Plan
Exhibit No. 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Mitigated Exhibit No. 26: List of 25 Exhibits from Staff Report
Alternative Plan
Exhibit No. 27: Foster Pepper Appeal Settlement I Exhibit No. 28: Petersen Appeal Settlement Letter
Letter
I Exhibit No. 29: Appeal File by Reference I Exhibit No. 30: Shoreline
I Exhibit No. 31: Geotech Summary I Exhibit No. 32: Power Point Presentation I
Exhibit No. 33: Draft Engineering Design Plan
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra.._.._g Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 3
The Examiner stated there were two appeals, which had been filed by the Misty Cove Association of
Apartments Owners and Steve Jensen, who filed on his own behalf as a separate individual. Letters have been
received stating that the parties had reached a settlement in those two appeals.
Zanetta Fontes stated that that was correct. She had been notified and she would let the parties go over the
conditions to which they have agreed. It was noted that Mr. Jensen was not in the hearing room.
Roger r Pearce, Foster Pepper stated that they had reached a formal settlement agreement with Misty Cove
Association of Apartment Owners who are represented by Mr. Peterson. The settlement letter did include 7
permit conditions that should be placed on the project. With respect to Mr. Jensen's appeal, he indicated the he
was withdrawing and would fax a formal withdrawal to the Hearing Examiner's Office. He did ask that Mr.
Jensen's appeal be dismissed if a letter were not forthcoming from Mr. Jensen.
Tom Peterson stated that he represents Misty Cove, they have filed a dismissal of their appeal along with a letter
identifying permit conditions, which are identical to the ones that Mr. Pearce submitted.
The Examiner stated that Mr. Jensen's appeal is dismissed_ The settlement is acceptable and the appeal is
dismissed for both Misty Cove and Mr. Jensen,
The Land Use Hearing began at 9.11 am with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior
Planner, Development Services. The applicant is requesting both Master Plan and Site Plan review of currently
vacant 19.6-acre property in the Kennydale area of northeast Renton. The project consists of one building at
approximately 135,534 square feet, outdoor and indoor practice fields and an accessory building that would be
used for maintenance. The project is located in the area known as Port Quendall in northeast Renton, just west
of I-405. To the south is the Quendall terminals property, south of that the Barbee Mill property, the entire area
is zoned Commercial -Office -Residential (COR). North of the project site is the Misty Cove Condominium and
north of that the Ripley Lane neighborhood. To the east of the property is the Pan Abode property and the
interchange to 1-405.
The site was considered to be in the distant country early on, and was used for wood processing after it was
logged off. It has remained vacant since wood processing ended in 1981. It has been used for storage since
then. The site has been subject to clean up by consent decree with the Department of Ecology. A cap will be
required to be placed over soil that still has residual contamination.
Currently, the site is largely vacant, there is one building that will be removed.
The indoor practice facility would be the farthest away from the lake and the office building would be a 2-story
with a mezzanine level between the two stories and closest to the lake. This is part of the settlement between
Misty Cove owners and the Seahawks, the fields were shifted around but remain on the south side of the
property. The public access to the lake was extended to approximately 250 feet along the lake. The public
access will be handled as a county park, open only during the daylight hours. The Shoreline Management Act
allows uses that are water related, this is not water related, however the access to the lake for the public allows
this property to meet the requirements.
Access to the property currently is at the northeast corner and the southeast corner of the property. There are
ongoing negotiations with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to have an additional private crossing at
about the mid -point of the property. This would be the primary entrance for the site.
This project went to the Environmental Review Committee, the decision was appealed and has been settled.
There were seven mitigation measures.
Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 4
The redevelopment of COR sites is intended to provide economic development and remediation of formerly
impacted industrial sites. This site certainly provides that criteria. The Seahawks' building has been designed
to be an architecturally significant state of the art facility for a professional football team. The community
design element is met through the design of the project. The north facade of the indoor practice facility will be
softened by use of a "green -screen wall". The project meets the development standards by being lower than the
maximum building height, by covering only 17% of the property with buildings and by moving the project the
applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts of this building on the neighboring property.
Visual assessment studies were done as well as shadow studies in order to study impacts to the Misty Cove
condominiums. The outside practice fields will not be lit and not used at night so there will be no lighting that
would interfere with the Misty Cove condominiums.
There are no regulations on the types of fencing provided in this area, they will be replacing the fence along the
border of Misty Cove Apartment Condominiums. The general parking consists of 91 stalls would be along the
east side of the building, the secured team parking would be along the north and northwest corner of the
building. The field is open to the public for three weeks in August and it is presumed that thousands of people
will attend training. There will be a plan to shuttle people from off -site parking areas.
Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper, 1111 Third Avenue, 34a` Floor, Seattle 98101 stated that he is the Attorney for
Seahawks and that there were several people that would be speaking today. There are no specific height limits
in the urban environment, the Shoreline Master Program does allow new commercial uses if public access to and
along the water is provided. A significant public access has been provided and it will be open just like a City
park. It will only be open during the day, there will be on -site security.
Lance Lopes, VP Seahawks, 800 Occidental Avenue S., Seattle, WA 98034 stated that he also serves as the
general manager for this project. He identified goals in acquiring this location, the Kirkland facility was too
small and had become obsolete in terns of what teams need to handle their requirements. The site in eastern
Washington has served them well for many years, in recent times there has been a drop-off in attendance at the
training camp, the fans from western Washington have not been able to get over there.
The number of users for this property varies, there are approximately 130 full-time employees and a varying
number between 30 and 90 players depending on the time of year.
The site is laid out with the fields to the south, with three fields they can rotate during the training camp, the
fourth field may or may not be built. That location will provide an area where fans will be able to view the
practices of the team. The office building was built with the views in mind, both lake and practice fields.
The nineteen acres is really the minimal amount and just about all of it has been used for this facility, The
month of August is the best time to think about training camp, it typically is a 25-day period and can vary from
year to year. That is the time of year that the players are trying out for the team, the public is very interested in
that process. The number of fans coming out for training camp could be in the range of 1,500 and 2,000 per
day. A Saturday or Sunday could rise to perhaps 2,500. Practice is in the morning and the afternoon each day.
They have asked the City about developing a bus turnaround on Ripley Lane, which can be shared with the
current school bus stop, they propose to make it a nicer bus stop. That would allow the shuttle busses to drop
people off right at the front gate. Burlington Northern Railway has indicated they would allow an easement
over the center entrance area. Offsite parking has not yet been determined. There are some locations that they
are looking at currently.
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra. g Facility
File No.. LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 5
The indoor facility is standard for the industry, which allows special teams to practice their punting and kicking.
Public access will be from the north side of the property down to the lake and still keep the practice fields
private. The plan is for a cyclone fence with a green screen on the fence. Between the Misty Cove and
Seahawks a quality wood fence has been planned.
David Murphy, Crawford Architects, 1801 McGee St., Ste. 200, Kansas City, MO 64108 gave a power point
presentation of the project with site layout, vegetation and design details. The design materials allow them the
ability to create a corporate image that is appropriate for the City of Renton and the Seattle Seahawks. The
facility will be designed specifically to the Pacific Northwest. They are currently in design development stages,
the south side of the office will be facing the practice fields and would be constructed with a series of
cementiuous materials. The practice facility would consist of cementiuous panels or metal panels that would
make up the composition of the facade. On the east elevations there would be cementiuous panels, wood, and
translucent materials that would allow daylight to come into the indoor practice facility. The north side, facing
Misty Cove would be designed with horizontal lines with shadows to break down the scale of the building. The
green screen at the base would be 30-feet of lattice with green plantings to cover and allow for privacy. The
west elevation of the building is proposed to be two stories and the south three stories. However, the west may
go to 3 stories, it has not been fully determined as yet. The dumpsters and loading dock areas will be screened
from the public.
To study the view impacts on the project from the Misty Cove property, the owners of units 302 and 312
allowed access to their property and they were able to photograph views from those sites. The lower levels on
the south side have blocked views to the shoreline and to the site. Several photos were shown with various
views to the south. Their goal was to maintain and enhance as many view corridors as possible.
A 5-minute break was taken.
Larry Barsber, 6940 96"' Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that he lives directly west of the facility
across Lake Washington and from the front of his house he can see the training facility. From a close up
perspective, it looks very attractive however, from a mile away it still is going to appear as a big box. When the
final landscape plan is prepared he would like to suggest that some consideration would be given to soften the
view as much as possible by the addition of perhaps some trees that could reach heights of 100-feet at maturity.
In addition, perhaps a green wall could be installed on the roof of the office building in the center to add some
contrast and softening. He did appreciate the fact that the lights would not be on in the evening.
Eileen Halverson, 5021 Ripley Lane N, #302, Renton, WA would like to know where the parking would be
located for the public access.
Esther Barsber, 6940 96"' Avenue SE, Mercer Island, WA 98040 stated that she was concerned about the
lighting for the parking area, would it be lit all night?
Joe Burcar, 3190 160"' Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA 98008 stated that he is a shoreline specialist with the
Washington State Department of Ecology. Considering the City Shoreline Master Program, would the use of
this facility be considered a Conditional Use within the Master Program or is it in fact a permitted use and how
would that translate into the final shoreline permitting, would it be a substantial shoreline permit or a conditional
use permit?
Ms. Higgins stated that there would be some buffer averaging. The wetland buffer is 50-feet and extends into the
field area, however there is some buffer mitigation outside the field area that has been approved. The indoor
practice facility which is 95-feet to the center clear height on the interior is outside of the 200 foot line. The
Seahawks' Headquarters and . ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 6
City of Renton Shoreline Master Program does not regulate buildings below 75-feet that are within the 200-foot
buffer.
Mr. Burcar stated that he is testifying on behalf of the State. And finally, the parking area along the north of the
facility, is there any buffer averaging happening in that area as well? He further was concerned as to the use of
fertilizers and pesticides and what kind of plan would be in place to ensure that water quality of the lake would
be protected.
Ms. Higgins stated that this project does not require a Conditional Use Permit. The Shoreline permit is being
processed separately. The ERC report states that the applicant is proposing an integrated pest management
program with extremely limited use of chemicals on the fields and landscape areas.
Carl Hadley, Cedar Rock Consultants, 19609 244 h Avenue, Woodinville, WA 98077 stated that he is a
professional fisheries biologist with 18 years of experience in the Seattle area. He was part of the team that
wrote the lake and stream study, which was a requirement of the Renton Municipal Code. That study was
required because there is a direct impact to a water body, the Gypsy sub -basin drainage and secondly, the site
contains a shoreline of the state. The study takes a look at existing functions and values and compares that to
future conditions based on mitigation and other things that are proposed for the site. It must be shown that there
are equivalent or better values for the fish habitat and wildlife habitat on the site. The Gypsy sub -basin has been
declared a fish bearing water, it drains 320 acres of the slope to the east with runoff from paved surfaces via
roadside ditches, culverts, and parking lots with a bad history of flooding. There is a 500-foot long, 2-foot wide
culvert, with a 125-foot open reach at the bottom of a 15-foot deep manmade ditch. The 125-foot open reach
will be filled with capping, there can be no exposed water. The culvert will run between the playing fields and
the side of the building. A new outfall will be built for the pipe with a 25-foot channel on the lake as mitigation
for filling that existing open section of channel. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has initially approved the
proposed plan.
An Integrated Pest Management plan has been established for the site and will include a set of rules regarding
the use of pesticide and fertilizer. Air, sunlight and drainage for the fields are an important part of pest control.
A small amount of chemicals will be used for fungus only.
Mr. Pearce stated that there is no proposed parking for the public access to the lake, the public most likely will
use it more when the Burlington Northern tracks become a trail.
There is a landscape plan in the application materials that points out species that will be planted including some
larger species such as Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar.
Regarding Mr. Burcar's comments, this is a permitted use so long as significant public access is provided to and
along the shoreline. No variance is required for height under the City Shoreline Master Program.
There is a 50-foot setback for commercial buildings from the shoreline, not for paved surfaces or playing fields
or grading.
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that they are working with the applicant regarding Ripley Lane
and the Gypsy Creek flooding onto Ripley Lane. If a security gate is being provided for Misty Cove, is there a
turnaround being provided for those people that like to wander in and will then need access to get out. That will
all be covered during the design phase.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and
no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:34 am.
Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 16
Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a parking lot or parking facility off the
project site, with fans then being bused to the site.
8. The project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with lids, and the container storage area will be
screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage and recycling pickups will occur during normal
business hours on weekdays — not at nights or very early morning hours. All non -recyclable materials
placed in the containers will be in sealed plastic bags.
FNW shall replace the existing property line fence between the Misty Cove property and the project site
with a new fence of at least equal quality.
10. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The Seahawks agree not to seek any
permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this Agreement. All project exterior lighting
will be designed so that the lighting is directed away from the Misty Cove residences.
11. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the project site, so that visitors to
the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with City and State regulations.
12_ The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower -level plantings in the north section of the
project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove
Condominium property.
13. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the Turf Integrated Pest
Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the project application shall be conditioned to permit
approval.
ORDERED THIS 7`f' day of December 2006.
FRED J. KAU AN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 7"' day of December 2006 to the parties of record:
Elizabeth Higgins
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Lance Lopes
VP Seahawks
800 Occidental Avenue S
Seattle, WA 98034
Eileen Halverson
5021 Ripley Lane N, #302
Renton, WA 98056
Kayren Kittrick
Development Services
Renton, WA 98055
David Murphy
Crawford Architects
1801 McGee St., Ste. 200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Joe Bursar
3190 160'h Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Roger Pearce
Foster Pepper
1111 Third Avenue, 34'h Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Larry & Esther Barsher
6940 96"' Avenue SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Carl Hadley
Cedar Rock Consultants
19609 244"' Avenue
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tr g Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 15
18. The proposal is basically self-contained. The site's limitations include the poor and/or contaminated
soils on the south half leaving commercial and office development a reasonable accomplishment. In
addition, the COR zoned property to the south provides a residential component. It meets the
comprehensive plan's goal of redeveloping the subject site with high quality uses.
19. The plan provides both public and private open space. There is the walking path along the shoreline and
there are the open practice fields for team workouts. The applicant proposes to enhance the shoreline by
restoring natural plants and protecting the existing wetland.
20. Shoreline view corridors will be provided both by the shoreline trail as well as the open views across the
playing fields. Views of the lake will be available from the office building and other open areas on the
subject site.
21. The proposal will provide a focal point as an icon of a professional football team as well as when it is
open to the public for practice sessions in the summer. The building is well designed and should be
attractive even at its larger scale.
22. The access for the site is focused along Ripley Lane and/or Lake Washington Boulevard. It should
reasonably serve the site for both vehicles and pedestrians.
DECISION:
The proposed Master Site Plan and Site PIan are approved subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating exterior materials and finishes to
the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits.
2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake
Washington and install landscaping of type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian habitat.
Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of landscaping shall be
completed prior to building occupancy.
The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-
120D 12, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits.
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of-
way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way.
The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to
obtaining building permits and installation shall be prior to building occupancy.
5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light
levels, and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to
obtaining building permits.
6. Football Northwest shall develop the project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility
located as shown in the Mitigation Site Plat -Alternative. FNW shall develop a green screen wall,
planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along the bottom thirty (30) feet of the
northeasterly elevation of the indoor practice facility. In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation
of the indoor practice facility substantially in accordance with the principles stated in the Settlement
Agreement.
Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 14
accommodated by shuttle vehicles from remote parking areas to help limit the amount of traffic to the
site. A canopied walkway connects parking to the main entrance. Interior walkways will accommodate
pedestrians moving between facilities on the property.
12. The large open spaces on the south as well as the setback between the residential complex to the north
and the current proposal allows entry of light and air to both the side and neighboring properties. The
east aspect is already fairly open given the parallel roadways and railroad. The relocation of the
building will reduce some shadow impacts although, again, any development of the subject site by
legally permissible development would have an impact. The impacts have been reduced but not
eliminated.
13. Construction will generate the most noise and this should be limited in duration. As noted above, there
will be additional hubbub when the site is occupied and a bit more during the open practices during the
summer season.
14. The site will be served by City water and sewer service. The Baxter Lift Station will need to be utilized
and appropriately updated. Stormwater will be directed to the lake. The development will comply
with the Department of Ecology and King County regulations. The creek's alignment will be altered
and its outfall enhanced but it will remain culverted for a majority of its run through the subject site.
The applicant will be paying mitigation fees imposed by the ERC to offset some impacts of the
development on the City's facilities.
15. The redevelopment of the subject site will enhance the site and prevent deterioration or additional blight
on the subject site
16. In addition to the above criteria the COR Zones provide additional criteria for reviewing a proposal.
Those criteria include:
a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable;
b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a
compatible mix of uses that meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and
policy statements for the Commercial/Office/Residential or Urban
Center North Comprehensive Plan designations;
C. The plan provides an overall urban design concept that is internally
consistent, and provides quality development;
d. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide
adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site, and/or to protect existing natural systems;
e. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier
where applicable;
f. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas;
g. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas,
prominent architectural features, or other items;
h. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides
reasonable access to property and supports the land use envisioned; and
i. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other
alternative modes of transportation.
17. There is no Planned Action Ordinance involving the subject site.
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra ..ig Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 13
and wetlands and views out over the lake. These will be well exploited by the orientation of the
building.
6. The building meets the bulk standards for the COR 2 zone in terms of height and lot area coverage.
Staff reported that it complies with the urban definition requirements of the City's current Shoreline
regulations. Compliance with building and fire code requirements will be determined when appropriate
permits are submitted for actual development.
7. The building complex has been moved away from the lake an additional 62 feet to offset to some extent
its impacts on the adjacent residential complex. It has also redesigned its north facade treatment to
reduce its visual impact on its near neighbors. There is no question that any permissible development of
this site that adds buildings above grade will have an impact. That cannot be prevented save for keeping
privately owned property as open space. That is not currently an option and the proposed plan appears
to have achieved some reasonable compromise. After all, approximately half of the site, the entire south
portion of the property will be open space - it will be practice fields. The applicant is seeking to create
its own, new crossing of the railroad to reduce traffic impacts on its northerly residential neighbors who
all share Ripley Lane. The applicant proposes replanting areas of the lakeshore with native plants and
some larger specimens. Those efforts will serve to provide some screening without closing off the site's
own visual access to the lake view.
The building complex has been designed to terrace upward from the lake with the office building scaled
to approximately 55 feet and the more easterly element, the indoor practice fields, at 111 feet. Open
space is a featured element on the entire south half of the parcel. Landscaping will be used to soften
facades and enhance the perimeter of the site near the railway and the road system. The building has a
formal entry and focal point. It also has the public shoreline walkway. The exterior treatment combines
a variety of high -quality materials and finishes, colors and textures. Both horizontal and vertical
banding and articulation will also be used in the facades to add visual interest and break the bulk into
faceted planes. Recognizing past industrial pollution and current sensitivities, the applicant will be
using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques on all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf
practice fields.
9. The redevelopment of this will increase property values although there is no avoiding the fact that
construction and occupancy on what has been a vacant site for quite a while will have an impact on the
immediate community. The construction impacts should be relatively short-lived. The impacts of reuse
and occupancy were anticipated when this site was comprehensively planned and the zoning was put in
place. It was expected that this site and its neighbors to the south would be developed with a variety of
more intensive uses bringing with those more intensive uses additional traffic, people, urban scale
development and the general tumult of a vibrant urban lake shore.
10. The settlement agreement provides assurances that for an extended period of time there would be no
night activities or lighting to accommodate night activities. Normal considerations will limit exterior
lighting and parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off features to avoid light
spillage onto adjacent properties. Again, though, interior lights will change the character or visual
canvas that a vacant site provided from the lake's vantage point or even for those looking down on the
site from the east.
11. The site's somewhat isolated location limits the complexity of access and circulation although the site
does share Ripley Lane with others north of the site. The applicant is seeking an additional access
which, would help improve access for both visitors to the site and to adjacent properties. The internal
circulation appears reasonable. Additional visitor access during open events on the campus will be
Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 12
Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate
the proposed use; and
Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight.
3_ The criteria for a Master Plan and Site Plan review overlap or coincide in a number of particulars.
Frankly, the Master Plan criteria are intended for a large multi -dimensional project with a variety of
components, probably spread over a larger area. The Master plan would be more appropriately applied
to a large, multi -phase or multi -building project where the aim is to achieve a cohesive, blended,
harmonious whole. The Master Plan review would be to make sure to knit a uniform project that looks
as if all of the elements and a variety of buildings had a basic design theme or one which made sure that
all of the elements worked together as far as access, circulation and similar features spread over a larger
proposal. A Master Plan review does not necessarily identify with the current proposal where one
purpose is identified by the applicant - a complex in which to manage and train a professional football
team. In the current proposal there really is only the one building, served by one, linear access road and
the associated outdoor sports fields. The site pretty much stands alone. If and when development
occurs south of the proposed complex on additional COR 2 property that will be under separate
ownership and development criteria.
4. A fair number of City goals and objectives all point to redeveloping this very under-utilized property.
The City has always envisioned more interesting, one could say, grand plans for this former industrial
area along the lakeshore. It has been years since a major industrial use that was water -related could
utilize lakeshore property and not potentially inflict environmental damage on the shoreline or the lake
and its water quality. Of course, some questions could be raised about the limited scope of this proposal
in terms of creating new as opposed to relocated employment and of basically leaving fallow, the spaces
dedicated to practice fields that might have been developed with additional office buildings or research
park. Might a mixed -use complex been more appropriate rather than one focused solely on the
Seahawks football team? Possibly, but than again, a portion of this property still requires remedial
capping of environmentally questionable soils probably mediating against development of housing.
Similarly, disturbance of some portion of the underlying soils would not be advisable for building
foundation work whereas outdoor practice fields present a good match since there would be limited
disturbance of the soils. The proposed plan will bring executive and administrative offices to this site.
The site will be a focus for public visitation - practice and pre -season games. The proposed complex is
also quite well -designed and has metamorphed into a better plan. The building has been moved further
from the take to reduce its visual impacts on both neighbors and those using the lake itself or viewing it
across the lake. The four playing fields also keep about half of the site visually unencumbered. The
complex will also be screened by landscaping along its facades and the site's perimeter. The building
couplet has been scaled and terraced and utilizes visual elements to reduce its bulk and increase its
visual interest. Clearly, any permissible use of the site, other than open space or parkland would create
impacts on neighbors, boaters and Mercer Island residents. The plan also accommodates public use of a
shoreline that has been closed to the public for decades.
The comprehensive plan suggests the redevelopment of former industrial sites with large-scale projects
while remediating the impacts of the former industrial pollution. The proposed Seattle Seahawks
administrative offices and practice facilities appear to fulfill these objectives with a high profile tenant
in a highly styled complex. The complex as noted offers a mix of structural components, the office
building and the indoor practice facility, and open space and landscaping, the four open-air practice
fields and the general landscaping found around the grounds. The shoreline location suggests public
access and that will be provided by the approximately 250 feet of trail along the lake shore as well as the
connecting trail to the public rights -of -way east of the subject site. The offices will provide an urban
focus and a center for employment. The site, of course, provides built-in amenities. It has the lakeshore
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tray. g Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 11
The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an
opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with
increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site
Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at a specificity
appropriate to the level of review.
1. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and
enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable
impacts of development both on- and off -site;
2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's
Urban Center Design Overlay, where applicable;
3. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape
and environmental features of the City;
4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian
movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure
that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use
objectives for the zone in which the project occurs;
5. To promote coordination of public or quasi -public elements, such as
walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments of larger
developments and between individual developments;
6. To protect neighboring owners and uses by assuring that reasonable
provisions have been made for such matters as sound and sight buffers,
light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have
substantial effects on neighboring land uses;
7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of
uses within allowed zones;
8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while
minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and
intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities;
9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and
intent of the State Environmental Policy Act;
10. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan
elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to
avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes.
2. More specific guidance is provided in the following criteria:
General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan Review:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements,
goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and
policies of the specific land use designation shall be given
consideration over city-wide objectives and policies;
b. Conformance with existing land use regulations;
c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses;
d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site;
C. Conservation of area -wide property values;
f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy
conditions;
Seahawks' Headquarters and .ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 10
29. As noted, there will be access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline. Access to the
shoreline path would be via an east -west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary.
A landscaped seating area and viewpoint would be provided. This path will typically be available to the
public on the same schedule as City parks.
30. The development will increase traffic approximately 555 average vehicle trips per day. Traffic during
open public sessions, mainly in August would be generally confined to normal traffic as well as some
form of shuttle service to limit the amount of traffic and avoid taxing the local roads and the parking
facility.
31. The applicant proposes using an "integral pest management plan" to limit the use of chemicals on the
site.
CONCLUSIONS:
The following general criteria are applicable to the subject site, which is zoned COR:
Section 2 4-9-200 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW:
A PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of site development plan review shall be to assure that proposed
development is compatible with the plans, policies and regulations of the City
of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's Business
Plan Goals. Site development plan review may be used to analyze plans at
varying levels of detail to ensure continuity of project concept and consistent
implementation. Elements subject to this Section include, but are not limited to,
site layout, building orientation and design, pedestrian and vehicular
environment, signage, landscaping, natural features of the site, screening and
buffering, parking and loading facilities, and illumination. Site development
plan review is divided into two types: Master Plan and Site Plan.
1. Master Plan: The purpose of the Master Plan process is to guide
phased planning of development projects with multiple buildings on a
single large site. The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the
major elements of a development are proposed on the site at sufficient
detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the
Master Plan must illustrate how the major project elements, combined,
create an urban environment that implements City goals. An additional
purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential impacts
that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to
allow coordination with City capital improvement planning. Master
Plan review should occur at an early stage in the development of a
project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known.
2. Site Plan Review; The purpose of the Site Plan process is the
detailed arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with
the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area_ An
additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development
consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do
not require Master Plan first, Site Plan Review should occur at an early
stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and
layout of a project are known.
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra... , g Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 9
thirds to reduce the apparent height and vertical modulations and articulations will also be used to
reduce the apparent bulk of the building. Additionally, the administrative office portion of the building
will be about half as tall as the indoor practice portion, providing a terraced or stepped aspect. There
will be a formal entry along the Ripley Lane facade and a canopy will connect parking with the formal
entrance. Other entries are provided along various aspects of the building complex.
21. The appeal settlement resulted in the building being moved toward the east approximately 62 feet and
away from the shoreline. The taller indoor practice building is now located outside of the 200-foot
shoreline management area. The move will reveal more of the shoreline and sky for the residents of
Misty Cove. It will also move the mass of the building away from the shoreline.
22. The COR 2 zone permits lot coverage of 65 percent and a building height of 10-stories or 125 feet. The
office building has a footprint of approximately 55,674 square feet, the indoor practice complex has a
footprint of approximately 89,423 square feet and there is the 6,000 square foot maintenance shed for a
total of 151,097 square feet or 17.7 percent of the 19.6 acre site. The office building will be 55 feet tall
while the practice facility will be approximately 111 feet tall. Staff reports that the office building
which falls within the 200-foot shoreline management zone complies with the Urban Shoreline
designation of Renton's Shoreline Master Program. Although it is not a water -dependent use, the
complex will provide access to the portions of the shoreline that have been off-limits to the public in the
past. The one-story, 6,000 square foot maintenance and equipment storage building would be located in
the southeast corner of the site.
23. There would be three or four outdoor practice fields. Some of the fields can be rotated to account for
wear patterns. The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the portion of the property.
The one artificial turf practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the east property line. The four
practice fields would cover 8.3 acres.
24. The site would contain secured area to protect the practice fields, the players and to provide security and
privacy during practices.
25. There is a variety of vegetation on the subject site including weeds, weed trees and some limited natural
vegetation along the lake shore. The site will be Iandscaped with a variety of native trees and shrubs.
Some of the larger trees would be preserved. As indicated a "green wall" would be located along the
north facade as part of landscaping and screening.
26. Parties from Mercer Island with a view across the lake to this facility were concerned about views and
screening as well as night lighting.
27. Primary access to the site would be from Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane. Any access or
accesses will have to cross the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. Currently, the
primary access would be at the northeast comer of the subject site near the Misty Cove complex. A
secondary access is available at the southeast corner of the property to Lake Washington Boulevard.
Negotiations are underway with the railroad for a crossing about midway along the east property line.
This would become the primary access if agreement can be reached.
28. On -site roads would be private and there would be parking for 252 vehicles. Parking would include 91
stalls for general surface parking and 161 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due
to both limited access and on -site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August,
would require off -site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors.
Seahawks' Headquarters anL ining Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 8
13. The site is essentially flat. Gypsy Creek runs through the site in an open ditch for approximately 125
feet before entering a 490-foot culvert. The culvert empties above the surface of the lake in an
unnatural drop. Plans are to restore the shoreline in this area, create a cove and create a more natural
entry into the culvert.
14. A Category 3 wetland has been restored. It would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of
the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. It probably would not be open to the public.
15. The subject site is under a cleanup agreement with the State. Remediation involves removing
contaminated soils and capping depending on the proposed use and contaminants involved. The
contamination was the result of the former use of the property for wood -processing activities. Site
grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the
capping of the site and grading would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic
yards of fill material. Some cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused.
Any fill material will be tested or require a "source statement" to assure clean materials. As noted, the
adjacent site to the south is under Superfund cleanup governance.
16. Two existing structures remain on the site. A single -story, 1,300 square foot wood -frame office
building on the north portion of the site that would be removed. An existing boathouse and dock are
located at the northwest shoreline. Currently, there are no plans for these facilities.
17. The underlying geology of soils dictated where the building would be located. Soils generally dictated
that the large building would need piles for structural support and the soils on the south half of the site
were not appropriate without additional remediation_ In addition, the proposed practice playing fields
require more and appropriately shaped space, which the wider south half provided.
18. The proposed complex consists of the Seahawks administrative offices and accessory training and
practice facilities and a smaller maintenance building. The two major components are the attached
office and indoor practice facility located on the north portion of the subject site and four practice fields
including three with natural turf and one with artificial turf on the south portion of the property. The
maintenance shed will be located at the southeast comer of the property.
19. Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football
equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building on
the North Baxter property. The office or Headquarters portion of the building would be up to 55 feet in
height and contain two stories and a mezzanine level that would be open to the indoor practice field.
The office building would be located closest to the lake to take advantage of the lake views. It would be
L-shaped and wrap around the southwest comer of the larger indoor practice field. The height of the
indoor practice field, situated on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 111 feet.
Originally, the roof was designed to swing upward along its edges to screen rooftop mechanical
equipment. That equipment has since been moved into the building proper. The practice building has
been designed to have an inside height clearance of approximately 95 feet to accommodate realistic
passing and kicking moves.
20. The building would be a steel frame building. It would be faced with synthetic stone, masonry, and
storefront systems on the lower level. Clear -glazed windows and cementiuous or metal wall panels
would be used on upper portions and vary depending on location. The color palette would be earth
tones with light beiges, buff, light gray and browns and greens would be used for exterior treatments.
The settlement agreement requires a green -screen or lattice wall with vegetation growing on it on the
north facade, the facade facing Misty Cove. There will be horizontal banding breaking the building into
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tra . .. g Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 7
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, Football Northwest, for the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, filed a
request for a Master Plan and Site Plan review.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). An appeal of this determination was filed by adjacent property
owners. The appeal was settled with an agreement to include certain additional conditions on the
development of the subject site if those conditions were found appropriate after public hearing and
review.
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located at 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N and is also addressed as 5015, 4801
and 4635 Ripley Lane. The site is just north or west of the NE 44th Street (Exit 7) I-405 interchange.
The site is located on the shoreline of Lake Washington. The Burlington -Northern railroad tracks run
between the site and Ripley Lane.
6. The site actually runs at a diagonal from the southwest toward the northeast along the Lakeshore but is
commonly thought of as running south to north. Therefore for illustrative purposes and descriptions this
common reference will be used and so the lake will be considered the western edge of the site and
Ripley Lane the eastern edge of the site - readers will be able to orient facilities and buildings to their
location on the site from the lake and roadway locations.
7. Misty Cove residential complex is located immediately north of the site. As noted above, the
homeowners in Misty Cove had filed an appeal of the SEPA decision but they, along with a separate
resident of that complex settled the appeal prior to the hearing after reaching an agreement with the
applicant.
Immediately south of the subject site is the Port Quendall site. That site is a "Superfund Site" that is
highly contaminated and subject to separate cleanup regulations.
9. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial, office and residential uses, but does not mandate such
development without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
10. The subject site is currently zoned COR-2 (Commercial, Office, Residential).
11. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1823 enacted in April 1960,
12. The size of parcel is approximately 19.6 acres or 853,776 square feet.
Seahawks' Headquarters and Tr, g Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 17
Football Northwest
505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste, 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Michael Cero
8300 Avalon Drive
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Brian T. Sabey
5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 304
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 4
Renton, WA 98056
Aaron Belenky, President
Williamsburg Condo HOA
1800 NE 40`h Street, Ste. H-4
Renton, WA 98056
Barbara Paxhia
5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 104
Renton, WA 98056
Richard Wagner
Port Quendall Company
505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Thomas Peterson
Socius Law Group PLLC
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Ste. 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
Eleanor Maargo Kennamer, President
Misty Cove Condo Association
5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 309
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Gregerson
5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 302
Renton, WA 98056
Shelly Munkberg
SECO Development
1083 Lake Washington Blvd N., Ste. 50
Renton, WA 98056
Baylis Architects Jeffrey Taraday
10801 Main Street, Ste. 110 Foster Pepper
Bellevue, WA 98004 1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of December 2006 to the following:
Woodinville, WA 98077
Ray Colliver
505 Fifth Avenue S., Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 98104
Thelma Sutherland
1205 N 29"' Street
Renton, WA 98056
Jared Salstrom
5021 Ripley Lane N, Ste. 213
Renton, WA 98056
Elya George Baches
1414 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Elaine Wine
Vulcan
505 Fifth Avenue S, Ste. 900
Seattle, WA 99104
Tom Ehrlichman
Socius Law Group
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Ste. 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Utilities Division
Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services
King County Journal
Pursuant to Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 .m. December 21 2006. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the
Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the
discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written
request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may,
after review of the record, take further action as he dcems proper.
Seahawks' Headquarters and ning Facility
File No.: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
December 7, 2006
Page 18
An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title 1V, Chapter S, Section 110, which requires that such appeal
be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements.
Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City
Hail. Anappeal must be filed in writin2 on or before 5:00 .m. December 21 2006.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You
may contact this office for information on formatting covenants.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur
concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in
private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both
the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all
interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the
evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as
Appeals to the City Council.
Project Location: 5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801,
4635 Ripley Lane)
0
0 114 112 1
EXHIBIT 8`86 In Mlles
2
i .
NOTE
ffepniduo®d with pern1ss[on granted by THORNS BROS. KWS9.
This map Is oapyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSe. It Is
unlawful to oopy or reprodupe all or any pars thereof, whether for
personal use or resale, without permisslon. AN rights reserved.
Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility
Renton, Washington
VICINITY MAP
September 2006 21-1-20525-003
SHANNON & W"ON, INC.
GooleasiodmW emtw��r 6
ZONING MAP
i. r. r c. y�•,��^@,�.: 1 � ti`^ u�^"` r5> �'� �*�i ' 4','..�r '�r�s�-� : F* F a,� , � q � , '� i � ik",
+..�%l1 ,,4 't' 7 R :'y i . 5 � 'y� � }�yA, f_- � -'.n ✓ �t i� M 4 .ti Y.i_. 9 � t`i£,�..
---mom
1,
City of Renton P/81PW Depa .. . it Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEA TILE SE4HA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073 SA-H SA-M, SM, EGF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 7 of 20
appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the
threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November
21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews.
3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures
were issued for the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated:
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report,
"Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility
Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including
recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil
remediation for the water mains.
2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water
quality.
3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and
provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits.
4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to
the site. Additional details of pipe sizing andlor street improvements would be addressed
through site plan review.
v. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted
calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue.
6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building
permit issue.
7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the
contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural
Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582.
4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the
official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of
this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report.
5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible
with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types:
Master Plan and Site Plan.
HEX staff rpt 0"73.doc
' FOSTER PEPPER,,,,
Direct Phone (206) 447-4676
Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1997
E-Mail PearR@foster.com
November 17, 2006
VIA MESS>R
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility
City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073
Dear Mr, Kaufman:
As part of its settlement with the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, permit applicant
Football Northwest LLC ("FNW") agrees to the following permit conditions with respect to its
Master Plan and Shoreline Permit Applications for the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and
Training Facility under the above -referenced project number (the "Project") and respectfully
requests they be made conditions of permit approval.
Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Desig—n. FNW shall develop the
Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ("IPF") located as shown in the
Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this letter. FNW shall
develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along
the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the IPF (the IPF elevation to the south
of the Misty Cove Condominium). In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the IPF
substantially in accordance with the principles stated in Exhibit B to this letter.
Training Camp Off -Site Fan Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated
at a parking lot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project
site.
Project Dumpster/Rec.yling Area. The Project dumpster/recycling area will use containers with
lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage
and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays — not at nights or
very early morning hours. All non -recyclable materials placed in the containers will be in sealed
plastic bags.
Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence
between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least equal quality.
50744613
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
November 17, 2006
Page 2
Project Outdoor Li ting. No athletic field lighting is being proposed under the permit. The
Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this
Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away
from the Misty Cove residences.
Ste. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site,
so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with
City and state regulations.
Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower -level
plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views
of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property.
Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project application
shall be conditions to permit approval.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
I
Roger A. Pearce
Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC
cc: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton
Torn Peterson, Esq.
Mr. Lance Lopes
Ms. Elaine Wine
507446 0.2
v EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION —
SOUTH PROPERTY
FENCE LINE —
w PSE FASEMENT
UN£ ,TBCJ —
EXISTING PCWrR
POLE LOCATION -
PSe N,
`o
ELECT.
LIFT
STATION
`• *. WETLANDS
LAKE WASHINCTON
3O' � FIRELAA7`c �'�-1
ACCESS i
f, lj� ; f NAKUHAL GRASS ARACiICE FIELDS �.
I
NEW EN S
MAINTENANCE
L
SHED L
COVERED CAR WASH PAD
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION -
..5UFF R i
�I I
MAINT. PARKING � ���'Ta; ... .. _... ..... ... ... ....� f .
3 STALLS
r SECURITY GATE
dt SAND FILTER':.
EXTENT Or
PUBLIC ACCESS
t
m
x
cu
-i
EXISTING PUILDING
STRICTURE TO BE
REMOVED
5' ACCESS WALK
SECURITY FENCE
20' SERVICE ROAD ,
N
frfr
� Z
E
cr
ca F—
m $
r
�
CATE
—- —-'——'--1——'—'—'-- ——--—- —_
L_ PRDPOSEU FAILWA" CROSSING W 0
2_
a- 'T'ryry
V VI
_A D
W
��' �
�; eARK1iyC COUNT �- > W cn
STREAM CLASS GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 91 STALLS ❑ Z
LAKE WASHNGTON DRAINAGE 1- CLASS 2 (RE' FIGURE 6.3) SECURE TEAM PARKING 1fil STALLS ���Z O
GYPSY SUB TOTAL 252 STALLS —
r J
uj
0
- warTH LL.muw..n
PLAN -ALTERNATIVE °
Al Ml IGAT#�N SITE REVISED1SNOVEMBER L13 O
Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) — North Elevation
The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent
scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof
treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF,
three exterior wall systems are being developed:
1. Base — The first 30 feet of the facade will consist of cementious wall panels
and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 30 feet.
Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green -screen" that is
comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation.
2. Middle - The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall
panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 80 feet
with no "green screen."
3. Top — The "top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to
70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component
of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the
facade by casting varying shadow on the IPF facade.
Each layer of the facade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned
above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the facade will
have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure.
A range of color palettes are being studied for the facade including:
1. Metal Panels/Siding — Nickel to light gray
2. Cementious Panels — Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel
3. Translucent Panels — white to "off-white"flight gray
4. "green -screen" — stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the
screen.
Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential
final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page.
:XHIBIT,�
I �` 2
A.
EXHIBIT
Z�
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 51h day of December, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit documents. This information
was sent to:
Name
Representing
State Department of Ecology
State Department of Ecology
Office of the Attorney General
Attorney General
Target
owner
Parties of Record
(Signature of Sender)_
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
} SS
COUNTY OF KING }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Holly Graber
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: ; Q --
Notary Public in apf&for the State of VaOVI7A�p�
Notary (Print): -L -A 6v.c{ v
My appointment expires: �_ `c� _ t �� �i� -F
01011 WA
Seahawk Training Facility
LUA06-073 SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
r,t!4lPJ'. L1/4 a 1,
073
G r�r CITI. +F RENTON
♦ "' ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
GreggZimmerman P.E. Administrator
� � Kathy Kcotker, Mayor
January 8, 2007
Ms. Sunny Linhao Becker, P.E.
Environmental Engineer, Toxics Cleanup Program
Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office
3190 — 160"' Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98008-5452
Re: Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Engineering Design
Dear Ms. Becker
This letter is sent to advise you that we have reviewed the submittal package provided to
the City of Renton by the applicant for the Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility.
This submittal includes demolition plan, rough grading (cut and fill) plan, temporary
erosion and sedimentation control plan, Gypsy Subbasin pipe and outfall replacement,
and utility and drainage control plans.
We have found the submittal to be in conformance with City of Renton development
standards and design requirements.
We are also advising you herein that inspection of construction activity at the site will be
performed by City of Renton inspectors, not a third party utility construction inspection
service as previously planned.
Please do not hesitate to contact the project planner, Elizabeth Higgins at 425-430-7382,
if you have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sincyrely
Neil Watts, Director
Development Services Division
Cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager
David Murphy, Architect
Elaine Wine, Project Manager
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057
Thia naner rnnfains fi0% receded material 30°/ nostconsurner
RENTON
1HEA1) VF TH F. (, LI RV
236.838.9100 UA1W `HCNL
2D6.838.9101 VA.ird=,Vx
CITY OF RENTON
SOLI US.s.:..��;G ROU P11
RECEIVED
CITY CI_CzRK'S OFFICF.
November 17, 2006
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Scahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility
City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073
Dear Mr. Kaufman:
Two Union Square
e0i Union St. Suite 4950
Senttit. \NA 98101
Thomas F. Peterson
206.838.9112
tpeterson@sociuslaw.com
This law firm represents Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners (the "Association"). The
Association is a condominium association formed under RCW ch. 64.32 comprised of the
owners of condominium units in Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove"). Misty Cove is
located adjacent and to the north of the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility.
The Association is a party, having filed comments and an appeal of the City of Renton's
Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance ("MDNS"). Football Northwest LLC d/b/a Seattle
Seahawks ("FNW") and the Association have negotiated a Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Association has withdrawn its appeal of the MDNS.
The Association supports the City's permit for the Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility.
No. LUA06-073 based upon the agreed permit conditions set forth below:
Building Location/Indoor Practice Facility North Elevation Desigri. FNW shall develop the
Project with the office building and the Indoor Practice Facility ("IPF") located as shown in the
Mitigation Site Plan -Alternative, which is attached as Exhibit A to this letter. FNW shall
develop a green screen wall, planted with ivy or other appropriate landscaping materials, along
the bottom thirty (30) feet of the northeasterly elevation of the IPF (IPF elevation to the south of
the Misty Cove Condominium). In addition, FNW will develop the north elevation of the IPF
substantially in accordance with the principles stated in Exhibit B to this letter.
1 is?o s o l i If r 1,1 14, r o w
Mr. Fred J. Kaufman
November 17, 2006
Page 2
Training; Camp Off -Site Parking. Fan parking during training camp will be accommodated at a
parking lot or parking facility off the Project site, with fans then being bused to the Project site.
Project Dp=ster/Recycling Area. The Project dump ster/recycl ing area will use containers with
lids, and the container storage area will be screened from the Misty Cove property. The garbage
and recycling pickups will occur during normal business hours on weekdays — not at nights or
very early morning hours. All non -recyclable materials placed in containers will be in sealed
plastic bags.
_Misty Cove/FNW Property Line Fence. FNW shall replace the existing property line fence
between the Misty Cove property and the Project site with a new fence of at least equal quality.
Project Outdoor Lighting_ No athletic field lighting is being proposed under this permit. The
Seahawks agree not to seek any permit to do so for a period of 15 years from the date of this
Agreement. All project exterior lighting will be designed so that the lighting is directed away
from the Misty Cove residences.
Signag_e. FNW will provide signage that clearly indicates the main entrance to the Project site,
so that visitors to the site can easily find the entrance. Any signage will have to comply with
City and state regulations.
Shoreline Plantings. The proposed shoreline area planting plan shall include lower -level
plantings in the north section of the Project shoreline area, in order to minimize impacts of views
of the water from the adjacent Misty Cove Condominium property.
Shoreline Impacts. The mitigation and design measures in the Lake and Stream Study and the
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan submitted to the City as part of the Project application
shall be conditions permit approval.
Along with FNW, we request that the foregoing items be made conditions of permit approval in
your decision. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
omas F. Peterson
Enclosures
cc: Elizabeth Higgins, City of Renton
Roger Pearce
158?0
X
_AKE WASHNGTON
ESE nQ T C
!ELECT.
LIFT
STATION \ �,
-CURB �. ��� EXISTING BUILDING
WETLANDS �� \\ � o/ � `•� ��: --. STRUCTURE TO E?E
BUFFER REMOVED
42 ExXNT OF
r ` PUBLIC ACCESS 5• ACCESS WALK ~
RVICE ROAD
I - P EXiSTIN
ROCK SEC RIITY FENCE
E%IS',NG POWER I\\ 30' FIRE ��, _�--
POLL LOCATION -••••••• -
... ... ....... i.... ., ..,.. 0 ...5 h ACCESS
SOUTH PROPERTY I .I Y■
FENCE LINE ..
i PSE EASEMENT 1-
LIhE (TBD) I_ j�-NACURAL GRASS+QRACTICE FIE_65 `A°ti ��
EXISTING POWER _ r: - ! I ,€ rI €€u' .•may. I r
POLE LOCATION
..... ..I.. ....,
i
_ MI
€`¢,LEI(€
NEW 1 - STORY WOOOR PRACTICE FAaLFfY T KI \
MAINTENANCE k - - L rIl'
I
SHED 16t ILL R \
COVERED CAR WASH PAD - \
i
I \
SLE c POWER ug,
POLE LOCATION__--. _. .. ........ ...
