HomeMy WebLinkAboutTAL-1952 Unico Longacres Existing Conditions (2022-04-29)
29 April 2022 TAL-1952
Jill Ding, Senior Planner
City of Renton
Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Via Email: jding@rentonwa.gov
RE: Critical Areas – Existing Conditions Letter Report
Dear Ms. Ding:
This letter provides the Executive Summary for the Critical Areas – Existing Conditions Letter Report.
The full report is attached for your review.
Executive Summary
The attached Letter Report prepared by Talasaea Consultants analyzes existing wetlands, stormwater
ponds, and other features at the subject property commonly known as Longacres (the“Campus”) in
compliance with City of Renton’s critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The Letter Report informs
the entitlement and development of a proposed Sounders FC training facility (the “Site”), located on a
portion of the Campus). Figure 4 provides a Site Plan for the Sounders FC training facility.
The Campus has been subject to various developments over the past century, including the Longacres
horse racetrack and a Boeing Headquarters. These developments have resulted in extensive modifications
to the Campus, including development of existing structures, stormwater management systems, on-site
wetland mitigation, driveways, and surface parking.
The Sounders FC training facility proposal includes the development of five new soccer training pitches,
a keeper training area, the development of a new maintenance facility and restroom facilities, the use of a
portion of an existing structure, a deck addition to this existing structure, and realignment of existing trails
at the Site. The proposal also includes the removal of parking spaces. Figure 4 in the report provides a
site plan for the proposal.
The Letter Report concludes that only Wetland A is subject to the City’s critical areas regulations as it
relates to the entitlement and development of the Site. This Letter Report identifies the applicable buffer,
code-authorized buffer alteration and applicable mitigation.
The Letter Report also concludes:
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 2 of 3
Pond B Pond B is extensively documented as a stormwater drainage pond. Pond B was
expressly not included in the Longacres Mitigation Plans prepared by Shapiro and
Associates in 1998 and 1999, and, accordingly, Pond B has not been utilized for
wetland mitigation. Thus, Pond B is not regulated under the City’s critical areas
regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-050B.1 Any maintenance, repair, or expansion of
Pond B associated with stormwater storage capacity would also be exempt from
critical areas regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-050C.3.
Feature D Feature D fails to satisfy the hydrology requirements for a wetland, and therefore
does not meet all the wetland criteria set forth in the Regional Supplement to the
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys,
and Coast Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010).
Feature G Feature G is a stormwater treatment facility that has not been utilized as wetland
mitigation. Thus, Feature G is also not regulated under the City’s critical areas
regulations pursuant to RMC 4-3-050-B.
1 RMC 4-3-050B.1 provides, “Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created
from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals,
detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands
created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or
highway.”
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 3 of 3
Wetland A, Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G are identified in the image above and also shown in Figure
3 of the report. The Site does not include any other wetlands, critical area buffers, stormwater ponds, or
features that would otherwise impact this proposal.
The Letter Report includes the following information:
1. Property Location and Proposal
2. Property Description and Current Land Use
3. Proposed Development
4. Past Land Use and Historical Documentation
5. Field Investigation and Findings
6. Compliance with Critical Areas Regulations for Buffer Alterations (RMC 4-3-050J)
Attachments 1– 14
Figures 1 – 4
We ask that the City respond to this letter confirming that:
1. Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G are not subject to the City’s critical area regulations pursuant
to RMC 4-3-050B.1;
2. Wetland A is a Category II wetland with moderate habitat scores; and
3. Field 1 and the Goal Keeping Area (as identified in the Site Plan on Figure 4) are low intensity
uses subject to a 100-foot buffer pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G.2, note 7 and RMC 4-11-120.
Should you have any questions or require additional information at this time, please feel free to contact
Jacob Prater or me at (425) 861-7550.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC.