TI I T FFIE-:- ..
MAINT- PARKING ....... .... .. .... .....U-L-LLJ_J� -
3 STAI-LSr�-
SECURITY GATE - ! I�1Tfl�T�lTTr
2ry-,W - ( ..... ....... . O AC PAR ING
CE AND FILTER 1 Tp SECURITY GATE
BUR INGTON N RTHER S
PHOPDSE I) RAILWAY CROSSINC LLI O
2 _
O UI
J D
w
IyQi �, PARKING COUNT ���J�! w'
STREAM CLASS GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 91 STALLS AT �f.�t Z O,I
LAKE WASHINGTON - CLASS 1 SECURE TEAM PARKING 161 STALLS y x't
GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE -- CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3) TOTAL 252 STALLS (i
co
w 6
LL
MITIGATION
o r; SREP�
Ai MITIGATION SITE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE 6SEPTEMBER p o;
•. gpp F ISEM-13 NO IJIXR L0 Zj -0 Q
Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) — North Elevation
The design features the use of traditional architectural devices to reduce the apparent
scale and mass of the project including: horizontal expression lines, special roof
treatments plus fenestration and glazing systems. At the north elevation of the IPF,
three exterior wall systems are being developed:
1. Base — The first 30 feet of the fagade will consist of cementious wall panels
and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 30 feet.
Additional shade and shadow will be created by a "green -screen" that is
comprised of a metal lattice grid with vegetation.
2. Middle - The middle portions of the elevation will consist of cementious wall
panels and/or nonreflective metal siding to a height of approximately 80 feet
with no "green screen."
3. Top — The "top" portions of the elevation will include a high percentage (up to
70% to 85% of translucent panels) and sculpted roof. The sculpted component
of the roof would add visual interest and reduce the apparent scale of the
fagade by casting varying shadow on the IPF fagade.
Each layer of the fagade will be defined by horizontal expression lines as mentioned
above. In addition, the composition of the materials being proposed for the fagade will
have a texture which will further reduce the apparent mass of the structure.
A range of color palettes are being studied for the fagade including:
1, Metal Panels/Siding — Nickel to light gray
2. Cementious Panels — Buff/Sandstone to light gray/nickel
3. Translucent Panels — white to "off-white"/light gray
4. "green -screen" — stainless/metal wire mesh with vegetation growing on the
screen.
Final color palettes will be based on actual materials selected. An example of potential
final colors, massing and roof design is included on the following page.
EXHIBIT
CITY OF RENTON
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS,
Appellant,
V.
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
RECEIVED
c,�ERK'S OFFICE
NO. LUA06-073
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF
APPEAL
Appellant Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners hereby voluntarily
dismisses its appeal of the City of Renton's Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated
filed November 6, 2006, with prejudice.
DATED this (Z!day of , 2006.
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF
APPEAL
15943
SOCIUS LAW GROUP, PLLC
B
Y
Thomas F. Peterson, WSBA #16587
Attorneys for Appellant
Socius Law Group, PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S
Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
1 _ Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
UP-0 73
Mp FOSTER PEPPER,,,,,
Direct Phone (206) 447-2690
Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2193
November 10, 2006 F-Mail taraj@Foster.com
Via Facsimile DEVELOPMENT pLA N1NG
Fred J. Kaufman NO'v 15 2a
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton hiXEIVED
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Misty Cove Assn ofApartment Owners v. City of Renton and Football Northwest
Request for Pre -hearing Conference
Dear Mr. Examiner:
We represent project applicant Football Northwest LLC in the above referenced appeal of
the City of Renton's MDNS on the proposed new corporate headquarters and training facility for
the Seattle Seahawks, The SEPA appeal hearing will be held on November 21, 2006 in
conjunction with an open record pre -decision hearing on the underlying permits.
In the interest of making the hearing as efficient as possible, we request a pre -hearing
telephonic conference with the Examiner to discuss the order of presentation of witnesses and
evidence and related pre -hearing matters. We can be available for such a conference anytime
during the week of November 131h except for I L00 AM Monday (13th), Noon Thursday (16`4)
and 1:00 PM Friday (17th).
Sincerely,
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
Jeffrey B. Taraday
Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC
cc: Roger Pearce, Esq.
Tom Peterson, Esq,
Tom Ehrlichman, Esq.
Mr. Steve Jansen
Zanetta Fontes, Esq.
Ms. Elizabeth Higgins
Clients
TEL:206.447.4400 EAx 206.447.9700 II]1THIRDAVENUE,SU[TE340U SEATTLE,W.ASHINGTON 981013299 WWWFQSTFR.COM
50743652.1 SEATTLE WgSHINGTON SPOKANE W.ASHINUWN PORTLAND OREGON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
cl. IF
�oNNJ�
N° 52006
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE
JANSEN,
Appellants,
v.
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
File No. LUA06-073
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN
APPEAL
1. INTRODUCTION
Football Northwest has applied to the City of Renton for shoreline and master plan
permits for its proposed new Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Headquarters")
for the Seattle Seahawks: The City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC")
issued a Report and Decision on October 16, 2006, The Report and Decision included the ERC's
SEPA threshold determination -- a Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance ('6MDNS") --- for
the Headquarters project. Decisions on the permit applications have not been made. An open
record pre -decision hearing on the permit application is scheduled before the Examiner for
November 21, 2006.
Mr. Steve Jansen has filed an appeal of the October 16, 2006, ERC Report for the
Headquarters project. Mr. Jansen owns and resides in a unit at the Misty Cove apartments that
are adiacent to the proposed Headquarters. Instead of challenging the City of Renton's MDNS,
Mr. Jansen's appeal challenges only the Headquarters project's compliance with certain
development regulations. Mr. Jansen is certainly free to comment on those issues at the public
hearing on the permit applications, but there is no appeal of those issues currently available. The
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 THIRD AVENUE;, Sun+ 3400
SEATI'L F, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
I'tioNF (706) 447-4400 Fax (206) 447-9700
9074373S 2
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
only appeal currently available before the Examiner is the appeal of the MDNS. Accordingly,
Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed.
11. ARGUMENT
The only appealable decision that has been made with respect to the Headquarters project
is the SEPA threshold determination. Mr. Jansen has not appealed the issuance of the MDNS.
Instead, Mr. Jansen's appeal alleges only that the Headquarters project fails to comply with
certain development regulations. (Mr. Jansen quotes language from RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4-
9-030M but may have meant to cite the shoreline regulations at RMC 4-3-090K3.)
Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons- First and foremost,
the ERC's discussion of the permitting criteria, being only a recommendation to the Examiner, is
not subject to appeal — only the MDNS decision is subject to appeal. The Examiner will consider
all the applicable development regulations, including any of the regulations referenced in the
Jansen appeal (if relevant), when the Examiner considers the pending applications.' Because the
Jansen appeal is not an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, it should be dismissed.
Instead, the Examiner should treat the applicable portion of the Jansen appeal as a comment
letter on the pending applications.
DATED this 14`h day of November, 2006.
FO7PEPPER PLLC
Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113
Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182
Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest
Note that some of the development regulations cited by Mr. Jansen would not apply to this
project.
Even as a comment letter it should be noted that Mr. Jansen's concerns about wetlands appear
to be misplaced. No wetlands are proposed to be filled as part of the Headquarters project. The
only wetland on the project site is a compensatory wetland that was created in conjunction with
the Department of Ecology clean up of hazardous materials from the site. This wetland and its
buffers will not be disturbed by the Headquarters project.
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 2 Fosru; PrrrF a PLLC
nri "rt[[an AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SEATTLE, W:ASHINGTON 98101-3299
NONE Q06) 447-4400 rAx (205) 447-9700
5n7437352
y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Susan Allan declares:
I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to
be a witness in the above -entitled proceeding, and that, on November 14, 2006, I caused to be
delivered in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the attached Motion to
Dismiss Jansen Appeal to the following:
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Fax: 425.430.6523
Via Fax and U.S. Mail
Mr. Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane 44
Renton, WA 98056
E-mail: smjansen(Damsn.com
Via E-mail and U. S. Mailmm�
Mr. Thomas Peterson
Socius Law Group PLLC
Two Union Square
601 Union St., Suite 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: t eterson t�sociuslaw.com
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Thomas Ehrlichman
TJ Ehrlichman & Associates
2827 Rockefeller Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
E-mail: tehrlichman,tjelaw.con�
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Zanetta Fontes
Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S.
P. O, Box 626
Renton, WA 98057
E-mail: zlfontes@scanet.com
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Elizabeth Higgins
City of Renton,
Development Services Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton Washington 98055
E-mail: ehi g gins aci.renton.wa.us
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 14" day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.
q�L' /I
Susan Allan
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 3
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 THlen AVFNUF., SUM:3400
SFATTLF, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PRONE (2061447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700
10743735 2
•
DEVS
ry Ew p
R,z4ANNING
Nov 15 200
8ECElVED
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CffY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE
JANSEN, File No. LUA06-073
Appellants,
V.
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON
BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST
TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Ilearing Examiner; and
TO: All Parties; and their respective attorneys.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, without waiving any defenses or objections, Roger A.
Pearce, Jeffrey B. Taraday and Foster Pepper PLLC appear in this action on behalf of the
Respondent Football Northwest. Copies of all further papers and proceedings in this action,
except original process, should be served upon Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. Taraday at the
address stated below. Specific contact information for Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. "faraday
are as follows:
Roger A. Pearce
Foster Pepper PLLC
I I I I Third Ave., Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ph: 206,447.4676
Fax: 206,749.1997
E-mail: pearr,(�'foster.com
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF FOSTER PEPPrR PLLC
OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 1 1111 Tmvi) AVENUE, SuiTE 3400
SEATTLE, WASH[NGTON 98101 3299
PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700
SOiaa018J
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
Jeffrey B. Taraday
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ph: 206,447.2690
Fax: 206.749.2193
E-mail: tarai(a- foster.com
DATED this 131h day of November, 2006.
ST EPPER PLLC
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF
OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 2
Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113
Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182
Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 THIRD AVENIJI, SUrrE 3400
SFAT U., WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHONE (206) 4474400 FAX (206) 447-9700
50744018.1
r
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Susan Allan declares:
I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B- Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to
be a witness in the above -entitled proceeding, and that, on November 13, 2006, 1 caused to be
delivered in the manner indicated below true and correct copies of the attached Notice of
Appearance, and this Declaration of Service, to the following:
Fred J. Kaufman
Thomas Ehrlichman
Hearing Examiner
TJ Ehrlichman & Associates
City of Renton
2827 Rockefeller Ave.
1055 South Grady Way
Everett, WA 98201
Renton, Washington 98055
Via U.S. Mail
Original
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Steve Jansen
Zanetta Fontes
5021 Ripley Lane 94
Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S.
Renton, WA 98056
P. 0. Box 626
Via U.S. Mail
Renton, WA 98057
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Thomas Peterson
Elizabeth Higgins
Socius Law Group PLLC
City of Renton,
Two Union Square
Development Services Division
601 Union St., Suite 4950
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept,
Seattle, WA 98101
Via L.S. Mail
Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton Washington 98055
Via US. Mail
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this I')"' day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.
Susan Allan
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF
OF FOOTBALL NORTIIWEST - 3
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 Txuuz AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 93101-3299
PHONE Q06) 447-4400 FAX (206) 447-9700
5074401B.i
t
4
III
6WILSON,
INC.
FISHANNON
FLORIDA
-
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
MISSOURI
OREGON
WASHING70N
November 14, 2006
Ms. Elaine Wine
Football Northwest, LLC
505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
RE: BAXTER SITE GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS,
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND PRACTICE FACILITY,
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Dear Elaine:
Pursuant to your request, we have prepared this letter to summarize the general differences
between the subsurface conditions below the north Baxter site, where the Headquarters and
Indoor Practice Facility are currently proposed, and the south Baxter site. The subsurface
conditions of the north Baxter site were explored with 13 soil borings. These soil borings
encountered competent bedrock at depths ranging from 17.5 to 58 feet. A subsequent
geophysical survey completed on the north Baxter site revealed that the competent bedrock
surface is generally less than 40 feet deep below most of the proposed building footprint. The
bedrock will provide competent bearing for foundation shafts supporting the proposed building.
Two deep soil borings were completed within the south Baxter site in previous studies. Boring
BAX-8b encountered dense soils at 50 feet deep. Boring SWB-2 encountered bearing soils at
90 feet deep and bedrock at 98 feet. The overlying soils above the dense soils and bedrock are
mostly loose or soft sand, silt, or clay, with discontinuous layers of peat. This overlying soil is
not suitable for foundation support of the proposed building.
Based on the results of the subsurface explorations, it is reasonable to conclude that the north
Baxter site is a much better location for the proposed building from a geotechnical engineering
perspective. The relatively shallow depth to competent bearing materials on the north Baxter site
will make foundation construction costs significantly less than if the building were located over
the south Baxter site. Although additional subsurface explorations would be needed to fully
400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777
TDB: 1.800.833.8388
www. shannonwilscn.com
21-1-20525-004
r
11
Ms. Elaine Wine
Football Northwest, LLC
November 14, 2006
Page 2
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
evaluate the potential depths of foundation shafts on the south Baxter site, it is our opinion that
foundations would likely be two to three times deeper and therefore more costly on the south
Baxter site.
Additionally, the ground surface elevation of the south Baxter site is several feet lower than the
north site. We expect that significantly more grading work would be required to develop the
building on the south site and practice fields on the north, as compared to the currently proposed
site plan.
Please call me at (206) 695-6875 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
EXPIRES 4/2t/ OO
Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G.
Associate
MWP:TMG/mwp
2l.]-20525-"-L2NY9daUwpXET
'Ot
21-1-20525-004
Exhibit 26
EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are entered into the record:
Exhibit 1:
Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and
publication, environmental review documentation,
correspondence from interested parties, and other items
pertinent to this request.
Exhibit 2:
Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3:
Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties
(date unknown)
Exhibit 4:
Zoning Map (dated 02/16/2006)
Exhibit 5:
Mitigation Site Plan - Alternative Plan (dated 11/13/2006)
Exhibit 6: Plan Diagrams (dated 11/07/2006)
Exhibit 7: North and South Building Elevations (dated 11/15/2006)
Exhibit 8: South View Transverse Section (dated 11/15/2006)
Exhibit 9: Base Site Plan (dated 11/13/2006)
Exhibit 10: Building Location Options (dated 11/03/2006)
Exhibit 11: Green Screen Wall A (no date)
Exhibit 12: Green Screen Wall B (no date)
Exhibit 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 (no date)
Exhibit 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan (no date)
Exhibit 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Mitigated Site Plan (no
date)
Exhibit 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Comparison (no date)
Exhibit 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 (no date)
Exhibit 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan (no date)
Exhibit 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Mitigated Site Plan (no
date)
Exhibit 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Comparison (no date)
Exhibit 21: Daily Shadow Studies — Base Plan (no date)
Exhibit 22: Daily Shadow Studies — Mitigated Alternative Plan (no
date)
Exhibit 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Existing Conditions (no date)
Exhibit 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Base Plan (no date)
Exhibit 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Mitigated Alternative Plan (no
date)
Exhibit 26: List of Exhibits
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Jodv L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising
Representative of the
King County Journal
a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington, The King
County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the
Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County,
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the
Kin-, County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a
Public Notice
was published on October 23, 2006.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum
of $150.75, �.��
Jody art-0
Lega Advertising Representative, King County Journal
Subscribed and sworn to me this 23`a day of October, 2006.:
B D Cantelon
Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington
PO Number:
NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
COMM171EE & PUBLIC HEARING
RENTO , WASHINGTON
The Environmental Review Com-
mittee has issued a Determination of
Non -Significance -Mitigated for the fol-
lowing project under the aut.Irority of
the Renton Municipal Code.
Seahawks Headquarters and
Training Facility
IXA06-073, SA -hi, SA-H, SM, FCF
Lncatinn: 5015 Lake Washington
Blvd N. The project proponent is
requesting SEPA environmental
review for development of the
Seahawks Headquarters and
Training Facility. The proposed
project would consist of a threa-
story office building and indoor
practice facility in a single
structure and four outdoor practice
fields for the Sport of professional
football. An ancillary building for
football -related equipment storage
is also planned. The proposed
project location is a vacant site
between the shore of Lake
Washington and the NE 44th
Street interchange with lot#:rstate
405 4Exit 71 in Northeast Renton.
The site consists of two tax parcels,
known as Baxter North arid Baxter
South Properties, The 19,6 acre
Baxter property is a former timber
processing/wood treatment facility.
Appeals of the environmental
determ ination must be filed in writing
on or before 5:00 PM on Novernlxr 6,
2006. Appeals must be filed in writing
together with the required 575.00
application fee with: Hearint Exam-
iner, City of Renton, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Appeals to the Examiner are governed
by City of Renton Municipal Code Sec-
tion 4-8-110,B.Additional information
regarding the appeal process may he
obtained from the Renton Citv Cturk's
Office, (4251430-6510.
A Public Hearing will tw, held by the
Renton Hearing Examiner in the
Council Chambers. City Hall, on
November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to con-
sider the Master Site Plan and Mti.Ster
Site Plan. If the Environmental Deter-
mination is appealed, the appeal will
he heard as part of this public bear-
ing. Interested parties are invited to
attend the public hearing.
Publication Date: October 23, 2006
Published in the King County 3ournal
October 23, 2006. #86192.5
40
CITAOF RENTON I
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
November 27, 2006
Ms. Sunny Linhao Becker, P.E.
Environmental Engineer, Toxics Cleanup Program
Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office
3190 — 160"i Avenue SE
Bellevue Washington 98008-5452
Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
Re: Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility Engineering Design Report
Substantive Requirements I- U^ p b r Q 7 3 SA - H� 5A — M, 5 M, E C F
Dear Ms. Becker
We have reviewed the "Draft Engineering Design Report for the Seahawks Headquarters and
Practice Facility — North and South Baxter Properties Renton, Washington," which includes an
Addendum to the "Engineering Design Report for the Baxter South Property in Renton." Both
were prepared by The RETEC Group, Inc., for remediation of site contamination, and dated
October 2006 and May 28, 2002 respectively.
The cleanup action is being accomplished under the Model Toxics Control Act, and as such,
Washington State Department of Ecology preempts local permit authority. Per RCW
70.105D.090, however, the remedial action must comply with the substantive provisions of any
laws requiring or authorizing local government permits or approvals.
Our review indicates that the proposal to remediate contamination on the Baxter property
meets substantive permit requirements of the City of Renton, including Criteria for.
Wetland Buffers and Buffer Averaging (RMC 4-3-050M), Criteria for Relocation of Piped
or Culverted Streams (RMC 4-3-050L5), Shoreline Substantive Development Permit (RMC
4-9-190), Special Permit for -Grade and Fill (RMC 4-4-060), Routine Vegetation~
Management Permit (RMC 4-4-130), and Utility Construction Permit (RMC 44-060).
These permits would allow construction of utility systems including water, fire, sanitary
sewer, and stormwater control.
Permit requirements not included in our review for compliance include Building
Construction and Roadway Construction Permits.
Inspection of construction activity at the site would be performed by an agreed -upon third party
utility construction inspection service.
Please do not hesitate to contact the project planner, Elizabeth Higgins at 425430-7382, if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Sine rely
Neil Watts, Director
Development Services Division
Cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager
Roger Pearce, Foster Pepper PLLC
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
MThis paper contains 50%o recycled material, 30%postconsumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
1'y `� r
0 FOSTER PEPPER,.,,,
Memorandum
To: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Fred Kaufrnan
From: Roger A. Pearce, Attorney for Applicant Football Northwest LLC
Date: November 21, 2006
Subject: City of Renton Application LUA06-073
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
City of Renton Shoreline Regulations
This memorandum briefly outlines the regulations of the City of Renton Shoreline Master
Program applicable to the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters project. The Seahawks site is in the
City's Urban Shoreline environment.
Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") §4-3-090J(2). Urban environments are areas of "high -
intensity land use" that are suitable for areas "extremely intensive use pressure."
The Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and 'Training Facility (the "Project) is a
relatively high intensity use, even though only approximately 130 employees and up to 60
players would use a site of over 19 acres,
RMC §4-3-090J(5)(b)
Priority is given to "planning for" public visual and physical access to water.
Commercial uses shall be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities where practicable.
The higher portion of the Project building — the Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) has been
pulled back to approximately 200 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in
order to minimize view impacts to the water from the neighboring Misty Cove
Condominiums. With respect to public views from 1--405 and other nearby roads,
approximately half of the Project site will be athletic fields developed at grade, which
will function as a view corridor to the water.
The Project is furnishing a public access and walk area along the shoreline which will tie
in with the eventual rails -to -trails project just to the east of the Project site.
RMC §4-3-090K General Use Regulations for all Shoreline Uses
4-3-090K(2)
Consider effects on water quality and wildlife and soil quality; control erosion.
TH. 206.447.4400 FAx: 206,447,9700 1111THIRD AVENUE, SUITt34Uo, SFATTLE, WASHINGTON 98lu1-3299 WWW.FOSTER.COM
SEATTLE WASHINCTON SPOKANE WASHINGTON PORTLAND OREGON
507435U3 3
Memorandum
November 21, 2006
Page 2
The stormwater management plan, the Lake and Stream Study, the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan, and the Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan for the Project's
athletic fields ensure water quality and wildlife impacts are mitigated. The Project is
part of a cleanup of a formerly polluted industrial site. That cleanup is being
administered by the Washington Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control
Act. Erosion will be controlled by best management practices during construction, as
detailed in the Engineering Design Report to Ecology, a copy of'which is in the City 's
permit record.
4-3-090K(3)
Potential impact on adjacent and nearby land and shoreline users shall be considered and "efforts
made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects.
(a)(i)Consider view obstruction.
The Project buildings have been sited in order to minimize view obstructions.
(a)(ii)Noise, odors, night lighting, water and land traffic.
Training camp activities will be conducted on the south end of the site, away from the
residential use to the north, and will occur during the middle of the day. No odors are
anticipated.
No nighttime athletic field lighting is proposed, and outdoor security lighting will be
designed with directional fixtures that prevent light spillage onto adjacent buildings off -
site.
No changes to water traffic are anticipated. Adverse impacts to land traffic are being
mitigated by contributing to the City's road improvement project for Ripley Lane and by
off -site parking and busing fans to the Project site during training camp activities.
(a)(iii)Uniform and coordinated design.
The site buildings are being designed in a coordinated manner,
(a)(iv)Landscape screening to hide from public view areas such as disposal bins, storage
yards.
The dumpster and recyclable areas will be screened.
(a)(v)Work areas on a site in a residential area should be in enclosed buildings. Outdoor
activities of commercial operations shall be limited to those necessary for the operation of the
enterprise.
Outdoor activities on the athletic fields are necessary for the operation of the enterprise.
Other activities are within the buildings.
RMC §4-3-090K(4)
Where possible, leave space and ROW for nonmotorized trail connections.
The Project will provide for a connection with the proposed rails -to -trails project in the
BNSF right -of --way to the east of the site. An integrated trail system along the water's
edge is impractical in this location because of the Misty Cove residential building and
marina along the shoreine to the north and the wetland and Puget Sound Energy
substation sites along the shoreline to the south.
50743583 3
Memorandum
November 21, 2006
Page 3
RMC §4-3-090K(5)
Facility arrangement — Where feasible, locate water -related or water -enjoyment uses along the
shoreline and other facilities inland.
Public access is located along the water's edge. The other proposed uses of the site in
this application are not water -related.
RMC §4-3-090K(6)
Landscaping — Landscaping should be indigenous to the specific type of waterway.
The existing invasive species on the site will be replaced by indigenous species, which
will provide better habitat values.
RMC §4-3-090L Specific Use Regulations
RMC §4-3-090L(5) Commercial Developments
RMC §4-3-090L(5)(a)(1)
Encourage new commercial developments in areas where current commercial uses exist.
The 19+ acre site was most recently used,for industrial purposes. Industrial uses
still occupy the site to the south. The Project provides a transition beta°een the
residential use to the north of the site and the industrial use to the south.
RMC §4-3-090L(5)(a)(ii)
New commercial development on Lake Washington that is not water -related,
water -dependent or water -enjoyment must provide significant public access to and along
the water's edge.
Public access is provided along the north side of the site and along the water's
edge. Access along the south of the site is not practical because it would conflict
with the site's planned practice,ield uses, would conflict with the wetland areas
in the west corner of the site, and would require public access across the
Superfund site to the south.
RMC §4-3-090L(5)(b)
New commercial development should incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline for the general public.
Passive recreation opportunities are provided along the shoreline for the general
public and are appropriate for this site.
RMC §4-3-090L(5)(c) — View Impacts
Applicant must indicate in application the effect the proposed development will have on
the scenic view prevailing in the given area. And indicate what steps have been taken in
design to reduce to a minimum the significant view enjoyed by any significant number of
peoplc in the area.
The primary scenic view in this area is the northwest -- the view to Lake
Washington and Mercer Island beyond, which is to the northwest. The visual
simulations prepared far the project show that there is little or no view impact to
residential properties up the hill. Because those properties are distant from the
50743583.3
Memorandum
November 21, 2006
Page 4
project (across Ripley Lane, across the broad I-405 right-of-way, and across the
wide commercial zoning area on the other side of I-405) the new Indoor Practice
Facility (IPF) at the Seahawks Corporate Headquarters occupies a very small
percentage of the overall view from those properties. The views from those
properties to the water are also already largely obstructed by existing mature
trees, particularly the large trees along the Ripley Lane right-of-way east of'the
Project. The views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from the south -
facing units at Misty Cove are shown in Project photosimulations. Those views
are not significantly impacted by the project. The original building site plan
proposal had some impacts to views of 'the shoreline and across Lake Washington
from upper Misty Cove units that are located most easterly. The mitigated
building site plan location has moved the entire building approximately 60 feet to
the east, which has minimized or eliminated those impacts.
RMC §4-3-090L(5)(d)
Commercial building should be located no closer than 50 feet from the Ordinary High
Water Mark
The proposed building is well back from the 50 foot setback line. The IPF is now
located outside the Shoreline District,
5V-43503 3
T _� E E _
� � 3.
}} �■y��
06 t, N. ...
" rV
To:
Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator
Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator
I. David Daniels, Fire Chief
Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator
From:
Jennifer Henning, Development Planning
i y4
�iJ ✓�, �' 1
t GPI
E
F?^j
«. b� et
M�m'
'"^d`. ",.
P
Agenda listed below.
Seahawks Headauarters and Training Facility fHiaains)
LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the Seahawks Headquarters and
Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a
single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for
football -related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore
of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1).
The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North (10.01 acres) and Baxter South (16.57 [7?] acres)
Properties. The Baxter property is a former timber processingtwood treatment facility. The 19.68 acre property (total)
is zoned Commercial ! Residential I Office 2 (COR 2).
cc: K. Keolker, Mayor
J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Suzanne Dale Eftey, EDNSP Director
J. Gray, Fire Prevention
N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director 0
F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
S. Engler, Fire Prevention G
J. Medzegian, Council
P. Hahn, PIB/PW Transportation Systems Director
R. Lind, Economic Development
L. Warren, City Attorney a)
f
- 1
2
4
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
5
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
6 APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE
JANSEN,
7 File No- LUA06-073
Appellants,
8
V. MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN
9 APPEAL,
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
10 NORTHWEST,
11 Respondents.
12 1. INTRODUCTION
13 Football Northwest has applied to the City of Renton for shoreline and master plan
14 permits for its proposed new Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Headquarters")
15 for the Seattle Seahawks: The City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC")
16 issued a Report and Decision on October 16, 2006. The Report and Decision included the ERC's
17 SEPA threshold determination — a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") -- for
18 the Headquarters project. Decisions on the permit applications have not been made. An open
19 record pre -decision hearing on the permit application is scheduled before the Examiner for
20 No embcr 21, 2006.
21 Mr. Steve Jansen has filed an appeal of the October 16, 2006, ERC Report for the
22 Headquarters project. Mr. Jansen owns and resides in a unit at the Misty Cove apartments that
23 are adjacent to the proposed Headquarters. Instead of challenging the City of Renton's MDNS,
24 Mr. Jansen's appeal challenges only the Headquarters project's compliance with certain
25 development regulations. Mr. Jansen is certainly free to comment on those issues at the public
26 hearing on the permit applications, but there is no appeal of those issues currently available. The
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 1 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SLAME, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHOW (200 447-4400 Fax (206) 447-9700
5074M5,2
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
only appeal currently available before the Examiner is the appeal of the MDNS. Accordingly,
Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed.
II. ARGUMENT
The only appealable decision that has been made with respect to the Headquarters project
is the SEPA threshold determination. Mr. Jansen has not appealed the issuance of the MDNS.
Instead, Mr. Jansen's appeal alleges only that the Headquarters project fails to comply with
certain development regulations. (Mr. Jansen quotes language from RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4-
9-030M but may have meant to cite the shoreline regulations at RMC 4-3-090K3.)
Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons. First and foremost,
the ERC's discussion of the permitting criteria, being only a recommendation to the Examiner, is
not subject to appeal — only the MDNS decision is subject to appeal. The Examiner will consider
all the applicable development regulations, including any of the regulations referenced in the
Jansen appeal (if relevant), when the Examiner considers the pending applications.' Because the
Jansen appeal is not an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, it should be dismissed.
Instead, the Examiner should treat the applicable portion of the Jansen appeal as a comment
letter on the pending applications.
DATED this 141h day of November, 2006.
FOS A PEPPER PLLC
Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113
Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182
Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest
1 Note that some of the development regulations cited by Mr. Jansen would not apply to this
project.
Even as a comment letter it should be noted that Mr. Jansen's concerns about wetlands appear
to be misplaced. No wetlands are proposed to be filled as part of the Headquarters project. The
only wetland on the project site is a compensatory wetland that was created in conjunction with
the Department of Ecology clean up of hazardous materials from the site. This wetland and its
buffers will not be disturbed by the Headquarters project.
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 2 FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 THmi) AVENUE, SUITE: 3400
SEATCLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAx (206) 447-9700
507437352
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Susan Allan declares:
I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to
be a witness in the above -entitled proceeding, and that, on November 14, 2006, 1 caused to be
delivered in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the attached Motion to
Dismiss Jansen Appeal to the following:
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Fax: 425.430.6523
Via Fax and U.S. Mail
Thomas Ehrlichman
TJ Ehrlichman & Associates
2827 Rockefeller Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
E-mail: tehrlichman(a'Ajelaw.com
Via E-mail and US. Wait
Mr. Steve Jansen
Zanetta Fontes
5021 Ripley Lane 94
Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S.
Renton, WA 98056
P. O. Box 626
E-mail: smjansen(&.msn.com
Renton, WA 98057
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
E-mail: zlfontes(a'seanet.com
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Mr. Thomas Peterson
Elizabeth Higgins
Socius Law Group PLLC
City of Renton,
Two Union Square
Development Services Division
601 Union St., Suite 4950
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: tpetersonrw.sociuslaw.com
Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor
Via E-mail and US. Mail
1055 South Grady Way
Renton Washington 98055
E-mail: ehi Jinso,ci,renton.wa.us
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 141" day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.
Susan Allan
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 3 FosTERPEPPERPLLC
1111 THIRD AVENUE, $LATE 3400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHONE (206) 447-4400 FAX 4206) 447-9700
SD743735 2
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
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS, and STEVE
JANSEN, File No. LUA06-073
Appellants,
V.
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON
BEHALF OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST
TO: Fred Kaufman, City of Renton Hearing Examiner; and
TO: All Parties; and their respective attorneys.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, without waiving any defenses or objections, Roger A.
Pearce, Jeffrey B. Taraday and Foster Pepper PLLC appear in this action on behalf of the
Respondent Football Northwest. Copies of all further papers and proceedings in this action,
except original process, should be served upon Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. Taraday at the
address stated below. Specific contact information for Roger A. Pearce and Jeffrey B. Taraday
are as follows:
Roger A. Pearce
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ph: 206.447.4676
Fax: 206,749.1997
E-mail: pearrAfoster.corn
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF F057ER PEPPER PLLC
OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 1 1111TilIRDAVLNUE,SUITE3400
SEAT] LE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHONE (2(16)447-4400 FAX 1206) 447.9700
50744018.1
Jeffrey B. Taraday
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Ave., Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Ph; 206.447.2690
Fax: 206,749,2193
E-mail: taraL((d..foster.com
DATED this 13"' day of November, 2006.
ST EPPER PLLC
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. ON BEHALF
OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 2
Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21 113
Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182
Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHONE (206) 4474400 FAX (206) 447-9700
50744019 1
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Susan Allan declares:
I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to
be a witness in the above -entitled proceeding, and that, on November 13, 2006, I caused to be
delivered in the manner indicated below true and correct copies of the attached Notice of
Appearance, and this Declaration of Service, to the following:
Fred J. Kaufman
Thomas Ehrlichman
Hearing Examiner
TJ Ehrlichman & Associates
City of Renton
2827 Rockefeller Ave.
1055 South Grady Way
Everett, WA 98201
Renton, Washington 98055
Via U.S. Mail
Original
i
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Steve Jansen
Zanetta Fontes
5021 Ripley Lane #4
Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S.
Renton, WA 98056
P. 0. Box 626
Via US. Mail
Renton, WA 98057
Via U.S. Mail
Mr. Thomas Peterson
Elizabeth Higgins
Socius Law Group PLLC
City of Renton,
Two Union Square
Development Services Division
601 Union St., Suite 4950
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
Seattle, WA 98101
Via U.S. Mail
Renton City Mall, Sixth Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton Washington 98055
Via U.S. Mail
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
i'oregoing is true and correct.
DATED this 13`h day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.
Susan Allan
NOTICE, OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF
OF FOOTBALL NORTHWEST - 3
Fos] ER PEPPER PLLC
11111 HIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
PHONE (2061447-4400 FAX (206)447-9700
50744018,1
`f1'1 FOSTER PEPPER
Direct Phone
Direct Facsimile
November 10, 2006 E-Mail
Via Facsimile
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
Citv of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
(206)447-2690
(206)749-2193
taraj@,foster.com
Re: Misty Cove Ass'n of Apartment Chvners v. City of Renton and Football Northwest
Request for Pre -hearing Conference
Dear Mr. Examiner:
We represent project applicant Football Northwest LLC in the above referenced appeal of
the City of Renton's MDNS on the proposed new corporate headquarters and training facility for
the Seattle Seahawks, The SEPA appeal hearing will be held on November 21, 2006 in
conjunction with an open record pre -decision hearing on the underlying permits.
In the interest of malting the hearing as efficient as possible, we request a pre -hearing
telephonic conference with the Examiner to discuss the order of presentation of witnesses and
evidence and related pre -hearing matters. We can be available for such a conference anytime
during the week of November 13th except for 11:00 AM Monday (131h), Noon Thursday (161h)
and 1:00 PM Friday (17111)1
Sincerely,
FOS ER PEPPER PLLC
Jeffrey B. Taraday
Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC
cc: Roger Pearce, Esq.
Tom Peterson, Esq,
Tom Ehrlichman, Esq.
Mr. Steve Jansen
Zanetta Fontes, Esq.
Ms. Elizabeth Higgins
Clients
rr: 20E.447.4400 1.-%a_206.447A700 a .I riIli n v� i --am SE:U" I'LIi, A, AS1 I I NGTON ) is V1-'W\V.FOSTF,R.CU'd
5u743652I SFIATTLF.%k.A,iuAc;Ix�SPOK_1wL;ON PORTLAND<nt co%
FP 11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 001/004 Fax Server
FOSTER PEPPER,,,,
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 5HEE1'
Date Faxed: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:59:44 PM
TO: FAX NUMBER: VOICE CONTACT:
Fred Kaufman 425.430.6523
From: Jeffrey Taraday/Susan Allan
Direct Dial: 206-447-7901
Direct Return Fax:
Number of Pages (Including cover page): 04
Message: Hard copy to follow.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED ANDIOR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE
READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOTAN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTIONOR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THIS COMMUNICATIONIS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THIS FACSIMILE TO US AT THE ABOVE
ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU_
PHONE: 206.447.4400 FAx- 206.447.9700 im TARDAVENUF,SUITE34W, SEATTLE, WASFUNGTON 9810i-3299 WWW.FOSTER.COM
SEATTLE wAsmNoToN SPOKANE wASHINGTON PORTLAND oRFooN
FP
11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 002/004 Fax Server
1
2
3
4;
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS, and SIEVE
JANSEN.
Appellants,
V.
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
File No. LUA06-073
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN
APPEAL
I. INTRODUCTION
Football Northwest has applied to the City of Renton for shoreline and master plan
permits for its proposed new Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility (the "Headquarters")
for the Seattle Seahawks: The City of Renton's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC")
issued a Report and Decision on October 16, 2006. The Report and Decision included the ERC's
SEPA threshold determination — a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") — for
the Headquarters project. Decisions on the permit applications have not been made. An open
record pre -decision hearing on the permit application is scheduled before the Examiner for
November 21, 2006,
W. Steve Jansen has filed an appeal of the October 16, 2006, ERC Report for the
Headquarters project. Mr. Jansen owns and resides in a unit at the Misty Cove apartments that
are adjacent to the proposed Headquarters. Instead of challenging the City of Renton's MDNS,
Mr. Jansen's appeal challenges only the Headquarters project's compliance with certain
development regulations. Mr. Jansen is certainly free to comment on those issues at the public
hearing on the permit applications, but there is no appeal of those issues currently available. The
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 1 PosTua PBPPfix PLLC
1111 THmv AvEmF., Surn 34W
SFwrn.s, WAsRDic ?i 99101-32"
Pr or,F f2961 "74M PAX (M) "7.97ao
307437352
FP
11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 003/004 Fax Server
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
only appeal currently available before the Examiner is the appeal of the MDNS. Accordingly,
Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed.
II. ARGUMENT
The only appealable decision that has been made with respect to the Headquarters project
is the SEPA threshold determination. Mr. Jansen has not appealed the issuance of the MDNS.
Instead, Mr. Jansen's appeal alleges only that the Headquarters project fails to comply with
certain development regulations. (Mr. Jansen quotes language from RMC 4-3-050 and RMC 4-
9-030M but may have meant to cite the shoreline regulations at RMC 4-3-09QK3.)
Mr. Jansen's appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons. First and foremost,
the ERC's discussion of the permitting criteria, being only a recommendation to the Examiner, is
not subject to appeal — only the MDNS decision is subject to appeal. The Examiner will consider
all the applicable development regulations, including any of the regulations referenced in the
Jansen appeal (if relevant), when the Examiner considers the pending applications.' Because the
Jansen appeal is not an appeal of the SEPA threshold determination, it should be dismissed.
Instead, the Examiner should treat the applicable portion of the Jansen appeal as a comment
letter on the pending applications.
DATED this 14`" day of November, 2006.
FOS PEPPER PLLC
Roger A. Pearce, WSBA No. 21113
Jeffrey B. Taraday, WSBA No. 28182
Attorney for Respondent Football Northwest
1 Note that some of the development regulations cited by Mr. Jansen would not apply to this
project.
Even as a comment letter it should be noted that Mr. Jansen's concerns about wetlands appear
to be misplaced. No wetlands are proposed to be filled as part of the Headquarters project. The
only wetland on the project site is a compensatory wetland that was created in conjunction with
the Department of Ecology clean up of hazardous materials from the site. This wetland and its
buffers will not be disturbed by the Headquarters project.
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 2 FosrERPEPPERPLLC
11111irmn Avmm hurrE 34M
SEATRE,WASHtNGr0N 93101-3299
PRONG (200 4k7-"00 FA% CM) "7.9700
S0717735.1
FP
11/14/2006 4:00 PAGE 004/004 Fax Server
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
Susan Allan declares:
I am a legal assistant to Jeffrey B. Taraday. I am now, and at all times hereinafter
mentioned was, a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, and competent to
be a witness in the above -entitled proceeding, and that, on November 14, 2006, I caused to be
delivered in the manner indicated below a true and correct copy of the attached Motion to
Dismiss Jansen Appeal to the following:
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Fax: 425.430.6523
Via Fax and US. Mail
Mr. Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane #4
Renton, WA 98056
E-mail: sm'anse sn.com
Via E-mail and US Mail
Mr. Thomas Peterson
Socius Law Group PLLC
Two Union Square
601 Union St., Suite 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: Vterson.Asoeiuslaw.corn
Via E-mail and US. Mail
Thomas Ehrlichman
TJ Ehrlichman & Associates
2827 Rockefeller Ave.
Everett, WA 98201
E-mail: tehrlichman(aMelaw.com
Via E-mail and U.S. Mail
Zanetta Fontes
Warren, Barber & Fontes, P.S.
P. O. Box 626
Renton, WA 99057
E-mail: z[fontes@Aganet.com
Via E-mail and US. Mail
Elizabeth Higgins
City of Renton,
Development Services Division
Planning/Building/Public Works Dept.
Renton City Hall, Sixth Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton Washington 98055
E-mail: ehiggins(alci.renton.wa us
Via E-mail and US. Mail
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED this le day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.
Susan Allan
MOTION TO DISMISS JANSEN APPEAL - 3
FosTu Poem PLLC
nil T=DAvENv .Sum 3400
S-rrtX WAM M=N 49101.3M
PHONi(106)N7-TWO FA7[I200447A700
50743735.2
""R
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
November 13, 2006
Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane #+4
Renton, WA 98056
i
i
CIT-V IF RENT01*4
Hearing Examiner
Fred J. Kaufman
Thomas Peterson, Esq.
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Ste. 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
Jeffrey B. Taraday Zanetta Fontes
Foster Pepper Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 PO Box 626
Seattle, WA 98101 Renton, WA 98057
RE. Seahawks Training Facility, LUA-06-073, ECF
Dear Appellant and Attorneys of Record:
C(30p)�
Thomas Ehrlichman, Esq.
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Ste. 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
This office has received two appeals, hereinafter SEPA appeals, of the City's Environmental
Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) for the above matter.
State law and City code require that such appeals be combined with the underlying Public
Hearing on the original land use action, a Site Plan approval and Master Site Plan approval.
The Site/Master flan hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:00am.
Therefore, the two SEPA appeals will also be heard on that date and at that time. The bearing is
scheduled to be held in the City Council Chambers on the 7th Floor of City Hall.
This office prefers attempting to separate the SEPA appeal testimony and witnesses, a more
formal appeal situation, from the hearing on the merits of the land use matter, a more relaxed
public hearing forum. Therefore, the appeal aspects will open the presentation and be followed
by the Site/Master Plan review. Witnesses will be accommodated if their schedules had not
anticipated a more lengthy public hearing.
This office further understands that a pre -hearing telephonic conference is being arranged in
hopes of making the hearing as efficient as possible. This may affect the order of presentation of
witnesses and evidence at the actual hearing.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515
9 This paper contains 50%recycled material, 30% post oortsumer
RE�N��TO
AHEAD URViE
Seahawks Training Facility
November 13, 2006
Page Two
If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FK/nt
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
FP 11/10/2006 3:35 PAGE 002/002 Fax Server
® FOSTER PEPPER,...
Direct Phone (206) 447-2690
Direct Facsimile (206) 749-2193
November 10, 2006 E-Maii tarai@foster.com
Fla Facsimile
Fred J. Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, Washington 98055
Re: Misty Cove Assn ofApartment Owners v. City of Renton and Football Northwest
Request for Pre -hearing Conference
Dear Mr. Examiner:
We represent project applicant Football Northwest LLC in the above referenced appeal of
the City of Renton's MDNS on the proposed new corporate headquarters and training facility for
the Seattle Seahawks. The SEPA appeal hearing will be held on November 21, 2006 in
conjunction with an open record pre -decision hearing on the underlying permits.
In the interest of malting the hearing as efficient as possible, we request a pre -hearing
telephonic conference with the Examiner to discuss the order of presentation of witnesses and
evidence and related pre -hearing matters. We can be available for such a conference anytime
during the week of November 131h except for 11:00 AM Monday (13`s), Noon Thursday (16th
and 1:00 PM Friday (171s).
Sincerely,
FOS13ER PEPPER PLLC
Jey B. Taraday
Attorneys for applicant Football Northwest LLC
cc: Roger Pearce, Esq.
Tom Peterson, Esq.
Tom Ehrlichman, Esq.
Mr. Steve Jansen
Zanetta Fontes, Esq.
Ms. Elizabeth Higgins
Clients
TEL: 206.447.4400 FAx:20 6.447. 9700 I III THIRD AVENUE, surrE 3400 SEAT rLE, WASHINGTON aeloi•azvs W W W. POSTER.COM
S°" ' SEATTLE WASHINGTON SPOKANE WASHINGTON PORTLAND oEEcoN
FP 11/10/2006 :35 PAGE 001/002 Fax Server
FOSTER PEPPER,,.,
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Date Faxed: Friday, November 10, 2006 3:34.34 PM
TO: FAX NUMBER: VOICE CONTACT:
Fred Kaufman 425.430.6523
From: Jeff TaradaylSusan Allan
Direct Dial: 206-447-7901
Direct Return Fax:
Number of Pages (Including cover page): 02
Message:
THE. INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION IS PRIVILEGED ANDIOR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE
READER OF THIS COVER PAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTIONOR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED
IN THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN
ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN TH15 FAC51MILL TO US AT THE ABOVE
ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU.
PHONE 206.447.4400 FAx 206.447.9700 1111TARDAVFNUF,SU1TE34o0, SEATILE, WASHINGTON 981C1-3299 WWW.FOSrER.COM
SEATTLE wasmNmorr SPOKANE wASm[NoToN PORTLAND oREwN
CITY OF: REWON
City of Renton
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
NOV 06M
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
I am appealing the Enviromental Committee Report for the Seahawks Headquarters &
Training Facility file number LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM located at 5015 Lake
Washing Blvd N, Renton, WA, 98056 dated October 16, 2006.
Specifically I am appealing because I feel that the project has failed to meet two
following criteria.
1) Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not
result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site
requirements shall be required: (Ord. 3599, 1-11-1982)
specifically sub -section C
c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or
similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance.
Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight
and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures.
I also feel that the enviromental plan does not meet the requirements of RMC: (Ord.
5191, 12-12-2005) - 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS:
There is no detailed plan for the Wetlands Mitigation & the restoration of the shoreline
along Lake Washington.
Sincerely,
Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane #4
Renton, WA 98056
LC r ---Lc 1//
/ �""'4
�qa
Ale r
l L41
Y
CITY ►F RENTON
)";,Kathy Keolker, Mayor
October 19, 2006
Ray Colliver
Port Quendall Company
505 5th Avenue S ste: #900
Seattle, WA 98104
Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
Dear Mr. Colliver:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they
have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -
Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision,
Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination roust be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on
November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the
<aminer are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to
consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is
required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week
before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of
this public hearing.
The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to
exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire
clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
cc: Parties of Record
Enclosure
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
MTi-nanny nnnTai--Ml ra eIAi rnM—W Al5Ar—t--.—
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
• +4
CITY OF RENTON
(0-'-3City Clerk Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6510
❑i <5 eek No.
Description:
Funds Received From:
Receipt N e. 0682
Date
❑ Cppy Fee ❑ Notary Service <
U'Appeal Fee ❑ _ _
Name .e
14 J,21 1
Address 0
City/Zips'
Y
Amount $ 7:5, 0 d
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 141h day of November, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to:
Name
Representing
Parties of Record
See Attached
Ray Colliver
Owner/Applicant/Contact
(Signature of Sende
STATE OF WASHINGTON )"
) SS
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument. "N\Nt\W%jj
Dated: �k--kLk`OCo ►+v lc l �,� n lay 4V�cx r `
NotaryPublic in and for the State of 'Itr1h�kM-h4�,
CI
Notary (Print): ' ~
My appointment expires: '�C�-\C,
f �f r�Qh�WA`"
Project Name: Seahawks Training Facility
Project Number: LUA06-073
Ray Colliver
Port Quendali Company
505 5th Avenue S ste: #900
Seattle, WA 98104
Thelma Sutherland
1205 N 29th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Jared Salstrom
5021 Ripley Lane N #213
Renton, WA 98056
Eileen Halverson
16226 Crystal Drive E
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Roger A. Pearce
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue #3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3299
Elaine Wine
Vulcan
505 Fifth Avenue S #900
Seattle, WA 98104
Larry Barsher
6940 96th Avenue SE
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Jeffrey Taraday
Foster Pepper
1111 Third Avenue #3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Michael Cero
8300 Avalon Drive
Mercer Island, WA
Thomas F. Peterson
Socius Law Group PLLC
98040 Two Union Square
601 Union Street #4950
Seattle, WA 98101
Joe Burcar
Department of Ecology
Shorelands & Environmental
Assistance Program
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
Brian T. Sabey
5021 Ripley Lane N #304
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Jansen Eleanor Maargo Kennamer,
5021 Ripley Lane N #4 President
Renton, WA 98056 Misty Cove Condo Association
5021 Ripley Lane N #309
Renton, WA 98056
Elya George Baches Aaron Belenky, President
1414 N 34th Street Williamsburg Condo HOA
Renton, WA 98056 1800 NE 40th Street #H-4
Renton, WA 98056
Steve Gregerson Lance Lopes
5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #302 Qwest Field
Renton, WA 98056 800 Occidental Avenue S #100
Seattle, WA 98134
Barbara Paxhia Shelly Munkberg
5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #104 SECO Development
Renton, WA 98056 1083 Lake Washington Blvd N #50
Renton, WA 98056
Tom Ehrlichman
Socius Law Group
Two Union Square
601 Union Street #4950
Seattle, WA 98101
Richard Wagner
Baylis Architects
10801 Main Street #110
Bellevue, WA 98004
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
November 14, 2006
Ray Colliver
Port Quendall Company
505 5�h Avenue S #900
Seattle, WA 98104
SUBJECT: Seahawks Training Facility
LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
Dear Mr. Colliver:
CIT OF RENTON
PianningBuilding/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended on November 6, 2006 for the
Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for
the above -referenced project.
Appeals have been filed on the ERC determination_ Therefore, the. appeals will be heard as part
of the public hearing scheduled for November 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers
on the 71h Floor of City Hall. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant are required to
be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your
review.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7382.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Elizabeth Higgins, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Parties of Record
Enclosure
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
This papercontafns 50% recycled material, 30 % post censumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
November 21, 2006
AGENDA
COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be
heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent is requesting Master Plan and Site Plan Review
for development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility. The 19.6 acre project
site is located in the Kennydale area of northeast Renton. The proposed project would be a single
building consisting of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels with an intermediate mezzanine level
and an 89,423 sf indoor practice facility and up to four outdoor practice fields for the sport of
professional football. Both general surface parking and secure surface parking areas would provide
91 and 161 parking stalls respectively (252 stalls total). A 6,000 ancillary building for field and
landscape maintenance supplies and equipment storage is also proposed.
HEX Agenda 11-21-06
PUBLIC
City of Renton
Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
HEARING
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST.
Hearing Date:
November 21, 2006
Project Name:
Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility
Owner.
Port Quendall Company; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle WA 98104
Applicant:
Football Northwest; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle WA 98104
Contact:
Ray Colliver; 505 Fifth Avenue S 4900; Seattle WA 98104
File Number: LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, Planner. Elizabeth Higgins,
ECF Senior Planner
Project The project proponent is requesting Master Plan and Site Plan Review
Description: for development of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training
Facility. The 19.6 acre project site is located in the Kennydale area of
northeast
Renton. The proposed project would be a single building
consisting
of 135,534 sf of office space on two levels with an
intermediate mezzanine level and an 89,423 sf indoor practice facility
and
up to four outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional
football. Both general surface parking and secure surface parking areas
would provide 91 and 161 parking stalls respectively (252 stalls total). A
6,000
ancillary building for field and landscape maintenance supplies
and
equipment storage is also proposed.
Project Location: 5015
Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801,
4635
Ripley Lane)
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, FCF
PUBLIC HEARING LATE: !November 21, 2006 Page 2 of 20
B. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication,
environmental review documentation, correspondence from interested
parties, and other items pertinent to this request.
Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3: Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date
unknown)
Exhibit 4: Zoning Map (dated 02/16/2006)
Exhibit 5: Mitigation Site Plan - Alternative Plan (dated 11/13/2006)
Exhibit 6: Plan Diagrams (dated 11/07/2006)
Exhibit 7: North and South Building Elevations (dated 11/15/2006)
Exhibit 8: South View Transverse Section (dated 11/15/2006)
Exhibit 9: Base Site Plan (dated 11/13/2006)
Exhibit 10: Building Location Options (dated 11/03/2006)
Exhibit 11. Green Screen Wall A (no date)
Exhibit 12: Green Screen Wall B (no date)
Exhibit 13: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 302 (no date)
Exhibit 14: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Base Site Plan (no date)
Exhibit 15: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Mitigated Site Plan (no date)
Exhibit 16: View from Misty Cove Unit 302, Comparison (no date)
Exhibit 17: Existing View from Misty Cove Unit 312 (no date)
Exhibit 18: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Base Site Plan (no date)
Exhibit 19: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Mitigated Site Plan (no date)
Exhibit 20: View from Misty Cove Unit 312, Comparison (no date)
Exhibit 21: Daily Shadow Studies — Base Plan (no date)
Exhibit 22: Daily Shadow Studies — Mitigated Alternative Plan (no date)
Exhibit 23: Seasonal Shadow Studies -- Existing Conditions (no date)
Exhibit 24: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Base Plan (no date)
Exhibit 25: Seasonal Shadow Studies — Mitigated Alternative Plan (no date)
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P121PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 3 of 20
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner of Record: Port Quendall Company; 505 Fifth Avenue S #900; Seattle
WA 98104
2. Zoning Designation: Commercial -Office -Residential - 2 (COR 2)
3. Comprehensive Plan Commercial -Office -Residential
Land Use Designation:
4. Existing Site Use: Vacant (abandoned wood processing facility)
5. Neighborhood
Characteristics
North: Misty Cove Condominiums, zoned Commercial -Office -
Residential - 2 (COR 2)
East:
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way,
zoned Commercial -Office -Residential - 2 (COR 2)
South:
Quendall Terminals (vacant property), zoned
Commercial -Office -Residential - 2 (COR 2)
West:
Inner Harbor, Lake Washington
6. Access:
Via Lake Washington Boulevard/Ripley Lane North
7. Site Area:
853,776 gsf (19.6 acres)
8. Project Data:
Existing Building Area:
NIA
New Building Area:
Office, Level One: 55,674 sf
Office, Mezzanine Level: 48,556 sf
Office, Level Two: 31,304 sf
Indoor Practice Facility: 89,423 sf
Total Headquarters Building
224,957 sf
Area:
Maintenance Building Area:
6,000 sf
Total New Building Area:
230,957 sf
D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action
Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date
Lot Line Adjustment
LUA-00-044 NIA 01/05/2001
Zoning
N/A 5100 11/01/2004
Comprehensive Plan
NIA 5100 11/01/2004
Short Plat
LUA93-097 N/A 01/14/1994
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: !November 21, 2006 Page 4 of 20
Annexation N/A 1823 04/21 /1960
E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC TITLE IV):
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table
Section 4-2-120.B: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts
Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations
3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations — General
Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations
Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations
Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards
Section 4-4-095: Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations
4. Chapter B Streets and Utility Standards
5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria
Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review
6. Chapter 11 Definitions
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
2. Community Design Element
3. Economic Development Element
G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th
Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 2). The site consists of two
tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre property is a former
J.H. Baxter Company timber processing/wood treatment facility (Exhibit 3).
The site was used for various timber operations, including initially harvesting on -site trees and wood
treating, throughout the twentieth century until wood processing operations ceased in 1981. The
property was subsequently used for storage of bark mulch. Cleanup of the property has been
prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, 400-2-11778-7KNT and South
Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control
Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the
Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping
contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with early stages of site construction
for the proposed project.
The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of
May Creek. The drainageway for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right-of-way. Once on the property, it flows from east to west first
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: !November 21, 2006 Page 5 of 20
in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the shoreline of Lake
Washington.
The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on
the property at the present time. A single -story, 1,300 sf wood -frame office building built on Baxter
North in 1963, would be removed from the property, as would asphalt -paved interior roads. An existing
boathouse and dock are located at the northwest shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these
features and they would be fenced from the area of the site accessible to the public.
On -site clean-up activities consisting of remediation of effects of the former wood -processing activities,
have consisted of soil excavation, contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for
the project would be coordinated with continuing remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the
site (see Environmental Review Committee staff report, Exhibit 1) and grading for site features would
require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some cut
material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material
would be required at the time of site construction.
In 1994 the property was rezoned from "Planned Office I Residential" (POR) to "Center / Office I
Residential" (COR). This zone was modified in 1994 to "Commercial / Residential / Office." The
property is currently zoned Commercial / Residential / Office 2 (COR 2) to distinguish it from other
COR zones in the City (see Exhibit 4). The COR 2 zoning requires a two -level project review by the
Hearing Examiner. Both Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review are required.
The stated purpose of the Commercial / Residential / Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive
office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high -quality, master -planned development
that is integrated with the natural environment." Although a major, national sports franchise
headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following
adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed
if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone."
The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and
accessory training and practice facilities (see Exhibit 5). The functional spaces are either within
buildings or are outdoor -related. Existing underlying site conditions have largely dictated the basic site
layout. The primary building would be located on the North Baxter property, where substrate
conditions would allow pilings to be utilized for building foundation construction. The outdoor fields
would be located on the South Baxter property, where the site has its widest dimension. More
important, the South Baxter property has poor quality soils deemed unsuitable for building construction.
Offices, meeting and classrooms, kitchen and dining area, lockers and exercise areas, football
equipment storage areas, and an indoor practice field would be within a 224,957 square foot building
on the North Baxter property (see Exhibit 6).
The aesthetically significant building would be architecturally compatible with the Pacific Northwest. It
is intended to be sensitive and responsive to the site and its context. The Headquarters (offices)
portion of the building would be up to 55 feet in height. The height of the indoor practice field, situated
on the north and east sides of the building, would be up to 111 feet. The roof would be various
heights, due to its shape, which is proposed to angle upward at the perimeter to conceal rooftop
mechanical equipment (see Exhibits 7 and 8).
The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and
storefront systems on the lower level. Clear -glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray
cementious, or nickel to light gray metal, wall panels would be used on upper portions, depending on
location.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/BIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEA TTLE SEAHA WK5' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY L UA-06-0i3, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE. November 21, 2006 Page 6 of 20
The project proponent's vision is for a building that would be highly efficient, well -organized, and with a
prevailing milieu of "openness." A mezzanine would be situated between the first and second office
levels, opening onto the interior practice facility. An atrium would also connect the first and second
levels at the front of the Headquarters portion of the building.
The lower, Headquarters portion of the building would be closest to Lake Washington, to minimize
views from the lake of the mass of the indoor practice field portion of the building.
The three natural grass practice fields would be located on the South Baxter property. One artificial turf
practice field would be parallel and adjacent to the east property line. The four practice fields would
cover 8.3 acres.
A one-story, 6,000 sf maintenance / equipment storage building would be located at the southeast
corner of the property.
The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies, that intend high intensity use,
with the natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by
project completion. The majority of the site would be covered with uses that would not impact views.
Primary access would be by private street from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane) on the east
across the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. A secondary access is available at the
southeast corner of the property, also from Lake Washington Boulevard. The project proponent is
currently negotiating with BNSF for a new right-of-way crossing at the approximate mid -point of the
project. This access, which is anticipated to be successfully obtained, would become the primary
entrance to the facility.
On -site roads would be private. There would be parking for 252 vehicles; 91 stalls for general surface
parking and 161 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access
and on -site parking, the annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off -site
parking with a scheduled shuttle bus service in order to accommodate visitors.
Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native
vegetation (wetland and shoreline) or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems
would be installed in all landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings
until they are established. (Landscaping will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan
Review).
Access to approximately 250 feet of Lake Washington shoreline would be available to the public by
means of an east -west paved walkway located parallel to the north property boundary (see Exhibit 5).
A viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with benches.
A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion
of the property, adjacent to Lake Washington. Public access to the wetland is not currently a part of
this proposal.
In addition to the two -level project review and approval (Master Plan Review and Site Plan Review), the
project would require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to its proximity to Lake
Washington.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as
amended), on October 16, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -
Significance, Mitigated for the project. The DNS-M included seven mitigation measures. A 14-day
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton PlalPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 7 of 20
appeal period commenced on October 23, 2006 and ended on November 6, 2006. Two appeals of the
threshold determination were filed. It is anticipated that these appeals would be heard on November
21, 2006, prior to the public hearing on the Master and Site Plan Reviews.
3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES
Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures
were issued for the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated:
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report,
"Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility
Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including
recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil
remediation for the water mains.
2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water
quality.
3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements, outlined in Volume 11 of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and
provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of construction permits.
4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to
the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed
through site plan review.
5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted
calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue.
6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building
permit issue.
7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the
contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural
Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582.
4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the
official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of
this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report.
5. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
The purpose of site development plan review is to assure that proposed development is compatible
with the plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton as outlined in the City's Comprehensive
Plan and the City's Business Plan Goals. Site development plan review is divided into two types:
Master Plan and Site Plan.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton PIBIPw Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAwKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 8 of 20
As per RMC 4-9-200.B.1.b, the COR-2 zoning of the development site requires Master Plan review.
The Master Plan is required to demonstrate how the major elements of a development are proposed
on the site at sufficient detail to demonstrate the overall project concept. In addition, the Master Plan
must illustrate how the major project elements, combined, create an urban environment that
implements City goals. An additional purpose is to allow consideration and mitigation of potential
impacts that could result from large-scale site and facility development, and to allow coordination with
City capital improvement planning. The Master Plan review may occur prior to or concurrent with Site
Plan Approval.
The purpose of the Site Plan review is to assess the detailed arrangement of project elements to
ensure their compatibility with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An
additional purpose of Site Plan review is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and
policies.
6. GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR BOTH MASTER PLANS AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW
The following general review criteria are required to be met through the Master Plan and Site Plan
review process, consistent with RMC 4-9-200E.1:
a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In
determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and
policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over city-wide
objectives and policies.
i. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element
Purpose
The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation is to provide
opportunities for large-scale projects developed through the master plan and site plan
process. COR sites are typically transitioning from industrial uses to more intensive, non-
industrial land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington
(Quendall and Southport) and/or the Cedar River (Stoneway). Redevelopment of these
sites provide the opportunity to remediate the effects of past industrial activities and,
although still held as private property, may offer increased access to the public to shorelines
within the City.
The proposed Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is approximately one-
third of the "Port Quendall' Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation. The Port
Quendall Commercial/Office/Residential designation conforms with the purpose of the
Commercial/Office/Residential, which is intended to redevelop former industrial properties
info a mix of uses, including commercial and office (J.H. Baxter wood processing property)
and residential (Barbee Mill property). Final clean-up of the Baxter and Barbee properties
would occur simultaneously with redevelopment. The center property, Quendall Terminals,
is a designated Superfund site and is currently undergoing remediation. its future use is
unknown at the present time.
Applicable objectives and policies of the Land Use Element include:
Objective LU-VVV: Development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should
be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doe
City of Renton PIBIPw Department Preliminary Deport to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-os-ova, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE; !November 21, 2006 Page 8 of 20
amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity
values that creates a prominent identity.
The Seahawks Headquarters has been designed to be an architecturally significant,
state-of-the-art facility that is intended to further the goals of the team through design
and functionality. The natural amenities of the lakeshore location, natural wetland, and
views are incorporated into the siting and building architecture. Just as the Boeing
assembly plant has been a prominent landmark along the Renton's lakeshore and sign
of economic power in the City, the Seahawks facility would be a new landmark and sign
of new economic vitality in Renton.
Policy LU-408: Uses in Commercial/Office/Residential designations should include mixed -
use complexes consisting of office, and/or residential uses, cultural facilities, hotel and
convention center type development, technology research and development facilities; and
corporate headquarters.
Although the proposed use was not anticipated when the comprehensive plan designation
was assigned to the property, the use meets the intent of the COR designation by
consisting of office and business meeting space and serving as corporate headquarters for
a major-league football team.
In addition, professional sports venues are contemporary cultural facilities that provide a
focus for enthusiasm and spirit generated by the sports team_
Policy LU-410: Commercial development, excluding big -box, may be a primary use in a
Commercial/Office/Residential designation, if:
1) It provides significant economic value to the City;
2) It is sited in conjunction with small-scale, multiple businesses in a "business district;"
3) It is designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR; and
4) It is part of a proposed master plan development.
Although the Seahawks Headquarters is not a typical commercial development, it is a
business that is anticipated to add significant economic value to the City, directly and from
"spin-off" commercial uses as well as increasing the overall attractiveness of Renton to
potential investors.
The scale of the proposed project is consistent with the envisioned development of the Port
Quendall COR designation.
Policy LU-411: Individual properties may have a single use if they can be developed at the
scale and intensity envisioned for the designation Commercial/Office/Residential project, or
if proposed as part of a phased development and multi -parcel proposal that includes a mix
of uses.
The three properties of the Port Quendall COR will, cumulatively, consist of a mix of uses.
Policy LU-413: Sites that have significant limitations on redevelopment due to
environmental, access, and/or land assembly constraints should be granted flexibility of use
combinations and development standards through the master plan process.
The Baxter properties would not be ideal for a more typical commercial development due to
poor location in terms of visibility to potential consumers.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/8/Pw Department Preliminary Repot to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 10 of 20
Policy LU-421: Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a combination of
internal and external site design features, such as:
1) Public plazas;
2) Prominent architectural features;
3) Public access to natural features or views;
4) Distinctive focal features;
6) Indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate;
6) Structured parking; and
7) Other features meeting the spirit and intent of the COR designation.
The proposed development would have an entry plaza and distinctive building architecture.
A publicly -accessible viewpoint would be available at the shore of the lake. The project
would be a significant focal point at the north end of Renton, as viewed from the lake, from
Mercer island, or flights approaching or departing from Clayton Scott Field (Renton
Municipal Airport) and the Will Rogers -Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base.
ii. Comprehensive Plan Community Design Element
Purpose
The purpose of the Community Design Element is to set standards for high quality
development, improve the aesthetics and functionality of existing neighborhoods and
commercial areas, and guide the development of new neighborhoods.
Recognizing that the exceptional quality of life in Renton is dependent upon a strong local
economy, these policies are intended to further that economic health. They are based on
the belief that a positive image and high quality attracts more of the same, so that high
standards can lead to increased revenue.
The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, both in its site layout and
architectural design, meets the primary objective of the Community Design Element and is
expected to set a new standard for development excellence within Renton.
Applicable Community Design Objectives and Policies for New Development
Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community
aesthetic.
The building design would be unique, not only in the Puget Sound Region, but among like
facilities of its type in the nation.
Policy CD-41: Rooftops that can be seen from public streets, parks, or open space
should be designed to hide mechanical equipment and to incorporate high -quality roofing
materials.
The roof of the indoor practice facility would flare up along its perimeter to conceal roof-
top mounted equipment.
Policy CD-42: Design characteristics in larger new developments or individual building
complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity.
The proposed project will completely transform a vacant former industrial site and add
architectural distinction to an area, with the Barbee Mill property, that is currently being
redeveloped.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 11 of 20
Policy CD-43: A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as
long as site functions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building mate-
rials and finishes should be promoted.
High -quality materials and finishes have been proposed for the building.
Policy CD-44: Development should provide appropriate landscaping and facade
treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense
developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts.
Extensive landscaping has been proposed, including along Ripley Lane abutting the
BNSF Railroad right-of-way.
Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including
residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans.
Landscape plans have been submitted with the project application.
Policy CD-53: Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public
entryways, street rights -of -way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas.
All pervious areas of the site will be landscaped appropriately.
Policy CD-55: Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in
development projects, including entryways, street rights -of -way, stormwater
retention/detention ponds, and common areas.
Maintenance programs utilizing Integrated Pest Management (iPM) techniques have
been proposed for all ornamental landscaped areas and natural turf practice fields.
Policy CD-58: Aesthetic improvements along street frontages should be provided,
especially for properties abutting major streets and boulevards. Incentives should be
provided for the inclusion of streetscape amenities including: landscaping, public art,
street furniture, paving, signs, and planting strips in developing and redeveloping areas.
The project proponent has included maintenance of new landscaping along Ripley Lane
in the project maintenance program.
Policy CD-71 : All utility lines should be placed underground.
All utility lines to the project site would be underground.
iii. Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element
Purpose
Renton's economic development is important because it has a role in the timing, emphasis
and extent in which the long-range goals of the city will occur. Economic development
policies encourage collaborations between the public and private sectors to ensure the long-
term economic health of Renton and its citizens. A healthy economy provides jobs and
opportunity and helps pay for vital public services such as education, parks, transportation,
police and fire protection, and human services. The policies encourage a mix of uses that
will result in a diversified employment base. The policies encourage the quality
development necessary to sustain a high standard of living in Renton.
The proposed project is expected to contribute to Renton's economic vitality both directly
and indirectly. First, by converting an unused, derelict "brownfield" site into an asset to the
community and second by making Renton known as the "home" of the Seahawks, much as
the Bronx is known for the New York Yankees and Arlington for the Texas Rangers.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton PIBIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 92 of 20
Applicable Economic Development Objectives and Policies
Policy ED-16: Work with private property owners and governmental agencies to remedy
contaminated sites and prepare the sites for redevelopment.
The City of Renton is coordinating the effort to convert the proposed project property into a
suitable redevelopment site for this project.
Policy ED-17.1: Work with property owners to transition surplus industrial properties to their
highest and best use.
Renton has encouraged the redevelopment of the Baxter property for a non -industrial use.
b. Conformance with existing land use regulations;
The subject site is zoned Commercial/Office/Residential 2 (COR 2). The purpose of the COR zone
is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high -
quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. It is intended
to implement the Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are
permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed
with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone.
By virtue of its high economic value, the proposed use is appropriate for the COR 2 zone. Also, it
is designed with the scale and intensity of use envisioned for the COR 2 zone.
i. The following Development Standards apply to uses within the COR 2 zone (RMC 4-2-
120I3):
a. Lot Coverage --- The maximum lot coverage by buildings in the COR 2 zone is 65%
of the total lot area.
The building coverage by the proposed Seahawks Headquarters (55,674 so, indoor
practice facility (89,423 so, together with the maintenance building (6,000 so is 151,097
sf on the 19.6 acre site results in a 17.7 percent lot coverage. The project is in
compliance with this requirement.
b. Maximum Building Height — The maximum building height in the COR 2 zone is 10
stories and/or 125 feet; provided, the master plan includes a balance of building height,
bulk, and density.
The office portion of the Headquarters building would be two floors with a mezzanine
level between them. The total height would be up to 55 feet.
This portion of the building is located closest to the shore of the lake, with the indoor
practice facility in back of it, away from the lake. The indoor practice facility would have
a height of 95 feet at the center of the building. The overall height would be up to 111
feet, due to the roof treatment, which is designed to flare upwards at the perimeter.
c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses;
i. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed structures and site layouts that could
impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of
the community.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE. !November 21, 2006 Page 13 of 20
The proposed project will result in a large structure being located on a property that has
been essentially vacant. This will have an impact on the abutting condominium project,
the residents of which have enjoyed largely unobstructed views of Lake Washington.
in an attempt to reduce the impact of this situation, the office portion of the building has
been located on the "lake side" of the building. This lower portion of the building will
allow views across the top.
Also, the entire building has recently been relocated 62 feet farther away from Lake
Washington (see Exhibits 5 and 9), further improving the view corridor across the Baxter
property to take Washington.
ii. Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overscale structure, in terms of size, bulk,
height, and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates the spirit and/or intent of the
zoning code and impairs the use, enjoyment, or potential use of surrounding properties.
The proposed project would be within the size standards of the zone and would be only
"overscale" in terms of the site's long history of being void of buildings. The building
would cover a small portion (less than 18 percent) of the site area. The bulk of the
nearest building, the 50-unit condominium, Misty Cove, would provide a transition to the
smaller, single family residential structures located along the lakeshore north of the
proposed project.
The building has been specifically designed to reduce its impact in terms of its proximity
to the shoreline and the condominium building to the north. The proposed building
would be "stepped" from west to east, with the lower office building closest to the lake.
This portion of the building wraps around the southwest corner of the larger part, the
indoor practice facility.
The north facade of the indoor practice facility will be softened by use of a "green -screen
wall" (see Exhibits 11 and 12). This wall would attain a height of 30 to 40 feet at
maturity.
The articulation provided by windows and wall panels and the choice of earth tones for
the color palette would further reduce the apparent size and scale of the building.
The recent relocation of the building to more than twice its previous distance from the
lakeshore would mitigate the proportion of the horizontal distance from the lake edge to
the building height.
iii. Provision of desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility,
walkway, and industrial systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of
landscaping, fencing andlor other buffer techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to
promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements.
The project proponent is negotiating with the BNSF Railroad to obtain an additional
railroad right-of-way crossing at the approximate mid -point of the site. If successful,
which is anticipated, this would place the primary entrance to the project away from the
properties to the north and south and reduce potential conflicts.
iv. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the natural
characteristic of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than
intended by the spirit of the zoning code.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P181PW Department Preliminary Report to the Nearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLiC HEARING DATE., November 21, 2006 Page 14 of 20
The project site is flat without significant topographic change, which could otherwise
create the perception of a building with greater height than is allowed by the zoning.
The building height as proposed would be allowed by the Development Standards.
v. Effective location, design, and screening of parking and service areas in order to
promote efficient function of such facilities, to provide integrated facilities between uses
when beneficial, to promote "campus -like" or "park -like" setting where appropriate and to
preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning
code.
Parking and service areas, which would be placed in proximity to Headquarters building
entrances, would be effectively landscaped or otherwise screened from on -site and off -
site views. The loading area would be approximately 375 feet from the nearest point of
the Misty Cove Condominiums and further separated by perimeter landscaping along
the north property boundary.
vi. Mitigation of the unnecessary and unavoidable impacts of new construction on views
from existing buildings and future development sites, recognizing the public benefit and
desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and promoting
"campus -like" or "park -like" settings in appropriate zones.
There would be, undeniably, impacts associated with constructing a large structure
where none existed previously. There are two primary issues; one is views of the
structure and other project elements (see section ii, above). The other is the impact on
view corridors given the location of the structure.
in order to mitigate impacts on views, a study of the view corridors from several
locations off -site (most notably from the Misty Cove Condominiums to the north and
from iVE 7e Street to the east) was conducted. The most significant impacts were to
views from Misty Cove Units 302 and 312. Both Units are on the top floor of the
Condominium building, with 302 closest to the Lake and 312 farthest to the east.
The building has been designed to place the lowest height closest to the lake. Following
the site visualization studies, the building was also shifted farther away from the lake by
62 feet. Exhibits 13 and 17 illustrate existing views from Misty Cove Units 302 and 312
respectively. Exhibits 14 and 18 show views of the building in its original ("Base Plan')
location. Exhibits 15 and 19 show views with the building shifted 62 feet to the east and
Exhibits 16 and 20 compare the views with both building locations.
Although it is a matter of personal taste, a view of the campus -like facility could be
considered an improvement over the historical views of an abandoned industrial site.
vii. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted
outdoor storage areas (except auto and truck sales), for surface mounted utility
equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to
promote a "campus -like" or "park -like" setting where appropriate and to preserve the
effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the zoning code.
All service functions, including waste receptacles and recycling areas, would be
effectively screened from on -site and off -site views. Roof -top mounted equipment would
be out of view due to the roof design, which flares upward at the perimeter.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doe
City of Renton P/a/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 15 of 20
viii. Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
Exterior lighting of parking lots and building entrances would be equipped with cut-off
features to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties. Outdoor practice fields would
not be used at night, so athletic field lighting would not be installed.
d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site;
i. Building placement and spacing to provide for privacy and noise reduction; orientation to
views and vistas and to site amenities, to sunlight and prevailing winds, and to
pedestrian and vehicle needs.
Outdoor practice fields would be located on the south portion of the site, away from the
condominium building abutting to the north, thereby reducing potential disturbance from
noise.
There would be some impact on the existing condominium building from shadows cast
during winter months although the north side of the condominium building is similarly
affected due to its orientation. The shifting of the building 62 feet to the east reduces
the impact of shadows cast on the Misty Cove Condominium building, particularly during
winter months. Shadow studies demonstrating impacts of original design (Exhibit 21)
and the mitigated alternative building location (Exhibit 22) illustrate this.
ii. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures in relation to the openness
and natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over concentration or the
impression of oversized structures.
By placing the primary structure at the very north portion of the site next to the existing
condominium, the remaining approximately 82 percent of the property would remain
essentially open.
iii. Preservation of the desirable natural landscape through retention of existing vegetation
and limited soil removal, insofar as the natural characteristics will enhance the proposed
development.
Due to longstanding industrial use of the site, very little natural landscaping remains. A
shoreline restoration plan and wetland enhancement program have been proposed as
part of the project.
iv. Use of topography to reduce undue cutting, filling, and retaining walls in order to prevent
erosion and unnecessary storm water runoff, and to preserve stable natural slopes and
desirable natural vegetation.
No undue cutting or filling is planned, retaining walls will be minimally used. No erosion
would be allowed, nor would unnecessary storm water runoff. All stormwater would be
directed through on -site control facilities. Vegetation currently consists primarily of
invasive species which would be replaced as part of project landscaping.
v. Limitation of paved or impervious surfaces, where feasible, to reduce runoff and
increase natural infiltration.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doe
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE sEAHA WKs' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE. November 21, 2006 Page 16 of 20
Paving would be limited to driveways, parking areas, and sidewalks. Grasscrete has
been proposed for a paved roadway at the west side of the building.
vi. Design and protection of planting areas so that they are not susceptible to damage from
vehicles or pedestrian movements.
Landscaping would be protected from damage by vehicles and/or pedestrian traffic.
vii. Consideration of building form and placement and landscaping to enhance year round
conditions of sun and shade both on -site and on adjacent properties and to promote
energy conservation.
A sun/shadow study of the proposed project was completed as part of the project design
analysis. The building was shifted 62 feet to the east following this analysis (see
Exhibits 23-25).
The size of the building has been determined by the functional program. Its location is
based on subsurface geotechnical considerations.
The buildings would meet energy code requirements.
e. Conservation of area wide property values;
The proposal is expected to increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development
of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and additional
employment opportunities.
f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation;
i. Provision of adequate and safe vehicular access to and from all properties.
improvements would be made to Ripley Lane to improve lane configuration,
channelization, and vertical sight distance. The project proponent is negotiating with
BidSF Railroad to secure an additional right-of-way crossing of the approximate midpoint
of the site, which would separate the project entry from other properties to the north and
south.
ii. Arrangement of the circulation pattern so that all ingress and egress movements may
occur at as few points as possible along the public street, the points being capable of
channelization for turning movements.
ingress and egress movements will occur with sufficient channelization to ensure public
safety.
iii. Consolidation of access points with adjacent properties, when feasible.
Currently, access at the south property line would be shared with the Quendall
Terminals property and a Puget Sound Energy facility located between Quendall
Terminals and the Baxter properties. This access has been secured by easement.
iv. Coordination of access points on a superblock basis so that vehicle conflicts and
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts are minimized.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/B/Pw Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAWKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE. November 21, 2006 Page 17 of 20
Both on -site and off -site vehicle and pedestrian conflicts would be minimal through site
design.
v. Orientation of access points to side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto
arterial streets, when feasible.
No arterial streets are in the vicinity of the proposed project.
vi. Promotion of the safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the
location, design and dimensions of vehicle and pedestrian access points, drives,
parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways.
The "Main Entrance" and access point for visitors and corporate employees who would
work in the offices of the Headquarters building would be through an entrance lobby on
the first level, on the east side of the building. This entry is connected to the general
parking area by a canopied walkway. The "Players Entrance" would be on the north
side of the office portion of the building and would be connected by a covered walkway
to the secure parking area. Two more entrances, "Field Entrances" would connect the
outdoor fields with the office building. The indoor practice facility would have 7
entrances from various points around its perimeter, but would be primarily accessed
from the office portion of the building.
All elements of the internal circulation system would meet City of Renton design
standards for safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
vii. Separation of loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas.
Loading and delivery areas would be located away from general parking and pedestrian
areas at the north fagade of the office building..
viii. Provisions for transit and carpool facilities and access when appropriate.
Transit service is not currently available to Ripley Lane due to low potential ridership.
Carpool facilities may be made available by the project proponent to building users.
During the 'training camp" a 3-week period in August when football practice sessions
are open to the public, an off -site location for public parking would be available with
shuttle bus service provided to the project site.
ix. Provision for safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings public sidewalks, and adjacent properties.
The campus -like site plan would provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections
between parking areas and the various building components.
g. Provision of adequate light and air;
The single, large building would not have a negative impact on site light or air circulation.
Impacts from shadows cast by the building have been mitigated (see discussion above).
h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions;
it is anticipated that the most significant noise, odor and other potentially harmful impacts would
occur during the construction phase of the project. A Construction Mitigation Plan that would
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton PISIPW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHAM(S' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 18 of 20
provide measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls,
etc. would be required at the time of construction.
The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions.
There would be minimal noise impacts from increased traffic. The sounds of football practice
would probably travel off -site to a certain extent, but should not be at levels as to pose harm to
public health or safety.
Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and
Fire Prevention Bureau and Police Department have indicated existing facilities are adequate to
accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact
fees. As imposed by the ERC, the applicant will be required to pay the Fire Mitigation fee prior
to the issuance of building permits.
The Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure requiring the project to
comply with the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for water quality
improvements.
There currently is insufficient capacity in the Baxter Lift Station to provide wastewater service to
the property. The project proponent would be required to either partner with the Barbee Mill
development project or participate in a Latecomers'Agreement.
Utilities are required to be installed and extended as necessary to the building by the applicant
as required by City code.
Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight.
The proposal would result in redevelopment of a former industrial site into a state-of-the-art
corporate headquarters and professional sports facility. it would therefore contribute to the
wellbeing of the City in general and the neighborhood in particular.
k. Signage
Employment of signs primarily for the purposes of identification.
Signage would be limited to corporate identity signage and wayfinding.
ii. Management of sign elements, such as size, location, and arrangement so that signs
complement the visual character of the surrounding area and appear in proportion to the
building and site to which they pertain.
Sign elements would be in keeping with the overall project size and intent.
iii. Limitation of the number of signs to avoid visual clutter and distraction.
Visual clutter would not occur on the project site. No off -site signs are anticipated.
iv. Moderation of surface brightness or lighting intensity except for that necessary for sign
visibility.
Surface brightness and lighting intensity would be appropriate for signage location and
function.
v. Provision of an identification system to allow for quick location of buildings and
addresses.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEAHA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLiC HEARING DATE: November 21, 2006 Page 19 of 20
Addressing would be limited to the primary site entrance. On -site wayt<nding signs
would be placed as needed.
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Storage Facilities.
Due to planned implementation of Integrated Pest Management, use of chemicals for
landscape maintenance would be limited. Nevertheless, chemicals would be stored in the
maintenance building located at the south property line of the property (see Exhibit 5).
i. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COR ZONES:
a. The plan is consistent with a Planned Action Ordinance, if applicable.
Not applicable, there was no Planned Action Ordinance for the subject property.
b. The plan creates a compact, urban development that includes a compatible mix of uses that
meets the Comprehensive Plan vision and policy statements for the Commercial -Office -
Residential Comprehensive Plan designation.
The proposed development would result in the construction of a 135,534 square foot office
building with an attached 89,423 square foot indoor practice facility, 252 parking stalls, ano
a 6,000 square foot maintenance building. The proposed project would implement the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Design policy
statements. The project would result in the creation of a professional sports headquarters
on currently vacant land.
The plan provides an overall design concept that is internally consistent, and provides
quality development.
c. The plan incorporates public and private open spaces to provide adequate areas for passive
and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, and/or to protect existing natural
systems.
The proposed project would provide public access to the lakeshore where there currently is
no access available. Outdoor areas would be available for use by individuals associated
with the Seattle Seahawks football team and employees of the Seahawks corporation.
d. The plan provides view corridors to the shoreline area and Mt. Rainier where applicable.
Views to the lake would be available from various points on the property and from offices
within the Headquarters building.
e. Public access is provided to water and/or shoreline areas;
A public access point to the lake with viewing area and site amenities would be provided.
The public viewpoint would be accessible by a walkway located abutting and parallel to the
north property boundary. The extent of the access would be approximately 250 feet.
f. The plan provides distinctive focal points such as public area plazas, prominent architectural
features, or other items
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmem Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner
SEATTLE SEANA WKS' HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, SA-H, SA-M, SM, ECF
PUBLIC HEARING DATE. November 21, 2006 Page 20 of 20
The site plan provides focal points through the use of prominent architectural features
(canopies) that are utilized to distinguish building entrances. In addition, significant
landscaped walkways are proposed through the site.
g. Public and/or private streets are arranged in a layout that provides reasonable access to
property and supports the land use envisioned
The site is accessed by private roads from Ripley Lane.
h. The plan accommodates and promotes transit, pedestrian, and other alternative modes of
transportation.
Currently, pubic transit service to Ripley Lane is not provided. A sidewalk would be provided
along Ripley Lane adjacent to the project site. A shuttle bus service would be provided
during training camp when football practice sessions are open to the public.
H. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Seattle Seahawks' Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA06-073,
S-H, SA-M, SM, ECF subject to the following conditions;
1. The applicant shall submit a color and materials board demonstrating exterior materials and finishes
to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits_
2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for the riparian zone along the shoreline of Lake
Washington and install landscaping of a type and in a manner so as to enhance wildlife riparian
habitat. Such submittal shall be prior to obtaining building permits and installation of landscaping shall
be completed prior to building occupancy.
3. The applicant shall submit a detailed project landscape plan, meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-
120D12, to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to obtaining building permits.
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan and maintenance program for the public right-of-
way landscaping along Ripley Lane abutting the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way.
The plan shall be submitted to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to
obtaining building permits and installation shall be prior to building occupancy.
5. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating locations of outdoor light fixtures, their function, light
levels, and illumination coverage to the Development Services project manager for approval prior to
obtaining building permits.
EXPIRATION PERIODS:
Site Plan Approvals (SA-H, SA-M): Five (5) years from the final approval date.
HEX staff rpt 06-073.doc
SEW*a ■.,�s m ¢
�x ` PROJECT
T
Qp
! # ]IIST sr
s
LOCATION
S£ 7
ST
k .-
LJ
!.
�SE 0
eol U S�'
gum =
.��••((r .
E8
40TK'
84j
N-4OTH .ST _ `
llE
-A ; AV�tLOK
a sT
PL
iT
DUN
'
BCIO PAW
J
�" - •s
.
4M POINT
COUMN
POINT
-A . RIQI
y
ff �� �/r
�`i�L
tt
Jl INCl TO
a HE
R .}
- F
AWT
AEA
��
�
�
�
[itg�^F
�1�.`yyy��.5""}��7y
❑ li
W 14G.1�
0 1/4 1/2 1
EXHIBIT Scale In Miles
2 NOTE
Reproduced with permission granted by T HOMAS BROS. MAPS®.
This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSO. It is
unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for
personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved.
Historic Aerial Photo of North and Baxtarmperty (date unknown)
Map Legend
.Ys
In[e fstaie
Mai or Raad4
f 14" Road
I�IIk•a1J1�
J Vdl lit{II>wily
Roads
Cities
I
USGS Quad Index 24K
Loraer4B Available, We4an'
h*n•DIQILI
01O 16t1
No 0414
t:
Stan
NHD Streams
Counties 4OOK
Stat3ls LOOK
South Americb
North America
EXHIBIT
3
dFr
I
cK 43.
CA
mle�ol
ZONING MAP
LAKE WASHINGTON
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION —
SOUTH PROPERTY
FENCE LINE —
PSE EASEMENT
LINE (TBD) —
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION -
NEW I- STORY
MAINTENANCE
SHED
COVERED CAR WASH PAD
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION
MAINT. PARKING
3 STALLS
SECURITY TE . Y GA
& pacE
EXISTING BUILDING
STRUCTURE TO BE
REMOVED
-5ACCESS WALK
-SECURITY FENCE
-20' SERVICE ROAD
GATE
pip, wp�w6
PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING (Z Z
EXHIBIT cL o
o�
J =1
um PARKING COUNT {�
STREAM CLASSCL455 SECURE TEAM PARKING SURFACE ARKING 1Bi STALLS T 4 V ^— 0 Z
LAKE WASHINGTON -� CLASS I❑ Z
GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE — CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3) TERST A Z p
TOTAL 252 STALLS
1Y•C�.�W` w v w
NRgATgN
Al MITIGATION SITE PLAN - ALTERNATIVE a slrE+
- Lo Z -0.01
u n w u v n
:, a b
LOCKE
OTBALL
AREASRS AND I AORUUUIPMEN I OFFICES I MEETING AND I DINING AND
EXERCISE AREA
I! BUSINESS I CLASSROOMS KITCHEN
SHED FOR iNDOOR PRACTICE
TV STUDIO
MTG, RM.
v ao m
v y 0
LEVEL 1 - PLAN DIAGRAM
1"= 100'
2 S�TORIESSWW1 1 STORY WITH
M'I F2Z AINE MEZZANINE
3 LEVEL 2 - PLAN DIAGRAM
LL 1" = 100' ,
OPEN
W
fn
W U
XSHED FOR INDOOR PRACTICE
2 LEVEL 1 M -PLAN DIAGRAM
AREA CALCULATIOWS:
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA - LEVEL 1................. .......... ......... 56,674 S.F.
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA - MEZZANINE LEVEL: .......... 48,5W S.F.
PROPOSED FLOOR AREA - LEVEL 2i. ..................................31,364 S.F.
INDOOR PRACTICE FACILTIY:...............................................89,423 S.F.
TOTAL BUILDING AREA (ALL LEVELS): ................................ 224.957 S.F
Owner No. Description Date
,\ CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS, LLC
1901 M*n Steel Suhe 2W
ww owc KmClly, MO 8410a
-
tel: 616.121-2iM
+ �' faa'. 6/6A21.2650
r � ` Seshawks Headquarters & Training Facility
PLAN DIAGRAMS
PTject number KC045-05
Date 11107f08
Drawn by JEF
Chocked by JEF
Scale 1'- IOU
EXHIBIT
6
x Y!
f. $ it
i JI#
�Ilj��i I� liii? r
+
44
t r
<<�i Ills i �• i ...� r
m r
i
0
ib
DESIGN DEYELORMENT- NOT FOR C4NST .,UCTIQN
w — Seahawks Headquarters &
Training Facility
... j... FOOTBALL NORTHYVE5T LLC '.
RENTON, WASHINGTON i
00
x
y
9�
PSE
ELECT.
STATION -
WETLANDS
�\ U rF
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION —
SOUTH PROPERTY
FENCE LINE —
' PEE EASEMENT
LINE (TBO) "—`
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION —
NEW 1— STORY
MAINTENANCE
SHED
COVERED CAR WASH PAD
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION
MAINT. PARKING
10 STALLS
' SECURITY GATE —J
NQTE"
STREA_Cr ecc
LAKE WASHINGTON - CLASS 1
GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAINAGE - CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 6.3
Al BA% ITE PLAN
e a e e
LAKE WASHINGTON
DJENT OF
PUBLIC ACCESS
1
r
EXISTING BUILDING
STRUCTURE TO BE
REMOVED
4' ACCESS WALK
SECURITY FENCE
20' SERVICE ROAD
.. .... .... .. ..