William E. Shiels
Principal
Attachment: Critical Areas – Existing Conditions Letter Report
29 April 2022 TAL-1952
Jill Ding, Senior Planner
City of Renton
Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Via Email: jding@rentonwa.gov
REFERENCE: Longacres Unico Property Located in Renton, Washington
SUBJECT: Critical Areas – Existing Conditions Letter Report
Dear Ms. Ding,
Talasaea Consultants has prepared this Existing Conditions report in collaboration with Unico
Properties, the Seattle Sounders FC, Coughlin Porter Lundeen (CPL), and others to address the Seattle
Sounders FC Performance Center that is proposed for construction on the Longacres Office Park
property in Renton, Washington (Figure 1). This report includes descriptions of the property location
and the proposed development, a comprehensive review of past documents which address development
of the property since 1990, and a current field evaluation of the subject property for the presence of
critical areas that could potentially impact development proposals.
1 Property Location and Proposal
The Seattle Sounders FC Performance Center at Longacres is proposed to be located at the Longacres
Office Park in Renton, Washington (the “Campus”, Figure 1).1 The approximately 108-acre Campus is
composed of 18 parcels located west of Oakesdale Avenue SW in Renton, Washington (Figure 2). The
Sounders “Site” accounts for seven of these parcels (King County tax parcels 2423049022, 0886700110,
0886700120, 0886700130, 0886700140, 0886700220, and 0886700370).
Referencing the Boeing Longacres Property Second Amended Binding Site Plan (King County
Recording No. 20050504000673, City of Renton, King County, WA; the “BSP”), the Site occupies lots
11, 12, 13, 14, and 20, and a portion of office building 25-20 located on lot 22 of the BSP (see
Attachment 13). Shared parking facilities are located on lot 21 of the BSP, and some Sounders’
specific parking is proposed on a portion of lot 22 and into lot 11. The Site (excluding the office
building and shared parking) is approximately 22 acres in size and is bordered to the west by Tracts A
1 The Campus is composed of the totality of the BSP, approximately 108-acres in size, located within a portion of the SE 1/4
of Sec. 24, Township 23N, Range 4E, W.M.. The Campus was recently purchased by Unico, which independently has plans
to redevelop a substantial portion of the Campus property in the future.
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 2 of 38
and B of the BSP (the “Tracts”). The Site, including Building 25-20 and shared parking, is bordered on
the east by Oakesdale Avenue SW, which provides access to the Site.
The Sounders will develop a field complex on the Site, which will include five (5) full-size soccer
pitches, a goalkeeper training field (“GK Field”), associated improvements, and parking. This Report
addresses the existing conditions of the Site and adjacent Tracts, and includes a slightly expanded study
area to capture related aspects of the landscape. No adjacent properties were accessed without owner
permission; thus, our assessment of adjacent properties is based on visual observation and knowledge of
work previously completed by Talasaea Consultants and past consultants. The Site, and approximately
300 feet surrounding the Site, are referred to jointly as the “study area.”
2 Property Description and Current Land Use
The Campus has undergone extensive redevelopment over the past century. Aside from the obvious
built environment captured by the buildings and associated parking areas, much of the Campus has
undergone manipulation since the 1930s, including the creation of stormwater Pond B on Tract B and
other man-made drainage features.
The majority of the eastern and northern portions of the Campus are developed and feature several large
office buildings and associated parking areas, with various other access roads and infrastructure
throughout the Campus (Figure 3). The Site borders two large ponds (Wetland A and Pond B,
discussed in Section 5) and borders on or includes various other stormwater features. Some of these
features were the result of stormwater facilities and development-related mitigation associated with the
initial Boeing development that took place during the 1990s and early 2000s (discussed in Section 5
below).
The areas of the Site directly adjacent to the building and parking areas are vegetated by maintained
lawn and other landscape plantings. Other plant communities across the Site are composed of native
tree species, including black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa) and red alder (Alnus
rubra), with occasional Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western redcedar (Thuja plicata), bigleaf
maple (Acer macrophyllum), and others. The Site includes several species of native shrubs and saplings
including Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), vine maple (Acer
circinatum), and others. Throughout the Site, there is a prevalence of non-native and invasive
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and English ivy
(Hedera helix).