0 PL�� SURFACE 'ARKING
\ SECURITY
^�_�`i`---- -T- TY GATE
F- ---- -- - - �s
-
----------_...-
- - - - - - - - - - - - � - -
PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING
-� Y � v
EXHIBIT
0
o
Iu
PARKING CQU
I
GENERAL SURPACE PARKING
SECURE TEAM PARKING
141 STALLS
STALLS
TATE _ 405
d Z
INTERS
0 o
TOTAL
as4
0
n�
�x
— — —
LLI LL
— —..— —
0 LL
d
-
-- y-
p h—
atisE
SRE rux
U-J Z
-a.a
LAKE WASHINGTON
PSE
ELECT-
EL-r '
STATION • `
PRACTICE
9--
CRAWRM APJ:*MCT9. LLC
1901 nrm.n.K u4U 200
k-�ay,M6410s
"L 818.421.2640
he M45.•21.2660
FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST, LLC
cewrt
PROJECT KC-045-05
SITE PLAN
" SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY EXHIBIT
BUILDING LOCATION OPTIONS
10
kip
jT
AN
IwAk
k4
All
I T A
. al�
'*441
16
jpv
*
4 - LJk: Ir.1
Jv�
h6 4,r
jc "'Yj
nw; 'fr
If It P-A.
Misty Cave Unit 302 — Existing View
EXHIBIT
13
Misty Cove Unit 302 — View with Base Plan Location
EXHIBIT
14
Misty Cove Unit 302 — View with Mitigated Plan Location
EXHIBIT
15
Misty Cove Unit 302 — Comparison of Views with Base and Mitigated Plan Locations
EXHIBIT
16
Y` aJ
Y
a J
SN
1
F�
';i
._ -
l .�-krk# .. �4 S .r.
~ �
i i;_. � Xt.i^'•
'S.�hi/ids
yi � -
'�..
�
:y.
�
- -�-� }
-t [[?
ram'• w a�,:: [ .`-} .,: �
� � 't r. �
-
t
�
,� y
_,'' .x. J.
I
r
�h
Misty Cove Unit 312 —View with Base Plan Location
EXHIBIT
18
Misty Cove Unit 312 —View with Mitigated Plan Location
9p,
EXHIBIT
19
r
Misty Cove Unit 312 —Comparison of Views with Base and Mitigated Plan Locations
EXHIBIT
20
JUNE 21ST
9.00 AM
i Ir.
00 PM
EFF
3.00 PM
SEPTEMBER 21ST
DECEMBER 21ST
SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES SHADOW STUDIES - CURRENT DESIGN
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY 0 2005 u"V Ao Ak,: ,k ,,. ,Lt
MARCH 21 ST
FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC
JUNE 21ST
SEPTEMBER 21ST
N SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY
DECEMBER 21ST
SHADOW STUDIES - MITIGATED ALTERNATE
0 Z=6 CRANFORp ARCHITKCT%, Ll (I:
MARCH 21ST
FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC
— J
44
w �
<
YjN !
P
ti
ATE
SHADOW STUDIES
SEPT 21st
DEC 21st
MAR 21 st
SITE PLAN - CURRENT DESIGN EXHIBIT
�R SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES SCALE 1" = 50'-0";�}�-��_=:-�-=�_--� 5EAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY o zw '.'RAWFfikU A;Cl-FEc,s, FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC
24 �"....e"n
SHADOW STUDIES
SEPT 21 st
DEC 21 st
=77
IATP
MR 21 st
SITE PLAN - BUILDING MOVED 62' EASTWARD
SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES SCALE EXHIBIT
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY ® fOMI ;Jiml OR:, AR0, IF c7q, I.,.- FOOTBALL NORTHWESY'LL6
25
Y
CII - ' 4F RENTON
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
November 13, 2006
Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane #4
Renton, WA 98056
Thomas Peterson, Esq.
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Ste. 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
Jeffrey B. Taraday Zanetta Fontes
Foster Pepper Warren Barber & Fontes, P.S.
1111 Third Avenue, Ste. 3400 PO Box 626
Seattle, WA 98101 Renton, WA 98057
RE: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA-06-073, ECF
Dear Appellant and Attorneys of Record:
Hearing Examine(
Fred I Kaufmay
Thomas Ehrlichman, Esq.
Two Union Square
601 Union Street, Ste. 4950
Seattle, WA 98101
This office has received two appeals, hereinafter SEPA appeals, of the City's Environmental
Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNSM) for the above matter.
State law and City code require that such appeals be combined with the underlying Public
Hearing on the original land use action, a Site Plan approval and Master Site Plan approval.
The Site/Master Plan hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 9:00am.
Therefore, the two SEPA appeals will also be heard on that date and at that time. The hearing is
scheduled to be held in the City Council Chambers on the 7th Floor of City Hall.
This office prefers attempting to separate the SEPA appeal testimony and witnesses, a more
formal appeal situation, from the hearing on the merits of the land use matter, a more relaxed
public hearing forum. Therefore, the appeal aspects will open the presentation and be followed
by the Site/Master Plan review. Witnesses will be accommodated if their schedules had not
anticipated a more lengthy public hearing.
This office further understands that a pre -hearing telephonic conference is being arranged in
hopes of making the hearing as efficient as possible. This may affect the order of presentation of
witnesses and evidence at the actual hearing.
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515
0 Thia papercontains 50% recycled material, 301A post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THL CU�VE
Seahawks Training Facility
November 13, 2006
Page Two
If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write.
Sincerely,
Fred Kaufman
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
FK/nt
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Elizabeth Higgins, Development Services
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
P FOSTER PEPPER,.,,,
Direct Phone (206) 447-4676
Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1997
November 13, 2006 E-Mail PearR@foster.com
VIA MESSENGER
Ms. Elizabeth Higgins
City of Renton Development Services Division
PlanningBuilding/Public Works Department
1055 South Grady Way, 6th Floor
Renton Washington 98055
Re: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility
City of Renton Application No. LUA06-073
Dear Elizabeth:
Please find enclosed hard copies of the following revised documents related to the above -
referenced application:
1. Revised Site Plans.
• The Base Site Plan shows the revised maintenance shed and revised public access
along the water's edge.
• The Mitigated Site Plan (Alternative) contains the above revised elements and adds
the proposed mitigated building location. The Seahawks propose to relocate the
office building and indoor practice facility (1PF) 62 feet to the east. This is proposed
to minimize view impacts to the Misty Cove condominiums.
2. Memorandum addressing shoreline permitting issues raised by Misty Cove Board
3. Unit 302 Misty Cove panorama visualizations showing existing, base site plan, mitigated
site plan, and comparison.
4. Unit 312 Misty Cove panorama visualizations showing existing, base site plan, mitigated
site plan, and comparison.
5. Shadow Studies showing 6/21, 9/21, 12/21 and 3/21 at 9 AM, Noon and 3 PM.
Please call with any questions.
507440X5.1
November 13, 2006
Page 2
Very truly yours,
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
Roger A. rearce
Enclosures
CC Zanetta Fontes
Clients
50744085.1
9�
T
CT.ON _
�\ �'. WETLAN05.
\\ � OF ��
i
EXISTING PGWFR
POLE LOCATION -
SOUTH PROPERTY
FENCE LINE —
' PSE EASEMF14T
LINE (TB0) —
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION -
NEW 1- STORY
MAINTENANCE
SNEO
COVERED CAR WASH PAD
EXISTING POWER
POLE LOCATION
MAINi. PARKING
10 STALLS
SECURITY GATE ""-•�
NOTE:
STREAM CLASS
LAKE WASHINGTON - CLASS 1
GYPSY SUB BASIN ORMNAGE - CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3
Al BASE PIAN
LAKE WASHINGTON
��- M - MOM
vs���
w
i-.C.Iy;j. r..� # I YLLLSJI
}-d-.y_, -t�.. IUf 17-IfllTl llll
r-ud
�I —Y' SURFACE PARKING
ND IPLTE 1 1 T
EXTENT OF
PUBLIC ACCESS
RL
EXISTING BUILDING
STRUC7URE TO BE
REMOVED
4- ACCESS WALK
SECURITY FENCE
20' SERVICE ROAD
ca
--------- ---------------------
PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING W O
LLJ
Q U
PARKING COUNT
W
GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 141 STALLS �� �� -� ❑ Z
SECURE TEAM PARKING 113 STALLS T
TOTAL 254 ST 1 'STATE
AT � •�_n /0
6 S®0 107 - VJ of w
NQSTM ❑ 1.L
BABE
a a"
c c,Erra�eEa O
REV=-13lIVJE 11i Z
1 i f i I b M t N n N 1
U
e�
`roeur
LAKE WASH{NGTON - :�-
" - PSE D ..
ELECT. O` r `
LIFT
STATION
F u
STATION J ,. ,,�• � .-,.-,
f -CUR �_L` -
�j EXISTING BUILDING
WETLANDS
STRucruRE ra RE
\ I %/ + . EXTENT OF REMOVED
- " PUBLIC ACCESS EXISTIN 5' ACCESS WALK
CUR \ I — .» »».........».»...»»».... .... •........ ....„.. �.. �—�``---�`-\ DOCK SECURITY FENCE
n EXISTING POWER _ `--z_ _ SCE ROAD
POLE LOCATION \ »... ....» _» ...._..._ . ._ . 30' b RELA�7+ - �- ZO SE
.... .... 3 ... �. _. _. ry ACCESSic
-
,�
SOUTH PROPERTY
FENCE LINE
" PSE EASEMENT
LINE (TBD) I+ .•, - NA[URAL GRASS PRACTICE FIELDS I/`
EXISTING POWER I =
POLE LOCATION
I cr -
CUR t MI 0S F
I N C m¢
NEW 1- STORY � -_ E
MAINTENANCE I T KI \ L
n SHED - 1 LL \ ca
COVERED CAR WASH PAD \\ S9
EXISTING POWER U
i POLE LOCATION ....»»...,..». ........... ......... _._......._...
TI I I L TjRF FIEJ
MAINT. PARKING ,,...._..................... __....... .._-.......-' ,i
3 STALLS
SECURITY CATE I' "
E O U A o FILM 1N
I-...-.___..._.....J T SECURITY GATE ---
UR IN T N N R H R -WAY -------------
- ...._ _
----------------•------•-----------•_`• ---------------•�' r
PROPOSED RAILWAY CROSSING L J Z
0
a
OUHHE
w�
NOTE: PARKING COUNT
STREAM CLASS GENERAL SURFACE PARKING 91 STALLS �� �
LLI
LAKE WASHINGTON - CLASS 1 SECURE TEAM PARKING 161 STALLS T AT E_ 405 Q
GYPSY SUB BASIN DRAJNAGE - CLASS 2 (RE: FIGURE 8.3) TOTAL 252 STALLS INTERS z °
^ -` Y • �- — MmwYiai
IW5M T. LE
O 9REPW1
A MITIGATION SITE PLAN -ALTERNATIVE daepTIMIA s McFnLo-�•0
m4 ,•. qP
® FOSTER PEPPER£«
Memorandum
To: Elizabeth g Higgins
,�( �
From: Roger A. Pearce" +�
Date: November t , 2006
Subject: Shoreline Permitting Issues
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters Facility
City of Renton Application LUA06-073
This briefly responds to the substantive issues raised by the Misty Cove Association of
Apartment Owners in their October 10, 2006, letter
1. The Seahawks Corporate Headquarters Project Has Minimized Any Shoreline View
Impacts.
Misty Cove's primary contention is that view impacts are not sufficiently analyzed or mitigated.
The City's Shoreline View Requirements. Under the City's shoreline regulations, the applicant
for a commercial project on the shoreline needs to indicate the effect which the proposed
development will have upon the "scenic view prevailing in the given area" and indicate what
design measures have been taken to minimize the interference enjoyed by "any significant
number of people in the area." RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c); see RMC 4-3-090(K)(3)(a)(i). We
believe the Seahawks' proposal clearly meets these requirements.
The Primary Scenic View in the Area is West/Northwest. The primary scenic view in this area is
the view to the shoreline and out across Lake Washington toward Mercer Island, which is west to
northwest. Thus, Misty Cove's complaints about view impacts from boats on Lake Washington
or from Mercer Island are not relevant. The visual simulations prepared for the project
(especially the simulations of the mitigated alternative building location) show that there is little
or no view impact to residential properties up the hill. Because those properties are distant from
the project (across Ripley Lane, across the broad I-405 right-of-way, and across the wide
commercial zoning area on the other side of I-405) the new Indoor Practice Facility (IPF) at the
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters occupies a very small percentage of the overall viewshed
from those properties. The views from those properties to the water are also already obstructed
by existing landscaping, particularly the large trees along the Ripley Lane right-of-way. The
views from the south -facing units at Misty Cove of the shoreline and across Lake Washington
TEL. 206.447,4400 FAX: 206.447.9700 1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE wo, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 9s1a1.32" WWW.FOSTER.COM
SEATTLE WASHINCTON SPOKANE WASHINGTON PORTLAND ORLGON
567435B3.1
Memorandum
November 9, 2006
Page 2
are likewise not significantly impacted by the project. While d few of the Misty Cove units had
marginal impacts of their views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from the original
proposal (only 3 or 4 units on the upper south side floors), the mitigated building location has
totally eliminated even those impacts. In order to minimize view impacts, the applicant has
The Seahawks Proposal Has Minimized Any iew Impact. As mitigation for any view impacts,
the Seahawks have proposed moving the building even further to the east. The original proposed
design had already provided significant view mitigation: moving the building as far south as
possible while still retaining the ability to place three outdoor practice fields on the property;
placing the shorter building (the office building) on the shoreward portion of the property in
order to minimize view impacts to Misty Cove; proposing shorter shoreline landscaping elements
for the north comer of the property in order to minimize view impacts to Misty Cove; removing
existing power poles along the north property line to actually improve shoreline views from
Misty Cove; and moving the entire structure back from the shoreline. As further mitigation, the
Seahawks are proposing to move the entire building structure approximately 62 feet to the east.
This will eliminate any obstruction of views of the shoreline and across Lake Washington from
Misty Cove. Revised photo simulations illustrating this point are enclosed with this
memorandum.
Misty Cove Misunderstands the Facts. Misty Cove has some factual misunderstandings about
the proposal that should be clarified. First, Misty Cove repeatedly refers to a 120-foot tall
project in the shoreline. In fact, the current proposed maximum height is approximately 110
feet-10 inches above grade. Final design of the roof trusses may alter this height slightly (as may
moving the building 62-feet to the east) but the application has never shown the IPF as a 120-
foot tall structure. Second, Misty Cove also mistakenly states that there was no geotechnical
engineering done on the south part of the Baxter site. In fact, the supplemental geotechnical
report shows that there were 17 test pits and 13 borings on the South Baxter site (and one
additional boring immediately to the south). These borings showed that it was up to 85 feet to
bearing soil on South Baxter, which makes construction on South Baxter far less practical.
Locating the building on the North Baxter site also allows the building pilings to be augured
(rather than driven) which will greatly mitigate noise impacts of construction. In addition,
locating the building on North Baxter means that the quieter office building use will be adjacent
to Misty Cove, rather than the noisier (although infrequent) practice field and training camp use.
Third, the City should also note that the mitigated building location removes the IPF building
entirely from the City's Shoreline District. Thus, the City's shoreline regulations and policies
should not even apply to the IPF. Even if the City considers the project as a whole, however, it
is clear that the Seabawks have minimized any view impacts to the primary scenic view in the
area.
The _Shoreline Management Act Requirements Are Met. Under the Shoreline Management Act,
development on shorelines of the state that obstructs a "substantial number" of residential views
"on areas adjoining such shorelines" may not exceed 35 feet unless overriding considerations of
public interest are served. RCW 90.58.320. Here, as noted above, the IPF portion of the
50743583,1
Memorandum
November 9, 2006
Page 3
Seahawks project is nor proposed to be entirely outside the City's Shoreline District. The office
building portion of the project does exceed 35 feet, but it does not block any residential views —
including views from the Misty Cove Condominiums, Even if the project is considered as a
whole, the City should find that a "substantial number" of residential views are not "obstructed."
The mitigated building location proposal eliminates any view impacts of the shoreline and Lake
Washington from Misty Cove. With respect to the far distant views from residences across I-405
and the intervening commercial area, the Seahawks do not believe those views are from areas
adjoining such shorelines. Even if there were considered "adjoining," those distant views are
only marginally impacted a) because their current views of the water are already largely
obscured by mature trees and b) because their overall panoramic view is only slightly impacted
(less than a few percent of the overall view).
2. The Seahawks Corporate Headquarters Is an Authorized Use.
Misty Cove mistakenly states that the Seahawks corporate headquarters is not an authorized use.
Misty Cove is mistaken. The City's Urban Shoreline Environment is intended for high -intensity
land uses. RMC 4--2-0903(2). For new commercial development on Lake Washington, such as
the Seahawks project, the City's Code allows such development so long as significant public
access is provided to and along the water's edge. The project does propose a significant new
public access along the north side of the property to Lake Washington and then southward along
the water's edge. After discussions with the City, the Seahawks have expanded the public access
area along the lake edge.
3. There Are No Significant Impacts to Endangered Species.
Finally, Misty Cove states (without any analysis or expert reports) that proposed retaining walls
will impact endangered species — specifically bull trout and Chinook salmon that utilize Lake
Washington. First, Misty Cove has evidently not reviewed the revised application materials
which greatly reduce the need for any retaining walls. Second, and most important, the project's
Lake and Stream Study shows that there will not be any significant impacts to salmon or other
species. In fact, the project will replant a severely degraded area of the Lake Washington
shoreline with native plantings, replacing the invasive species currently on the site, and improve
habitat values. The project will also comply with the most recent King Count stormwater
manual, with Ecology's new regulations for NPDES construction permits, and with a detailed
Integrated Turf Management Plan. As the City found in its Mitigated DNS decision, this will
ensure that there will no significant adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
cc: Zanetta Fontes
50743583.1
Vd:W UNUHANG11)
VILW U"A Idl,, I.
4M
U
z.
SHADOW STUDIES
MAR 21 st
SITE PLAN - BUILDING MOVED 62'EASTWARD
SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES SCALE I 50'-0"
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY Z.:))b 011. 1 1,� I I FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LI-6
y �. ia�
y
�a ✓ xW
�.
.c�x�
dyar,+� �y .3
a > ;.
e
� ` '
s
�". {,
��r
� �����
N :'
4
U ,
y
*�
�...
x1
-
��
��-
Y �
.. e.
jy.
—.
rig
at
\\
Al.
± ]
-' -}
.
.RE.
%. .... _-.a..
j
tr •
JUNE 21ST
SEPTEMBER 21ST
SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY
DECEMBER 21ST
SHADOW STUDIES - CURRENT DESIGN
MARCH 21 ST
FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC
,DUNE 21ST
SEPTEMBER 21 ST
v.SITE VISUALIZATION STUDIES
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS AND TRAINING FACILITY
DECEMBER 21 ST
SHADOW STUDIES - MITIGATED ALTERNATE
MARCH 21ST
FOOTBALL NORTHWEST, LLC
r�
City of Renton
Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
F • a v= IWO
NOV 0 7 2006
RECEIVED
CITY OF R€NTON!
NOV O fi 2=
.1'
RLCr;WEQ
CRY CLERK`S OFME
I am appealing the Enviromental Committee Report for the Seahawks Headquarters &
Training Facility file number LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM located at 5015 Lake
Washing BIvd N, Renton, WA, 98056 dated October 16, 2006.
Specifically I am appealing because I feel that the project has failed to meet two
following criteria:
1) Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not
result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The following site
requirements shall be required: (Ord. 3599, 1-11-1982)
specifically sub -section C
c. Height: Building and structure heights shall conform to the requirements of the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located. Spires, belltowers, public utility antennas or
similar structures may exceed the height requirement upon approval of a variance.
Building heights should be related to surrounding uses in order to allow optimal sunlight
and ventilation, and minimal obstruction of views from adjacent structures.
I also feel that the enviromental plan does not meet the requirements of RMC: (Ord.
5191, 12-12-2005) - 4-3-050 CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS:
There is no detailed plan for the Wetlands Mitigation & the restoration of the shoreline
along Labe Washington.
Sincerely,
r_
Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane #4
Renton, WA 98056
1 r
/Vrrff e r � ktl)!h � f De ol• s vc— 5 .
1 0 CIT OF RENTON
♦. Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
lot y Kathy Keoiicer Itifajror j ` Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
0
October 19, 2006
Ray Colliver
Port Quendall Company
505 5th Avenue S ste: #900
Seattle, WA 98104
SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Trainirig Facility
t_UA06-073, SA-M, SA=H, SM, ECF
Dear Mr. Colliver.
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ER.C) to advise -you that they
have completed their review of the subject project and have ;issued a threshold Determination of Non=
Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation pleasures: Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision,
Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental .determination must be -filed in Wrftitig on or before 5:00 PM on
November s, 200& Appeals rust be filed in writing together with -the required $76.00 application flee
with: Hearing Examiner; City of Renton; 1055 South Grady Way,. Renton, WA 99055. Appeals to the
Examiner are.govemed by City of.:Rehtoh, Municipal- Code.'section.4-5-110:8. Additional; information
regarding -the appeal process may be obtained from tine Renton C4 Cleric's Office, (425) 430-6610. -
A Public Hearing will be heid by the Renton Hearing. Examiner, in the Council Chambers on the seventh
floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 21:1 2006 at- 9:00 AM to
consider the Master Site Plan. and Site Plan. The applicant -fir rJDjx. sentative(s) of the applicant is
required to:be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff, -report Vvill be mailed to you one week
before the hearing, #f the Environmental Determination is appealod;. the appeal will be heard as 'part of
this public hearing..
The preeeding1riforf.hation will assist you in planning for implementation of -yaur project and seaable you to
exercise your appeal., rights more fully, if you choose to do so... if 'you. have any questions , or desire
clarification of the above, please call me at (4-25) 430-7382.
For the Envirorf0e atal Review Committee,
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
cc: Parties of Record
CITY OF RENTON
City Clock Division
+ + 1055 South sty Way
Renton, WA 99455
425-430-6510
C Csylb
er-k No.
06sc riipE do
A#W0Ak-cc4vo,d From--
Y
r
El c y Fee
H''Appeal Fee
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
GENEl,OPMENT SERVK s
Cmr OF RENTON
NOV 0 7 2006
REC'ENEQ
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS,
Appellant,
V.
CITY OF RENTON, and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
CITY OF RENTON
NOV 0 O 2m
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
TWIlere,l- e' Ull�v
NO. LUA06-073
NOTICE OF APPEAL;
APPEAL OF
DETERMINATION OF NON -
SIGNIFICANCE --
MITIGATED WITH MITIGATION
MEASURES (Oct. 16, 2006)
I. INTRODUCTION
Comes now the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("Misty Cove") and
for its appeal of the above -captioned Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated
("DNSM") pleads as follows.
This appeal is filed pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code ("RMC"), chapter 4-08-
110, the State Environmental Policy Act, RC ch. 43.21C ("SEPA"), and under the
procedures set forth on Page 15 of the Report & Decision of the City's Environmental
Review Corrunittec ("ERC") (Oct. 16, 2006). The City Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to
review an appeal of the ERC's Determination of Non -Significance for this proposal. RMC
Section 4-8-070(H)(4); RMC Sec. 4-8-070(T).
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Sacius Law Group, pLLc _
APPEAL OF DNSM 4 - Two Union Square sot Un on tre Stre% Suite 4950
0363 4 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
� f / Y Telephone 206
CC W
L��j� �.f��J f � ]�j/V Facsimile206.838.9838.910101
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Misty Cove Associationis an iuiincarporated condominium association of over
50 residentsl, residing on Lake Washington directly adjacent and to the north of the proposed
Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The Misty Cove Condominiums consist of
the condominium building, parking, grounds, and marina located at 5021 Ripley Lane North,
Renton, Washington.
The proposed Seahawks facility involves a relocation of an existing facility from
Kirkland. By moving their facility to Renton, the Seahawks hope to quadruple the size of
their current Kirkland facility.2 The effect of locating this large commercial enterprise on
this vacant lakeshore site is immediate and certain change in the lives of Misty Cove
residents.
In their recent internet promotional materials for the new facility, the Seahawks
management admit the new 120-foot tall facility will be "massive," located within 50 feet of
Lake Washington.3 In the same promotional video, Renton's Mayor promises to "fast -track"
every permit application filed by the Seahawks, in support of the new facility.
While it is understandable City leadership would wish to attract an economic engine
with a "massive" commercial facility within the City limits by fast -tracking the permit and
SEPA review, the City's environmental determination must focus on impacts to the shores of
Lake Washington, a shoreline of statewide significance. When issuing the DNSM, the City's
SEPA responsible official failed to consider public comments and failed to ensure
consistency with the City's adopted Shoreline Management Master Program4 and other
t There are 50 residential units located at Misty Cove, some of which are occupied by multiple residents.
ZInformation derived from the Seahawk's promotional website at:
www. seahawks. com/News/News. aspx%3 Fid°/a3 D 10218+Seahawks+Training+facility+Kirkland,+WA&h1=en
&gl=us&ct=c1nk&cd=11
3Id., "Video Report" promoting new facility, Seahawks President Tim Ruskell.
RMC Sec. 4-9-070(0)(2)(c).
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION _ Socius Law Group, PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S
APPEAL OF DNSM -2- Two Union square . 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
15563 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
permit regulations. Those regulations protect the interests of Misty Cove residents and the
interests of all state residents who enjoy Lake Washington's waters and shores.
Unfortunately, neither the applicant nor City staff appeared to incorporate suggestions
or comments from neighborhood meetings or either of Misty Cove's Ietters to the City
providing detailed concerns. The first letter was sent in July 2006, over three months ago.
The applicant's resubmittal in September 2006 did not adequately address those concerns and
did not propose any new voluntary permit conditions to mitigate impacts described by Misty
Cove.
Upon appellate review, a central issue will be whether this massive facility may
impede, alter or impair the views of existing residents throughout the area, for a commercial
use that is neither water -dependent nor water -related. Misty Cove residents believe
additional design work is needed to mitigate the massive scale and height of the proposal in
order to make the facility consistent with applicable City shoreline regulations. Additional
study is needed to determine impacts and appropriate mitigation on a host of issues not
addressed by the DNSM conditions, not the least of which is the impact of stormwater runoff
on endangered species habitat along the shoreline. Misty Cove therefore requests the
Hearing Examiner remand the DNSM for additional study and SEPA conditions mitigating
probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified in this appeal.
II. SUBSTANTIAL ERRORS IN FACT OR LAW
As required under the City's appeal procedures, Misty Cove offers the following list
of substantial errors in fact or law which exist in the record of the proceedings. RMC Sec. 4-
8-110(C)(3).
A. List of Errors. In addition to those reasons listed in the attached letters, the
DNSM is in error because:
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION
APPEAL OF DNSM
11563
Socius Law Group, PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S
-3- Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
F�
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• This proposal does not meet the City's adopted shoreline standards for the
location of commercial development along Lake Washington:
New commercial developments on Lake Washington which are neither
water -dependent, nor water -related, nor water -enjoyment, nor which
do not provide significant public access to and along the water's edge
will not be permitted upon the shoreline.
RMC Sec. 4-3-090(L)(5)(ii).
• The facility is not located in an area "where current commercial uses exist," as
required for Commercial Use within the Urban Shoreline Environment, RMC
4-3-090(J)(4); 4-3-090(L)(5).
The 120-foot high structure is not of the same scale as other commercial
development contemplated for this commercial zone.
0 The scale and design of the facility will impede or impair the views of
adjacent residents; the SEPA DNSM does not include any permit conditions
concerning design or scale capable of providing the mitigation required by the
City's shoreline regulations.
• The DNSM is silent on any mitigation conditions addressing obstructed and
impeded views, traffic gridlock, degradation of fish and wildlife habitat,
parking impacts, loss of aesthetics, increased noise, and new sources of light
and glare.
As part of this appeal, Misty Cove incorporates by reference as though fully set forth
herein, two letters submitted by Misty Cove during the public comment period, providing
specific allegations of fact and law demonstrating probable significant adverse environmental
impacts resulting from the project's noncompliance with SEPA, RCW ch. 43.21C and its
implementing regulations, WAC ch. 197-11, the Shoreline Management Act, RCW ch.
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Socius Law Group, PLLC
APPEAL OF DNSM -4- Two Union square 01RUnion Street, Suite 4950
15563 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
90.58, and applicable City regulations and policies. Additional errors are described as
follows.
B. Failure to Impose Specific SEPA Conditions NecessM for Consistenc with
Shoreline Policies and Regulations.
As discussed above, the DNSM does not contain specific SEPA mitigation conditions
necessary to demonstrate consistency with the City's adopted standards and policies for
commercial uses within the shorelines. The applicant did not meet its burden of
demonstrating consistency "with the criteria which must be met before a [shoreline] permit is
granted." RMC Sec. 4-9-190(F)(4). Neither the shoreline permit nor other permits may be
granted under City code, absent a showing of consistency with the City's adopted shoreline
program and regulations. RMC Sec. 4-9-190(E). If the proposal is inconsistent with the
City's adopted SEPA policies governing the use of shorelines and mitigation of impacts, it
follows that the proposal does not adequately mitigate project impacts to the extent required
by SEPA and the City's environmental regulations.
The criteria for issuance of a shoreline permit are relevant to the Examiner's review
of the ERC's decision. The City's shoreline policies and regulations serve as the basis for
substantive conditioning of the project to ensure adequate SEPA mitigation, because they are
adopted SEPA policies. RMC Sec. 4-9-070(0)(2)(c). Under City code, specific SEPA
mitigation measures become conditions of the underlying permit approval decision, once
issued. RMC Sec. 4-9-070(L)(I3). Given the interrelationship between shoreline permit
conditions and SEPA conditions, the ERC needed to determine whether the project was
consistent with the City's adopted SEPA policy for shorelines, as a pre -requisite to
completion of the City's SEPA review.
City code required that any mitigation conditions addressing the requirements of the
City's shoreline regulations be specific, in order to qualify as SEPA mitigation measures.
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Sacius Law Group, PLLC
APPEAL OF DNSM -5- Two union Squares sot Union Street. Suite4950
15563 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RMC Sec. 4-9-070(L)(9). In the absence of specific mitigation measures addressing
compliance with shoreline regulations, the DNSM must be overturned and remanded for
further study.
C. Failure to Impose S12ecific SEPA Conditions Necessga for Consistency with
Other Land Use Permit Reizulations.
It does not appear that the Optional DNS issued by the City covered more than a
shoreline substantial development permit application. On September 6, 2006, the applicant
added permit applications for a Master Site Plan Approval and Site Plan Approval. The ERC
Report & Decision dated October 16, 2006, appears to have expanded the Optional DNS
notice to now include more than the shoreline permit, specifying "SA-M" and "SA-H"
designations. It is not clear from the text of the decision or staff recommendation exactly
what permit applications are covered by the DNS.
D. The Record Lacks Evidence the Public Comments Were Considered for This
DNS, as Required by SEPA.
It is little surprise the DNSM failed to include specific mitigation conditions
addressing timely -submitted neighborhood comments and concerns. In the City's haste to
fast -track the permitting process, detailed comments from Misty Cove and other members of
the public were not considered.
The City's SEPA record does not contain any evidence that the staff or ERC
considered Misty Cove's comments, timely filed prior to issuance of the DNSM. As the
City's SEPA Responsible Official, the ERC had a duty to consider Misty Cove's written
comments and those of other members of the public, prior to issuance of the DNS. WAC
197-11-355(4).5
5 This is the citation for a DNS issued under the Optional DNS process. It is unclear from the Report &
Decision issued by the ERC on October 16, 2006 whether the ERC utilized the Optional DNS process. If it did
not, the State SEPA Rules require consideration of public comments for a period of 14 days following issuance
of the DNS. During that period, WAG 197-I 1-340(2XO requires the responsible official to "reconsider the
DNS based on timely comments."
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Socius Law Group, PLLc
A T T O R N E Y S
APPEAL OF DNSM -6- Two Union square . 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
15563 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Misty Cove submitted a comment letter to the City in July 2006, and again in early
October 2006, both prior to issuance of the DNSM. Neither letter was even mentioned in the
staff report to the ERC or in the ERC's written decision and letter issuing the DNSM. It
seems clear the complete lack of design mitigation conditions in the DNSM is in error in
light of the comments the City received from the public concerning inconsistencies with the
City's adopted SEPA policies, which include the Shoreline Management Master Program and
its regulations.
E. The ERC Failed to Examine Underlying Permit Applications and Proposed
Conditions and Failed to Require Sufficient Environmental Information.
The exhibits offered to the ERC for its review are described in the staff
recommendation dated October 16, 2006. None of these exhibits include the specific permit
application materials covered by the DNS. Because the DNS relies upon mitigation
measures applied to other permits through existing codes, it was logically necessary for the
ERC to review specific measures proposed for the underlying permits, which apparently
were not presented.
By way of illustrative example, Paragraph 5 of the DNSM states that Mitigation
Measures for the DNS are described in "the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Application component of this Land Use Action." The record of the ERC decision shows
that the ERC did not appear to consider the shoreline permit application and did not review
any specific mitigation measures proposed as conditions for that application. Thus, the
DNSM is flawed by citing to the shoreline permit mitigation measures when they are not
listed in the DNS and are not otherwise disclosed in the application materials or record of
staff review. Under City code, the mitigation conditions for the application had to be listed in
the Notice of Application, so that the public had an opportunity to comment. This was not
done.
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Socius Law Group, PLLC
APPEAL OF DNSM -7- Two Union Square . 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
15563 Seattle. Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.839.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Similarly, the staff recommendation, dated October 16, 2006, discusses ideas for
mitigation of building design, without proposing any specific mitigation conditions for
underlying permits related to design, mass or scale. Clearly, the DNSM list of mitigation
measures on Page 3 of the ERC Report & Decision does not address these issues or identify
conditions proposed for any underlying permit.
The staff recommendation curiously identifies not a single mitigation measure related
to impacts to shoreline water quality or fish habitat. Under the heading "Water" (Page 5,
Para. 3), the staff recommendation notes a proposal to improve the functions and values of
the riparian zone, but does not cite to any specific proposed permit condition and does not
propose any DNS mitigation condition. In fact, the recommendation in its entirety refrains
from mentioning the presence of endangered salmonid species, their documented use of the
shoreline during migrations, or any proposed mitigation to preserve and enhance this
valuable state and federal resource. See discussion at Page 11, Para. 10, Staff
Recommendation ("No mitigation is required.").
The staff report to the ERC does acknowledge there will be five new stormwater
drainage system outfalls to Lake Washington at the ordinary high-water mark. Because the
staff report failed to describe any ESA habitat assessment, the ERC did not carefully consider
probable significant adverse environmental impacts of stormwater runoff on that habitat.
In the absence of materials from the applicant or staff, the ERC had a duty to direct
staff or the applicant to produce missing information concerning not only proposed
conditions for underlying permit applications but also basic environmental data necessary to
assess impacts and a record of public comments. Insufficient data was provided to the ERC
concerning:
• the presence of fish;
• the presence of endangered species;
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Sod us Law Group, PLtc
A T T 0 R N E Y S
APPEAL OF DNSM ..g_ Two Union Square 9 601 union street, suite 4950
15563 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
• the current quality of nearshore habitat for aquatic species and birds;
• the impacts of five new stormwater discharge facilities on habitat and
water quality;
• the impacts of construction sediments on nearshore habitat and fish
migrations;
• proposed mitigation to address specific impacts to the shoreline
ecosystem; and
• public concerns about changes to the shoreline.
Misty Cove requests the Hearing Examiner remand the DNSM to develop missing
information, review proposed voluntary conditions for underlying permits, and for further
consideration of appropriate mitigation conditions to be incorporated into the DNS, following
a review of public comments.
F. Errors Inco orated by Reference.
Descriptions of errors of law or fact are contained in other sections of this appeal and
are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety as though fully set forth in this section.
III. STANDING
As required for SEPA appeals and under RMC Sec. 4-8-110(E), Misty Cove
incorporates the above and alleges the following facts demonstrating that its interests are
among those that are required to be considered, the decision prejudices those interests, the
prejudice will result in injury in fact, and a decision in favor of Misty Cove would
substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice.
The interests of Misty Cove residents are within the zone of interests the City must
consider, as specified in City code and SEPA. The City's shoreline regulations expressly
require consideration of view and aesthetic impacts on adjacent residents. RMC Sec. 4-3-
090(K)(3); RMC Sec. 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). Similarly, the SEPA Checklist required for the
project included discussion of impacts to traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat,
parking, aesthetics, noise, light and glare, all environmental factors to be considered by the
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Socius Law Group, PLLc
A T T O R N E Y S
APPEAL OF DNSM -9- Two union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
ESSfi3 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
City during its SEPA review. Issues of height, noise, design, parking and traffic mitigation
are all issues considered as part of the City's review for the underlying Master Site Plan
approval. The City's critical areas and shoreline regulations also require protection of the
natural resource along the shoreline.
The interests Misty Cove members seek to address in this appeal are within the zone
of interests the City was required to consider under its code, the Shoreline Management Act,
and SEPA. Thus, the City was required to consider the comments and interests of Misty
Cove residents related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking,
aesthetics, noise, light and glare.
The injury in fact and manner in which the Association and its members are
prejudiced by the DNSM are set forth in detail in the Declaration of Eleanor Margo
Kennamer, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Declaration of Steve Jansen, attached hereto as
Exhibit B, and the Declaration of Brian Sabey, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
With 50 residential units on four floors and a marina, Misty Cove residents have real
property interests in their use and enjoyment of the Misty Cove property and adjacent Lake
Washington, including views. Under the Declaration of Condominium for Misty Cove
recorded on February 11, 1980, all of the owners of units at Misty Cove are members of the
Association. The Association represents the interests of its members in this appeal.
Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer. See, Save a Valuable Environment v. Bothell, 89
Wn. 2d 862, 865-68, 576 P.2d 401 (1978).
Many, if not all, of the individual members of the Association are likely to be harmed
by significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Seahawks Practice Facility that
are immediate, concrete and specific, related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife
habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, light and glare. See, e.g.,
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION __ Socius Law Group, P_LLc
A T T A R N E Y S
APPEAL OF DNSM -10- Two Union square • 601 Union Street. Suite 4950
Seattle. Washington 98 10 1.3961
isse� Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Declaration of Steve Jansen. As such, the Association is prejudiced by the City's decision to
issue a DNSM that fails to adequately mitigate those impacts.
The residents of Misty Cove have chosen to live there because they use and enjoy
Lake Washington and the shoreline adjacent to it. All of the units of Misty Cove have
balconies and patios. The lake and the shorelands can be viewed from almost every unit.
Misty Cove residents frequently walk on the shorelands, view the water and shorelands, fish,
boat, engage in watersports, watch wildlife, and generally enjoy all of the sights and
activities available on Lake Washington and the adjacent shorelands. Declaration of Eleanor
Margo Kennamer, 14.
Because of the proposed massive height and scale of the structure, the lack of
conditions requiring design modifications and a lack of visual mitigation measures in the
DNSM, views of the water and shorelands will be impaired from nearly half of the units of
Misty Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout their property. Declaration
of Steve Jansen, T 3. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the
Misty Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun
crosses the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will
block views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington
shorelands. In the case of residents on the ground floor, at least one resident believes the
120-foot high facility will prevent his unit from being exposed to the sun for the better part of
most winter days. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ¶ 4.
Misty Cove Association members also have an interest in use and enjoyment of the
Lake Washington's water quality, as reflected in the health of the aquatic ecosystem. The
proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater outfalls within the
shoreline and in some case below the ordinary high water mark are likely to have significant
adverse impacts on shoreline habitat for endangered species of fish, other fish, birds and
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Soci T Law Group, PLLC
S
APPEAL OF DNSM -11- Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
i55b3 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.938.9101
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
mammals using the nearshore habitat. Association members have observed bald eagles and
osprey on the Port Quendall property to the south (Seahawks site) and regularly engage in
bird -watching. Declaration of Steve Jansen, ¶ 5; Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer,
110; Declaration of Brian Sahey, 14. Association members who live on the north side of
the property enjoy walking along the waterfront and sitting beside the Misty Cove pool,
which is located on the southwest portion of the property to engage in birdwatching.
Declaration of Eleanor Margo Kennamer, ¶ 10.
Misty Cove members also fish and utilize boats parked in one of the 24 boat slips
available to them in the Misty Cove Marina. Association members frequently boat on Lake
Washington in the vicinity of the Port Quendall Property. Declaration of Eleanor Margo
Kennamer, ¶ 11; Declaration of Steve Jansen, ¶ 6; Declaration of Brian Sabey, 16. Probable
significant adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff include but are not limited
to damage to fish, poor visibility in the Lake waters, and sedimentation of nearshore gravels,
all of which directly harm Misty Cove members enjoying the shoreline and waters of Lake
Washington. The DNSM fails to include mitigation measures necessary to prevent these
probable significant adverse environmental impacts.
The Association and its members are also harmed by the DNSM decision because it
does not contain mitigation measures designed to reduce the noise and harmful effects of the
proposed service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest corner of the building
nearest the shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well
as odors, debris, and vermin will cause harm and annoyance to Misty Cove and the members
of the Association. Declaration of Steve Jansen, T 8.
Because Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road, Association members
believe it more than likely the Football Northwest proposal will result in a substantial
increase in traffic and parking problems. Currently, the only traffic in the area leads to Misty
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Socius Law Group, PLLC
APPEAL OF DNSM -12- Two union square 01 Union Street, Suite 4950
15563 Seattle. Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The DNSM failed to include mitigation measures
capable of reducing what is projected to be an enormous amount of new traffic to the area,
associated with summer training camp, when thousands of people a day are expected to visit
the Seahawks property. Without DNS mitigation measures, Misty Cove Association
members believe their parking lot and dock will be utilized as a shortcut to gain access to the
Seahawks facility. Declaration ofDleanor Margo Kennamer, ¶ 14; Declaration of Steve
Jansen, 7 9.
Parking problems are expected to increase as a result of the proposal. Misty Cove has
only 98 parking stalls for 50 units. Losing street parking in the area during Seahawks events
will increase the demand for parking within the Misty Cove property and potentially create
security problems as hundreds of visitors use the area during training camp. The DNSM did
not include mitigation measures capable of addressing increased parking demand off -site and
security measures for crowd control. Declaration of Steve Jansen, T 9; Declaration of Brian
Sabey, 19.
The proposal evidently would not include the construction of lamp posts and field
lighting for night-time practice. Misty Cove would be directly harmed by such lighting,
because glare would likely be seen from the Misty Cove property at night, thus substantially
reducing the visibility of night-time skies through "light pollution." Misty Cove believes the
SEPA DNSM should have included permit conditions permanently prohibiting night-time
lighting of outdoor play fields. No mitigation conditions are currently proposed in the
DNSM.
Misty Cove seeks an order remanding or revising the above -captioned DNSM.
Remanding the DNSM to the ERC for additional study or revising the DNSM to include
necessary mitigation conditions would substantially eliminate or redress each of the above -
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION Saci A T Law Group, PLLc _
T T O R N E Y S
APPEAL OF DNSM -13- Two Union square • 601 union street. site 4950
�sw3 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
described injuries to the interests of Misty Cove members, related to views, traffic,
stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking, recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise,
light and glare.
Petitioner Misty Cove requests that the remand order require adoption of specific
mitigation conditions related to views, traffic, stormwater, fish and wildlife habitat, parking,
recreation, aesthetics, public safety, noise, Lhhtd glare, as described in this appeal.
DATED this day of , 2006.
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION
APPEAL OF DNSM
1550
SOCIUS LAW GROUP, PLLC
By I v {/vim—
mas F. Peterson, WSBA #16587
Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of
Apartment Owners
TOM EHRLICHMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
By
Tom Ehrlichman, WSBA#20952
Attorneys for Misty Cove Association of
Apartment Owners
Sodus Law Grou , puc
A T T O R N E Y S
14- Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seatde, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206,838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
im
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS,
Appellant,
Lim
CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
NO. LUA06-073
DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN
I, Steve Jansen, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this
declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief.
I . I own and reside in a unit of Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") and
am a member of the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners C Association"),
2. I own unit number 4, which is located on the southwest corner of the Misty
Cove building. From my unit, I have views to the west of Lake Washington and to the
southwest of the shoreline located on the Port Quendall property where the proposed
Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility is planned. Not only do I live in my unit, but I
have my home office there too. Consequently, I am in the unit and on or about the Misty
Cove property during all hours of the day throughout the week.
DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN _I_ Sacius Law Group, SLLc
A T T O R N E Y S
15549 Two Union Square . 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
r— o —fir Telephone 206.838.9100
i7 1 Facsimile 206.838.9101
L
E
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. The 120 foot high indoor practice facility proposed for the Seahawks site will
!I seriously impair views of the water and shorelands from nearly half of the units of Misty
Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout the property. All of the residents
and guests of Misty Cove will be affected by the project in some way. The practice facility
will block my view of the shoreland to the south of the Misty Cove property and the
territorial view beyond.
4. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty
Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses
the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block
views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington
shorelands. The shadowing will particularly impact me because my unit is located on the
ground floor. I doubt whether I will be able to see the sun for the better part of most winter
days. Furthermore, the 120 foot high indoor practice facility will loom over the public areas
of Misty Cove creating a canyon -like effect. Driving in and out of Misty Cove will be like
driving down a dark alley.
5. I enjoy watching the wildlife from my unit and around the Misty Cove
Property. I have observed blue heron, otter, beaver, turtles, migrating geese, nesting osprey,
bald eagle, raccoon, and deer in the vicinity of Misty Cove and the on the Port Quendall
property to the south.
6. I also enjoy boating and fishing, I own a boat slip at Misty Cove, although I
do not currently have a boat moored there.
DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN
15549
-2- Socius Law Group, PLLC `
A F T o R N E Y S
Two Union Square . 801 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle. Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838,9101
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater
' I outfalls within the shoreline and in some cases below the ordinary high water mark are likely
'I to have significant adverse impacts onshore habitat for endangered and other fish and other
Ibirds and mammals using the near shore habitat. There is virtually no mitigation conditions
required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address
wildlife habitat.
8. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The
Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet
in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and
dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate
the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest comer of the building nearest the
shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors,
debris, and vermin will cause particular harm and annoyance to me because my unit is
located on the ground floor directly north of the proposed service area. The DNS contains no
mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems.
9. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the
area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility
will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution,
and security problems in the area. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units.
Losing street parking in the area will seriously harm Misty Cove residents. In addition, the
pressure on parking from Seahawks visitors will make matters even worse. During the
weeks of training camp, thousands of people will visit the property each day. Those people
DECLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN _3_ Socius Law Group, Puc
15349 A T T 0 R N E Y 5
Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle, Washington 98101,3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
11 will attempt to parkin Misty Cove's parking lot and drop off on Misty Cove's flock in order
i I to Gross the property to gain access to the Seahawks facility. These Seahawks visitors will
walk through the Misty Cove property directly past my windows and trough the parking lot
to the Ripley Lane. 1 have already experienced this problem at events like when the Blue
Angels perform. I expect that it will be even worse when the Seahawks are around. The
DNS contains no mitigation measuxes designed to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and
security issues caused by the facility year round and especially during training camp.
1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Steve Yansen
Executed tbis day of_% , 2Q{}6,
at Was�g��
46—
T)FCLARATION OF STEVE JANSEN
isswIJ
.4_ Socius Law Group, ILLc
A T T O H w k Y$
Two IJWon Square ■ 601 union street, suite 4m
9e9tGe, W"ningm 95101.3951
Telephone 208.838.9100
Feosimge 206.83E.9101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS,
Appellant,
V.
CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
NO. LUA06-073
DECLARATION OF ELEANOR
MARGO KENNAMER
I, Eleanor Margo Kennamer, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein
and make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief.
1. I am the President of Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners ("the
Association'). The Association is an unincorporated condominium association formed
under RCW ch. 64.32.
2. Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty Cove") is a condominium consisting of a
building, parking, grounds, and marina located at 5021 Ripley Lane North, Renton,
Washington. Misty Cove is located on Lake Washington directly adjacent and to the north of
the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility.
LLC
DECLARATION OF ELEANOR _ 5oci A T T 0 Group, 8 R N E Y
MARGO KENNAMER -1- Two union square - 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
l548fi Telephone 206.838.9100
EXHIBIT-L.
XHILf1f' Facsimile 206.838.9101
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Misty Cove contains 50 residential units on four floors. 25 units are located
on the north side of the building and 25 are located on the south side of the building. Under
the Declaration of Condominium for Misty Cove recorded on February 11, 1980, the owners
of units at Misty Cove are the members of the Association.
4. Many, if not all, of the individual members of the Association are directly and
perceptibly harmed by the proposed Seahawks Practice Facility.
5. The residents of Misty Cove have chosen to live there because they use and
enjoy Lake Washington and the shoreline adjacent to it. Misty Cove residents frequently
walk on the shorelands, view the water and shorelands, fish, boat, engage in watersports,
watch wildlife, and generally enjoy all of the sights and activities available on Lake
Washington and the adjacent shorelands.
b. All of the units of Misty Cove have balconies or patios. The lake and the
shorelands can be viewed from almost every unit.
7. The 120 foot high indoor practice facility proposed for the Seahawks site will
seriously impair views of the water and shorelands from nearly half of the units of Misty
Cove and from numerous other vantage points throughout the property. All of the residents
and guests of Misty Cove will be affected by the project in some way and some more than
others.
8. The proposed indoor practice facility will cast a huge shadow over the Misty
Cove property, particularly in the months from late fall to early spring when the sun crosses
the southern sky. The proposed facility will not only block views of the water, it will block
DECLARATION OF ELEANOR Socius Law Group, pLLc
A T T O R N E Y S
MARGO KENNAMER _2_ Two Union Square . 601 Union street, suite 4950
154M Seattle, Washington 98101,3951
Telephone 206.838,9100
Facsimlle 206.838.9101
S
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
views of the sun, sky, vegetation, and wildlife associated with the Lake Washington
shorelands.
9. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater
outfalls within the shoreline and in some case below the ordinary high water mark are likely
to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other
birds and mammals using the near shore habitat.
10. I keep a pair of binoculars at hand because I enjoy watching the wildlife that
live and frequent the properties in the vicinity of Misty Cove, including the property to the
south. Although my unit is on the north side of the building, I frequently sit on a landing on
the south side of the building to view the birds and mammals and also do so when I visit my
neighbors. I also enjoy walking along the waterfront and sitting beside the Misty Cove pool,
which is located on the southwest portion of the property. I have personally observed bald
eagles and osprey on the property located to the south of Misty Cove. I have also frequently
observed six dear on that property.
11. There are 24 boat slips in the Misty Cove Marina. Many of the Association
members own boats. We own two boats and frequently boat on lake Washington in the
vicinity of the Port Quendall Property.
12. The proposed grading, construction, and installation of stormwater outfalls
within the shoreline and below the ordinary high water mark if not carefully designed and
mitigated will seriously impact fish and wildlife habitat, including those of endangered
species. There is virtually no mitigation conditions required in the City's Environmental
Review Committee Report and DNS that address wildlife habitat.
DECLARATION OF ELEANOR Socius Law Group, PLLC
MARGO KENNAMER A T T U R N E Y S
-3- Two Union Square + 601 Union Street, Suite 495Q
13486 Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
13. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The
Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet
in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and
dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate
the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest comer of the building nearest the
shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors,
debris, and vermin will cause harm and annoyance to Misty Cove and the members of the
Association. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate these
problems.
14. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the
area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility
will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution,
and security problems in the area. During the weeks of training camp, thousands of people a
day will visit the property. Those people will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parking lot
and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order to cross the property to gain access to the
Seahawks facility. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed to eliminate the
traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round and especially
during training camp.
DECLARATION OF ELEANOR
MARGO KENNAMER
15486
Socius Law Group, PLLc
A T T 0 R N E Y S
-4- Two Union Square • 601 Union Street Suite 4950
Seattle. Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206.838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
FroS:FM Realty
4259436640
11/0 06 14:42
#9B0 P.0011001
NOV. 6.2006 1:31PM
SOCIVS LAW GROUP
NO.2582
P. 6 I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25'
26�
I declere under p®alty of pequrg under the laws of flee state of Wasbiagtm *a the
ftzping is true and coavM
�1• :t w
{
�.'1 t • oil
DECLMUMN OF ELFAMOR
MAZW KENK&&M
ISM
&)due tew_G_ ram, Pu.c _
A T T Q it N E Y$
T%* Ikam Sqmm • 601 Urku QmK 5fa 49%
soft1hfa9hk0m Y8i013m
i�eptltlMlu MI! S allo
d
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
MISTY COVE ASSOCIATION OF
APARTMENT OWNERS,
Appellant,
V.
CITY OF RENTON and FOOTBALL
NORTHWEST,
Respondents.
NO. LUA06-073
DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY
I, Brian Sabey, am competent to testify to the matters set forth herein and make this
declaration of my own personal knowledge and belief.
1. My wife and I own and reside in a unit of Misty Cove Condominium ("Misty
Cove') and are members of the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners
("Association").
2. We own unit number 304, which is located on the top floor of the southwest
corner of the Misty Cove building. From my unit, I have views to the west of Lake
Washington and to the southwest of the shoreline located on the Port Quendall property
where the proposed Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility are planned. Not only do I
DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY _1_ Soci A T Law Group, S T O R N E Y
155M Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seeft, Washington 98101.3951
TelE X H BI'�— .r ,. Facsimile 206 38 910 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
live in my unit, but I have my home office there too. Consequently, I am in the unit and on
or about the Misty Cove property during all hours of the day throughout the week.
3. As proposed, the Seahawks indoor practice facility will block my view of
everything to the east and south. I currently enjoy a wonderful territorial view of Renton and
Bryn Mawr that will be lost if the practice facility is built as planned. Instead of looking out
at the hill, trees, and sky, I will see a massive ten -story wall.
4. I enjoy watching the wildlife from my unit and around the Misty Cove
Property. I have observed blue heron, and bald eagles nesting and feeding on the Port
Quendall property and in the adjacent waters of Lake Washington.
5. Besides enjoying the view and observing wildlife from my unit, I also
frequently stand, walk, and run along the road adjacent to the Port Quendall Property, along
the Misty Cove shoreline, and on our dock and pool area. The views of the shoreline will be
blocked from all of those vantage points by the proposed indoor practice facility.
6. I also enjoy boating and fishing. I own a boat, which I keep in the Misty Cove
Marina. From our boat, my wife and I view the marine Iife in the waters adjacent to the Port
Quendall property.
7. The proposed grading, construction, retaining wall, and new stormwater
outfalls within the shoreline and in some cases below the ordinary high water mark are likely
to have significant adverse impacts on shore habitat for endangered and other fish and other
birds and mammals using the near shore habitat. There are virtually no mitigation conditions
required in the City's Environmental Review Committee Report and DNS that address
wildlife habitat.
DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY _2_ Soei Law N E , PLt_c
AT Tt1 R t;Y3
15564 Two Union Square + 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206,838.9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8. At present, Misty Cove is an extremely quiet and peaceful location. The
I Seahawks construction project and the operating practice facility will greatly disturb the quiet
in the area. There are no mitigation measures in the DNS designed to reduce the noise and
dirt during construction to an acceptable level. Furthermore, the project proposes to locate
the service, delivery, and trash functions on the northwest comer of the building nearest the
shore and Misty Cove. The noise of truck traffic and clanging dumpsters, as well as odors,
debris, and vermin will cause particular harm and annoyance to me because my unit is
located on the third floor directly north of the proposed service area. The DNS contains no
mitigation measures designed to eliminate these problems.
9. Misty Cove is located near the end of a dead end road. The only traffic in the
area leads to Misty Cove and the adjoining Condominium. The Seahawks practice facility
will bring an enormous amount of new traffic to the area creating additional noise, pollution,
and security problems in the area. Misty Cove has only 98 parking stalls for 50 units.
Losing street parking in the area will seriously harm Misty Cove residents. In addition, the
pressure on parking from Seahawks visitors will make matters even worse. During the
weeks of training camp, thousands of people will visit the property each day. Those people
will attempt to park in Misty Cove's parldng lot and drop off on Misty Cove's dock in order
to gain access to the Seahawks facility. The DNS contains no mitigation measures designed
to eliminate the traffic, noise, pollution, and security issues caused by the facility year round
and especially during training camp.
DECLARATION OF BRIAN SABEY
0564
_ Socius Law Group, PL C
_3_ A T T 0 R N E Y 8
Two Union Square • 601 Union Street, Suite 4950
Seattle, Washington 98101.3951
Telephone 206,838,9100
Facsimile 206.838.9101
2
3
4
a
6
7
9
10
1i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1 deciaw under penalty ofper ury under the laws of the state of Washington that the
foregoing is true and correct.
r
Brian Saley
ter,, j
Executed s dap of j/�4,-2006,
at Washington.
DECLARATION OF BRL4N SABER
15w
Soaiu$ L GroU , PLLC
g T T D R N E T 8
Two Unton re • fiol Uron Suka 4960
�Vyashdlg6on 98101."51
Telephpno 20$,MAM00
Fa ksv7e 2p8.838.9101
206.838.E100 MAINPHONE
206A38.9101 MAINFAX
Two Union Square
8o1 Union SI. Suile 4950
S O C ®U S L W GUER. 0 U PPIJ.0 Sealtle, WA 98101
Thomas F. Peterson
206.838.9112
tpeterson@sooiuslaw.com
July 10, 2006
VIA LEGAL MESSENGER
Elizabeth Higgins
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073
Dear Ms. Higgins:
This law firm represents the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners. As you know,
Misty Cove Condominium is located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the
proposed Seahawks Training Facility. We provide this letter by way of our comments to the
Seattle Seahawks' ("Applicant's") request for environmental (SEPA) review and for a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit.
Timing of SEPA Review. As an initial matter, we note that the City appears to be conducting
an environmental review for a shoreline substantial development permit only, without first
requiring environmental review for the entire project, which is known to the applicant and the
City at this time. Conducting environmental review of shoreline uses only is incomplete without
first requiring the applicant to submit all known information about the ultimate buildout of the
project, i.e., traffic analysis and building footprints shown on a site plan. Piecemeal review is
prohibited under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21 C (SEPA), as discussed in
numerous court cases.
The City's Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated
(DNS-M) ("Notice") issued on June 23, 2006 ("Notice") identifies a very limited scope of
review for a project involving multiple permits. The "Permits/Review Requested" is limited to
"Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Pen -nit." Because the
Notice states that the applicant is only seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit at
this time, it seems clear the SEPA review applies only to that permit. To our knowledge, no
other permit applications have been filed. Thus, the SEPA review could not cover those unfiled
land use applications and is being conducted piecemeal on only one select permit application, the
13552 EXHIBIT .lociffilnm.colll
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 2
shoreline substantial development permit. Alternatively, if the SEPA review is intended to cover
the entire project, the SEPA applicant should be required to provide full details of the entire
project, including but not limited to a traffic analysis, prior to your issuance of a mitigated SEPA
determination. Absent a full disclosure and analysis of all project impacts prior to issuance of
the SEPA determination, the SEPA determination fails to assess possible needed mitigation
addressing those undisclosed impacts. SEPA's policy against piecemeal review is specifically
designed to avoid such a result. TI
The Notice does not identify commencement of a review period for the Master Use Permit
Application and furthermore, no Binding Site Plan has been submitted. Accordingly, the City
will have to commence a new SEPA review process when those applications and plans are
submitted. Such piecemeal review conflicts with SEPA and SMA policies. Merkle v. Port of
Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973). We request that the SEPA review be
postponed until the application and plans are complete so that the City and the neighbors can see
the whole project and the full suite of impacts and proposed mitigation before the SEPA review
process begins.
The Practice Facilltv Location. The Preliminary Site Plan calls for construction of a 120-foot
high warehouse structure for use as a practice facility on the North end of the Baxter Property.
The location of the practice facility should be moved for a number of reasons.
1. View Blockage. All of the apartments on the south side of the Misty Cove condominium
currently enjoy unobstructed views of Lake Washington to the south and west. The proposed
practice facility will block most of these views. Such view blockage directly conflicts with the
City's Shoreline Master Program. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the
Shoreline Master Program provide as follows:
The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly
distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts
made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects.
i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers,
poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further
define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction.
The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed
commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given
area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps
have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce
to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant
number of people in the area.
13552
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 3
RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). The Application incorrectly characterizes the impact of the
development on the views of Misty Cove owners. The Project Narrative states that
"[v]iews to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south will not be
adversely affected." Land Use & Shoreline Permit Application (the "Application"), § 2,
p. 4. The Environmental Checklist contains similar mischaracterizations. Application
§ 3, p. 16. This misstatement by the applicant alone is grounds for the City to delay
issuance of a SEPA determination, pending submittal of complete and accurate
information on the entire project. It is also a basis for denying the shoreline substantial
development permit for failure to comply with the policies and regulations cited above.
Not surprisingly, the Application does not state what steps the Applicant has taken to
"reduce to a minimum" the interference that the practice facility will have on Misty Cove
owners' views. In fact, the practice facility is located in the spot that will most interfere
with Misty Cove views. The negative view impact would be minimized if the practice
facility was located on the south side of the project, where there are no adjacent
residences, or situated further from the shoreline. This appears to be feasible given the
proposed layout of the site.
The practice facility is also quite tall. Although a 120-foot high structure is not barred
outright in a COR zone, where the building is abutting a lot designated as residential,
maximum building height is to be determined through site development plan review.
RMC 4-2-120B. Generally, the limit is 20 feet higher than the maximum height allowed
in the abutting residential zone. Id. This would not be an issue if the practice facility
were located on the south end of the property, which area does not abut a residential
zone. If the facility is not relocated, we contend it is in violation of RMC 4-2-120B.
2. Shoreline Orientation. The proposed practice facility is located too close to the shoreline.
The General Use Regulations provide as follows:
Facility Arrangement — Shoreline Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline
developments shall locate the water -dependant, water -related and water -
enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all other
facilities inland.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(5). The General Use Regulations further require preservation of unique and
fragile Areas:
Unique and Fragile Areas: Unique features and wildlife habitats should be
preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from
development and encroachment.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(7). The Preliminary Site Plan locates the practice facility only 50 feet
from the shoreline. This not only orients this massive structure, which is not water
dependant or water -enjoyment related, too close to the shoreline. It also may impinge on
the unique and fragile areas of the waterfront. As currently designed, it appears the.
proposed shoreline pen -nit would need a variance or conditional use approval from the
13552
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 4
Department of Ecology. If such a request has been made, please provide us with a copy
of that correspondence, so that we may comment to DOE. We reserve our right to
comment further on these issues, as more information is disclosed by the applicant and
we have an opportunity to review any critical areas studies submitted in support of the
total project,
Traffic Impacts. One of the problems with piecemeal SEPA review is the difficulty of
commenting on and reviewing significant issues before the required plans and studies are
submitted. There will likely be significant traffic impacts on the neighborhood but the
actual impact is unknown because the Applicant has not yet submitted its traffic impact
analysis. We reserve comment on the traffic impact until the traffic impact analysis has
been provided.
The Applicant states that the facility will accommodate annual training camp on site and
that parking for training camp vehicles will be located offsite. Misty Cove requests that a
requirement for offsite parking be made a condition of permit approval.
Community Diisturbances/i2efuselService Areas. The preliminary site plan does not
identify the location of areas for refuse bins, service entry, storage yards, and outdoor
service areas. The Misty Cove owners are concerned that those areas will be located in
the parking area adjacent to Misty Cove Condominium and that they will cause excessive
noise, odors, night lighting, pollution, and be unsightly in appearance. The Shoreline
General Use Regulations cited above, restrict community disturbances such as noise,
odors and night lighting, and require screening of visually unpleasant areas. RMC 4-3-
090(K)(3)(ii)&(iv). Furthermore, RMC 4-4-090(C) contains general requirements
relating to refuse storage areas. In addition, the Shoreline General Use Regulations
proscribe activities near the shoreline that may cause pollution or ecological disruption.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(2). Misty Cove requests that proper identification, location, and
screening of these areas be provided in the site plan. Misty Cove further reserves
comment on these issues until the site plan is available for review.
Dock Use. The Baxter site currently contains the remnants of a dock. We understand
that the Applicant intends to restore and use the dock. Misty Cove is concerned that
prolonged parking of ships and large yachts at the dock will obstruct views. Misty Cove
requests that permanent or long term mooring of boats, particularly large ones, be
restricted as a condition of the permit. Misty Cove owners are also concerned that
visitors to the Seahawks facility will use the Misty Cove marina for mooring. We request
that the conditions for the shoreline permit include limitations on the amount of time
larger vessels may be moored at the facility and prohibit mooring at the Misty Cove
marina.
Security and Parking, Because Ripley Lane is a dead-end street, Misty Cave owners
are concerned that people going to the new facility will often end up in the Misty Cove
parking lot, which is not adequate to accommodate existing Misty Cove tenants. The
owners are also concerned that the increased traffic will lead to more car break-ins and
13552
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 5
other safety threats to Misty Cove owners. Appropriate signage and security measures
should be made a condition of permit approval to avoid these likely impacts on adjacent
residents.
Lighting and Noise. The Environmental Checklist states that there will be no permanent
lighting of the practice fields and no glare anticipated that would adversely impact
adjacent land uses. This should be made a permanent condition of permit approval. The
Checklist also states that there will minimal noise impact on adjacent properties both
during construction and after completion. Plans to control noise should be a condition of
permit approval, based on the applicant's promise.
The Misty Cove Owners request that the City and the Applicant consider these comments
and make the appropriate changes for the better of the surrounding neighborhood. If you
have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional
information, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Thomas F. Peterson
cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail)
Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail)
Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company (via U.S. Mail)
Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners
13552
206.830,0100 MAM PHOW
206.638.9101 MAJNFAX
SACDP� USL. A, VV/G ROU PPtLC
October 10, 2006
VIA LEGAL MESSENGER
Elizabeth Higgins
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073
Dear Ms. Higgins:
crryaF���ron,
°.T
sU1101NG01V/S10ty
lwo Unian Square
601 Union St, Suite 495o
wattle, WA 98101
Thomas F. Peterson
206.B36.9112
tpeterson@sociuslaw.com
On behalf of our client, the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, we are writing to
provide supplemental comments regarding impacts of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility
on our clients' homes. This letter is intended to supplement rather than replace our earlier letter,
sent to you on July 10, 2006. That earlier letter is hereby incorporated by reference,
I. . INTRODUCTION
Our clients live at the Misty Cove Condominium, located on the property immediately adjacent
to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. As such., they will be directly affected
by the changes taking place at the Seahawks Training Facility and along the shoreline of Lake
Washington, if the various applications are approved as currently designed.
We appreciate the assistance of City staff in our review of materials. Please consider this letter
an initial comment letter (supplemental), based on our initial reviews of the files. We may have
missed something or new information may be developed during the review and hearing process,
thus giving rise to additional analysis im the future. If there are any pieces of information we cite
below as missing that are actually in the City file, we would appreciate your letting us know so
that we can correct our data last.
Our aim during this review process will be to present an accurate analysis of facts in the record
and to provide additional data that appears to be missing. In that effort, we appreciate the
applicant's willingness to respond in writing to our requests for information or clarifications.
Unfortunately, the applicant recently denied our clients even limited access to the property for
EXHIBIT C
sacrnrleiu.earu
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 2
the purposes of looking at the site with our fisheries and wetlands biologists. We trust the City
and the applicant will continue to work with us as we seek an honest evaluation of the facts,
recognizing the citizens' role in upholding the policies and requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act, RCW ch. 98.58, as well as their rights under the State Environmental Policy
Act, RCW ch. 43.21 C ("SEPA").
II. SCOPE OF THESE COMMENTS AND REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE
This letter is intended to present our clients' concerns and initial comments applicable to each of
the following, individually and collectively:
• Notice of Application (revised application September 22, 2006)
• Revised Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of non- Significance -
Mitigated (DNS-bA) (Sept. 26, 2006)
• Applications for Approval of:
o Master Plan
o Site Plan
o Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
o Construction Permit -and Building Permit
We understand City staff will make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner and provide a
presentation at the public hearing tentatively scheduled for November 21, 2006. We request that
this letter and our previous letter be provided to the Hearing Examiner as part of the permit file.
We also request advance written notice of any public meetings concerning this proposal and
would appreciate your assistance to ensure we remain a party of record. Your continued
assistance is much appreciated.
III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPOSED )[DESIGN
MITIGATION REQUIRED BY BOTH THE SHORELINE CODE AND SEPA,
CONCERNING ADVERSE IMPACTS TO VIEWS
The City's shoreline policies and regulations are particularly important to our analysis. These
policies contain directives on the types of uses that are permitted, and require analysis and
mitigation of aesthetic impacts. Although quoted in our prior letter, these specific requirements
are worth repeating here. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline
Master Program provide as follows:
The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly
distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts
made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects.
15079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 3
i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers,
poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further
define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction.
The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed
commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given
area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps
have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce
to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant
number of people in the area.
RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c).
As discussed herein, the application does not provide information or mitigation capable of
demonstrating compliance with applicable shoreline regulations concerning views. In our
opinion, the City is therefore compelled to declare the application incomplete for purposes of
shoreline permit review. If and when the application is submitted with a credible view analysis
as required by code, the City should require preparation of an environmental impact statement
This project, as proposed, is not allowed under the Shoreline Management Act. The current
proposal will bring over 343,000 square feet of new buildings to a vacant lot directly adjacent to
the Misty Cove Condominiums. 1 The buildings are expected to reach as high as 120 feet. This
19.6-acre site includes over 1,800 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline on Lake Washington.
The state -regulated shoreline is 200 feet wide, from the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM").
RCW 90.58.030(f). Washington's review criteria for all development mandates that a permit
shall not be issued for any new building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average
grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on
areas adjoining shorelines. WAG 173-27-140. In addition to imposing a 50-foot setback from
the OHWM, City regulations also require an assessment of how a project within the [200-foot]
shoreline will impact the scenic view prevailing the given area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c); RMC 4-
3-090(L)(5)(d).
The view analysis provided by the applicant does not do justice to the significant impacts this
massive building within the shoreline will have on current residents. Nor does the study make
any attempt to evaluate the views from the water for boaters, or from Mercer Island. The
applicant's view study does not identify the 200-foot shoreline in its photographs and has what
' Information about the specifics of the proposal is obtained exclusively from the applicant's Project Overview and
Environmental Checklist, both revised Sept. 6, 2006.
15079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 4
may be questionable digital scaling when malting comparisons between pre- and post -
construction views.
The applicant's response to the shoreline permit requirements for a view analysis was to submit
"two pages" of analysis. The entire second page is blank except for the following:
3.00 ON GOING ANALYSIS
Analysis will be on going as the design proceeds.
Addendum 1, Visualization Assessment (Section I]) (Crawford Architects Sept. 27, 2006). That
is a circular statement. City regulations do not allow the permit to proceed unless all materials
required by code are submitted as part of the application. An incomplete or cursory submittal
does not satisfy the intent of the shoreline regulations for a full analysis of view impacts and
design measures to mitigate those impacts.
The applicant's one page of text offers a before -and -after view comparison for only three visual
points. For one of the views taken from a Misty Cove balcony, the photographs displayed in
Figures 5 and 6 do not line up and thus involve some form of digital scale adjustments that call
into doubt whether a true comparison is being made between the before -and -after views.2
Equally important, the 200-foot shoreline of statewide significance is not identified anywhere on
the photographs to give the viewer a sense of how views of the state shoreline area would
change.
The photographs are also misleading because they are taken from vantage points beyond the
railings of the effected units (as is apparent from the photos themselves). They do not show the
view impact on residents from typical viewing positions such as seated on the balconies or inside
the units. From these vantage points the building will block much of the views of the 200-foot
shoreline. The photos and text also solely concern views of the water and ignore the residents'
views of the rest of the shoreline, the landscape, and sky and the impact of the building on light
and sunshine (particularly in late fall through early spring when the sun traverses the southern
sky.) Even the applicant's photos show that the massive building will block these views and
light.
City shoreline policies and regulations require an assessment not only of the views to be affected
by the project --which clearly has not been completed here --but also a listing of the applicant's
design measures to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by a
significant number of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3), (L)(5)(c). The applicant claims
that "the building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep
foundations." Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6 2006) at 17. However, the Geotechnical
Report indicates that deep borings were done only in the area of the proposed building. The
2 Once can simply compare the measurement between the skyline on a point and the diagonal roofline on a point, for
each picture, to see the inaccuracy of the comparison between the two pictures; they do not match. The digital
photographic work completed for this assessment appears to have been of very poor quality.
1507Y
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 5
applicant has not adequately explored the subsurface of other portions of the property to
determine suitability of alternative locations that will not impair views from neighboring
properties.
The applicant's view study does not provide the information required by the City's shoreline
code. Thus, the City should determine the application to be incomplete. The City has the
authority to do so, since the resubmitted application was provided to the City on September 22,
2006 and the City has 28 days under state law to make a completeness determination. RCW
36.70B.070. On that basis the master application, which includes the shoreline application,
should be deemed incomplete until required materials are provided to the City for public review.
Given that these same comments were provided previously in response to the initial SEPA
notice, and the fact the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit proposed mitigation
based on an analysis of the issues, withdrawal of the proposed Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance is appropriate. The City should issue a Determination of Significance, for the
purpose of requiring the complete view analysis required by code. The benefit of the EIS
process would be to carefully identify design mitigation potential, and any alternative sites
within the City or the vicinity. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c).
IV. THE CITY SHOULD NOT EVEN REACH AN ANALYSIS OF SHORELINE OR
VIEW ENIPACTS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED
WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE"
Lake Washington is adjacent to the site and is classified a "shoreline of statewide significance."
RMC 4-3-090(E), (F). The proposed Seahawk building and facility are not consistent with the
list of priority uses within the 200-foot shoreline:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest aver local interest for
shorelines of statewide significance.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines.
Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
RMC 4-3-090(D) 3 The proposal is not consistent with these mandates because the extensive
construction and lot coverage would decimate rather than preserve the "natural character" of the
3 Preference is given to the uses in descending order of priority.
15079
IV
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 6
shoreline. Id. Similarly, the public interest in long term visual aesthetics along Lake
Washington outweighs the relatively short term needs of the local football franchise — short term
when compared to a long term historical timeframe.
Perhaps more importantly, the Specific Use Regulations of the City's shoreline code prohibit the
kind of use proposed for this facility and thus the application must be denied, following Issuance
of a Determination of Significance. New commercial development on Lake Washington is not
permitted unless it is either water dependent, water related or involves water enjoyment. RMC
4-3-090(L)(5)(a). The Seahawks Training Facility, however popular, cannot be permitted in
violation of this exclusive list of permitted commercial uses within a shoreline of statewide
significance. It simply is not water dependent, water related or involved in water enjoyment.
Furthermore, the project does not provide "significant public access to and along the water's
edge." The application does not contend otherwise.
The applicant can be expected to argue that none of its buildings or fields are planned within the
City's setback area (50 feet from the OHWM). That is not the test under the use regulations for
the City's shoreline program. Instead, the setback only comes into play if the use itself is
authorized within the 200-foot zone, which it is not as explained above.
V. IMPACTS FROM NEW RETAINING WALLS WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ENDANGERED
SPECIES HABITAT
As previously mentioned, Lake Washington has been designated a "shoreline of statewide
significance" under state law. RCW 90.58.020, Despite the presence of endangered species
habitat along the shores of Lake Washington, the application proposes grading and permanent
retaining wall construction not only within the 200-foot shoreline zone, but also (as disclosed in
the application) inside the City's standard 50-foot setback area for approved shoreline urban
development.4 This is proposed in at least three separate locations within the 50-foot setback.
At this time, the plans for the grading and construction of retaining walls are not described, based
on our review of the application materials. Similarly, proposed mitigation is not well -articulated
to address the impacts of grading and permanent structures on Chinook salmon and bull trout
shoreline habitat, and bald eagle habitat.5 We do know that the applicant's wetlands report rates
this as a high quality "lake -fringe" wetland that is subject to freshwater tidal influences.6 Thus,
use of the site and its impact on juvenile endangered species should be analyzed, impacts
assessed, and mitigation proposed.
4 Baxter Development Project — Phase 1 50 Foot Setback, Site Plan, A001 (May 3, 2006).
$ Chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles are protected under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA').
G Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels (The RETEC Group, Inc. Aug. 30, 2006), Wetland
Rating Form, Page 3 (May 26, 2006).
15079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 7
The project appears to include a proposed grading and retaining wall project to be constructed at
elevation 21 feet (NAVD88), which is within one and one half feet in elevation from the highest
ordinary high water mark acknowledged by the applicant (19.5 feet NAVD 88 datum).7 Despite
these proposed but as -yet -undefined shoreline stabilization walls, the entire discussion of impacts
and mitigation concerning ESA species habitat along the lake are so sparse as to be non-existent
as follows:
2.4 Wildlife Habitat
No federally Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive animal or plant species were observed
on the subject propertyduring the site visit $
An earlier section summarizing the report's "Shoreline Survey' does not even mention ESA
species in the lake or their habitat along the shoreline. See Section 1, at Page 2. Nothing in the
report discusses habitat let alone mitigation from the proposed grading and retaining wall
construction within the 50-foot setback or within the 200-foot shoreline zone. In addition to
addressing those issues, the report should have interpreted the applicant's prior study in May
1997,9 which identified May Creek as a nearby "shoreline of the state" supporting runs of Coho,
Chinook and sockeye salmon as well as resident fish species (citing Williams et al., 1975).
Mitigation may be required for the linkage between May Creek residents and use of the nearby
shoreline of Lake Washington at the project site, i.e., at various times of their life cycle. Thus,
we conclude the application is deficient because it fails to adequately address the project's
impacts on ESA species.
Ronically, the applicant's Environmental Checklist, updated September 6, 2006, does disclose
the existence of Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle on or near the site. However, no habitat
is described and no mitigation is offered. instead, the following is offered:
Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to
the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back
to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing on the site vicinity. Sockeye
juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore
habitat along the project for rearing.
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None.
Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6, 2006) at 12.
"Conceptual Grading Plan, C10I (May 3, 2006); RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Survey at 2 (Aug. 30,
2006),
8 RETEC Group Shoreline and Wetland Survey (Aug. 30, 2006) at 2.
9 Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (May 1997)
at S.
IM79
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 8
A Determination of Significance for the project should be issued instead of the proposed
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, in part to ensure careful study of shoreline ESA
habitat and determine whether mitigation measures would ever moderate the adverse impacts
from the proposed, permanent disturbance of the 50-foot setback area and the 200-foot shoreline
and associated wetlands. By requiring an EIS on this issue, the City would.also ensure that an
objective assessment of site alternatives is conducted by the applicant.
Misty Cove residents enjoy the shoreline of Lake Washington on a daily basis. They enjoy
existing shoreline views and the natural habitat for plants and animals along the vegetated
shoreline, including endangered species. There is a direct linkage between the probable
significant adverse environmental impacts of the project and residents' continued use and
enjoyment of their property and the adjacent lake. Thus, they have standing to appeal the City's
SEPA determination; in the event it is necessary.
Please consider these comments in addition to the comments set forth in our letter of July
10. If you have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional
information, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours
Thomas F. Peterson
cc; Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail)
Misty Cove Homeowners Association (via U.S. Mail)
Torn Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail)
Lance Lopes, Attorney for Applicant (via U.S. Mail)
150?9
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk Division
41
(Cs)*
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6510
❑ Cash
02fheck No. 136' SO
Description: 41)Pic, j
Funds Received From:
O Copy Fee
LPAppeal Fee
,4 U,4— l06 w r3-7 ---Z f- 4
Name�JC
Addressan ! S�
City/Zip 6 I v j4 l - 5t : 14 �b
Sect �te / ,,./ 1 i
r'
Receipt N o 0683
Date f tAa 6
❑ Notary Service
El
Amount $ -2
— . ( k
City fffSigre
Y
CITE OF RENTON
L
Kathy KMker, Mayor
October 19, 2006
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: Environmental Determinations
PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by
the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on October 16, 2006:
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
LOCATION: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N
DESCRIPTION: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for
development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The
proposed project would consist of a three-story office building and indoor
practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for
the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for football -
related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed project location
is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th
Street interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The
site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and Baxter South.
Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property Is a former timber
processing/wood treatment facility.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on
November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to -the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7382.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division
WDFW, Stewart Reinhold
David F, Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources
WSDOT, Northwest Region
Duwamish Tribal Office
Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance)
Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
US Army Corp. of Engineers
Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 R E N T O N
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Thic nansv rTnfaine Ella/ rr.r•_vr4+rl m�fari�l Zfl9!. rnaf nnnai imAr
REPORT
City of Renton
Department of Planning I Building I Public Works
DECISION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE:
October 16, 2006
Project Name:
Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
Owner.
Port Quendall Company
Applicant
Football Northwest
Contact.,
Mr. Ray Colliver
505 Fifth Avenue S, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
File Number:
LUA06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
Project Manager:
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
Project Description:
The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the
Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of
a three-story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four
outdoor practice fields for the sport of professional football. An ancillary building for
football -related equipment storage is also planned.
Continued next page
Project Location:
5015 Lake Washington Boulevard N (also addressed as 5015, 4801, 4635 Ripley Lane)
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): 129,595 sf
Proposed New Bldg_ Area (gross): 215,000 sf
Site Area
19.68 acres (853,776 sf) Total Building Area GSF• 215,000 sf
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
Project Location Map Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen E nmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 2 of 16
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTIONIBACKGROUND, CONTINUED
The proposed project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street
interchange with Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as
Baxter North and Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood
treatment facility (Exhibit 2).
The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for storage of bark
mulch. Cleanup of the property was prescribed by Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-
11778-7KNT and South Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model
Toxics Control Act. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils in the
Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping contaminated
soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction.
The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage, a 320 acre area north of and near, but independent of May Creek.
The drainage way for the Gypsy Subbasin enters the property in a pipe from the BNSF Railroad right-of-way. Once on
the property it flows from east to west first in a 125 foot open channel and then for 490 feet in a pipe to an outfall at the
shoreline of Lake Washington.
The dominant character of the site is an abandoned open field. There are no significant buildings on the property at the
present time_ A single -story, 1,300 sf wood -frame office building built on Baxter North in 1963, would be removed from
the property, as would asphalt -paved interior roads. An existing boathouse and dock are located at the northwest
shoreline. There is currently no plan to utilize these features and they would be fenced from the area of the site
accessible to the public.
On -site clean-up activities, remediation from the former wood -processing activities, have consisted of soil excavation,
contaminant removal, and in situ soil stabilization. Site grading for the project would be coordinated with continuing
remediation. Calculations indicate the capping of the site (see Environmental Health discussion, below) and grading
for site features would require approximately 29,600 cubic yards of cut and 52,900 cubic yards of fill material. Some
cut material would be removed from the site and the remainder reused. A source statement for fill material would be
required at the time of site construction.
The property is zoned Commercial / Residential / Office 2 (COR 2). The stated purpose of the Commercial 1
Residential / Office zone is, "to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in
a high -quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment." Although a major, national
sports franchise headquarters was not anticipated as a use at the time this policy statement was formed, the following
adopted policy is applicable, "Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with
the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR zone."
The proposed project consists of administrative offices for a professional football franchise and accessory training and
practice facilities (Exhibit 3). The office and an indoor practice field would be within a 215,000 gross square foot
building on the North Baxter property. Administrative offices would be 48,000 sf and technical / support and player
meeting space would be 15,000 sf each.
Four outdoor, practice fields covering 8.3 acres would be located on the Baxter South property. Three would be
natural and one artificial turf.
The proponent's vision is for a building that would be both functional and aesthetically significant. Of the total building
area, 131,000 gross square feet of office space would be located on three levels. Most of the building would be
between 52 and 55 feet in height_ The height of the 80,000 gross square foot indoor practice field, situated on the
north and east sides of the building, would be between 95 feet at the center of the field and 120 feet. There would be
three natural grass practice fields, oriented east -west on the South Baxter property. A one-story, 6,000 sf
maintenance / equipment storage building would be located near the south property line.
The steel frame building would be faced in buff/sandstone to light gray synthetic stone, masonry, and storefront
systems on the lower level. Clear -glazed windows and either buff/sandstone to light gray cementious, or nickel to light
gray metal, wall panels in on upper portions. (Building siting and design will be discussed to a greater extent during
the Site Plan Review).
The scale and intensity of the proposed project balances City policies that intend high intensity use, with both the
natural amenities of the shoreline and wetland, both of which will have been enhanced by project completion, and
residual contamination from the former industrial use.
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E nmentai Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS o TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 3 of 16
Access would be from Lake Washington Boulevard (Ripley Lane) on the east and would require crossing the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way with a private street
On -site roads would be private. There would be parking for 299 vehicles; 195 stalls for general surface parking and
104 secure (fenced) surface parking stalls for team members. Due to both limited access and on -site parking, the
annual training camp, held for three weeks in August, would require off -site parking with a scheduled shuttle bus
service.
Portions of the site not covered with pavement, buildings, or fields would be either restored with native vegetation
(wetland and shoreline) or landscaped appropriately for its function. Irrigation systems would be installed in all
landscaped areas with temporary irrigation for the shoreline riparian plantings until they are established. (Landscaping
will be discussed to a greater extent during the Site Plan Review).
A viewpoint at shoreline of Lake Washington would be accessible to the public by means of an east -west paved
walkway located parallel to the north property boundary. This viewpoint would be landscaped and furnished with
benches.
A Category 3 wetland has been restored and would remain in a protected area at the southwest portion of the
property, adjacent to Lake Washington. The wetland would not be accessible to the public, although public access to
the shoreline of Lake Washington would be provided by the proponent at the northwest corner of the property_
PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21 C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts
that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make
the following Environmental Determination.
DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE
Issue DNS with 14-day Appeal Period
B. Mitigation Measures
DETERMINATION OF
NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED.
X I Issue DNS-M with 14-day Appeal Period.
Issue DNS-M with 15-day Comment Period
with a Concurrent 14-day Appeal Period.
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backflll
materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains.
2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality.
3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP)
designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined
in Volume 11 of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation
Plan prior to issuance of construction permits.
4_ The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site.
Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review.
5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted
calculation of 555 ADT, The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue.
6. Afire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue.
7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the
contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253)
939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582.
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Department E imental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A RAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 4 of 16
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map (September 2006)
Exhibit 2 Historic Aerial Photo of North and South Baxter Properties (date unknown)
Exhibit 3 Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Building Plan (September 2006)
Exhibit 4 Seattle Fault Zone (July 2006)
Exhibit 5 Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Site Plan (September 2006)
Exhibit 6 Baxter Cove Wetland Mitigation Plan (August 2006)
Exhibit 7 Lake Washington Shoreline, Existing Conditions (2006)
Exhibit 8 Riparian Habitat Functions and Values Chart (September 2006)
Exhibit 9 Gypsy Subbasin Culvert Replacement and Relocation Plan (August 2006)
Exhibit 10 Summary of Pest Control Measures (September 2006)
Exhibit 11 Visualization Assessment Viewpoints (September 2006)
Exhibit 12 Visualization Assessment, NE 761h Street Viewshed (September 2006)
Exhibit 13 Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 312 Viewshed (September 2006)
Exhibit 14 Visualization Assessment, Misty Cove Unit 302 Viewshed (September 2006)
Exhibit 15 Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, Elevations (September 2006)
D. Environmental Impacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether
the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in
conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have
the following probable impacts:
1. Earth
Impacts: An Environmental Checklist submitted by the project proponent and a report, "Supplemental
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by
Shannon & Wilson, Inc., September 13, 2006, forms the basis of analysis of impacts classified within the
category of "earth". Additional, existing reports were reviewed for consistency with the literature study and on -
site investigation. Site exploration consisted of drilling 6 borings and excavating 29 backhoe test pits. Borings
were based on proposed location of building corners and the estimated building center. The test pits were
spaced across the site to provide an overview of near -surface soils_ Some pits were more closely spaced
where deeper excavation for site preparation would occur_
The subsurface geology is a combination of naturally -occurring and artificial conditions. Fluvial deltaic,
lacustrine near -shore deposits and constructed fill overlie Pleistocene glacial sediments and Eocene volcanic
and sedimentary bedrock.
The site has undergone many influences over past decades including the lowering of the lake approximately 8
feet when the Lake Washington Ship Canal was constructed in 1916. In the mid 1950s, filling occurred on the
site to extend the shoreline and raise the grade for construction of industrial facilities. Ongoing dredging and
backfilling increased the complexity of the soil so that the subsurface material consists of a highly
heterogeneous mix of clay, silt, peat, sand, gravel, and cobbles. Intermixed are abandoned subsurface
structures and discarded debris from past industrial activities on the site_
Generally, subsurface soils in the building and fields locations consist of either fill material to a depth of 2 to 3
feet, soft estuarine deposits and loose alluvial soils to depths of between 17 and 38 feet. The estuarine and
alluvial deposits have layers of loose sand and compressible peat making them subject to liquefaction (see
discussion below).
The depth to bedrock varies greatly across the site with depths from 17.5 feet to more than 50 feet. It consists
of highly weathered Andesite and is a competent bearing material for building foundations_
The site slopes gently at about a 1 percent grade across the property from northeast to southwest_ There are
isolated slopes at about 5 percent along the north of the site. There is an elevation change from 33 feet in the
northeast corner to about 21 feet where a wetland is located in the southwest corner (see below).
The proposed access road would gain elevation between the railroad crossing and the proposed office
building. The elevation of the driveway and parking lot at the building entrance on the east side of the building
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW DepaHmen Ei imentat Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS A rRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 5 of 16
is proposed to be approximately 14 feet above the existing grade. The parking area would slope downward as
it wraps around the north end of the building to the west, where it would meet the existing grade. A loading
dock at the northwest corner of the office building would be approximately 1 foot above existing grade. This
configuration would require construction of walls designed to retain up to 14 feet of fill adjacent to the office
building.
The remainder of the site, consisting primarily of outdoor practice fields, would require an average of
approximately 4 feet of fill, with cuts on the east side and up to 3 feet of fill on the west_
The site is located approximately 3 miles south of the "Seattle Fault," (Exhibit 4) and is therefore considered to
lie in a moderately active seismic zone. Due to subsurface conditions, the site is subject to earthquake -
induced liquefaction and settlement. This susceptibility to liquefaction extends to a depth of about 40 feet.
The office/indoor practice building would have typical loads for a structure of this type and size (verified by
Magnusson Klemencic Associates, project structural engineers, in conversation with Shannon & Wilson). The
recommended foundation design for the building would include 24- to 36-inch concrete shafts drilled to
bedrock. The practice equipment building would be supported sufficiently on spread footings.
These proposed site improvements would not be anticipated to have adverse long-term impacts on
surrounding properties, although drilling to bedrock may have temporary sound, emissions, and vibration
impacts during construction (see Advisory Notes to Applicant, below).
Mitigation Measures: The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations included in the
geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice
Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., dated September 13, 2006, including
recommendations for excavation, backf ll materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the
water mains..
Nexus: RMC 44-060, "Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations"
2. Air
Impacts: It is anticipated that some temporary adverse air quality impacts could be associated with site work
and building construction required to develop this property. Project development impacts during construction
may include dust resulting from grading, exhaust from construction vehicles, odors from roofing installation,
and roadway paving. Dust would be controlled through the use of temporary erosion control measures and
sprinkling of the site with water as needed.
Odor impacts during construction are unavoidable and would be short-term in nature.
Post development impacts potentially include vehicle and heating and cooling systems exhaust. These
emissions are regulated by state and federal agencies. Nor further site specific mitigation for the identified
impacts from exhaust is required.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required.
Nexus: Not applicable
3. Water
Impacts: The site is within the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage of the Lake Washington East Basin. The Gypsy
Subbasin is a 320 acre, Class 2 water north of and near, but independent of May Creek. Class 2 waters are
salmon id -bearing perennial waters during years of normal rainfall. The drainage collects at a point on the west
side of the project site where it flows for 125 feet in an open ditch prior to entering a 24-inch piped culvert. The
culvert length is 490 feet to an outfall at the shore of Lake Washington. Lake Washington is a Class 1 water, a
salmonid-bearing perennial water also classified as Shorelines of Statewide Significance (see Shoreline
discussion below).