3 Proposed Development
The Sounders’ development is proposed to be constructed in one or two construction phases. This
Existing Conditions Letter Report addresses the Sounders Site and Tracts A and B, for the Sounders FC
proposal, and includes:
• Construction of five (5) full-sized training fields and a GK Field;
• Construction of a new maintenance shed and an outdoor restroom facility;
• The use of approximately 50,000 SF of an existing structure that will house the club’s
operations, including front office personnel, first, second, and academy teams, and other uses
associated with the club;
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 3 of 38
• Deck addition to the existing structure;
• Realignment of existing pervious and/or impervious trails;
• Removal of approximately 150 surface parking stalls for the placement of training pitches; and
• Relocation of removed parking stalls for Sounders’ facility and use.
The current design places the five (5) fields and the GK Field positioned in the western portion of the
Site, adjacent to the southeast side of Wetland A and east side of Pond B (Figure 4). Several project
elements adjacent to Tract A will require a critical areas alteration to minimize or avoid wetland buffer
impacts. The extent of the buffer impact from the pitches and GK Field is dependent upon the City’s
confirmation that field use is low intensity, which is a determining factor for applicable buffer width.
Parking areas would not be considered low intensity, and therefore would be subject to the standard
wetland buffer width for the wetland classification.
3.1 Avoidance
The proposed field placement was modified and refined to the greatest extent possible to avoid impacts
to Wetland A and its associated buffer (see Section 5). Field 1 is programmatically required to have
direct access to the training facility within Building 25-20, so its location is fixed. The GK Field is
programmatically linked to Field 1, and the remaining pitches (Fields 2 through 5) are proposed to the
south of Field 1 to avoid impacts to the wetland buffer. To facilitate moving the fields south, some
existing surface parking stalls are proposed to be removed to create additional space for the fields and to
minimize encroachment into the Wetland A buffer.2
Wetland A is rated as a Category II wetland with a moderate habitat score. Thus, the code establishes a
150-foot standard buffer (for nonexempt uses that are not low intensity land uses), and a 100-foot buffer
for low intensity land uses (RMC 4-3-050.G.2)3. Currently, Wetland A on the Site is bordered by a
paved trail. The code defines low impact land use as those uses “which are not likely to have a
significant adverse impact on critical areas because of the low intensity of the use, minimal levels of
human activity, limited use of machinery or chemicals, site design or arrangement of b uildings and
structures, incorporation of mitigation measures, or other factors." Additional details pertaining to
Wetland A are discussed in further detail in Section 5 below.
Depending upon the determination of whether the soccer pitches and keeper training area are low
intensity land uses, buffer alterations will be calculated from standard 150-foot buffer or from the low-
2 Field 1 and the GK Field, located east of a trail that borders Wetland A, will be the least intensely used fields of the
Sounders FC Performance Facility. These are grass fields, which will be used approximately 2-5 hours per day, exclusively
for professional soccer training and team activities. The fields will be fenced, and although lighting will be provided, Field 1
and the GK Field will not be used for evening practices, so the lights would be used rarely. During the growing season these
grass fields would be mowed approximately every 2-3 days, with mowing occurring less frequently outside the growing
season. Surface runoff from the fields will be collected primarily through under-field drains, and will be routed through an
enhanced stormwater quality treatment and detention system prior to being discharged to a pond directly upstream of
Wetland A.
3RMC 4-3-050G.2, note 7 states, “Low intensity land uses include but are not limited to the following: unpaved trails, low
intensity open space (hiking, bird-watching, preservation of natural resources, etc.) and utility corridor without a maintenance
road and little or no vegetation management."
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 4 of 38
impact 100-foot buffer (Figure 4). Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G (discussed in Section 5 below) are
not wetlands subject to critical areas regulations and do not require buffers (RMC 4-3-050B.1).4
4 Past Land Use and Historical Documentation
The Campus functioned as a thoroughbred horse racetrack for much of the 20th century until Boeing
purchased the property in 1990. Boeing developed a Customer Services Training Center (CSTC) in the
early 1990s, and in the mid-1990s Boeing constructed the Longacres Office Park (“LOP”) (Attachment
1).