Reconfiguration of this feature of the Gypsy Subbasin (see Stormwater discussion below) and site
development within 200 feet of a Shoreline of the State would occur as a part of the proposed project. For
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E ?mental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS I . TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 6 of 16
these reasons, both Standard and Supplemental Stream/Lake studies were required. A report, "Stream and
Lake Study, Supplemental Stream and Lake Study, Stream Mitigation Plan, Seahawks Corporate
Headquarters and Training Facility, Renton, Washington," by Cedarock Consultants, Inc. and A.C. Kindig &
Co, dated September 20, 2006, was submitted for review.
The overall goal of the cumulative remediation, as determined by the Consent Decrees, has been improved
water quality in Lake Washington. The proposed project incorporates the final remediation with the initial
phases of development. This action is laying a 3-foot deep clean soil cap across the site. At the building
location, the floor slab would serve as a part of this cap. Upsizing of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage culvert,
prior to completing the cap, would alleviate upstream flooding.
Replacement of exotic species along the shoreline and replanting to improve functions and values of the
riparian zone has been proposed. Most native plants and large trees along the shoreline would be preserved.
These improved conditions would improve the shoreline role in protecting aquatic habitat values critical to
Lake Washington.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required.
Nexus: Not applicable
4. Wetlands
Impacts: Two on -site wetlands were excavated and filled in association with the remediation plan that
resulted from the negotiated Consent Decrees.
Also as part of the Consent Decrees, approximately 0.46 acre of mitigation wetland was restored in November
2002, along 250 feet of the shoreline of the Lake near the southwest corner of the property (Exhibit 5) at
Baxter Cove. The Baxter Cove wetland is designed to be a forested wetland with open water and emergent
components within the cove. Ultimately, it will be a forested wetland, but currently trees planted in seasonally
saturated wetland areas have not attained the required height to meet classification standards for this wetland
type. The open water component is less than 40 percent of the total wetland area. The emergent
classification can be applied to the open water area when the lake level is low and to the edges of the cove
when levels are high.
This lake -fed wetland meets the Renton standards for a Class 3 wetland (newly emerging). It complies with
performance standards and is intended to remain as an undisturbed component of the project proposal. (Initial
conceptual plans had a public access to the lake shoreline constructed through this area, but the final plan has
public access to the lake outside of the protected wetland and its buffer)_
A 50-foot vegetated and enhanced wetland buffer was also restored as part of the mitigation. A portion of this
buffer would be subject to buffer averaging, as allowed by the City of Renton Critical Areas Ordinance, but no
part of the buffer would be reduced to less than 40-feet in width and the total amount of buffer area would not
be reduced. Approximately 1,220 feet of the wetland buffer would be filled, with replacement of buffer area at
a 1:1 ratio (Exhibit 6).
Subsequently, a wetlands site assessment was conducted by The RETEC Group, Inc. in May 2006 and the results
included in their report, "Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels, Seahawks Headquarters and
Training Facility, City of Renton," dated August 30, 2006. No jurisdictional wetland areas were identified on the project
site during the wetland reconnaissance, other than the Baxter Cove wetland.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation is required.
Nexus: Not applicable
S. Shoreline
Impacts: The proposed project site has 1,887 feet of shoreline along Lake Washington, a Class 1 Inventoried
Shoreline of the State (Exhibit 7). There are approximately 1.23 acres of vegetated area within 100-feet of the
shoreline (excluding 0.36 acres of the Baxter Cove area that is part of the restored wetland). The character of
the shoreline is a steep bank of between 2 and 3 feet high with vegetation rooted at the top of bank. A
covered boathouse with pier and a dock are at two locations along the shoreline.
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E nmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 7 of 16
The proposed project would require the following work within 200 feet of the shoreline of Lake Washington:
■ Capping (soil cover placement) consistent with the Department of Ecology Consent Decree
■ Construction of the Seahawks Headquarters building
• Construction of natural grass practice fields
■ Shoreline improvements per statute within the 50 foot setback, including riparian plant zone
■ Construction of retaining wall and driveways
■ Piping a section of Gypsy Creek drainage to an existing Gypsy Creek outfall at the Lakeshore
Proposed improvements are features allowed within the Renton Shoreline Master Program under the Urban
Environment designation.
Lake water elevations fluctuate depending on US Army Corps of Engineers regulation of water level at the
Lake Washington Ship Canal. Typically, the elevation of Lake Washington in June is about 18.8 feet above
sea level and 16.8 (the lowest level) during December and January. An Ordinary High Water Mark of 19.5 has
been noted on this site, however, possibly due to erosion caused by a combination of lack of vegetation on the
steep bank slope and wind and boat -generated waves.
As part of the wetland restoration, large woody debris was anchored along the shoreline at Baxter Cove.
Other logs, pilings, and seawalls along the shoreline may act to reduce the effects of wind and wave erosion.
A Lake Washington shoreline planting plan is part of the proposed project. All trees 10 inches or larger in
diameter at breast height within 100 feet of the shoreline have been inventoried and would be retained
wherever possible. The vegetated area of 1.23 acres would be maintained or increased. All non-native
vegetation would be removed and replaced with native plants that provide moderate to high shoreline
protection and wildlife function. The existing 0.82 acres of tree canopy would be matched or exceeded, with
cover objectives being met within 5 to 10 years (Exhibit 8).
The shoreline restoration and management program is included in the Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit Application component of this Land Use Action.
Mitigation Measures: [Mitigation of shoreline development is included in the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit Application component of this Land Use Action.]
Nexus: Not applicable
6. Stormwater
Impacts: The project site is located in the Gypsy Subbasin. Stormwater currently sheet flows from east to
west across the weedy brush -covered, but vacant site, free draining into Lake Washington. An existing,
degraded storm drain system crosses the site conveying stormwater from offsite to an outfall at the Lake.
The site soils are a minor factor when considering the Stormwater control system due to their heavily degraded
nature and the manipulation of the site through filling, grading, and dredging over many years_ For purposes
of drainage analysis, soils would be designated as from Hydrologic soil Group C, moderate runoff soils (till).
As part of the Consent Decree remediation, a "cap" is to be placed over potentially hazardous materials on site
to prevent incidental contact following site development. This cap would be a factor to be considered during
design of the stormwater control system (see Environmental Health discussion below).
A report, "Stormwater Technical Information," by Magnusson Klemencic Associates, dated August 30, 2006
has been submitted by the project proponent and would be the primary basis for Stormwater control systems
design. Stormwater management would be based on the requirements of the 2005 King County Surface
Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), which would be applicable for this project. The project is exempt from
detention as it discharges into Lake Washington, a direct discharge receiving water_ The system would
include water quality treatment, however, prior to discharge. The KCSWDM designates areas draining to
Lake Washington as subject to the requirements of Basic Treatment_ The proposed water quality treatment
system, however, would provide Enhanced Basic water quality. Treatment systems would vary according to
functions at different zones on the site, as follows:
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Department E - "nmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEA HA WKS HEADQUARTERS , TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 8 of 16
Pedestrian hardscape (sidewalks, plaza), non -sports field landscaping, and building/roof areas: As non -
pollution generating surfaces (roofs do not consist of unpainted metal), stormwater runoff will drain to Lake
Washington as direct discharge.
The synthetic turf field consists of a 12-inch base course of imported crushed rock, a minimum 1.5 inch porous
asphalt layer, a fiber polyurethane woven fabric, 518 inch energy absorbing layer of granular rubber, 1.5 inch
granular rubber and sand mix overlain by synthetic field turf. Rainwater on the synthetic field would infiltrate
through the surface material and base layers to subdrains to be conveyed to the Lake for discharge.
Natural turf fields: The natural turf fields would overlay an 18 inch layer of sand, which would function as a
filter. As with the synthetic turf field, subdrains would convey runoff to the Lake. An Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Plan would be utilized for turf management (see Environmental Health discussion below).
The IPM Plan would address the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides so that field runoff meets water
quality standards.
Parking lots and driveways: Stormwater runoff from paved areas subject to vehicle traffic would be collected
and directed to four sand filters. Three of the filters would be grass covered to provide pre-treatment and
maintain the surface permeability of the sand filters. Pretreatment at the fourth filter would be provided by an
additional layer of sand. This filter would function, additionally, as a football practice area. To maintain the
filter system and protect the health of the football players, the sand layer would be cleaned of potential
pollutants annually or more often as needed. Subdrains would convey collected stormwater to the Lake for
discharge. Peak rate runoff control in not required or provided for this project because the site discharges
directly to Lake Washington, a major receiving water body. Therefore, retention/detention analysis and design
would not be required.
The Baxter Cove wetland is hydraulically connected to Lake Washington and will not be part of the project
stormwater management systems.
Discharge to Lake Washington would be through five new drainage system outfalls. The pipe outfalls would
release stormwater above the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington and subsequently drain
over energy dissipating rock -lined channels to the OHWM. The channels would be located at areas of the
shoreline where non -erosive material is located that would protect the shoreline during periods of lowered
water levels.
A portion of the Gypsy Subbasin drainage system, which conveys stormwater from the east side of Interstate
405 to the Lake, currently daylights for 125 feet east of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way.
This section consists of a below -grade, man-made ditch with steep, rock -lined side slopes. There is minimal
fish habitat present. This open channel enters a 24-inch corrugated metal pipe that slopes approximately 0.1
percent to the Lake. The outfall is about 1 foot above the lake level, when the lake is at a low elevation. When
the water level is at higher elevations, the culvert experiences backwater that makes upstream fish travel
possible, although it has not been observed.
The proposed project would require replacement and relocation of this Gypsy Subbasin drainage feature. The
Headquarters building footprint conflicts with the current pipe location. The 490 foot pipe would be realigned
around the building and lengthened to approximately 860 feet (Exhibit 9). The existing outf211 would remain in
place at its current condition.
The Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) for this work states the following potential impacts:
"elimination of 125 feet of open channel, a slightly larger culver across the project site, will affect riparian
vegetation along the Gypsy Subbasin and Lake Washington, and will result in some disturbance to the
shoreline of Lake Washington above and below the ordinary high water mark." The existing outfall would be
used and shoreline restoration at the outfall would occur as part of this work.
Alternatives to piping, including daylighting the entire drainage channel and maintaining the existing open
portion were studied. The capping requirement of the Consent Decrees, however, is premised on the need to
avoid direct contact of flowing water with residual contaminated soils on the property. The capping and culvert
together isolate the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage and Lake Washington from site soils_ Therefore, the open
section of the drainage would be included in the new piped system_
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E inmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS .4 TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 9 of } 6
The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site.
Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements would be addressed through site plan review.
Surface Water System Development Charges of $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surfaces would be
required.
Mitigation Measures: This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual.
The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP)
designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in
Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan
prior to issuance of construction permits. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding
that may impact access to the site. Additional details of pipe sizing and/or street improvements will be
addressed through the site plan review process.
Nexus: SEPA Regulations
7. Transportation
Impacts: Transportation impacts have been analyzed in the report, "Traffic Impact Analysis Seahawks'
Headquarters," by The Transpo Group, dated September 2006.
Vehicle access to the site would be from Ripley Lane (also known as Lake Washington Boulevard North).
Lake Washington Boulevard intersects with Northeast 44th Street near the project site. Exit 7 of Interstate 405
is located at NE 44th St.
Currently, Ripley Lane is improved with minimal pavement and no pedestrian amenities.
There are two existing at -grade crossings of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The
southern one crosses the Quendall Terminals property. There is an access easement recorded granting
access rights across the Quendall property to the proposed development site. The project proponent is
discussing the possibility of a third crossing at a mid -point of the project site. A third crossing would not be a
necessity for project access however.
The City of Renton Transportation Division has requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include
roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each direction, and a
paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway (one side only) abutting the bicycle lane. These
improvements should extend from Lake Washington Boulevard/NE 44th St on the south (beyond the project
site) to the north end of the Seahawks Headquarters site. The City of Renton would contribute toward these
improvements.
In is estimated that the proposed project would contribute an additional 555 average daily weekday trips (ADT)
to the City's transportation system. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to a transportation
mitigation fee of $75 per trip. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue.
Parking for up to 315 cars would be provided on -site, with 104 spaces within a secure, fenced parking area.
The site is not served by public transportation. The nearest transit stops are to the north in the City of
Newcastle at 1161h and 76th or south, in Kennydale, at Park Avenue N and N. 33`d St.
Mitigation Measures: A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the
submitted calculation of 555 ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 would be assessed at building permit issue.
Nexus: SEPA
8. Fire Protection
Impacts: Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed
development; subject to the condition that the applicant provides required improvements (see Advisory Notes
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E, nmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 10 of 16
to Applicant, below) and mitigation fees are paid prior to building permit issue_ The mitigation fee, for
commercial space, is $0.52 per square foot.
Mitigation Measures: A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at
building permit issue.
Nexus: SEPA
9. Vegetation
Impacts: The project site has been periodically cleared of vegetation over the years of its industrial use.
Comprehensive site clearing took place in 1990. Vegetation was also removed during Consent Decree
cleanup activities. Currently, approximately 10 percent of the site has trees and other plants. Final cleanup
including the placement of the 3-foot deep cap will require removal of most existing vegetation from the site,
excluding that in the wetland and wetland buffer.
Existing vegetation varies on the site depending on past activities and current situation. Vegetation zones
include open meadow, which is the predominant condition, BNSF Railroad right-of-way edge, Gypsy Subbasin
Drainage feature, Baxter Cove Wetland, and take Washington shoreline.
Past industrial activities on the site, including clearing, have restricted the ability of trees to mature; thereby
growth of tree canopy has been limited. The majority of the site is open meadow. Non-native grasses (bent
grass, velvet grass, tall and red fescue, and reed canary grass) and weedy herbaceous plants (soft rush,
sickle -leaved rush, bird's foot trefoil, white clover, western dock, vetch, and hairy cat's ear) typical of disturbed
meadows dominate the vegetation on the property.
Trees that are present along the eastern edge of the property, abutting the SNSF Railroad right-of-way,
include black cottonwood, red alder, Scouler's and Pacific willow. Although a tree inventory has been
completed and trees larger than 10 inches in diameter identified, these tree species are exempt from Renton's
tree retention regulations. Preservation of many of these trees has been proposed by the project applicant,
but would not be required by the City of Renton.
The steep banks of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin Drainage have cover consisting of red alder, black
cottonwood, willow, Himalayan blackberry, and Scotch broom. The proposed project would relocate this open
channel into a piped culvert and the existing vegetation would be removed.
The lake -fed Baxter Cove wetland has three types of vegetation structure with its 0.46 acre area. They are
aquatic bed, emergent plants, and scrub/shrub. When trees planted in seasonally saturated wetland areas
attain greater height, classification standards for forested wetland will be met. Trees planted in the wetland
include Douglas fir, western hemlock, Sitka spruce, bigleaf maple, black cottonwood, Oregon ash, red alder,
Pacific willow, bitter cherry, and cascara. Shrubs include vine maple, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, western
crabapple, Sitka willow, hazelnut, salmonberry, nootka rose, Oregon grape, sword fern, snowberry, twinberry,
and salal. Emergent plants include lady fern, slough sedge, hardstem bulrush, small -fruited bulrush, water
parsley, and tall mannagrass.
Shoreline vegetation, at the top of a 2- to 3-foot bank, consists of blackberry, purple loosestrife, Scotch broom,
red alder, black cottonwood, and willow. Other than Himalayan blackberry extending several feet over the
bank there is little vegetation along the water edge.
All pervious areas of the development are required to be landscaped. Renton Municipal Code requires that
parking areas be landscaped and all areas planted with plants other than drought -tolerant varieties must be
irrigated.
No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species have been observed on the property.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
Nexus: Not applicable
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E nmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS i TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page i 1 of 16
10. Wildlife
Impacts: Both upland and aquatic habitat value of the site is considered to be low due to the highly disturbed
nature of the property. On -going and persistent site manipulation associated with the industrial business
conducted on the upland portions of the property has resulted in limited vegetation and residual contamination.
A 4-foot high beaver dam is located at the downstream end of the open portion of the Gypsy Subbasin
Drainage channel at the east side of the site. This structure currently provides improved habitat value to the
open channel that would otherwise be too shallow, muddy, and lacks instream structure and cover. There is
little protection against winter storm events that result in high velocity flows. Likewise, low flows during
summer also limit habitat quality_
Higher value habitat may be located along the shoreline, although the dominance of non-native invasive plant
species, lack of vegetative diversity and structure, and lack of special habitat features such as snags also
results in limitation on value.
No known endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species have been observed on the property. Turtles
of unknown species, but probably painted or red -eared sliders, were present near the Baxter Cove wetland, a
killdeer was seen at the center of the property, and Canadian geese were observed on the property to the
north. Other fowl observed in the vicinity include red -winged blackbird, snipe, and numerous duck species
along the shoreline. Osprey are present in the area from mid -March through August and have nested at
various locations in the area including the Baxter properties and the Barbee Mill property through the years.
Their nests and perch site are also frequented by Canadian geese and bald eagles. Three bald eagle nests
have been known, historically, to be west and northwest of the site on Mercer Island.
Given the size and location of the property it can be expected that deer, beaver, raccoon, opossum, skunk,
and other small mammals and rodents frequent the property.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required.
Nexus: Not applicable
11. Environmental Health
Impacts: The wood treating operations at the site ended in 1981 and the property was subsequently used for
storage of bark mulch. Prospective Purchaser Consent Decrees (North Baxter, #00-2-11778-7KNT and South
Baxter, #00-2-11779-5KNT) were negotiated with the Department of Ecology under the Model Toxics Control
Act occurred in 2000. Cleanup of the South Baxter property consisted of excavation and replacement of soils
in the Baxter Cove area and soil stabilization in the uplands. North Baxter remediation, consisting of capping
contaminated soils, has been proposed to occur simultaneously with site construction.
Although site cleanup occurred in 2002, as part of the Consent Decree for the North Baxter property, a "cap" is
to be placed over the site to prevent incidental contact with potentially hazardous residual materials following
site development. This cap would consist of both pervious and impervious materials including pavements,
building foundation pads, athletic field materials, and imported fill. Where the cap consists of pervious
materials, an indicator layer consisting of a fabric or geogrid textile would be placed over the 3 foot deep cap
as a warning device for potential future excavation.
The property abutting to the south, the Quendall Terminals, has been designated a superfund cleanup site.
Cleanup will commence under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency. The southern -most
property, the Barbee Mill, has on -going, voluntary site remediation. Previous studies of the historic use of the
properties in this area reveal that past industrial use, and resulting contamination, is property distinct, therefore
cleanup plans are appropriately unique to each site.
Natural turf field maintenance would be according to an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan developed by
the applicant. The IPM would address management techniques and potential chemical uses on the natural
turf practice fields. The plan also includes an accidental spill and response plan.
The IPM would utilize Best Management Practices (BPMs) to specify disease -resistant turf species and
varieties, control of drainage and light, fertilization and watering regimes, and soil mechanics (Exhibit 8).
Weed and insect pest damage threshold levels would be established and chemical treatment applied on an
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E nmental Review Committee Staff Report
SEA14AWKS HEADQUARTERS, . TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 42 of 16
as -needed basis, if necessary. Alternative methods of cultural treatment control, however, would be preferred
and sought. The exception to this approach would be routine, seasonal preventative treatment against fungus
diseases. This would be necessary to prevent development of disease to levels that would require higher
doses that would also render the fields unplayable. Pesticides would not be proposed for use.
An on -site field manager and staff would monitor and record turf health, damage levels, and response
thresholds. Chemical analysis would be conducted to determine turf requirements. Field maintenance would
comply with Washington State Industrial Safety and Health Act and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration regulations_
The turf fertilizer program includes nutrients and trace minerals to maximize turf health and minimize the need
for pesticides. Slow release fertilizer would be the preferred form at application to reduce nutrient transport
from the turf root zone. Slow release nutrients are insoluble and generally take 4 to 12 weeks to become
completely liberated and available for turf utilization. Management of application rates would prevent
overapplication of fertilizer.
The potentially adverse impacts to water quality from the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in fertilizer
would also be mitigated through source control. The depth of the sand filter underlying the natural turf fields
has been increased to 18 inches, which would provide a high level of water quality treatment and would
comply with recommendations of the 2005 King County Surface Water Manual for sensitive fish habitat
environments.
Another method of reducing escape of fertilizers from the area of application is through irrigation control to
avoid overwatering.
Preferred management of pests, like disease control, would be through a combination of cultural methods and
accepted tolerance levels. No chemical control would be proposed for insects or broadleaf weeds. Instead,
management would include selection and enhancement of competing vegetation that resists pests and
disease.
Mitigation Measures: No additional mitigation is required.
Nexus: Not applicable
12. Aesthetics
Impacts: Proposed site development would include the construction of an office and indoor training facility
building, playing fields, surface parking lots, and landscaping. The aesthetic character of the currently vacant
site would change as a result of the development. The office and indoor training facility structure would range
in height from 55 feet (office) to 120 feet (training facility).
Development of the site raises several issues to be considered related to aesthetics, including building siting
on the property, building massing and architecture, shadows, landscaping, lighting (see discussion below), and
altered and/or obstruction of views to and from the project. An assessment of potential aesthetic impacts was
initiated by the project proponent.
A visual assessment of the proposed project was performed by Crawford Architects, (Addendum 1, dated
September 27, 2006). Over 70 views of the project were photographed and from this data, 11 potential view
corridors to Lake Washington were evaluated. The "worst case" situations are included herein, SE 761h St, a
publicly accessible upslope location, and two top -floor units of the Misty Cove Condominiums (Exhibit 11).
The Headquarters building on the North Baxter property would be visible from off -site areas, and would be
prominent on the site due to its height and bulk. A second, one-story building on the South Baxter property
would not be within view from off -site areas to the east or west because of the screening vegetation of the
wetland and BNSF Railroad right-of-way vegetation. Views of this building would be blocked from Misty Cove
by the Headquarters building.
It is anticipated that the Headquarters building would be visible from areas of both the City of Newcastle and
Renton, from higher elevations. It is not anticipated that views from higher elevations would be obstructed or
altered.
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen Ej ?mental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A: "RAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 13 of 16
View impacts were evaluated from off -site areas including SE 76t" Street upslope from the site, and from
southwest facing units within the Misty Cove condominium complex, just north of the project site_
Views to and from the site, and to the site from off -site locations, would be affected by the proposal. As
evidenced in Exhibit 12, views from SE 76th Street would change. Views of Mercer Island (to the west) from
this location would be foreshortened. Views of Lake Washington, which are limited at this location due to
existing vegetation on the BNSF Railroad right-of-way, would remain basically unaltered. Views from both the
southbound and northbound lanes of Interstate 405, located between the SE 7eh viewpoint and the site would
be similar, with comparable impacts.
Many units of the Misty Cove Condominium have enjoyed territorial views across the property. With
development, foreground views from the Misty Cove Condominiums would be affected by the presence of a
building on what has been a vacant site. Presently, unmanaged site vegetation limits some views across the
project site to Lake Washington. Industrial activities and outdoor storage of materials have also been largely
screened from view by trees and shrubs between the Misty Cove property and the project site. Exhibit 13
shows the existing and proposed view from a third -floor unit, number 312. Similar views are shown for unit
302, located closer to the lake than the previous unit (Exhibit 14). A derelict office building on the site (to be
demolished) is also within the view corridor of unit 302.
The view to Lake Washington would remain unchanged, while the view of the site would change from vacant
and vegetated to developed and landscaped. The 120-foot high building would be prominent. Measures
proposed to reduce or control aesthetic impacts of the project include architectural design treatments intended
to diminish the bulk of the structure, including roofline treatment, window detailing, and exterior finishes and
colors. In addition, the building is being setback 50 feet from the water's edge and approximately 170 feet
from the common property line. Overhead wires, currently within the Misty Cove view corridor, would be
undergrounded.
Landscaping at the building perimeter and property boundaries would buffer the building from the residential
area to the north. Trees, planted as part of the landscaping proposed to buffer the structure from the Misty
Cove condominiums, would mature to heights greater than the existing trees. On -site vegetation growth has
been limited historically, due to the industrial activities on the property, which resulted in removal of trees
before they reached maturity (see Vegetation discussion, above).
The Headquarters building siting, on the North Baxter property, is based on geotechnical and soil
contamination issues (see discussion above). The office and support functions of the building would be
located on the west side of the structure in order to reduce the apparent mass of the taller portion of the
building in which the practice facility is located (Exhibit 15). The three story Headquarters portion of the
building, at about 55 feet, would be adjacent to the shoreline. This would also maximize views to the lake
from interior office space.
Architectural details, such as arcades, horizontal lines, roof treatments, and window detailing would be used
to reduce the scale and mass of the building. The building color palette would be warm earth tones including
buff/sandstone, light gray, nickel, and cherrywood.
Views to roof -mounted mechanical equipment would be limited from ground level on the site, on adjacent
properties, and the Lake.
The environment of the area would be significantly altered by the proposed project, as is almost always the
case when land transitions from vacant to fully developed. Significant adverse impacts are not expected,
however, beyond those impacts that can be mitigated by the project proposal.
Mitigation Measures: NIA
Nexus: NIA
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E nmentat Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
-REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 94 of 16
13. Light and Glare
Impacts: Although some interior building lights in offices may be on after dark, practice fields would not be lit
because football practice would not occur at night. It is not anticipated that light levels would be higher than
typical for an office structure.
Mitigation Measures: NIA
Nexus: N/A
14. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Impacts: Historic and cultural impacts have been analyzed in relation to information included in the report,
"Cultural Resource Assessment JAG Development, King County, Washington," by Larson Anthropological /
Archaeological Services, dated march 27, 1997. The 60-acre study area included the properties to the south
of the Baxter site (Quendall Terminals and the Barbee Mill) and to the east (Pan Abode Cedar Homes). In
addition to literature search and on -site subsurface exploration, the study included consultation with
individuals representing the Muckleshoot and Duwamish Tribes.
The area of the study is within the territory of the Duwamish, a Salish-speaking group predominant in the
Seattle area. The Duwamish lived in cedar longhouses in villages located on most of the larger bodies of
water in the central to southern portion of the Seattle area (Elliott Bay, Lake Washington, Lake Union, Salmon
Bay, and on the Duwamish, Green/White, and Cedar/Black Rivers.
A village of the Duwamish tribe was probably located in the vicinity of the Pan Abode property, upstream of
the current mouth of May Creek. The lower portion of May Creek, which crosses the Barbee Mill property,
would have been below the level of the Lake until exposed in 1916.
All of the properties in the study area have been heavily influenced by fluctuations in lake levels over time due
to earthquakes and the lowering of the Lake approximately 9 feet following construction of the Hiram
Chittenden Locks and the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal in 1916.
The first non-native inhabitant of the area within the study was James Madison (or Manning) Colman. In about
1875, he acquired 160 acres of property on both sides of May Creek_ The study area encompasses this
property. Colman Point, located about 0.5 mile south in Kennydale, is named for him.
Except for about one acre of cleared land for the Colman house, the property was largely unused. The Baxter
property is near an access road located to the north that was used for hauling coal from mines in Newcastle
to Lake Washington for shipment to Seattle. In 1902, the timber on the Colman property was sold. In 1903,
the Northern Pacific Railroad acquired a right-of-way through the property for construction of a railroad spur
along the east side of Lake Washington. The railroad was built along the lake shore in 1905.
The Colman family started selling the land in 1908. The portion that became the Baxter property was sold in
1914 to be used as a shingle production facility. The shingle mill was demolished sometime between 1939
and 1946. The Baxter Company purchased the property after leasing it from 1955. They used it primarily for
wood treatment processes consisting of debarking and treatment for telephone poles and pilings.
If present, it is unlikely that shallow remains of historic activity could have survived the severe manipulation of
this site over the past sixty -plus years it has been used industrially. There may be archaeological features
and artifacts deeply buried below the ground surface, dating from hunter -gatherer communities that existed in
the vicinity of the property during historic times of low lake levels.
Due to Consent Decree restrictions on exposing underlying soils, excavation on the site would be limited to
borings for building structure pilings.
Mitigation Measures: In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop
and the contractor(s) shall contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology
Seahawks ERC Report 03
V
a
N
O
q
N
Ci
hA
$SEkOiJ �� ■ _ `
PROJECT
m
` s
prAy
LOCATION
`
�71557�
ii''----'' mms
5
1
1,
Ji_
U~$j�F SE
5E 72N0
st .W.P �LEq cfRtPr
SSTDIR
I
PI
Aft. ✓ .zc
-!
tk��6.rN: a'' .��.sF •?�
or�3
77rH g �"" SE l6�' H
-
kysr zija-
5T
447
m
'r R�n1
�\ _
43R0 SE
. FIL -. - w f 5
SE
MVpor�{SA !sr LN
s�
_
a
SFq. tip0 —
C� yP` y
P
ti SE-
Barg 5
k 40TH 5t A°
I
nF aan+
f ST .-
@s
� ' m AVALON
i
x
3sr1
1300 - x
I� tH
sr ST-
FL
5T
7" n
< RE
i
Xf7A17'D+SCf
EFaa+rsR+
`36TH
:Sr
3ar --
8f PC
,
$
35TH
S7Ltµ
... AF
wsli�f
SOWN POW"
33R0 LPL
x¢
L
_N
.33R0 . ST
m
— —6-47—k
POINTCOLEMN
( 'N
r315t f
=kE 315i
H
7H; ST
7W. N
N
Y9TH :ST ■ 1300 = ,r
2 PlyENE211
}c
x_
ZTy
LAKE
PC
1 RE Y
11�
m
, 1Z! LpH
PL
MAIN
JINGTfY
Sr ,5�T,, {
J,
WHE
C 3RD
iz2,
E7
S7ii
O LE
w24tH � S
1370a
� n �
w
z
t Kl� M
Pl
`
1
'P AL „�`+<��S - �,•" . -
l
' 1STH y.
-
13TI
0 114 112 1
EXHIBIT Scale in Miles
1
NOTE
Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSe.
This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPSO. It is
unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for
personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved.
Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility
Renton, Washington
VICINITY MAP
September2006 21-1-20525-003
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I FIG. 1
oeowdw" and Envronmenbw cone
a
li
Figure 2 Historic Aerial Photo of North and Bax roperty (date unknown)
Map Legend
�,/' Intestate
IdaJor Roads
Q1huf Road
liillrFl�ta-
81s10 hA4111WAV
i US higilw44
Roads
Gitles
USG5 Guad Index 24K
Lower 48 Ava(lahle, Nfetlar
Non-Wgitai
Digilal
No Dan
Sun
NHD Streams
Counkies IDUK
Slates JOCK
South America
North America
EXHIBIT
2
i
b 7 L
I l5
!A♦I
+•-M1 sic T."-7,
...rn� -77
71�
`
=
Fs
a
Set
L
.-
F'
I
�Y
z�
RE: LI(7P FIGURE 9 I1 rOR LANDSCAPE. ( ..APE I
INFORLA"ON
�.Af\F VYt'ISl-IIIV ',[O V rw
NOTE: orlw:+l$.d (NAVDBd)
r _ ~r4. 't.� • / TOR ii7' {NOYr129)
STATION
1 T l AT YEAR A Q.H.pILAIN
m,
.r `^sx4:.- .. s i'; __ A7 LAKE WA- G.N.W.l1. z
-FXISTINV BUiLDrNG C>
♦ tg
�� t ic, Pu8uc ACCESS
L LIMP Or
CURB•_- _�-.__ '' rl .,c-+ I t---4- �,— - PUBLIC ACCESS EX[STNG 4 ACCESS WA1.a( riw�ir��
D(7S:K rSECuRitt rENCE ..J
}lf No POWER
LOCATION ---- �:- � I � - -- '— -":` - 16. 5EFtvICE ROAD
,Uuli-E PRGFLR7r 1 r I�?•-.T - — f�
rrkcL
p4r EASCL4FM I I -WMV • Vf
LINE craul ... r
E%157NL, mvdFR :!.
N
u
NEW 1 iiMwe
LaaHTr-NnNCE� — -= -mow_ �; (�
AM' IRG_
COYEREL CAR WA[.K FAD'- 1 I I
ExisriNG POWFF I j 1 - uj
?O7T
t LOUT pFy-�..-� ',I i-ARTIFiCLAL 1uRF. cci- i`'1 ' . r
i. PRA�.TICE FIE,I.fI.
t6.
r
, CL
MAIN7 F'AfiKING'-�- • f SANI1 FII Fk'R h �"1•' . h • ' I, --
4 STALLS ... I OUTAREA SKURITY GAIE±WORl
N �,24• a ! 'i JRFACL PARKINCT - Lue---- ------_—i.,:.�,k �r� I I�-.-w-I.`:--�i7fiAl�-;,�'-'_�--�_i.��-i-�-k..�?�- —SECURITY -^,ArE � Ii
�.._- .-._.._....._.. ...- -- & ENCE
)� z r
- C ` ,
uj
AROPOSED RMWAY CRO55FNG
c�
c
S.TR.F.fImS;1.85r, C.FNERAL .,UWACf. FAkAm, 195 STALLS
TAM WASNINGTON CLASS i SECVRF CLAM :Wi K'NG 104 51ALL.5 ---
a' 'YRSY SUB tAS11d jRAIFJALG�. - CIASS Z (RE FIC,URt 13.3)
TOTAL. 299 STALLS
IN TE R S ' G17y OF PLAjy
pA-, dl
iA1(w»r I ar
FIGURE _5'171 a001
I
V�
t
N
7
i
v
a
a
nM
4m
m
� �m
0
v
xi
I�
c�
c
I
m
C
bD
N
;I . I
Yoo�(
1�
I
3 Cam,
i N g�R
Q
i
N$'
rli 41 ■
j\~!
In
t i
ad i
1
r
f
EnA
I
I
i�
I
�y
i
I
ERR
EXHIBIT
I
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION —' -'
_ Seahawks Headquarters $
Training Facility y
v..raanl+ av,.a. FOUTBA� L NORTHWEST F f _n`i �r t
R om: ___ ••_. REKO'N, WASH04GTON I 1 €
Photo 5
Photo of pilings (background) and washed up logs (foreground) along the northern portion
of the restored Baxter Cove wetland.
EXHIBIT
Photo 6 7
."T
Aerial view looking east at north Baxter. Piles and a small dock are present along the
shoreline.
Page 3 of 8
Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Renton, Washington Stream and Lake Stud /Hiti aiion Plan
Table 3
Riparian Habitat Functions and Values, Comparison of Existing versus Proposed Conditions
Water Quality Lowto
Moderate
Food Low
Microclimate Low to
Moderate
Temperature Low to
& Shade none
Human Low
Access
Large Woody Low
Debris
Channel Low
Migration
Bank Stability Low to
Moderate
Existing condition lacks
width, plant density, and plant
diversity. Lack of native
vegetation also a minus.
Sparse non-native vegetation
provides Iittle beneficial leaf
litter and small organic
debris.
Existing shoreline area has
little effect on microclimate.
Not a significant issue for
large Class I waterbodies.
Lake Washington is a public
access area so access control
not a habitat function issue
Site periodically cleared so
unlikely to have any
significant future LWD
contribution.
Controlled lake level and no
surface channels on -site. No
potential for channel
migration
Exotic species dominated
shoreline. Banks partially
protected by large logs.
Future development is not
dependant on riparian
function for water quality
because it employs the
2005 King County Surface
Water Design Manual, so
width for water quality
treatment is not required.
Native vegetation is a plus.
Vegetation optimized with
a diverse mix of native
species. High habitat value
near lake.
Proposed shoreline area
will have little effect on
microclimatc.
Not a significant issue for
large Class 1 waterbodies.
Lake Washington is a
public access area so access
control not a habitat
function issue
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Proposed action
will have higher
value
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Planting that will contribute Proposed action
some minor woody debris will have higher
in the future. value
Controlled lake level and
no surface channels on -site.
No potential for channel
migration
Root strength increased
with native shrubs and
trees. Banks partially
protected by large logs.
Equivalent
function under
both conditions
Proposed action
wilt have higher
value
Wildlife Not Rated Patchy exotic species Native plantings in a dense Proposed action
Habitat dominated riparian vegetation multi -story contiguous will have highest
of relatively low value as canopy will provide high value bird, amphibian, reptile, and wildlife habitat value. EXHIBIT
rodent habitat.
Adapted from: A.C. Kindig & Co and Cedarock Consultants, Inc. 2003. r-,
September 20, 2006 CEDAROCK CONSUL TINTS, INC. and A.0 KINDIG & CO
Seahowkr/09-20-06 Lakes Stream Reporr.doc page, 29
i 1 1
y
f - EXHIBIT
3
4 w
JJ i
I
I0T FOR CONSTRUCTION
- Seahawks Headquarters &
Training Faciiity iZ
7�wa wn sr+a ear aS:ra FOO7BALLNOFY7T}WE$FLLC i yn I y }'
. ..a .. PENTON. WASHINGTON fi
EXHIBIT
10
Seattle Seahawks Corporate Headquarters and Training Facility
Turf Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
Table 2
Summary of Pest Control Measures to be used for the Seahawks Practice Fields
Physical l
Disease or Pest
Cultural Control Mechanical
Chemical Control
Control
Turfgrass Control
Primo Maxx
Turf growth) suppressant
Overseeding with
(Trinexa pac- ethyl)
and Annual Bluegrass
desirable
during growing
Poa annua control
turfgrass;
Promote vigorous
season
Prograss
turf root growth to
(ethofumesate) for
with soil nutrient
curative post -
Weeds
and irrigation
emergence control
Annual Bluegrass
control, to out-
of annual
compete Poa
bluegrass in fall
annua.
and in spring if
warranted.
Fungus Diseases
Brown Patch
(Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight)
Corticum Red Thread
(Laetisaria fuciformis)
Dollar Spot
(Lama spp. And
Moellerodiscus spp.)
Fusarium Blight
Chipco 26GT
(Fusarium spp.)
(Iprodione)
Fusarium Patch
(Microduchium nivale)
Good air
as preventative
Gray Snow Mold
(Typhula spp.)
Promote vigorous circulation;
Good drainage;
method of control
fall and spring
Helminthosporium
turf root growth to
with soil nutrient Avoid shading;
(Dreschlere spp.)
and irrigation Avoid irrigating in
Necrotic Ring Spot
late afternoon;
(Leptosphaeria korrae)
control, to out- Limit thatch;
Pink Snow Mold
compete weeds. Maintain soil pH
(Fusarrum nivale)
<7
Rust
Puccinia caonata
Fungus Diseases
Brown Patch
(Rhizoctonia solani; R. blight)
Heritage
Fusarium Patch
(azoxystrobin)
(Microduchium nivale)
as preventative
Rust
method of control
(Puccinia coronata)
in fall and winter
Take -all Patch
Gaeumannom ces raminis
September 20, 2006
A. C. KINDIG & CO.
Page 7
err •ter soon rA AAAAAAr pAAAr iNE16 10016 Aa
D
Gl
i • �1
T
{ w 4n
Cl
.Po
X
m
m
!N
Seahawks Headquarters &
D m� -
o ? ity
Training Facil
FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC
RENTON, WASHINGTON
{
FFf
r:4
!r�
4F
a
•� �. boom o mmr �. iiia za r.- = = = I$ = a
Seahawks Headquarters &
z f Training Facility
O i - ---- - FOOTBALL NORTFWEST LLC
FWWMN, WASHINGrON EXHIBIT
13
T ' T
� C
p p
m m
im
i
Seahawks Headquarters $ I
URI
Training Facility
w FOOTSALLNORTHWEST LLC EXHIBIT
i �� • �3 i{ i i RENTON. WASHINGTON
14
�m
m
D
1
Z
fl
�
i
- T
-
F
I
�
'
♦ LJ
f
r I �
�`,
r
F
F
6
a
i
xg�jd
Q
m
m
Cn
DESIQN DEYELOPMENT, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
n
Seahawks Headquarters &
Training Facility
�
li
r i
a 1
i
-�«•"•"
••.
FOOTBALL NORTHWEST LLC
RENTON, WASHINOTON
fN
I j j i
EXHIBIT
15
City of Renton P/B/PW Departmen E, 7mental Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHAWKS HEADQUARTERS A TRAINING FACILITY LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA-H, SM
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 15 of 16
and Historic Preservation, phone (360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program, phone (253)
939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal Services (206) 431-1582.
Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where
applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or
Notes to Applicant.
X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File.
Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report.
Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 6, 2006.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055_ Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use
action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land
use actions
Planning
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind
the approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received.
2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground
cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work
will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in
the King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed
between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval
of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m_ and eight o'clock (8:00)
p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m.
and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays.
4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement.
Fire Prevention
1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm_ Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150-
feet of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are
required for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants.
2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the
building exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. If
"grasscrete" is proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be
followed_
3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood
suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems
depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate plans and permits are required for the
installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department.
4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways.
5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches.
6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable format, shall be
submitted to the Renton Fire Department.
7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Section
403 and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code.
Seahawks ERC Report 03
City of Renton PIBIPW Departmen E nmentat Review Committee Staff Report
SEAHA WKS HEADQUARTERS r TRAINING FACILITY _ LUA-06-073, ECF, SA-M, SA -
REPORT OF OCTOBER 16, 2006 Page 16 of 16
8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit
application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the
installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials_
Plan Review —Storm Drainage
1. The project does not include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy
Subbasin") across the site, but the off -site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of
the proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this time.
2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is
payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued.
Plan Review — Water
1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10-
inches in order to provide the required fire flow.
2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30
feet tall.
3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi.
4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required
to comply with City code.
5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of
$0.273 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued.
Plan Review — Sewer
1. The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the
time the utility construction permit is issued.
Plan Review — Street Improvements and Transportation
1. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake
Washington Boulevard 1 N 44t" Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a
turn -lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project.
2. All new wire utilities must be undergrounded.
Plan Review — General
1. All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards.
2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are requited. When plans are complete,
three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall
be submitted at the sixth floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall,
Seahawks ERC Report 03
i
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks He%dqurMars and Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06473, SA-M,SA-H, SM. ECF
LOCATION: 5016 Lake Washington Blvd N
DESCRIPTION: The project proponent is requesting SEPA Environmental review for development of the
Seshswks Headquarters and Training Facility, The proposed project would consist of a thrse�tory office
building and Indoor practice facility In a %Ingle structure and four outdoor Practice fields for the sport of
professional football. An ancillary building for football -related equipment storage Is AM planned. The proposed
project location to a vacant she between the share of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street Interchange with
Interstate 406 (Exit T) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and
Baxter South Properties. The 1 DA acre Baxter property is a former timber proce90ing1wood treatment facility.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be fled in writing an or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006.
Appeals must be fled in writing together with the required $76.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Roston, 1056 South Grady Way, Renton. WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton
Municipal Cods Section 4-S-111D.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (426) 430-6610.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR
MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY
WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 21, 20DO AT 8.00 AM TO CONSIDER THE
MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN_ IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,
THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
-4n:' is l _ Lj4Q111,RI9ADGR:
CERTIFICATION
I, , hereby certify that copies of the above document
were posted by me in _'� conspicuous places or nearby the described property (�W .tNN�14ra
DATE: f4—To-off
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me,
, on the Esc day of
I
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
LOCATION: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N
DESCRIPTION: The project proponent Is requesting SEPA environmental review for development of the
Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-story office
building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of
professional football. An ancillary building for football -related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed
project location Is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with
Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and
Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processingtwood treatment facility.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006,
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton
Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR
MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY
WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON NOVEMBER 21, 2006 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE
MASTER SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED,
THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION
WIN ... 0W i
Y
v 6 ` Y'
Kathy Keolker, Mayor
October 19, 2006
Ray Colliver
Port Quendall Company
505 5th Avenue S ste: #900
Seattle, WA 98104
CIT110(7F KENTON
Planning/Building/PubiicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
SUBJECT: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
Dear Mr. Colliver:
This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they
have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -
Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision,
Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on
November 6, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee
with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the
Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510,
A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh
_floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2006 at 9:00 AM to
consider the Master Site Plan and Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is
required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week
before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of
this public hearing.
The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to
exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. if you have any questions or desire
clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7382,
For the Environmental Review Committee,
ci-: 0, oj� " /-
-�
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
cc: Parties of Record
Enclosure
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
MThien —m -tin -;n-/ mr L.H—t—i.1 :An%,�; ,�, ryw,aiimar
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED
MITIGATION MEASURES
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
UIaa4[a1-L1 •. Alit., 11T3t
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for
development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-
story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of
professional football. An ancillary building for football -related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed
project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 441h Street interchange with
Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and
Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
5015 Lake Washington Blvd N
The City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, "Supplemental Preliminary
Geotechnical Report Seahawks Headquarters and Practice Facility Renton, Washington," by Shannon & Wilson, Inc.,
dated September 13, 2006, including recommendations for excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete
blocking, and soil remediation for the water mains
2. This project shall be subject to the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual for water quality.
3. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed
pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the
2001 Stormwater Management Manual and provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of
construction permits.
4. The applicant shall work with the City to alleviate upstream flooding that may impact access to the site. Additional
details of pipe sizing andlor street improvements would be addressed through site plan review.
5. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional daily trip shall be assessed based on the submitted calculation of 555
ADT. The fee of $41,625.00 shall be assessed at building permit issue.
6. A fire mitigation fee of $0.52 per square foot of building space shall be assessed at building permit issue.
7. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall
contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, phone
(360) 586-3065, the Muckleshoot. Cultural Resources Program, phone (253) 939-3311, and Duwamish Tribal
Services (206) 431-1582.
ERC Mitigation Measures Page i of 1
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED
ADVISORY NOTES
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECF
APPLICANT: Football Northwest
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for
development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-
story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoorpractice fields for the sport of
professional football. An ancillary building for footba I krelated equipment storage is also planned. The proposed
project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44"' Street interchange with
Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton. The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter North and
Baxter South Properties. The 19.6 acre Baxter property is a former timber processing/wood treatment facility. '
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N
LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
Advisory Notes to Applicant.
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination.