Boeing prepared extensive permitting reports and environmental documentation to entitle the LOP. A
list of documents considered is included in Attachment 2. These documents include, but are not limited
to:
• Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Park Development (April 1992,
Attachment 3);
• Existing Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Study Report (June 1993, Attachment 4);
• Jurisdictional Wetland Determination (August 1998, Attachment 5); and
• Surface Water Management Project and Conceptual Mitigation Plan published in December
1998 (Attachment 6) and revised January 1999 (Attachment 7).
The reports noted above were prepared by Shapiro and Associates, Inc (“Shapiro”). In addition, this
Letter Report will also discuss the Drainage Report and Conceptual Drainage Plan prepared by Sverdrup
Civil, Inc (September 1998, Attachment 8). These reports were instrumental in preparing the
Environmental Impact Statement used to entitle LOP through a development agreement executed by
Boeing and the City in December 2000.
More recently (2015-2021), various consultants have prepared wetland delineation reports and
biological assessments for all or portions of the Campus. These documents include:
• Biological Assessment and Critical Areas Study prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc
(December 2015, Attachment 9);
• Wetlands Delineation and Regulatory Analysis Memorandum prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler
(September 2016, Attachment 10); and
• Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters report prepared by NV5 (March 2021, Attachment
11).
The City’s critical areas ordinance exempts all permitted stormwater detention facilities not used for
wetland mitigation (RMC 4-3-050B.1). The three reports identified above did not address this
exemption, or they misinterpreted background information on permitted stormwater detention
improvements. Thus, these reports could be misleading without additional permitting background
4 RMC 4-3-050B.1 provides, “Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from
nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities,
wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were
unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.”
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 5 of 38
information and context. Therefore, it is necessary to explore, in detail, several documents pertaining to
the development of the LOP to differentiate between regulated and non-regulated features of the
property.
Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Park Development, Shapiro and Associates, Inc,
April 1992
As one of the more preliminary attempts at a wetland assessment on the LOP property, Shapiro
conducted a wetland investigation throughout 1991 in order to formally delineate all wetlands on the
property. This “1992 Shapiro Report” was published in 1992 (Attachment 3).
The study area recognized areas to the south and east but focused their work around the main track area
(current day Wetland A and Pond B, Figure 3 of the 1992 Shapiro Report, between pages 12 and 13).
Shapiro established 25 different test plots across the LOP and identified a total of five (5) wetlands that
correspond with Figure 4 (between pages 15 and 16) of this 1992 Shapiro Report (see below image),
with one wetland corresponding with the marsh located to the south of the LOP. As demonstrated in the
following reports, many of the identified wetlands were filled or modified as a result of the Longacres
redevelopment. Thus, the 1992 Shapiro Report provides a baseline for the Site before the
redevelopment of Longacres.
Figure 4 from Shapiro and Associates, Inc, April 1992
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 6 of 38
Existing Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Study Report, Shapiro and Associates, Inc, June 1993
In June of 1993, Shapiro and Associates prepared a comprehensive study of existing habitat areas and
wildlife use of the LOP Site (Attachment 4). This “1993 Shapiro Report” assessed both the quality and
quantity of habitats and the abundance of species of wildlife using the property. This 1993 Shapiro
Report identified four different habitats as existing within its study area: mowed racetrack infields, a
southern open field area, marsh areas in the southeast, and a constructed environment of buildings and
parking lots. The study area of the 1993 Shapiro Report was much broader than the current study area,
but its characterizations of the areas within Tract A and Tract B are pertinent. It is also relevant to note
that the “mowed infield” is the proposed location of the Sounders field complex.
Although the 1993 Shapiro Report focused heavily on the wildlife found on the property, there was
mention of Category III wetlands found in low-lying swales and drainage ditches in the mowed infields,
and it identified the marsh located to the south of the property as a Category II or III wetland (see Figure
3 of the 1993 Shapiro Report, p. 12). Other figures included in the 1993 Shapiro Report further
illustrate potential wetland areas without providing a naming scheme, formal ratings, or formal wetland
determination data forms. Like the 1992 Shapiro Report, the 1993 Shapiro Report provides a baseline
for the Site prior to the redevelopment of Longacres.