Because these notes are provided -as information. only, they are not subject to the appeal process for
environmental determinations.
Planning
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division. The Development Services Division reserves the right to rescind the
approved extended haul hours at any time if complaints are received.
2. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground
cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will
occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the
King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between
the dates of November 1 st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is
required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
3. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight
o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays.
4. Regarding the wetland and wetland buffer, the applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement.
Fire Prevention
1. The fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire hydrant requirements are one hydrant required within 150-feet
of the structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the structures. Looped fire mains are required
for fire flows exceeding 2,500 gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants.
2. Fire Department access roads are required to be paved, 20-foot wide and within 150-feet of all portions of the building
exteriors. Dead end roadways over 150 feet in length are required to have an approved turnaround. if "grasscrete" is
proposed, Fire Prevention Bureau specifications for base material and construction must be followed.
ERC Advisory Notes Page i of 3
3. The Headquarters and Training Facility building is required to have compete fire sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood
suppression and fire alarm systems. The Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems
depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it_ Separate plans and permits are required for the
installation of all systems through the Renton Fire Department.
4. Fire lane signage is required per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways.
5. Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13 feet 6 inches.
6. For fire planning purposes an electronic copy of the individual building site plans, in acceptable format, shall be
submitted to the Renton Fire Department.
7. Any building classified as "high-rise" shall meet all special requirements of the International Building Code Section 403
and all applicable sections of the International Fire Code.
8. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be submitted for review at time of building permit
application. Use of city form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are required for the
installation of tanks, containing hazardous materials.
Plan Review — Storm Drainage
1. The project does not include any connection to the Gypsy Creek drainage basin conveyance system ("Gypsy
Subbasin") across the site, but the off -site conveyance facility is proposed to be moved outside of the footprint of the
proposed building. Changes to the existing outfall are not proposed or authorized at this time.
2. The Surface Water System Development Charge is $0.249 per square foot of new impervious surface. This fee is
payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued.
Plan Review — Water
1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of the water main is 10-
inches in order to provide the required fire flow.
2. A double check valve assembly in a vault is required behind the domestic water meter since the building is over 30
feet tall.
3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working pressure is above 80 psi.
4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional hydrants will be required to
comply with City code.
5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger Water System Development Charges, in the amount of
$0.2731 sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued.
Plan Review —Sewer
1, The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge is $0.142 / sf of the gross site area. This fee is payable at the time
the utility construction permit is issued.
2. Plan Review — Street Improvements and Transportation
3. Ripley Lane shall be improved to provide a minimum of 20-feet of asphalt from the northerly access to Lake
Washington Boulevard 1 N 44�h Street intersection. Due to the projected additional daily trips at this location, a turn -
lane design may be required at the intersection in coordination with the City of Renton project.
4. All new wire utilities must be. undergrounded.
ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3
Plan Review — General
1. All plans shall conform to the Renton drafting standards.
2. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters, and backflow device are required. When plans are complete, three
copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be
submitted at the sixth floor counter in the Development Services Division, City Hall.
ERG Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3
CITY OF RENTON
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE
(MITIGATED)
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-073, SA-M, SA-H, SM, ECI=
APPLICANT: Football Northwest
PROJECT NAME: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project proponent is requesting SEPA environmental review for
development of the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility. The proposed project would consist of a three-
story office building and indoor practice facility in a single structure and four outdoor practice fields for the sport of
professional football. An ancillary building for football -related equipment storage is also planned. The proposed
project location is a vacant site between the shore of Lake Washington and the NE 44th Street interchange with
Interstate 405 (Exit 7) in Northeast Renton (Exhibit 1). The site consists of two tax parcels, known as Baxter
North (10.01 acres) and Baxter South (16.57 [7?] acres) Properties. The Baxter property is a former timber
processing/wood treatment facility. The 19.68 acre property (total) is zoned Commercial / Residential ! Office 2
(COR 2).
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 5015 Lake Washington Blvd N
LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton
Department of Planning/Building/Public Works
Development Planning Section
The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).
Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of
Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified
during the environmental review process.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on November 6, 2006.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,
1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code
Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's
Office, (425) 430-6510.
PUBLICATION DATE: October 23, 2006
DATE OF DECISION: October 16, 2006
SIGNATURES:
A
4Gre Zimmerman, Administrator Date I7David Daniel ire Chief Date
Planning/Building/Public Works Fire Department
Terry Higashiyama, Administrator
Community Services
Date
�v 1
Alex ietsch, Admi strator Date
EDNSP
Cit. . Renton Department of Planning / Building / P .
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA
Works
TION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
PROJECT MANAGER. zabeth Hi ins
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver- PortQuendall Company
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA a
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
WORK ORDER NO: 77607
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a
19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the
shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington
shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored
as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue
simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master
application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and'a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The
Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require
environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this
areas where additional
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,WO Feet
14,000 Feet
fecon�w�e,,�IQ�t�
:ular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
to proerly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or
Date
PLANNING BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:
October 11, 2006
TO:
Elizabeth Higgins
FROM:
Juliana Fries (x:7278)
SUBJECT:
Seahawks Training Facility - LUA 06 - 073
5015 Ripley Lane N
I have reviewed the application for the Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility,
located at 5015 Ripley Lane North and have the following comments:
EXISTING CONDITIONS
WATER The site is outside the Aquifer Protection Area. There is an existing 12-inch water
main located within the westerly 5 feet of BNSF right-of-way (refer to as -built
drawing W-400). The available fire flow from the existing 12-inch is 4,000 gpm at a
residual pressure of 20 psi. The static water pressure is approximately 125 psi.
Pressure gradient zone is 320 feet.
Per the Fire Marshal, the fire flow has been determined to be 3,000 gpm, including
the use of fire sprinkler system.
SEWER There is a 12-inch sewer main along the easterly property line (possibly within
BNSF right-of-way).
STORM This project drains to the Gypsy sub -basin. The site discharge directly into Lake
Washington and flow control (detention) is not required.
STREETS Street improvements are installed along the frontage of the parcel and Lind Ave
SW. Curb and Gutter are installed along SW 121h Street. A section of sidewalk is
missing along the frontage of the parcel with SW 121h Street.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
WATER
1. A looped water main system around the building complex is required. The minimum size of
the water main is 10-inch in order to provide the required fire flow.
2. A double check Valve Assembly (DCVA) in a vault is required behind the domestic water
meter since the building is over 30 feet tall.
3. A pressure reducing valve is required downstream of the water meter since the working
pressure is above 80 psi.
4. The maximum distance between fire hydrants for this project shall be 300 feet. Additional
hydrants will be required to comply with City code.
5. New water meter(s) or upsizing of existing meter will trigger .Jater System Development
Charges, in the amount of $0.273Isq.ft. of site area.
SANITARY SEWER
The Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) is $0.142/sq. ft. of site area. A
redevelopment credit applies.
SURFACE WATER
1. A drainage report per the 1990 KCSWDM has been submitted and reviewed. The project is
under the threshold for detention. Water Quality is proposed through a bio-Swale.
2. The Surface Water System Development Charges (SDC) is $0.249 per square foot of new
impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time the utility construction permit is issued.
TRANSPORTATION
All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under grounding
Ordinance.
PLAN REVIEW - GENERAL
All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards
1. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are required. When
plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a
construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. The site drains to Gypsy Creek. Due to flooding and erosion problems, staff will recommend
as a SEPA condition this project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design
Manual to meet both detention (conservation flow control) and water quality (basic)
improvements.
2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Engineering Report dated September 13, 2006, regarding "Earthwork Recommendations".
3. All excavation, backfill materials, structural concrete blocking, and soil remediation for the
water mains shall be done in accordance with the geotechnical engineer's recommendations.
4. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual and
provide staff with a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction permits.
5. The traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed.
6. The Stormwater Technical Information report, dated August 30, 2006 notes that the existing
stormwater bypass conveyance system (Gypsy Creek system) in the site is undersized for the
upstream flow. Relocation of the existing bypass system is proposed because the building will
be located over the existing pipe. Staff recommends that concurrently with the relocation of
the pipe, the applicant make the necessary conveyance improvements to the existing Gypsy
Creek outfall that extends from Lake Washington Blvd to the easterly boundary of the site
(adjacent to BNSF right-of-way). Necessary conveyance improvements are those
improvements (including permits) required to convey the 100-year design storm for the Gypsy
Creek drainage basin assuming future land use condition flows based on full build out of the
upstream basin.
7. It does not appear that sufficient horizontal separation exists between the proposed water line
and the proposed storm drain line. Staff recommends a minimum of 7.5 feet horizontal
separation (measured trom outside wall to outside wall) betwec, , the water and storm lines.
Minimum separation between the water line and any structure shall be 10 feet.
8. Transportation Division requested that street improvements along Ripley Lane include
roadway widening to provide one vehicular traffic lane in each direction, bicycle lanes in each
direction, and a paved shoulder area to serve as a pedestrian walkway (one side only)
adjacent to the bicycle lane. These improvements should extend from Lake Washington
Blvd/NE 44th St on the south (beyond the project site) to the north end of the Seahawks site.
Transportation Division will be contributing $500,000 towards the costs of these
improvements.
cc: Kayren Kittrick
City _, _ !enton Department of Planning / Building / P c Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
r '-
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver- Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
WORK ORDER NO: 77607
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a
19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the
shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington
shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored
as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue
simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master
application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit_ The
Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require
environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELAY COMM NTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historlc/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14.000 Feet
We have reviewed this appilcatio ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and Have identified areas of probable impact or
areas wherW0a"Oditional informatio i needed to property assess this proposal.
rector or Authprlged Representative Date
Cit, __ Renton Department of Planning/Building/ - is Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: TRANSPORTATION
COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
T CUL.ATED: SEPTEMBER 26 200
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver - Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facifi
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
2006
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 BUILDING DIVISION
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a
19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the
shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington
shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored
as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue
simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master
application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The
Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require
environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Wafer
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmentaf Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
L iht/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10, 000 Feet
14,000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas w re additional inf ation is needed to properly assess this proposal.
of Directof q Authorized Representative Date
CITY OF RENTON
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 6, 2006
TO: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review for Seahawks Training Facility
MITIGATION ITEMS;
1. Fire mitigation fees of $0.52 per square foot of commercial space are
required and are payable at time of building permit issuance.
FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 gpm. Minimum commercial fire
hydrant requirements are, one hydrant required within 150-feet of the
structures and additional hydrants are required within 300-feet of the
structures. Looped fire mains are required for fire flows exceeding 2,500
gpm with maximum spacing of 300-feet between hydrants.
2. Main training facility building is required to have complete fire
sprinkler, standpipe, kitchen hood suppression and fire alarm systems.
Maintenance building may also need sprinkler and fire alarm systems
depending on the amount of hazardous materials stored in it. Separate
plans and permits are required for the installation of all systems through
the Renton Fire Department.
3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150-fect of all
portions of the building exteriors. Roadways are required to be minimum
20-feet in width, fully paved, with a turning radius of 45-foot outside and
25-foot inside. There are areas like the northern parking lot that do not
meet the turning radius requirements and north access road that does
not meet the 20-foot width. Grass -type paving is not accepted. Dead
end roads that exceed 150-feet in length are required to have approved
turnarounds, see attached examples. Fire lane on the west side shall be
fully paved with an approved turnaround. Fire lane signage is required
per city ordinance on all private streets and fire access roadways.
Minimum vertical height for fire department access is 13-feet 6-inches.
4. For pre -fire planning purposes an electronic copy of your individual
building site plans shall be submitted to the Renton Fire Department,
see attached document for acceptable formats.
5. Any buildings classified as High -Rise shall meet all special
requirements of the International Building Code section 403 and all
applicable sections of the International Fire Code.
6. A complete hazardous material inventory statement is required to be
submitted for review at time of building permit application. Use of city
form or approved equivalent is required. Separate plans and permits are
required for the installation of tanks containing hazardous materials.
�• FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
s RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU x yzs"q-4O-7000
s.
.............
.......................... ... ..... ......
.............. .. .. ....
ti _
W
..
W
:=
m _ _
c '
�r s
:.. .
::
m .: ::::::::::::;.:::_::::
0.
..
y�y
45'
K-
C,3 {1e. it
1 _ _ .:5:'. s.'_
: :.
/yam :.t►' .:Y`•
m
n - .
Q `
...
:.:to
..
�.,
a �a
EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAJZOIJNa -- NAMMERNEAb
Cit Renton Department of Planning / Building / 1 c Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FIRE
COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
DATE RECIRCULATM: SEMMISM 26, 2D0111
APPLICANT: _Ray Colliver- Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: E izabeth Hi ins - --- --_
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries - ---
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
WORK ORDER N0: 77607 12006
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is propgsed to .be located on a
19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing fbcility located on the
shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington
shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been 7esttlred
as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue
simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master
application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The
Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require
environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housin
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
HistoriclCultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10. 000 Feet
14.000 Feet
4�,,e )
y7
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or
!�� 1 Lm,
Date
Cit Renton Department of Planning / Building / f c Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PARKS
COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06 073, SM, ECF
iv a SEPTEMSER 26, 2W6
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver- Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER; Elizabeth Higgins HECETVM
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA. 19.68 acres
L lit
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
CITY OF RENTON
WORK ORDER NO: 77607 r_r'1AA\AI IAur�i
_ ERvTC1=S
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be located on a
19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the
shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington
shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored
as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue
simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master
application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The
Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require
environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element ofthe
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
fnformatfon
Necessary
Housin
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Histonc/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
f4,000 Feet
Zk
~-R i Ceoz
Z� z__ 71�
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. COD -RELATED COMMENTS
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional informatiggs needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or
A /
Date
City tenton Department of Planning / Building / P Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CONSTRUCTION
COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECFnol
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver - Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries R E C u
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A SEP
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
I WORK ORDER NO: 77607 j
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is propose %' PI689t4bn a
19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the
shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton. In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington
shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site. The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored
as part of site cleanup activities. Site cleanup from previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue
simultaneously with the initial stages of site development. The project proponent has submitted a land use master
application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The
Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested actions require
environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shorefine Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housin
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10, 000 Feet
14.000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas whe dditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Si. alum of Directo thori ed Representati Date
City a torn Department of Planning/Building / PUL corks
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS DUE:.lULY 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 2006
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver - Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
WORK ORDER NO: 77607
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf site known
as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton_
The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the
project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Menton in accordance with
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)_
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
HistoncJCultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10, 000 Feet
14, 000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
City _ _ _enton Department of Planning / Building / Pu , Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: ���
COMMENTS DUE: JULY 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 2006
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver - Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Higgins
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
WORK ORDER NO: 77607
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL, The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known
as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processin.9 facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton.
The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the
projects proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Lg hYGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
HistorioCultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10, 000 Feet
14, 000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
CW_...enton Department of Planning/ Building /Pu_.. Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: t
COMMENTS DUE: JULY 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23, 2006
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver - Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: Elizabeth Hiqqins,
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facili
PLAN REVIEW: Julian Fries
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A JUN Z 6 2006
LOCATION. 5015 Ripley Lane N T
WORK ORDER NO: 77607 fat"I DIA12 ni 12ION
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known
as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton.
The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the
project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance w4th
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
LanWShorerine Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY-RELA TED COMMENTS
(/ `)1U'L
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
LihVIStare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Histonalcultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
KOX Feet
14,000 Feet
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas whewdditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
/7
Signature of DFrecTqqr Authorize Representat' Date
PROJECT LUA 06-073, SM, ECF
Seahawks Training Facility
City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Public Works
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENTAL APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
(Continuation)
POLICE RELATED COMMENTS
430 Police Calls for Service Estimated Annually
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Theft from construction sites is one of the most commonly reported crimes in the City. To
protect materials and equipment it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up
when not in use. The site should have security lighting, and any construction trailer or
storage area should be completely fenced -in with portable chain -link fencing. The fence will
provide both a physical and psychological barrier to any prospective criminal and will
demonstrate that the area is private property. Construction trailers should be kept locked
when not in use, and should be fitted with heavy-duty deadbolts with a minimum 1-1/2" throw
when bolted. Glass windows in construction trailers should be shatter -resistant. Toolboxes
and storage containers should be secured with heavy-duty padlocks and kept locked when
not in use. "No Trespassing" signs should be posted on the property during the construction
phase. These signs will aid police in making contacts with unwanted individuals on the
property if they are observed vandalizing or stealing building materials.
This project will involve a large amount of time with different phases of construction going on
at various locations. Theft and burglary at construction sites is prevalent, and 1 expect due to
the isolated location and overabundance of construction materials, this site will be a target for
such incidents. It's recommended that the developer go the extra step and provide secured
temporary housing for materials that could be easily removed during the course of an evening
or weekend. The same security considerations should be made for any construction
equipment (tractors, backhoes, excavators, etc.) When not in use, this equipment should be
lined up along fence lines that abut adjacent streets. Spark plugs and/or batteries should be
removed when not in use for long periods of time (i.e., evenings, weekends, and holiday
periods.) The addition of security personnel after hours is highly recommended. Although
this may seem like overkill to some, the isolated location of this project may increase the risk
of criminal incidents during construction.
COMPLETED FACILITY
All exterior doors should be made of solid metal or metal over wood, with heavy-duty
deadbolt locks, latch guards or pry -resistant cylinders around the locks, and peepholes. If
glass doors are used, they should be fitted with the hardware described above and
additionally be fitted with a layer of security film. Security film can increase the strength of
the glass by up to 300%, greatly reducing the likelihood of breaking glass to gain entry.
Access to the back of the buildings should be limited, preferably with security fencing, as
Security Survey Page 1 of 2 06-073
these areas could be vuln fle to crime due to the lack of n; 31 surveillance by passing
vehicles and/or pedestrians — especially along the west (water) side.
It is recommended that the entire facility be monitored using recorded security systems. It's
not uncommon for businesses to experience theft and/or vandalism during the hours of
darkness, and it's my belief this facility will be especially vulnerable to trespassing by
unwanted individuals. An auxiliary security service should be utilized to patrol the property
during those times. It is important to direct all foot traffic into the main entrance of the facility.
Any alternative employee/player entrances should have coded access to prevent trespassing.
During training season, it's recommended that the additional step of hiring commissioned
police personnel be considered to insure the security of the facility and its users.
If outside payphones are a consideration at all, I would like to discourage this. Public
payphones could draw unwanted pedestrians into the area, who would have a legitimate
reason for being in the area (i.e, using a public payphone). With the common use of personal
cellphones these days, I don't feel the installation of public payphones would be needed.
All areas of this project need to have adequate lighting. This will assist in the deterrent of
theft from motor vehicle (one of the most common crimes in Renton) as well as provide safe
pedestrian travel for individuals frequenting this location.
All structures should have building numbers clearly posted with numbers at least 6" in height
and of a color contrasting with the building. This will assist emergency personnel in locating
the correct location for response.
Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility — not too dense and
not too high. Too much landscaping will make customers and employees feel isolated and
will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary and malicious
mischief (property destruction).
Parking Areas
Lighting is the number one deterrent to crime. Theft from motor vehicle is the most common
occurring crime in our city, and I would expect the parking areas within this project could be
susceptible. Appropriate lighting in and around the parking areas is mandatory. Although the
responsibility for property protection is consider.-d to belong to the driver, if individuals don't
feel safe and secure, they will not frequent it. Signage should also be posted within the
parking areas advising users not to leave valuables within sight and to secure their vehicles
properly.
It's recommended that surveillance equipment be installed in all parking locations, and
signage stating such posted in conspicuous locations throughout the area.
Miscellaneous
I strongly recommend the developer have a Crime Prevention Representative conduct a
security survey for this facility once it is near completion.
Security Survey Page 2 of 2 06-073
Works
City enton Department of Planning /Building/Pu
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICA
TION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS DUE:.JULY 10, 2006
APPLICATION NO: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 23,
APPLICANT: Ray Colliver- Port Quendall Company
PROJECT MANAGER: 4g Beth Hwins..
PROJECT TITLE: Seahawks Training Facility
PLAN REVIEW: Julian bn
SITE AREA: 19.68 acres
BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA
LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
WORK ORDER NO: 77607
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19-68 acre (857,477 so site known
as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton.
The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the
project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)-
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
LandlShoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy!
Natural Resources
C) OL i� f) urz
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
L- htlGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
HistonclCultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10, 0p0 Feet
14,000 Feet
aAdac UCj + C.Mrvp{-a) .
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or
areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or
? , Zo-J&
Date
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
Fisheries Division
39015 - 172"0 Avenue 5E • Auburn, Washington 98092-9763
Phone: (253) 939-3311 Fax: (253) 931-0752
O b 10 2006
cto er ,
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
City of Renton, Development Services Division
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
RE: Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility (Lake Washington) — Determination of Non-
Significance- Mitigated (DNS-M), LUA 06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination (DNS-M), the
environmental checklist and the Mitigation Analysis Memorandum (dated February 17, 2000) for the above
referenced project. We are forwarding the attached comments in the interest of protecting and restoring the Tribe's
fisheries resources.
This project proposes to construct 48,000 ft2 of administrative offices; 215,000 ft2 for an indoor practice field;
50,000 ft2 of training facilities; 15,000 ft2 of player meeting space; 15,000 ft2 of technical and support areas; and
6,000 ft2 for a maintenance/storage building on the "Baxter North and South" properties; totaling 19.6 acres. As
noted, a portion of this site is undergoing remediation and mitigation under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA),
In general, this project represents a unique opportunity to restore 1,887 lineal feet of the Lake Washington shoreline
and a portion of Gypsy Creek for the benefit of salmon. While some of these benefits are partially discussed in the
documents we reviewed, additional information is needed to determine potential project impacts and necessary
mitigation for these impacts. The additional information we need is identified in the attached comments. As a
result, we reserve the right to provide additional comments once we have received this information. We look
forward to working with the City and the other regulatory agencies to address any concerns we may have with this
project. If you have any questions, or would like to meet to discuss these comments, please contact me at 253-876-
3116.
Sincerely,, 1 j`
��IIIsV�
K ren Walter
Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader
Ce: Kitty Nelson, NMFS
Susan Powell, ALOE, Regulatory
Stewart Reinbold, WDFW, Region 4
Monica Durkan, WDNR, Aquatic Lands, SPS
Rebekah Padgett WDOE, NW Region
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 10, 2006
Comments to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facilities Page 2
Environmental checklist comments
1. Question 7- Since this property is on Lake Washington and is currently without a dock structure, it would seem
likely that there will be a dock structure proposed in the future to provide water access to the site. If so, then this
section should identify this potential activity now to avoid phasing the environmental review for this project.
2. Question 9- The response in this section should be modified to discuss the relationship between the Baxter,
Quendall and Barbee Mill properties and the status of any necessary clean-up and restoration activities on these
properties.
3. Question 3.a. I- Please elaborate on the response that a portion of Gypsy Creek that is not currently piped will be
capped. Additional information is needed including a quantification of the length of stream that will be affected by
this proposal. The checklist also fails to note how much of the stream is currently piped and how much of this
piping is on site. Please discuss in detail the proposed mitigation for any activities that will fill, cap or pipe Gypsy
Creek on the project site.
Also, it should be noted that the Washington Department of Transportation intends to restore fish passage to Gypsy
Creek where this stream crosses under I-405. As a result, this project should facilitate the restoration of Gypsy Creek
on site including restoring any culverts associated with the BNSF railroad to maximize the benefit of having new
fish passable culverts for salmon upstream of the site.
The response to this question for wetlands appears to be incomplete. According to the Figure 1 in the Wetland
Determination report for the JAG Development Property (dated May 1997); there are two wetlands on the Baxter
property (wetlands D and E). The response only discusses one wetland and fails to identify if this wetland is Wetland
D or E. The fate of the remaining wetland is not discussed in the checklist. According to the Mitigation Analysis
Memorandum, it appears that both Wetlands D and E were filled under the Consent Decree. Please clarify.
4. Question 3.a.6- The response lacks any discussion about fertilizers, pesticides or any other materials that will be
used on the practice field, which be within 200 feet of Lake Washington and draining to the Lake using dispersal
trenches. The information in the preliminary stormwater technical report suggests that for certain storm events, the
stormwater from the loading dock will bypass the water quality treatment facility via a flow splitter. Please clarify
how the stormwater will be treated from the site.
5. Question 3.c.1 -The checklist fails to indicate exactly which applicable stormwater regulations will apply to the
site. However, the preliminary stormwater technical information document dated May 25, 2006 indicates that the
project will be using the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Please note that this particular version of
the King County's design manual is two versions out of date and is not adequate to protect salmon and their
resources. It is also doubtful the 1990 version will ensure that the stormwater generated from the site will meet
Washington's Water Quality standards. At a minimum, the applicant should use the 2001 Washington State
Department of Ecology, "stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington" (available at
http://www.ecy.wa.goy/biblio/OI 10057.html ) or alternatively the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual
to design the stormwater facilities for this project. If the more updated manuals are used then, the result could be
larger facilities, which if located near the 50 ft proposed riparian buffer, may cause a reduction in the buffer along
the shoreline unless the site plan is modified.
6. Question 4.b -The checklist fails to fully discuss the existence of all trees greater than 6" in diameter within 200
feet of the Lake Washington shoreline and Gypsy Creek and the potential for these trees to be removed as part of this
project. Also, please clarify if this project will result in a minimum 50 foot revegetated buffer for the entire length of
the project (i.e. 1887 1ineal feet) or not. In addition, please clarify if the proposed retaining wall that appears to run
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division October 10, 2006
Comments to the Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facilities Page 3
the length of the project is required as the result of the site clean-up actions or not. The amount of this retaining wall
that is within the proposed 50 ft buffer needs to be quantified too. Finally, please clarify the amount of public trail or
access that will be built within 200 feet and 50 feet of Lake Washington.
SOCI US G RCU P1.1(
October 10, 2006
VIA LEGAL MESSENGER
Elizabeth Higgins
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073
Dear Ms. Higgins:
236.838.9100 rsn.iN --iUNT
2U6.838.9101 wai pax
T:wo Union Square
5J 1 Urumn S1, Swic 4050
Saattic, WA 98101
Thomas F. Peterson
206.838.9112
tpeterson@sociuslaw.com
On behalf of our client, the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners, we are writing to
provide supplemental comments regarding impacts of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility
on our clients' homes. This letter is intended to supplement rather than replace our earlier letter,
sent to you on July 10, 2006. That earlier letter is hereby incorporated by reference.
i. INTRODUCTION
Our clients live at the Misty Cove Condominium, located on the property immediately adjacent
to the north of the proposed Seahawks Training Facility. As such, they will be directly affected
by the changes taking place at the Seahawks Training Facility and along the shoreline of Lake
Washington, if the various applications are approved as currently designed.
We appreciate the assistance of City staff in our review of materials. Please consider this letter
an initial comment letter (supplemental), based on our initial reviews of the files. We may have
missed something or new information may be developed during the review and hearing process,
thus giving rise to additional analysis in the future. If there are any pieces of information we cite
below as missing that are actually in the City file, we would appreciate your letting us know so
that we can correct our data list.
Our aim during this review process will be to present an accurate analysis of facts in the record
and to provide additional data that appears to be missing. In that effort, we appreciate the
applicant's willingness to respond in writing to our requests for information or clarifications.
Unfortunately, the applicant recently denied our clients even limited access to the property for
,oiiusIaiv.coin
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 2
the purposes of looking at the site with our fisheries and wetlands biologists. We trust the City
and the applicant will continue to work with us as we seek an honest evaluation of the facts,
recognizing the citizens' role in upholding the policies and requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act, RCW ch. 98.58, as well as their rights under the State Environmental Policy
Act, RC W ch. 43.21 C ("S EPA").
II. SCOPE OF THESE COMMENTS AND REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE
This letter is intended to present our clients' concerns and initial comments applicable to each of
the following, individually and collectively:
• Notice of Application (revised application September 22, 2006)
• Revised Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of non -Significance -
Mitigated (DNS-M) (Sept. 26, 2006)
• Applications for Approval of:
o Master Plan
o Site Plan
o Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
o Construction Permit and Building Permit
We understand City staff will make recommendations to the Hearing Examiner and provide a
presentation at the public hearing tentatively scheduled for November 21, 2006. We request that
this letter and our previous letter be provided to the Hearing Examiner as part of the permit file.
We also request advance written notice of any public meetings concerning this proposal and
would appreciate your assistance to ensure we remain a party of record. Your continued
assistance is much appreciated.
III. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT PROVIDE PROPOSED DESIGN
MITIGATION REQUIRED BY BOTH THE SHORELINE CODE AND SEPA
CONCERNING ADVERSE IMPACTS TO VIEWS
The City's shoreline policies and regulations are particularly important to our analysis. These
policies contain directives on the types of uses that are permitted, and require analysis and
mitigation of aesthetic impacts. Although quoted in our prior letter, these specific requirements
are worth repeating here. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the Shoreline
Master Program provide as follows:
The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly
distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts
made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects.
1�079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 3
i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers,
poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further
define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction.
The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed
commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given
area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps
have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce
to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant
number of people in the area.
RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c)
As discussed herein, the application does not provide information or mitigation capable of
demonstrating compliance with applicable shoreline regulations concerning views. In our
opinion, the City is therefore compelled to declare the application incomplete for purposes of
shoreline permit review. If and when the application is submitted with a credible view analysis
as required by code, the City should require preparation of an environmental impact statement
("EIS").
This project, as proposed, is not allowed under the Shoreline Management Act. The current
proposal will bring over 343,000 square feet of new buildings to a vacant lot directly adjacent to
the Misty Cove Condominiums.' The buildings are expected to reach as high as 120 feet. This
19.6-acre site includes over 1,800 linear feet of undeveloped shoreline on Lake Washington.
The state -regulated shoreline is 200 feet wide, from the ordinary high water mark ("OHWM").
RCW 90.58.030(f). Washington's review criteria for all development mandates that a permit
shall not be issued for any new building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average
grade level on shorelines that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on
areas adjoining shorelines. WAC 173-27-140. In addition to imposing a 50-foot setback from
the OHWM, City regulations also require an assessment of how a project within the [200-foot]
shoreline will impact the scenic view prevailing the given area. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c); RMC 4-
3-090(L)(5)(d).
The view analysis provided by the applicant does not do justice to the significant impacts this
massive building within the shoreline will have on current residents. Nor does the study make
any attempt to evaluate the views from the water for boaters, or from Mercer Island. The
applicant's view study does not identify the 200-foot shoreline in its photographs and has what
Information about the specifics of the proposal is obtained exclusively from the applicant's Project Overview and
Environmental Checklist. both revised Sept. 6, 2006_
15074
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 4
may be questionable digital scaling when making comparisons between pre- and post -
construction views.
The applicant's response to the shoreline permit requirements for a view analysis was to submit
"two pages" of analysis. The entire second page is blank except for the following:
3.00 ON GOING ANALYSIS
Analysis will be on going as the design proceeds.
Addendum 1, Visualization Assessment (Section 11) (Crawford Architects Sept. 27, 2006). That
is a circular statement. City regulations do not allow the permit to proceed unless all materials
required by code are submitted as part of the application. An incomplete or cursory submittal
does not satisfy the intent of the shoreline regulations for a full analysis of view impacts and
design measures to mitigate those impacts.
The applicant's one page of text offers a before -and -after view comparison for only three visual
points. For one of the views taken from a Misty Cove balcony, the photographs displayed in
Figures 5 and 6 do not line up and thus involve some form of digital scale adjustments that call
into doubt whether a true comparison is being made between the before -and -after views.2
Equally important, the 200-foot shoreline of statewide significance is not identified anywhere on
the photographs to give the viewer a sense of how views of the state shoreline area would
change.
The photographs are also misleading because they are taken from vantage points beyond the
railings of the effected units (as is apparent from the photos themselves). They do not show the
view impact on residents from typical viewing positions such as seated on the balconies or inside
the units. From these vantage points the building will block much of the views of the 200-foot
shoreline. The photos and text also solely concern views of the water and ignore the residents'
views of the rest of the shoreline, the landscape, and sky and the impact of the building on light
and sunshine (particularly in late fall through early spring when the sun traverses the southern
sky.) Even the applicant's photos show that the massive building will block these views and
light.
City shoreline policies and regulations require an assessment not only of the views to be affected
by the project --which clearly has not been completed here --but also a listing of the applicant's
design measures to reduce to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by a
significant number of people in the area. RMC 4-3-090(K)(3), (L)(5)(c). The applicant claims
that "the building has been sited to take advantage of the most stable soils and to minimize deep
foundations." Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept, 6 2006) at 17. However, the Geotechnical
Report indicates that deep borings were done only in the area of the proposed building. The
'` Once can simply compare the measurement between the skyline on a point and the diagonal roofline on a point, for
each picture, to see the inaccuracy of the comparison between the two pictures; they do not match. The digital
photographic work completed for this assessment appears to have been of very poor quality_
150?9
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 5
applicant has not adequately explored the subsurface of other portions of the property to
determine suitability of alternative locations that will not impair views from neighboring
properties.
The applicant's view study does not provide the information required by the City's shoreline
code. Thus, the City should determine the application to be incomplete. The City has the
authority to do so, since the resubmitted application was provided to the City on September 22,
2006 and the City has 28 days under state law to make a completeness determination. RCW
36.7013.070. On that basis the master application, which includes the shoreline application,
should be deemed incomplete until required materials are provided to the City for public review.
Given that these same comments were provided previously in response to the initial SEPA
notice, and the fact the applicant was provided the opportunity to submit proposed mitigation
based on an analysis of the issues, withdrawal of the proposed Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance is appropriate. The City should issue a Determination of Significance, for the
purpose of requiring the complete view analysis required by code. The benefit of the EIS
process would be to carefully identify design mitigation potential, and any alternative sites
within the City or the vicinity. RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c).
IV. THE CITY SHOULD NOT EVEN REACH AN ANALYSIS OF SHORELINE OR
VIEW IMPACTS BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USE IS NOT AUTHORIZED
WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE"
Lake Washington is adjacent to the site and is classified a "shoreline of statewide significance."
RMC 4-3-090(E), (F). The proposed Seahawk building and facility are not consistent with the
list of priority uses within the 200-foot shoreline:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest for
shorelines of statewide significance.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shorelines
3. Result in long-term over short-term benefits.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
5. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
6. Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
RMC 4-3-090(D) a The proposal is not consistent with these mandates because the extensive
construction and lot coverage would decimate rather than preserve the "natural character" of the
' Preference is given to the uses in descending order of priority.
15079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 6
shoreline. Id. Similarly, the public interest in long term visual aesthetics along Lake
Washington outweighs the relatively short term needs of the local football franchise — short term
when compared to a long term historical timeframe.
Perhaps more importantly, the Specific Use Regulations of the City's shoreline code prohibit the
kind of use proposed for this facility and thus the application must be denied, following issuance
of a Determination of Significance. New commercial development on Lake Washington is not
permitted unless it is either water dependent, water related or involves water enjoyment. RMC
4-3-090(L)(5)(a). The Seahawks Training Facility, however popular, cannot be permitted in
violation of this exclusive list of permitted commercial uses within a shoreline of statewide
significance. It simply is not water dependent, water related or involved in water enjoyment.
Furthermore, the project does not provide "significant public access to and along the water's
edge." The application does not contend otherwise.
The applicant can be expected to argue that none of its buildings or fields are planned within the
City's setback area (50 feet from the OHWM). That is not the test under the use regulations for
the City's shoreline program. Instead, the setback only comes into play if the use itself is
authorized within the 200-foot zone, which it is not as explained above.
V. IMPACTS FROM NEW RETAINING WALLS WITHIN A "SHORELINE OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE" REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ENDANGERED
SPECIES HABITAT
As previously mentioned, Lake Washington has been designated a "shoreline of statewide
significance" under state law. RCW 90.59.020. Despite the presence of endangered species
habitat along the shores of Lake Washington, the application proposes grading and permanent
retaining wall construction not only within the 200-foot shoreline zone, but also (as disclosed in
the application) inside the City's standard 50-foot setback area for approved shoreline urban
development.4 This is proposed in at least three separate locations within the 50-foot setback.
At this time, the plans for the grading and construction of retaining walls are not described, based
on our review of the application materials. Similarly, proposed mitigation is not well -articulated
to address the impacts of grading and permanent structures on Chinook salmon and bull trout
shoreline habitat, and bald eagle habitat.5 We do know that the applicant's wetlands report rates
this as a high quality "lake -fringe" wetland that is subject to freshwater tidal influences.G Thus,
use of the site and its impact on juvenile endangered species should be analyzed, impacts
assessed, and mitigation proposed.
4 Baxter Development Project — Phase 150 Foot Setback, Site Plan, A 00 1 (May 3, 2006).
s Chinook salmon, bull trout, and bald eagles are protected under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA").
G Shoreline and Wetland Survey, North and South Baxter Parcels (The RETEC Group, Inc. Aug. 30, 2006), Wetland
Rating Form, Page 3 (May 26, 2006).
1.079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 7
The project appears to include a proposed grading and retaining wall project to be constructed at
elevation 21 feet (NAVD88), which is within one and one half feet in elevation from the highest
ordinary high water mark acknowledged by the applicant (19.5 feet NAVD 88 datum).? Despite
these proposed but as -yet -undefined shoreline stabilization walls, the entire discussion of impacts
and mitigation concerning ESA species habitat along the lake are so sparse as to be non-existent
as follows:
2.4 Wildlife Habitat
No federally Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive animal or plant species were observed
on the subject property during the site visit.$
An earlier section summarizing the report's "Shoreline Survey" does not even mention ESA
species in the lake or their habitat along the shoreline. See Section 1, at Page 2. Nothing in the
report discusses habitat let alone mitigation from the proposed grading and retaining wall
construction within the 50-foot setback or within the 200-foot shoreline zone. In addition to
addressing those issues, the report should have interpreted the applicant's prior study in May
1997,9 which identified May Creek as a nearby "shoreline of the state" supporting runs of Coho,
Chinook and sockeye salmon as well as resident fish species (citing Williams et al., 1975).
Mitigation may be required for the linkage between May Creek residents and use of the nearby
shoreline of Lake Washington at the project site, i.e., at various times of their life cycle. Thus,
we conclude the application is deficient because it fails to adequately address the project's
impacts on ESA species.
Ironically, the applicant's Environmental Checklist, updated September 6, 2006, does disclose
the existence of Chinook salmon, bull trout, bald eagle on or near the site. However, no habitat
is described and no mitigation is offered. Instead, the following is offered:
Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain
Adult Chinook Salmon in Lake Washington migrate past the site on their way to
the Cedar River each summer. Juvenile Chinook pass the site on their way back
to Puget Sound, and may spend some time rearing on the site vicinity. Sockeye
juveniles rear in Lake Washington and may utilize the shoreline and offshore
habitat along the project for rearing.
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None.
Environmental Checklist (Rev. Sept. 6, 2006) at 12.
'Conceptual Grading Plan, C 101 (May 3, 2006); RETEC Group Shoreline and ffjetland Survey at 2 (Aug. 30,
2006).
a RETFC Group Shoreline and Wetland Survey (Aug. 30, 2006) at 2.
' Wetland Determination Report on the JAG Development Property, David Evans and Associates, Inc. (May 1997)
at 8.
15079
Elizabeth Higgins
October 10, 2006
Page 8
A Determination of Significance for the project should be issued instead of the proposed
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, in part to ensure careful study of shoreline ESA
habitat and determine whether mitigation measures would ever moderate the adverse impacts
from the proposed, permanent disturbance of the 50-foot setback area and the 200-foot shoreline
and associated wetlands. By requiring an EIS on this issue, the City would also ensure that an
objective assessment of site alternatives is conducted by the applicant.
Misty Cove residents enjoy the shoreline of Lake Washington on a daily basis. They enjoy
existing shoreline views and the natural habitat for plants and animals along the vegetated
shoreline, including endangered species. There is a direct linkage between the probable
significant adverse environmental impacts of the project and residents' continued use and
enjoyment of their property and the adjacent lake. Thus, they have standing to appeal the City's
SEPA determination, in the event it is necessary.
Please consider these comments in addition to the comments set forth in our letter of July
10. if you have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional
information, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly your
Thomas F. Peterson
CC.' Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail)
Misty Cove Homeowners Association (via U.S. Mail)
Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail)
Lance Lopes, Attorney for Applicant (via U.S. Mail)
15U?9
Wastewater Treatment Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
October 4, 2006
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
City of Renton, Development Planning
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DFu[.-1.i p� ,1, , ,. !-.�lPli, �V
C17'(jr
RE: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Revised Notice of
Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated, dated June 23,
2006 (Revised September 26, 2006). King County's South Mercer Force Main and Eastside
Interceptor, Section 4 is located within the proposed Seattle Scahawks Headquarters and
Training Facility site. In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting
that the City of Renton do the following:
0 Submit construction drawings for the project to the Design, Construction and Asset
Management Program, Civil/Architectural Section. Drawings should be submitted for
review during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's
impacts. Please send the drawings to:
Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/AT-chit?Cft+ral section
King County Wastewater Treatment Division
201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Tel.: (206) 684-1707
Eric. Davi son(&metrokc. gov
* Please contact Eric Davison a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any
construction in order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on
the site during construction.
a •41M'mw CLEAN WATER- A SOUND INVESTMENT
Elizabeth Higgins
City of Renton, Development Planning
October 4, 2006
Page 2
• King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development
site, and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line. In the event
that the line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided.
Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the
proposed development site to Eric Davison so that he can contact the property owner
regarding the easement.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Sandy Redick, Administrative Staff Assistant
Environmental Planning & Community Relations
cc: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section
�.SY G
C� �
��
REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M)
DATE: June 23, 2iJ06 [REVISED September 26, 201
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA 06-073. ECF. MA. SA-H. SM
PROJECT NAME: Seattle Seall Headquarters and Training Facility
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility Is proposed to be
located an a 19.58 acre (857.477 1 site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located
on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton.
In addition to approximately 1,887 Iinea'. feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional welland is located on the site.
The will and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities Site cleanup from
previous industrial activities is on -going and would centrue simultaneously with the initial stages of site devekcpment.
The project proponent has submitted a land use master api lion requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Reviewand
a Shorehne Substantial Development Permit The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proxii to Lake
Washington. The requested actions require environmental ri by the City of Renton in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act fBEPAj_
PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (ONS-Mj: As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton
has determined that significanl environmental impacts that cannot he mitigated by the project proponent are unlikely to
result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permilled under the 143,21 C.11), the City of Renton is using the
Optional ONS-M process to give hiti that a ❑i i5 likely to he issued Comment Winds for the project and the
proposed DNS-M are integrated into A single comment periotl. There will be no comment period following the Issuance of
the Threshold Determination of NonSgnilVcance-Mitigated (DNS-1 A 14-day appeal period will fol ow the issuance of
the DNS-M
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 9. 2006
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23. 2000
NOTICE OF HOLD I OFF HOLD;
Augcst 11, 20061 September 22, 2006
APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ray Colliver, Pod Ouendatl Company, Tel: (206j 342-2000;
Font com
PermiWliury ew Requested:
Environmental ISEPAI Review, Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review
51horeline Substantial Development Permit
Other Permits which may be required:
Consluction Permit Buidling Permit. Occupancy Permit
Requested Studies:
Ttanspodation Analysis, Geotechnical Report,
and Water QialitylSlormwaler Analysis
Location where application may
be rovtewisi
PlanninglBuildingfPublic Works Department, Development Services
Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady they Renton,
WA 99055
PUBLIC HEARING;
A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner 'a tenlahl
scheduled for 9 am November 21, 2006 in the City Covir l Chambers on the 7
door of Renton City Hall located at 105E South Grady Way, Renton, WA. This
date is subject to change.
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW
Land Use/Zorl
The subject site Is designated Commercialf4ffice1Re5itlential on the City of
Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and CommercialfOffcefReaidenlial 2
(COR-2j an the City Zoning Map.
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project:
Environmental (SEPAi Checklist, Stream f Lake Study Ge%echrical Report.
Transportation Study
Development Regulations
Used For Project Mitigation:
The project will he subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3.050, Critical
Proposed Mitigation Measures:
The following Mitigation Measures will likely he imposed on the proposed project
These recommended Maigaban Measures address project impacts sal covered
by existing codes and regulations as cited above.
• Adherence to shoreline selback reguiremol
• Adherence to surface water management ragtriremenls;
• Payment ofthe appropriate Transportation Mrtigalion Fee; and
• Payment of the appropriate Fire MiNgetiorl Fee
Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Elisabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,
Development Services Division. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 90055, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2005, If
YOU have questions about this proposal. or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notirecabon or mail,
contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written commerla will automaUcatty became a party of record and will
be notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON; Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tell 1425E 430-6576;
El ehlggine@ci.renton.wa,us
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed pf0i complete
this form and return to, City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Nar lFile No.. Seattle Seahawks Training FacilitylLUA 06.073, SM. ECF
NAME.
MAILING ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO
CERTIFICATION
I, ^ Z hereby certify that - _3 copies of the above docum*���f,���l�
were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described property e�,YNN
DATE: V_ Zr�. -
SIGNED:
ATTEST: Subscribed and swom before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington
a on the 3 7 t day of . C
NOTARY
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 26th day of September, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Revised NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT's documents. This information was sent
to:
Name
Representing
Agencies
See Attached
Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company
Owner/Applicant/Contact
Micheal Cero
Party of Record
Surrounding Property Owners
See Attached
Parties of Record
See Attached
(Signature of Sende
STATE OF WASHINGTON j
) SS
COUNTY OF KING }
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t ,%yv&%A; d
purposes mentioned in the instrument -
Dated:
Notary Public in laf5d for the Sate of;WdM0qt(n"
Notary (Print): yv�c�� �-�`'�, 4UaLNO
-
Myappointment expires: 11 ''� 1111%riAvv
to OP WA9V
Project Name: Seahawks Training Facility
Project Number: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
template - affidavit of service by mailing
Ok
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology"
WDFW - Stewart Reinbold
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.'