Jurisdictional Wetland Determination, Shapiro and Associates, Inc, August 1998
In 1998, Shapiro prepared a Jurisdictional Wetland Determination report in order to re-delineate the
features previously characterized as wetlands under the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”
hereinafter) methodology (Attachment 5). Furthermore, this “1998 Shapiro Report” confirmed that
several wetlands were filled between 1991 and 1998 as part of other site development activities; thus, an
updated delineation was necessary ahead of further LOP construction.
The wetland labeling system used in the 1998 Shapiro Report is different than those used in later reports
for the Longacres Property and those used in this Existing Conditions Report. The 1998 Shapiro Report
omits the existing “main pond” area and surrounding wetland area within the “Customer Services
Training Center” property, limiting delineations to the other parcels. Their 1998 report designates a
“Wetland A” and “Wetland B” in the southern extent of the main pond and surrounding wetlands. Only
their Wetland B falls within the current Wetland A area (1998 Shapiro Report, Figure 2, p. 8, see image
below). Pond B had not been planned or created at the time of the 1998 report. Thus, the 1998 Shapiro
Report’s statement that “portions of Wetland A and B still exist, and areas impacted by development
have been mitigated”5 provides no bearing on the status of Pond B as identified in this current report.
As shown below, the 1998 Shapiro Report identified eight (8) wetlands within the study area (compared
to the five (5) identified in the 1992 report), and further divided the wetlands into 15 sub-wetlands.
Seven (7) of the 15 wetlands lacked at least one of the qualifying criteria and were considered non -
wetlands or were considered non-regulated due to being perched on fill. These non-regulated wetlands
included Wetlands G, H3, I2, I3, J, Ka, and L2 per Figure 2 of the 1998 Shapiro Report (see below).
Conclusion: Pond B did not exist at the time of the 1998 Shapiro Report, and therefore was not the
regulated wetland identified in the report. Pond B was not used for any wetland mitigation.
5 1998 Shapiro Report, Attachment 5, p. 1 (4th paragraph in the Executive Summary).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 7 of 38
Figure 2 of Shapiro and Associates, Inc., August 1998 (with insert of existing conditions from
Talasaea, 2022).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 8 of 38
Surface Water Management Project and Conceptual Mitigation Plan, Shapiro and Associates, Inc ,
December 1998, revised January 1999
The Surface Water Management Project and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by Shapiro and
Associates in December of 1998 (Attachment 6, the “1998 Mitigation Plan”) and revised in 1999
(Attachment 7, the “1999 Mitigation Plan”) are the most helpful documents to understand previous
mitigation and current regulatory standing. Collectively, the 1998 and 1999 Mitigation Plans are
referred to as “Mitigation Plans” hereinafter. The Mitigation Plans assessed existing conditions ahead of
the LOP and the construction of the associated Surface Water Management Plan (“SWMP”), analyzed
the impacts resulting from the construction of the LOP and SWMP, and identified appropriate
compensatory mitigation required to offset impacts to critical areas.
The 1999 Mitigation Plan identified the same wetlands addressed in the 1998 Shapiro Report. (1999
Shapiro Report, Figure 3, p. 10, see image below). None of the wetlands, with the exception of
Wetland A and Pond B (discussed in Section 5), were identified by the Mitigation Plans as existing on
the property prior to the construction of the LOP.
The 1999 Mitigation Plan clearly documents Pond B (as it is referred to in this Existing Conditions
Report) as a stormwater facility, not a wetland regulated under the City’s critical areas ordinance. The
following provisions in the 1999 Mitigation Plan are particularly informative:
Page 3: “The proposed SWMP will create a combined wetpond/detention pond necessary to
meet water quality requirements for future development on the site. The wetpond/detention pond
mitigation will create or restore 2.15 acres of wetlands that will provide ter tiary water quality
enhancement after flows through catch basins, wet vaults, and wet ponds. These wetlands
associated with the wetpond are not included as part of the wetland mitigation.”
Page 13: “The project will entail creation of a stormwater pond where one presently does not
exist. While this wet pond will be nearly identical in appearance to the mitigation wetland, it is
not included within the mitigation area.”
Page 16: “Immediately south of the wetland mitigation area will be a stormwater detention and
water enhancement pond. While not being used as wetland mitigation, it will be landscaped
similar to the wetland mitigation area with open water, floating leaved, emergent, scrub -shrub,
and forested components.”
These findings are consistent with the 1998 Mitigation Plan. For example:
Page 15: “Immediately south of the wetland mitigation area will be a stormwater detention and
water quality enhancement pond. While not being used as wetland mitigation, it will be
landscaped similar to the wetland mitigation area with open water, floating leaved, emergent,
scrub-shrub and forested.”
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 9 of 38
Figure 3 in Shapiro and Associates, Inc, January 1999
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 10 of 38
Page 14 of the 1998 Shapiro Report provides Figure 3 (see image below) that clearly delineates
proposed stormwater treatment pond, which corresponds to Pond B as identified in this report (note the
north arrow pointing to the left):
Looking broadly across LOP, pursuant to the 1999 Mitigation Plan, the construction of the LOP SWMP
was found to result in 1.4 acres of direct wetland fill. Impacts were located in the central portion of the
main track (present day Wetland A, Figure 3), and the practice track located east of Oakesdale Avenue
Southwest. To mitigate for the direct wetland fill, the 1999 Mitigation Plan proposed the preservation of
10.9 acres of wetland to the south of the LOP Site (south marsh area, located south of the proposed
fields), the creation and/or restoration of 3.3 acres of wetland on the LOP Site, and 1.5 acres of wetland
reserve on the CSTC Site (see Figure 3 within Attachment 7). The 1999 Management Plan clearly
outlines the location of mitigation, and explicitly states that although the south pond (Pond B) will be
nearly identical in appearance to the mitigation wetlands, “it is not included within the mitigation area”
(1999 Mitigation Plan, p. 13, Attachment 7). The stormwater treatment system as outlined in the 1999
Mitigation Plan was designed to direct water from the primary catch basin into Pond B (referred to by
Shapiro as the “wet pond”), then into the mitigation area (today’s Wetland A) and eventually through
the CSTC mitigation wetlands and into Springbrook Creek.
Conclusion: The south pond (i.e., Pond B) is a stormwater pond and not a wetland. The Mitigation
Plans excluded Pond B from all wetland mitigation measures.
Drainage Report for Conceptual Drainage Plan, Sverdrup Civil Inc, September 1998
As part of a submittal to the City of Renton, the Drainage Report for Conceptual Drainage Plan
(“Drainage Report”) was prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Renton Drainage Report for
Conceptual Drainage Plan Content List (Attachment 8). This document covers many of the same
Figure 3 in Shapiro and Associates, Inc, August 1998
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 11 of 38
details expanded upon by the 1999 Mitigation Plan, including the expansion of the CSTC main pond
(present day Wetland A, Figure 3) and associated wetlands as mitigation for the SWMP construction, as
well as the construction of a combined “wetpond/detention pond” (present day Pond B, Figure 3) south
of the mitigation area.
The Drainage Report uses a slightly different naming scheme than that employed by the 1999 Mitigation
Plan. The Drainage Report terms present day Wetland A as the “CSTC Main Pond,” while referring to
the wetpond/detention pond (present day Pond B) south of the CSTC Main Pond as “Pond D.” As part
of the construction of Pond D (present day Pond B, Figure 3), a temporary water quality treatment and
control pond was constructed, which directed water into Pond D. This Pond, referred to as Pond B in
the Drainage Report, is the location of present-day Feature G (Figure 3). This temporary water
treatment pond was constructed sometime during the late 1990s and was removed within two years
following the construction of the present-day Pond B (Figure 3). No wetlands were identified in the
Feature G area prior to the construction of the temporary water treatment pond, and it was proposed that
the pond would be filled once no longer needed.