Environmental Review Section
c/o Department of Ecology
Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box 47703
3190 160tn Ave SE
39015 — 172Id Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Bellevue, WA 98008
Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region *
Duwamish Tribal Office *
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
4717 W Marginal Way SW
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
King Area Dev. Serv„ MS-240
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
39015 172"d Avenue SE
PO Box 330310
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers '
KC Wastewater Treatment Division *
Office of Archaeology & Historic
Seattle District Office
Environmental Planning Supervisor
Preservation*
Attn: SEPA Reviewer
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box C-3755
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
PO Box 48343
Seattle, WA 98124
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Jamey Taylor *
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv.
City of Newcastle
City of Kent
Attn: SEPA Section
Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Director of Community Development
Acting Community Dev. Director
Renton, WA 98055-1219
13020 SE 72nd Place
220 Fourth Avenue South
Newcastle, WA 98059
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Metro Transit
Puget Sound Energy
City of Tukwila
Senior Environmental Planner
Municipal Liason Manager
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
Gary Kriedt
Joe Jainga
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W
Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
Title Examiner
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. *
Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send
her the ERC Determination paperwork.
template - affidavit of service by mailing
334330288005 292405901508 292405901201
CROSETTO FRED A PORT QUENDALL COMPANY PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC
5025 RIPLEY LN N C/O VULCAN INC PROPERTY TAX DEPT
RENTON WA 98056 505 5TH AV S #900 PO BOX 90868
SEATTLE WA 98104 BELLEVUE WA 98009
29240S900203 334330300008 334330287502
QUENDALL TERMINALS THOMAS DAVID L+SUZANNE E WILLARD RICK+RENEE
PO BOX 477 5029 RIPLEY LN N 5031 RIPLEY LN N
RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
PARTIES OF RECORD
Seahawks Training Facility
LUA06-073, SM, SA-H, ECF
Ray Colliver
Port Quendall Company
505 5th Avenue S ste: #900
Seattle, WA 98104
tel: (206) 342-2000
eml: rays@vulcan.com
(owner / applicant / contact)
Thelma Sutherland
1205 N 29th Street
Renton, WA 98056
(party of record)
Jared Salstrom
5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #213
Renton, WA 98056
eml.
jared.salstrom@villanova.edu
(party of record)
Eileen Halverson
16226 Crystal Drive E
Enumclaw, WA 98022
(party of record)
Michael Cero
8300 Avalon Drive
Mercer Island, WA 98040
tel: (206) 419-0657
eml: mscero@comcast.net
(party of record)
Joe Burcar
Department of Ecology
Shorelands & Environmental
Assistance Program
3190 160th Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98008
tel: (425) 649-7145
(party of record)
Steve Jansen
5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #4
Renton, WA 98056
eml: smjansen@msn.com
(party of record)
Elya George Baches
1414 N 34th Street
Renton, WA 98056
(party of record)
Roger A. Pearce Steve Gregerson
Foster Pepper PLLC 5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #302
1111 Third Avenue ste: #3400 Renton, WA 98056
Seattle, WA 98101-3299 (party of record)
(party of record)
Elaine Wine
Vulcan
505 Fifth Avenue S ste: #900
Seattle, WA 98104
tel: (206) 342-2397
eml: elainew@vulcan.com
(party of record)
Thomas F. Peterson
Socius Law Group PLLC
Two Union Square
601 Union Street ste: #4950
Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 838-9112
eml: tptterson@sociuslaw.com
(party of record)
Brian T. Sabey
5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #304
Renton, WA 98056
eml: bsabey@comcast.net
(party of record)
Eleanor Maargo Kennamer,
President
Misty Cove Condo Association
5021 Ripley Lane N ste: #309
Renton, WA 98056
tel: (206) 650-8855
eml: margok@msn.com
(party of record)
Aaron Belenky, President
Williamsburg Condo HOA
1800 NE 40th Street ste: #H-4
Renton, WA 98056
(party of record)
Lance Lopes
Qwest Field
800 Occidental Avenue S ste:
# 100
Seattle, WA 98134
tel: (206) 381-7835
eml: lancel@seahawks.com
(party of record)
Updated; 09/26/06
REVISED NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M)
DATE:
LAND USE NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
June 23, 2006 [REVISED September 26, 20061
LUA 06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM
Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility is proposed to be
located on a 19.68 acre (857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located
on the shore of Lake Washington in Northeast Renton.
In addition to approximately 1,887 lineal feet of Lake Washington shoreline, a jurisdictional wetland is located on the site.
The wetland and a portion of the shoreline have been restored as part of site cleanup activities, Site cleanup from
previous industrial activities is on -going and would continue simultaneously with the initial stages of site development.
The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, and
a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The Shoreline Permit is required due to the project's proximity to Lake
Washington. The requested actions require environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
PROJECT LOCATION: 6015 Ripley Lane N
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton
has determined that significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated by the project proponent are unlikely to
result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43,21C.110, the City of Renton is using the
Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the
proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of
the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of
the DNS-M.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE:
June 9, 2006
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23, 2006
NOTICE OF HOLD I OFF HOLD:
August 11, 2W61 September 22, 2006
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON. Ray Colliver, Port Quendail Company; Tel: (206) 342-2000;
Eml: rayc@vulcan.com
Permits/Review Requested:
Environmental (SEPA) Review, Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review,
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Other Permits which may be required: Constuction Permit, Buidling Permit, Occupancy Permit
Requested Studies:
Transportation Analysis, Geotechnical Report,
and Water Quality/Stormwater Analysis.
Location where applicatlon may
be reviewed:
Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Department, Development Services
Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Nall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98055
PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner is tentatively
scheduled for 9 am November 21, 2006 in the City Council Chambers on the 7
floor of Renton City Hall located at 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA. This
date Is subject to change.
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW
Land UselZoning:
The subject site is designated Commerciat[Of6celResidential on the City of
Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential 2
(COR-2) on the City's zoning Map.
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist, Stream i Lake Study, Geotechnical Report,
Transportation Study
Development Regulations
Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050, Critical
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.
These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered
by existing codes and regulations as cited above.
■ Adherence to shoreline setback requirements;
• Adherence to surface water management requirements;
• Payment of the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; and
• Payment of the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,
Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 10, 2006. If
you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,
contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will
be notified of any decision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6576;
Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBED WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Name/File No.: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, SM, ECF
NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO.:
CITY OF PENTON
1055 S . G rady W ay
R entan, W A 98055
L and U se A ctions
=090M1M
Perm it#: LUA06-073
PaW entM ade:
TotalPayment 1,500.00
CurrentPaym entM ade to the Fo lbw ng ]em s:
Trans Account Code Description
5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev
5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval
RecejDtNum ber.
Payee. SEATTLE SEAHAW KS
Amount
• f f•
Paym ents m ade forth s receDt
Trans Method Description
-------- --------------------------- ---------------
Amount
----------
Payment Check #003460
1,500.00
AccountBa bnces
Trans Account Code
Description
Balance Due
------------------------
3021 303.000,00.345,85
------------------------------
Park Mitigation Fee
---------------
.00
5006 000,345,81.00.0002
Annexation Fees
.00
5007 000.345.81.00.0003
Appeals/Waivers
.00
5008 000.345.81.00.0004
Binding Site/Short Plat
.00
5009 000.345.81.00.0006
Conditional Use Fees
.00
5010 000.345,81.00.0007
Environmental Review
.00
5011 000.345.81.00.0008
Prelim/Tentative Plat
.00
5012 000.345.81.00.0009
Final Plat
.00
5013 000.345.81.00.0010
PLD
.00
5014 000.345,81,00,0011
Grading 6 Filling Fees
.00
5015 000.345.81.00.0012
Lot Line Adjustment
.00
5016 000.345.81.00.0013
Mobile Hamm Parks
.00
5017 000.345.81.00.0014
Rezone
.00
5018 000.345.81.00.0015
Routine Vegetation Mgmt
.00
5019 000.345.81.00.0016
Shoreline Subst Dev
.00
5020 000,345.81,00.0017
Site Plan Approval
.00
5021 000.345.81.00.0018
Temp Use or Fence Review
00
5022 000.345.81.00.0019
Variance Fees
.00
5024 000.345.81.00.0024
Conditional Approval Fee
.00
5036 000.345.81.00.0005
Comprehensive Plan Amend
.00
5909 000.341.50.00.0024
Booklets/EIS/Copies
.00
5941 000.341.50.00.0000
Maps (Taxable)
.00
5954 604.237.00.00.0000
Special Deposits
.00
5955 000,05.519.90,42.1
Postage
.00
599E 000.231.70.00.0000
Tax
.00
Rem anng Bahnce Due. $0
00
Y.
CITI ]F RENTON
)Kathy Keolker, Mayor
September 22, 2006
Mr. Ray Colliver, Senior Director
Design and Construction
Vulcan
505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
PlanningBuilding/PublieWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
Re: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
LUA06-073, ECF, MA, SA-H, SM
Dear Mr. Colliver
The above -referenced project was accepted as a complete application on June 23, 2006.
During the initial review, the City of Renton determined that submittal of additional
information will be required before the review could proceed. Therefore, on August 11,
2006, a "hold" was placed on the project review and a request made for additional
information.
The items requested by the City having now been submitted, the hold on the project has
been removed. As of the date of this letter the review has recommenced.
Due to the expanded nature of the application and additional information available, we
will notify interested parties and open a new two -week comment period from September
25 to October 9. Following this comment period, on October 16 the Renton
Environmental Review Committee will issue an environmental threshold determination.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-430-7382.
Sincerely
Elizabeth River Higgins, Al
Senior Planner
Copies to: Lance Lopes
Roger Pearce
Elaine Wine
Alex Pietsch
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Parties of Record
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
This papercontains W%recycled material, 30%post consumer
RENTON
A14FAD OF THE CURVE
y
CITX ]F RENTON
+ +
1Y,(72
,,7 Kathy Keolker, Mayor
August 30, 2006
Mr. Michael R. Cero
8300 Avalon Drive
Mercer Island, WA 98040
PlanninOuilding/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
Re: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility, LUA06-073
Dear Mr. Cero
Your letter was received today and you have been made a Party of Record for the above -
referenced project.
Thank you for expressing your concerns about lighting of the proposed Seahawks
Headquarters and Training Facility. At a meeting with the project proponent, city staff
was told that the fields would not be lighted due to the fact that there are no night
practices. We will continue to verify this information as the project review progresses.
According to the most recent site plan, surface parking would be located east of and
behind the headquarters building, and therefore not visible from the lake shore. The
building should effectively screen parking lot lighting. Due to increasing density and
intensity of development in the City, Renton now typically requires light cut-off fixtures.
The project is currently "on hold" pending submittal of additional information required to
complete our review. Following those submittals, as a Party of Record, you will receive
notification and may come in to Renton City Hall and, on the 6th floor, ask to review the
proposed project. There will be a public hearing to discuss the project, which is
tentatively scheduled for mid -October. You will receive notification of that date also and
may attend to comment on the project.
Thank you for your interest in this project.
Sincerely
1.
Elizabeth Higgins, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc:. Peter Renner
file
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
MThis Dauer contains 50 %recvded material. 30% nostconsumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Michael R. Cero
8300 Avalon Dr
Mercier Island, WA 98040
City of Renton
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Attn: Elizabeth Higgins
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
August 22, 2006
)'?-t— /"r'' L_U,q cr6 — 073 .
Subject: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073 (Glare/Light Pollution)
Dear Ms Higgins,
I am haunted that the new Seahawks training facility will have the same glare as the
soccer field "south of Mercer Island over the hill." I would like assurance that none of
the outdoor practice fields will be lit for night time use.
In addition, I understand that glare can be virtually eliminated in parking lot lighting,
exterior lighting for the building walkways and entrances, and landscape lighting by the
use of high cut off fixtures. These fixtures are designed to completely hide the light
source while providing illumination necessary for function and safety. An example of
this type of lighting is on the bridge deck of the I-90 floating bridge. I would like
assurances that the design will incorporate these fixture types to avoid both direct glare
and reflected glare from Lake Washington.
If you need an example of what is totally unacceptable, look to the lighting that
illuminates the new 737 "green planes" that sit at the Renton airfield awaiting their first
flight. The direct and reflected glare from lighting those airplanes fills the night sky from
the south end of Mercer Island. This is neither necessary or acceptable.
Please incorporate ant -glare light fixtures in the design of the Seahawks training facility,
Sincerely,
Michael R. Cero
CITI 3F RENTON
` A
(''R)
�4
+ +
k � Kathy Keolker, Mayor
August 11, 2006
Mr. Ray Colliver, Senior Director
Design and Construction
Vulcan
505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98104
PlanningBuilding/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
Re: Seahawks Headquarters and Training Facility
LUA06-073, SM, ECF — On Hold
Dear Mr. Colliver
The above -referenced project was accepted as a complete application on June 23, 2006.
Since that time however, the City of Renton has determined that submittal of additional
information will be required before the environmental review can proceed.
Of particular interest, and a key component of the review, will be the proposed plan for
the enhancement of the buffer of the jurisdictional wetland located within the shoreline of
Lake Washington and how public access will be provided to the shoreline.
We have sent to your attention, under separate cover, a complete list of items required for
submittal before the project can proceed.
As of the date of this letter, the project is "on hold" and will remain so until the submittal
items are provided. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
425-430-7382,
Sincerely
�f
Elizabeth River Higgins, AICP
Senior Planner
Copies to:
Lance Lopes
Roger Pearce
Elaine Wine
Alex Pietsch
Neil Watts
Jennifer Henning
Parties of Record
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
This paper contains 50% rocyc{ad materia$, 30% post consumer
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
LtvforOCOP --407a
206,838.9100 KIAI . FI IUr�r
206 638 91 c 1 mAir. Fax
SOCIUS , GROUP
July 10, 2006
VIA LEGAL MESSENGER
Elizabeth Higgins
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Seahawks Training Facility, LUA06-073
Dear Ms. Higgins:
CITyOF
ECE� �6b
Jut 10
131JJ�D#vGavEsioN
Twu UIIIGTI Scare
601 lJniun SI, S.ji4: 4950
Scattic, W/1 981 (11
Thomas F. Peterson
206.838.9112
tpeterson@sociuslaw.com
This law firm represents the Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners. As you know,
Misty Cove Condominium is located on the property immediately adjacent to the north of the
proposed Seahawks Training Facility. We provide this letter by way of our comments to the
Seattle Seahawks' ("Applicant's") request for environmental (SEPA) review and for a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit.
Timinp_ of SEPA Review. As an initial matter, we note that the City appears to be conducting
an environmental review for a shoreline substantial development permit only, without first
requiring environmental review for the entire project, which is known to the applicant and the
City at this time. Conducting environmental review of shoreline uses only is incomplete without
first requiring the applicant to submit all known information about the ultimate buildout of the
project, i.e., traffic analysis and building footprints shown on a site plan. Piecemeal review is
prohibited under the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW ch. 43.21 C (SEPA), as discussed in
numerous court cases.
The City's Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated
(DNS-M) ("Notice") issued on June 23, 2006 ("Notice") identifies a very limited scope of
review for a project involving multiple permits. The "Permits/Review Requested" is limited to
"Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit." Because the
Notice states that the applicant is only seeking a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit at
this time, it seems clear the SEPA review applies only to that permit. To our knowledge, no
other permit applications have been filed. Thus, the SEPA review could not cover those unfiled
land use applications and is being conducted piecemeal on only one select permit application, the
1 15. 2
�ncrrr_ium, carer
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 2
shoreline substantial development permit. Alternatively, if the SEPA review is intended to cover
the entire project, the SEPA applicant should be required to provide full details of the entire
project, including but not limited to a traffic analysis, prior to your issuance of a mitigated SEPA
determination. Absent a full disclosure and analysis of all project impacts prior to issuance of
the SEPA determination, the SEPA determination fails to assess possible needed mitigation
addressing those undisclosed impacts. SEPA's policy against piecemeal review is specifically
designed to avoid such a result.
The Notice does not identify commencement of a review period for the Master Use Permit
Application and furthermore, no Binding Site Plan has been submitted. Accordingly, the City
will have to commence a new SEPA review process when those applications and plans are
submitted. Such piecemeal review conflicts with SEPA and SMA policies. Merkle v. Pori of
Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973). We request that the SEPA review be
postponed until the application and plans are complete so that the City and the neighbors can see
the whole project and the full suite of impacts and proposed mitigation before the SEPA review
process begins.
The Practice Facility Location. The Preliminary Site Plan calls for construction of a 120-foot
high warehouse structure for use as a practice facility on the North end of the Baxter Property.
The location of the practice facility should be moved for a number of reasons.
l . View Blockage. All of the apartments on the south side of the Misty Cove condominium
currently enjoy unobstructed views of Lake Washington to the south and west. The proposed
practice facility will block most of these views. Such view blockage directly conflicts with the
City's Shoreline Master Program. The General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses in the
Shoreline Master Program provide as follows:
The potential impact of any of the following on adjacent, nearby, and possibly
distant land and shoreline users shall be considered in the design plans and efforts
made to avoid or minimize detrimental aspects.
i. View Obstruction: Buildings, smokestacks, machinery, fences, piers,
poles, wires, signs, lights, and other structures.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(3). The Specific Use Regulations for Commercial Developments further
define the Applicant's obligations with respect to potential view obstruction.
The applicant for a shoreline development permit for a new commercial
development must indicate in his application the effect which the proposed
commercial development will have upon the scenic view prevailing in the given
area. Specifically, the applicant must state in his permit application what steps
have been taken in the design of the proposed commercial development to reduce
to a minimum interference with the scenic view enjoyed by any significant
number of people in the area.
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 3
RMC 4-3-090(L)(5)(c). The Application incorrectly characterizes the impact of the
development on the views of Misty Cove owners. The Project Narrative states that
"[v]iews to the lake from adjacent uses located to the north and south will not be
adversely affected." Land Use & Shoreline Permit Application (the "Application"), § 2,
p. 4. The Environmental Checklist contains similar mischaracterizations. Application
§ 3, p. 16. This misstatement by the applicant alone is grounds for the City to delay
issuance of a SEPA determination, pending submittal of complete and accurate
information on the entire project. It is also a basis for denying the shoreline substantial
development permit for failure to comply with the policies and regulations cited above.
Not surprisingly, the Application does not state what steps the Applicant has taken to
"reduce to a minimum" the interference that the practice facility will have on Misty Cove
owners' views. In fact, the practice facility is located in the spot that will most interfere
with Misty Cove views. The negative view impact would be minimized if the practice
facility was located on the south side of the project, where there are no adjacent
residences, or situated further from the shoreline. This appears to be feasible given the
proposed layout of the site.
The practice facility is also quite tall. Although a 120-foot high structure is not barred
outright in a COR zone, where the building is abutting a lot designated as residential,
maximum building height is to be determined through site development plan review.
RMC 4-2-120B. Generally, the limit is 20 feet higher than the maximum height allowed
in the abutting residential zone. Id. This would not be an issue if the practice facility
were located on the south end of the property, which area does not abut a residential
zone. If the facility is not relocated, we contend it is in violation of RMC 4-2-120B.
2. Shoreline Orientation. The proposed practice facility is located too close to the shoreline.
The General Use Regulations provide as follows:
Facility Arrangement — Shoreline Orientation: Where feasible, shoreline
developments shall locate the water -dependant, water -related and water -
enjoyment portions of their developments along the shoreline and place all other
facilities inland.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(5). The General Use Regulations further require preservation of unique and
fragile Areas:
Unique and Fragile Areas: Unique features and wildlife habitats should be
preserved and incorporated into the site. Fragile areas shall be protected from
development and encroachment.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(7). The Preliminary Site Plan locates the practice facility only 50 feet
from the shoreline. This not only orients this massive structure, which is not water
dependant or water -enjoyment related, too close to the shoreline. It also may impinge on
the unique and fragile areas of the waterfront. As currently designed, it appears the
proposed shoreline permit would need a variance or conditional use approval from the
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 4
Department of Ecology. If such a request has been made, please provide us with a copy
of that correspondence, so that we may comment to DOE. We reserve our right to
comment further on these issues, as more information is disclosed by the applicant and
we have an opportunity to review any critical areas studies submitted in support of the
total project.
Traffic Impacts^ One of the problems with piecemeal SEPA review is the difficulty of
commenting on and reviewing significant issues before the required plans and studies are
submitted. There will likely be significant traffic impacts on the neighborhood but the
actual impact is unknown because the Applicant has not yet submitted its traffic impact
analysis. We reserve comment on the traffic impact until the traffic impact analysis has
been provided.
The Applicant states that the facility will accommodate annual training camp on site and
that parking for training camp vehicles will be located offsite. Misty Cove requests that a
requirement for offsite parking be made a condition of permit approval.
Community Disturbances/Refuse/Service Areas. The preliminary site plan does not
identify the location of areas for refuse bins, service entry, storage yards, and outdoor
service areas. The Misty Cove owners are concerned that those areas will be located in
the parking area adjacent to Misty Cove Condominium and that they will cause excessive
noise, odors, night lighting, pollution, and be unsightly in appearance. The Shoreline
General Use Regulations cited above, restrict community disturbances such as noise,
odors and night lighting, and require screening of visually unpleasant areas. RMC 4-3-
090(K)(3)(11)&(1v). Furthermore, RMC 4-4-090(C) contains general requirements
relating to refuse storage areas. In addition, the Shoreline General Use Regulations
proscribe activities near the shoreline that may cause pollution or ecological disruption.
RMC 4-3-090(K)(2). Misty Cove requests that proper identification, location, and
screening of these areas be provided in the site plan. Misty Cove further reserves
comment on these issues until the site plan is available for review.
Dock Use. The Baxter site currently contains the remnants of a dock. We understand
that the Applicant intends to restore and use the dock. Misty Cove is concerned that
prolonged parking of ships and large yachts at the dock will obstruct views. Misty Cove
requests that permanent or long term mooring of boats, particularly large ones, be
restricted as a condition of the permit. Misty Cove owners are also concerned that
visitors to the Seahawks facility will use the Misty Cove marina for mooring. We request
that the conditions for the shoreline permit include limitations on the amount of time
larger vessels may be moored at the facility and prohibit mooring at the Misty Cove
marina.
Security and Parking, Because Ripley Lane is a dead-end street, Misty Cove owners
are concerned that people going to the new facility will often end up in the Misty Cove
parking lot, which is not adequate to accommodate existing Misty Cove tenants. The
owners are also concerned that the increased traffic will lead to more car break-ins and
Elizabeth Higgins
July 10, 2006
Page 5
other safety threats to Misty Cove Owners. Appropriate signage and security measures
should be made a condition of permit approval to avoid these likely impacts on adjacent
residents.
Lighting and Noise. The Environmental Checklist states that there will be no permanent
lighting of the practice fields and no glare anticipated that would adversely impact
adjacent land uses. This should be made a permanent condition of permit approval. The
Checklist also states that there will minimal noise impact on adjacent properties both
during construction and after completion. Plans to control noise should be a condition of
permit approval, based on the applicant's promise.
The Misty Cove Owners request that the City and the Applicant consider these comments
and make the appropriate changes for the better of the surrounding neighborhood. if you
have any questions about these comments or if we can provide any additional
information, do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Thomas F. Peterson
cc: Department of Ecology (via U.S. Mail)
Tom Ehrlichman, Attorney at Law (via U.S. Mail)
Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company (via U.S. Mail)
Misty Cove Association of Apartment Owners
sm
i `M--,.
x& 'ta !' G _ 6, -1
King County
Wastewater Treatment Division
Department of Natural Resources and Parks
King Street Center
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
July 6, 2006
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
Public Works Department, Development Services
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: LUA 06-073 SM ECF
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and
Proposed Determination of Non-Significance-Miti gated (DNS-M), dated June 23, 2006. King
County's South Mercer Force Main and Eastside Interceptor, Section 4 is located within the
proposed Seattle Seahawks Headquarters/Training Facility site (please see the attached figures).
In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Renton do
the following:
• Submit construction drawings for the project to the Design, Construction and Asset
Management Program, Civil/Architectural Section. Drawings should be submitted for review
during design development so that King County staff can assess the project's impacts. Please
send the drawings to:
Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section
King County Wastewater Treatment Division
201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Tel.: (206) 684-1707
Eric. DavisonOmetrokc. goy
• Please contact Eric Davison a minimum of 72 hours prior to commencing any construction in
order to allow staff time to arrange for a King County inspector to be on the site during
construction.
&•growl" CLEAN WATER— A SOUND INVESTMENT
Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner
City of Renton
July 6, 2006
Page 2
• King County has a permanent easement for a sewer line on the proposed development site,
and we must be assured the right to maintain and repair the sewer line. In the event that the
line must be relocated, a new permanent easement must be provided.
Please send the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner of the proposed
development site to Eric Davison so that he can contact the property owner regarding the
easement.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Sandy Redick, Administrative Staff Assistant
Environmental Planning & Community Relations
Enclosures (3)
cc: Eric Davison, DCAM, Civil/Architectural Section
�i
hQ
O�
w
6 � �U,
�a�y�y11
047
2
d
!X N
N �
C1
WW
ra �
Wo
a �
� k
� H �
CA2'ECf(- ee45-1,W - A - NOTE: -
5TR(lClil>7E- 3FRr1e K3 iTA9c�i ���X�4T//✓G C4N71�JR FOR CGNS�.Yi.'_TJDN y.''f1:3 Yi: £R S£I�YICF ¢ 3C.:I� C4LvST A1O�E d
-
MAIN A/N SE£ Dlt�G S
-
sx - _ - - __ _ _ _—`Y-,_4 � �� "�` �^ -Y�- ��.yti•�-tea, ' �-a--.� ��k- — _ � '" - �3 ` 3.• ---� y-"' _ - �f,. .. I
so ... ei YLQ ,sr} E f wxErre67.
, s1'
_ Nc�Y1' L A.��
5TA F6=40
k02T21
t - _i Fi �:i, .. •..r` `_ : � �INF ��� ��1 K ;` F ._ �' / .. �-• ... y ~��,y 3T-,4 -W#93C
CiOA
' ' is X E z
SE
,� iAi.9
y AF R# 7j(7 L F OF 4 1 pd� i n/
6 g dY11YL ENdFB Y3 t 1
' w�%, � - s,r � CL/t✓ERi (.01lQ,,t:R S E BDTN ST. �.�. � � - � { -
MrkY Ci }°Q4rticv
T
AL HDRI 0 AL`1 R IGAL }'•t4' �^!D s N<�vc7iLt�t s
t
00 ...
t
a c �e i
t
fYGi : �?'t05k+ 8E'2ppmr- i r: i j- J ff a 1 -. r r: , I
mow 'VOOff7' Easy
,CR%J?: i4✓E�6 dJ
?` TLla4e rL-AMr
GEV�4GG�
Dra _ ,� Crw f
- 9Triaarr.�r R;-
} �tci _ FF asrA �a Txw at . 4 As
PAY
r
t jai
777,
t 3r h
r i i }
iAw��i.__- -w,+' _i. :"�,' :.._ , : _ . - - ., � .,. - _..-���_ - .. .. '.�i� - �fD �l,.,_. C -R,7F `4•.
; Ct .pr#, •r.
-
/� 1 P
FC C7/AFiE7V it---.7 �,•,"�-.,t �.:+_—_ � �
Von,
,
-
-
{ —. i _ I �t r`4' �.w rq _ � �. .•, �-1 _ y R QA'�i'� l�,R�'�•F!,: �! • '.� �f��}-CX,..Ss
,... t
;rAPai17 M Er�+ithEERS ViU'NICIPALITY QF ARTR0POLlTAEATTL,E.
SA•_Ilh gNp"CfL O'j1E[t' CARCr:4NO rP'M6B - r '� _ALf
w .Tis_ 1. i.�ctww •Ih2 :. i! r.�a,n.cn•. - ..w.-,= .i..:d.Ri .ee�ar., �...�; .'*- -•! r
zm
fir- _ 'f r'kQ- �a6 M!A�' • Su' �t4K 4N0 4SSOYIFffS �. _ _ -sC , .C-�-� t�
. . , Wt , Iw6 . e +a«.fc,:+,,, M,., iltw� F•i�rvf "y .a �,4.. ,�wN -
Stacy Tucker - Seahawks Hdqtrs Proje
Page 1
From: eileen <skyleen@tx3.net>
To: <ehiggins@ci.renton,wa.us>, <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us>,
<nmcquiller@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 07/10/2006 1:43:32 PM
Subject: Seahawks Hdqtrs Project
July 10, 2006
To: E.Higgins, Sr Planner, Planning Dept
Renton City Council Members
Norma McQuiller, Neighborhood Liaison
Re: Seahawks Hdqtrs Project
From: Eileen Halverson
Misty Cove owner
5021 Ripley Ln N
would like to address the issue of roads, Lk Wash & Ripley Ln, in
regards to this project & recent development approval for 115 units at
the Cuguini property. The information provided to date is the City is
committing $550,000. to improve Ripley Ln for the Seahawks development.
The newest mailing concerning road changes involves 405 interchange of
44th Ave. To my knowledge, nothing has been mentioned about improving
Lk Wash (Blvd?) by expansion to a 3 lane or better a 4 lane street to
accommodate the increasing residential development allowed by this
city. Currently the 2 lane road of 25 mph max is for an idealic scenic
lane, not for commuters from the ever expanding residential use and now
a sports facility (estimating 175 cars daily for normal operation not
counting special functions). The back log at the 7-9 am hrs along Lk
Wash to access Hy 405 is only destined to be worse with the approved
additional residents now mixed w1175 +- cars daily exiting and later
accessing Lk Wash and Ripley Ln. As it is presently, Renton keeps
approving additions to this area without ANY road improvements to Lk
Wash by the developers before the land is fully developed. We know that
future road expansion is far more costly, disruptive and long overdue
when it finally addressed & when the area will no longer tolerate
heavily congested traffic. I would like to request this city include
road expansion to both Lk Wash & Ripley Ln before these Seahawks permits
are approved_ The Cuguini development should be required to be included
on the Lk Wash road expansion since they directly impact it. The city
plan of maintaining a 2 lane road along the lake at 25 mph was
inadequate 3 condo buildings ago and will be even more so for the near
future. It is timely to upgrade it sufficently to accommodate the
expansion of the multi use you have and are looking to approve with the
Seahawks land.
Lastly to the road issue, Ripley Ln has been under maintained for the
repeated flooding during rains. The last period left the road
impassable, as it has in the past. Calls to the city road dept. were
not responded to and 2 residents of Misty Cove took it upon themselves
to clear the oversize off road drain. Because of their efforts, the
water subsided making for a usable road. The city has known this road
is problematic for years. When Ripley Ln improvements are planned for
this Seahawks facility, we the long term residents would look to this
poor run off problem be corrected for all of us.
Stacy Tucker - Seahawks Hdgtrs Proje-+
Page 2
Seahawks building and screening: The presentation provided by the
Seahawks showed 110' high building and similar screening trees between
the common property line with Misty Cove Condos. With both a 8
(estimate) story building and tall trees (whether they use existing
trees or tall poplars shown in the preliminary design) will mean a
significant reduction in light to the east end and south side of Misty
Cove building. Please address this loss to a 40 yr building which have
been and are the homes to numerous city residents. It cannot be
underestimated how the size of Seahawks building and their intentions to
screen out any view to their property will take away light to Misty Cove
and create a building shadow in its place. Additionally, it will
eliminate most of the view to the south. I object to the height &
location of the building and intended screening. It will deprive Misty
Cove of what has been part of these homes since it was built. I request
the City of Renton, in their quest for fast track permit approval for
the Seahawks, protect existing property owners rights. We have improved
the Misty Cove property over several years and we do not want to loose
the light, view and appeal of being on Lk Washington just because the
city is eager to add a sports facility within it city limits.
Please add my name to the notification list of residents regarding the
Seahawks project and the roads discussed.
Eileen Halverson
16226 Crystal Dr E
Enumclaw Wash 98022
skyleen@tx3.net
360 663 2433
n
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M)
DATE: June 23, 2006
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA 06-073, SM, ECF
PROJECT NAME: Seattle 9eahawks Training Facility
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Saahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located on a 19B8 acre
(857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property,• a rormer Umber processing facility localed on the shore of Lake
Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action
requires environmental review by the City of Renton in acoordance with the Slate Environmental policy Act (SEPA).
PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley lane N
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFI6ANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton
has determined that significant amrironmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43.21C. 110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-
M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated Into a single comment
period. There will be no comment penod following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of NoMSignificance-
MiRgated (DNS-M) A 14-day appeal period will toll" the issuance of the DNS-M,
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23, 2006
APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Ray Colliver, Port Ouenciall Company; Tel: 12D6) 342-2000;
Eml: rayc@vulcan.com
PermitafRr iew Raueated: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit
Other Parmits which may be required; Master Plan approval and Site Plan Review
Requested Studies: Wetland Delineation, Transportation Analysis, Geotechnlcal Report,
and Water OualltyM ormwater Analysis.
Location where nppilcatlon may
be reviewed: PlanningfBuildinglPublic Works Department, Development Services
DiY1910h, Sixth Floor Renton Ctty Hall, 105S South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98055
PUBLIC HEARING: NIA
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
Land UserLoning: The Subject site is designated CommerpaVOrfcelResidential on the City of
Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and CommercialrOfhoelResidential2
{COR-2) on the City s Zoning Map.
Environmenial Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental 1SEPA) Checklist
Development Regulations
Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050. Critical
Areas Ragulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitgalion Measures.11 likely be imposed on the proposed project,
These recommended Miigation Measures address project impacts not covered
by wiaLi,
g codes and regulatlons as cited above.
• Adherence to shoreline setback requirements.
• Adherence to surface water management requirements;
• Payment of the aptni iefe Transportation Mitt lion Fse, and
• Paymenf of the apprxi iate Firs Miligation Fee.
Comments an the above application must be submitted In writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,
OevelopmeM Services Division,'1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 99055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 2006. If you
have questions about this proposal, a wish to tre made a party of record and reserve additional notification by mail. contact
the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of resold and will be
notified of any decision on this prolect.
CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: {426) 430-6576;
Emit shiggins@cLinanton.wa.us
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
It you would like to he made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Name/File No.. Seattle Seahawks Training FacilitylLUA 06-073, SM, ECF
NAME,
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO..
CERTIFICATION
I7 A?"Z,4607AI 4/"fA/Shereby certify that copies of the above document
were posted by me in -1 conspicuous places or nearby the described property on
DATE: 2 3 c/&At a 20i0G SIGNED: tort. �` LYNNl
ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in ,�O T q
on the day of —! I
too
�i1j111i�p►"P"
III, WASW
CITY OF RENTON
CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 23rd day of June, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope
containing Acceptance Ltr, NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT"s documents. This information
was sent to:
Name
Representing__
Agencies
See Attached
Ray Colliver, Port Quendall Company
Owner/Applicant/Contact
Micheal Cero
Party of Record
Surrounding Property Owners
See Attached
{Signature of Sender
STATE OF WASHINGTON } `�
} SS
COUNTY OF KING }
I certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
,444ffi,ld
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: 7 - 3- c�t,
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires:
Project Name: Seahawks Training Facility
Project Number: LUA06-073, SM, ECF
template - affidavit of service by mailing
AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING
(ERC DETERMINATIONS)
Dept. of Ecology
WDFW - Stewart Reinbold'
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. "
Environmental Review Section
c/o Department of Ecology
Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer
PO Box 47703
3190 160" Ave SE
39015 —172nd Avenue SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Bellevue, WA 98008
Auburn, WA 98092
WSDOT Northwest Region'
Duwamish Tribal Office'
Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program '
Attn: Ramin Pazooki
4717 W Marginal Way SW
Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert
King Area Dev. Serv,, MS-240
Seattle, WA 98106-1514
39015 172nd Avenue SE
PO Box 330310
Auburn, WA 98092-9763
Seattle, WA 98133-9710
US Army Corp. of Engineers'
KC Wastewater Treatment Division '
Office of Archaeology & Historic
Seattle District Office
Environmental Planning Supervisor
Preservation'
Attm SEPA Reviewer
Ms. Shirley Marroquin
Attn: Stephanie Kramer
PO Box C-3755
201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050
PO Box 48343
Seattle, WA 98124
Seattle, WA 98104-3855
Olympia, WA 98504-8343
Jamey Taylor *
Depart. of Natural Resources
PO Box 47015
Olympia, WA 98504-7015
KC Dev. & Environmental Serv,
City of Newcastle
City of Kent
Attn: SEPA Section
Attn: Mr, Micheal E. Nicholson
Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP
900 Oakesdale Ave. SW
Director of Community Development
Acting Community Dev. Director
Renton, WA 98055-1219
13020 SE 72"d Place
220 Fourth Avenue South
Newcastle, WA 98059
Kent, WA 98032-5895
Metro Transit
Puget Sound Energy
City of Tukwila
Senior Environmental Planner
Municipal Liason Manager
Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official
Gary Kriedt
Joe Jainga
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431
PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W
Tukwila, WA 98188
Seattle, WA 98104-3856
Bellevue, WA 98009-0868
Seattle Public Utilities
Real Estate Services
Title Examiner
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900
PO Box 34018
Seattle, WA 98124-4018
Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and
cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. *
Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send
her the ERC Determination paperwork.
template - affidavit of service by mailing
334330288005
CROSETTO FRED A
5025 RIPLEY LN N
RENTON WA 98056
292405901508
PORT QUENDALL COMPANY
C/O VULCAN INC
505 5TH AV S #900
SEATTLE WA 98104
292405901201
PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC
PROPERTY TAX DEPT
PO BOX 90868
BELLEVUE WA 98009
292405900203 334330300008 334330287502
QUENDALL TERMINALS THOMAS DAVID L+SUZANNE E WILLARD RICK+RENEE
PO BOX 477 5029 RIPLEY LN N 5031 RIPLEY LN N
RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M)
DATE: June 23, 2006
LAND USE NUMBER: LUA 06-073, SM, ECF
PROJECT NAME: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Seattle Seahawks Headquarters is proposed to be located an a 19.68 acre
(857,477 sf) site known as the "North Baxter Property," a former timber processing facility located on the shore of Lake
Washington in Northeast Renton. The project proponent has submitted a land use master application requesting a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the project's proximity to Lake Washington. The requested action
requires environmental review by the City of Renton in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
PROJECT LOCATION: 5015 Ripley Lane N
OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton
has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as
permitted under the RCW 43,21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS-
M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment
period. There will be no comment perir� following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance -
Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will fallow the issuance of the DNS-M.
PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 9, 2006
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: June 23, 2006
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON. Ray Colllver, Port Quendall Company; Tel: (206) 342-2000;
Eml: rayc@vulean.com
Permits/RevIew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit
Other Permits which may be required: Master Plan approval and Site Plan Review
Requested Studies: Wetland Delineation, Transportation Analysis, Geotechnical Report,
and Water Quallty/Stormwater Analysis.
Location where application may
be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Department, Development Services
Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98055
PUBLIC HEARING: N/A
CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW:
Land Uselzoning: The subject site is designated Commercial/Offioe/Residential on the City of
Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential 2
(COR-2) on the City's zoning Map.
Environmental Documents that
Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist
Development Regulations
Used For Project M[t[gation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-050, Critical
Areas Regulations and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate.
Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project.
These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered
by existing codes and regulations as cited above_
• Adherence to shoreline setback requirements;
• Adherence to surface water management requirements;
• Payment al the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; and
• Payment of the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee.
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner,
Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on July 10, 2006. If you
have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact
the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be
notified of any derision on this project.
CONTACT PERSON: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-6576;
Eml: ehiggins@ci.renton.wa.us
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete
this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So, Grady Way, Renton, WA 88055.
Name/File No.: Seattle Seahawks Training Facility/LUA 06-073, SM, ECF
NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO.:
\h Kathy Keolker, Maya,
June 23, 2006
Ray Coliiver
Port Quendall Company
505 5th Avenue S #900
Seattle, WA 98104
Subject: Seahawks Training Facility
LUA06-073, SM, ECF
Dear Mr. Colliver:
CIT' OF RENTON
Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department
Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator
The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the
subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is
accepted for review.
It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental. Review Committee on
July 18, 2006. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is
required to continue processing your application.
Please contact me at (425) 430-6576 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Higgins
Senior Planner
cc: Michael Cero / Party of Record
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055
MThis nmerconteins 5n% rer. Jpd mMMAI in%nrmtmnRijmwr
RENT0' N'
AHEAD OF. THE CURVE
A
+ice
VULCANr
T R A N S M I T T A L
Date: June 9, 2006
To: Jennifer Henning From: Tal Fowler
Company: City of Benton Re: Master Land Use and Shoreline
Permit Application
Address: 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Phone: 425-430-7286 Phone: 206-342-2529
cc: Ray Colliver, Project File
Pages: 1 original — 12 copies
We are sending:
Action required:
❑ Attached
® Information and use
® Originals
® As indicated below
® Copies
❑ Review and comment
❑ Samples
❑ For signature and return
❑ Other
❑ As requested
❑ None
Comments:
Please find attached one original and 12 copies with reduced plans for Master Land Use and
Shoreline permit of the Baxter Properties for Development of the Seattle Seahawks
Headquarters.
The initial lodging of this permit has been agreed to contain the following information:
Master Use Application, Project Narrative, Environmental Checklist, Preliminary Site Plan,
Conceptual Grading Plan, Conceptual Grading Plan with Existing Topography in
background, Conceptual Utility and Drainage Control Plan, Vicinity Map, Wetland
Mitigation Plan and Map (Wet Lands are delineated on all Conceptual Plans), Wetland
Determination Report, and Mitigation Analysis Memo. We are also including, DOE's
Partial Certificate of Completion of the clean up at the Baxter South Parcel, and
Preliminary Strom Water Technical Information Memo.
Please feel free to contact me or Ray Colliver, Project Contact, with any questions you may
have.
Originals sent via; Method 505 Fiith Ave S Suite 900
Copies sent via: Method Seattle, WA 98104
206 342 2000 Tel
206 342 3000 Fax
v u L C A M. C 0 M
May 22, 2006
Ms Jennifer Toth Henning
Principal Planner
Development Services Division —
Development/Planning
Renton City Hall -6Ih Floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Baxter Development Project —Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
Dear Jennifer:
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
outlined by the City of Renton, the Design Team and Owner lists the following as our
understanding of the deliverables required by the City to process the Shoreline permit:
Documents: (12 copies)
• Environment Checklist
• Master Application
• Narrative (including construction mitigation)
Drawings: 12 copies, each reduced to 8'/1 x 11 (1 original + 11 copies)
• Site Plan
• Topography Map
• Utilities Plan
• Vicinity Map (We'll use the reduced zoning map)
• Wetland Mitigation Plan and Map
Permitting Fees: $1,500 for the two reviews which the Owner will submit at the time of
submittal.
Page 1
Seattle Seahawks Practice Facility
Crawford Architects LLC
1901 Main Street -- Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
(816) 4212640 telephone
(816) 4212650 Facsimile
We understand all other requirements listed in the Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit checklist will be waived per the March 23 meeting with Neil Watts and
subsequent meeting with the City of Renton on May 8.
Please contact me at this office if you have any questions and or comments.
Sincerely,
CRAWFORD ARCHITECTS LLC
David M. Murphy, AIA, NCARB
Partner
CC: Neil Watts, City of Renton
Chuck Wolfe, Chuck Wolfe Law
Roger Pierce, Foster Pepper
Tal Fowler, Vulcan
Ray Colliver, Vulcan
Brian Powers, Crawford
Page 2
Seattle Seshawks Practice Facility
Crawford Architects LLC
1901 Main Street — Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
(816) 421 2640 telephone
(816) 421 2650 facsimile
S E A T T L E
S=AHAWKS
__ ..'034 City of Renton
Voucher Number Invoice Number
0000000091554 05/08/06
s
Payment Number check Rate
0000000102808 May 8, 2006
Invoice Date Outstanding Amt Net Paid Amt Discount Taken
05/08/2006 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $.00
Check Number
001678
Write Off Net Ch*k Amt
$.00 $4500.00
TOTALS: $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $,00 $.00 $1,500.00
Printed: 06-09-2006
CY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA06-073
Payment Made: 06/09/2006 08:45 AM Receipt Number:
Total Payment: 1,500.00 Payee: SEATTLE SEAHAWKS
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
------
5010
------------------
000.345.81,00.0007
------------------------------
Environmental Review
----------------
500.00
5020
000,345.81.00.0017
Site Plan Approval
1,000.00
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
----------- -------- --------------------------- ---------------
Payment Check #001678 1,500.00
Account Balances
Trans
Account Cade
Description
Balance Due
------
3021
------------------
303.000.00.345.85
------------------------------------
Park Mitigation Fee
----_____--------
.00
5006
000.345,81,00.0002
Annexation Fees
.00
5007
000.345.81.00.0003
Appeals/Waivers
.00
5008
000.345.81.00.0004
Binding Site/Short Plat
.00
5009
000.345.81.00.0006
Conditional Use Fees
.00
5010
000.345.81.00.0007
Environmental Review
.00
5011
000.345.81.00.0008
Prelim/Tentative Plat
.00
5012
000.345.81.00.0009
Final Plat
.00
5013
000.345.81.00.0010
PUD
.00
5014
000.345,81.00.0011
Grading & Filling Fees
.00
5015
000.345.81.00.0012
Lot Line Adjustment
.00
5016
000.345.81.00.0013
Mobile Home Parks
.00
5017
000.345,81.00.0014
Rezone
.00
5018
000.345,81.00.0015
Routine Vegetation Mgmt
.00
5019
000.345.81.00.0016
Shoreline Subst Dev
.00
5020
000.345.81.00.0017
Site Plan Approval
.00
5021
000.345.81.D0.0018
Temp Use or Fence Review
.00
5022
000.345.81.00.0019
Variance Fees
.00
5024
000.345.81.00.0024
Conditional Approval Fee
.00
5036
000.345.81.00.0005
Comprehensive Plan Amend
.00
5909
000.341.60.00.0024
Booklets/EIS/Copies
.00
5941
000.341.50.00.0000
Maps (Taxable)
.00
5954
604.237.00.00.0000
Special Deposits
.00
5955
000.05.519.90.42.1
Postage
.00
5998
000.231,70.00.0000
Tax
.00
R0602888
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00