Conclusion: The Drainage Report Pond D (i.e., present-day Pond B) and Drainage Report Pond B
(i.e., present-day Feature G) were stormwater ponds and not wetlands.
Biological Assessment and Critical Areas Study, Terracon Consultants, Inc, December 2015
The Biological Assessment and Critical Areas Study prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc (December
2015) was intended to review the Longacres Business Center Phase II development project which now
houses both the Kaiser Permanente and Jeanne Lester Offices (Attachment 9). This project included
the construction of two buildings found on the southern portion of the Campus today, as well as the
detention pond located directly north of those buildings. These improvements are outside the Site of the
current proposal. The Terracon report briefly discusses the wetland features found on the LOP site as
indicated by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and references the
Shapiro and Associates documents discussed above. No further discussion regarding wetlands found on
the LOP Site is included.
Wetlands Delineation and Regulatory Analysis Memorandum, Amec Foster Wheeler, September 2016
The Wetlands Delineation and Regulatory Analysis Memorandum prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler
(the “Amec Report,” Attachment 10) was prepared for the Boeing Company to determine existing
wetland boundaries, perform wetland functional assessments, conduct regulatory review of the
jurisdictional status of the north and south ponds (what we refer to today as Wetland A and Pond B), and
to provide required offset for regulatory buffers to these features.
The Amec Report includes a review of the Mitigation Plans and further expands on details pertaining to
the designed mitigation and stormwater management. Additionally, the Amec Report discusses details
pertaining to Corps jurisdiction and regulated features, as well as aquatic systems resulting from
compensatory actions permitted under the Clean Water Act and those which have a significant nexus
with traditional navigable waters or relatively permanent waters.
Although other wetlands identified by NWI and the City of Renton are discussed in the report, the work
focused primarily on the north and south ponds (present-day Wetland A and Pond B, Figure 3).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 12 of 38
Pursuant to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update
(Hruby, 2014), both ponds were rated as Category II wetlands requiring 150-foot standard buffers.
A section of the Amec Report entitled “Regulatory Status Evaluation,” includes a discussion of the
regulatory status of present-day Wetland A and Pond B. The report initially recognizes the exclusion of
the south pond from the original mitigation outlined by the 1999 Mitigation Plan, which is consistent
with all previous reports produced for the LOP. However, the report then goes on to state that, because
both ponds were created under the Mitigation Plans, they are both subject to applicable wetland
regulations.
The Amec Report’s conclusion regarding Pond B is not supported by the Mitigation Plans
(Attachments 6 and 7) and it is inconsistent with Renton Municipal Code, which exempts stormwater
facilities unless the stormwater facility was also utilized for wetland mitigation (RMC 4-3-050B). The
Amec Report does not provide any citation to support its conclusion that present-day Pond B was
converted from a stormwater facility into a wetland subject to critical areas regulations. The Amec
Report’s conclusion is in direct contradiction with the express language of the Mitigation Plans cited
above (e.g., 1999 Mitigation Plan, pp. 3, 13, 15 and 16 and 1998 Mitigation Plan pp. 14-15).
Thus, we disagree with the Amec Report’s conclusion for present-day Pond B, as the north pond
(Wetland A, Figure 3) was included in the Mitigation Plans as a wetland, and the south pond (Pond B,
Figure 3) was created for stormwater management only (although landscaped to be aesthetically
identical to the north pond). The Mitigation Plans leave no doubt that the south pond was expressly “not
included as part of the mitigation area.” 1999 Mitigation Plan, p.3 (Attachment 7)
Conclusion: Pond B was a stormwater pond and not a wetland. The Mitigation Plans expressly
excluded Pond B from any wetland mitigation measures.
Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters, NV5, March 2021
The Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters report prepared by NV5 (“NV5 Report,” March 2021,
Attachment 11) outlines a full delineation and documentation of all regulated and non-regulated
features identified on the property. In a brief review of past site alterations, the NV5 Report (2021)
states that the 1999 Mitigation Plan includes the creation of both the north and south ponds (present day
Wetland A and Pond B, Figure 3), and notes that the south pond was created to provide water quality
improvement, water storage, and wetland habitat.
The NV5 Report expanded their area of research beyond that of the Amec Report and investigated areas
similar to those investigated by Talasaea Consultants. The NV5 Report identified seven (7) wetlands
and rated them according to the standard methodology in the Washington State Wetlands Rating System
for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014). Buffers were assigned according to the 2002
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) based on a recorded Development Agreement between Boeing and the
City of Renton.
The NV5 Report states “the purpose of the South Pond was to provide water quality improvement, water
storage, and wetland habitat.”6 Similar to the Amec Report, the NV5 Report does not include any
6 NV5 Report, p. 5.
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 13 of 38
citation for this conclusion. The NV5 Report’s reference list cites the Amec Report. Thus, NV5’s
conclusion likely relies on the Amec Report’s presumption that Pond B was used for mitigation under
the Mitigation Plans, thereby incorrectly classifying a stormwater facility as a “wetland” subject to
critical areas regulations. As noted above, the Amec Report’s conclusion regarding Pond B contradicts
express language in the Mitigation Plans and is inconsistent with controlling code. The permit record
demonstrates that the present-day Pond B was only permitted as a stormwater facility.
2003 and 2005 Binding Site Plans
The Longacres’ Binding Site Plans (BSP) further support our wetland conclusions (Attachments 12
and 13). The 2003 and 2005 BSPs label Wetland A as “Wetland” with associated buffers. Similarly,
the southern wetlands (located outside the Site for the report) are also labeled as “Wetland” with buffers
identified. Consistent with the findings of this Letter Report, Pond B is not labeled as a wetland and
there are no markings for wetland buffers surrounding present day Pond B. The 2003 and 2005 BSPs
were approved by the City of Renton and not appealed.
Conclusion: Taken together, the applicable wetland studies demonstrate that Pond B is, and Feature G
was, stormwater ponds, and therefore not wetlands subject to critical areas regulations. This
conclusion is based on information received through an extensive public records request from the City
of Renton, permit records provided by Boeing, and materials available at the Puget Sound Archives.
5 Field Investigation & Critical Areas
We evaluated the Site and the surrounding areas of the Campus on February 22 and 25, and March 1,
2022. During the February site visits, Talasaea staff performed a full Site reconnaissance and
delineation of all wetland areas within the study area (Figure 3). During the site visit on March 1st, the
remaining area of the property (outside of the primary study area) was documented, although no formal
test plots or delineations were recorded. Although the entire property spans both sides of Oakesdale
Avenue SW, our investigation focused on the areas directly adjacent to the north and south ponds
(present day Wetland A and Pond B discussed below). Although we recognize that there may be other
critical areas found east of Oakesdale Avenue SW, Oakesdale was a logical eastern boundary for the
present study, and those features are not discussed herein.
Wetland determinations were made using the routine approach described in the Regional Supplement to
the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010).
Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (Hitchcock, et al.
2018). Taxonomic names were updated, and plant wetland status was assigned according to the
National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.5 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2020). Wetland classes were
evaluated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et al.
1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a
wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate
wetland).
Wetland hydrology was evaluated based on the presence of hydrologic indicators listed in the Corps’
Regional Supplement. These indicators are separated into Primary Indicators and Secondary Indicators.
To confirm the presence of wetland hydrology, one (1) Primary Indicator or two (2) Secondary
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 14 of 38
Indicators must be demonstrated. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily
limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, wat ermarks, stream gauge data and flood
predictions, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation.
Soils on the Site were considered hydric if one or more of the hydric soil indicators listed in the Corps’
Regional Supplement were present. Indicators include presence of organic soils, reduced, depleted, or
gleyed soils, or redoximorphic features in association with reduced soils.
Background information from the following sources was reviewed prior to field investigations:
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Online Mapper (National Wetlands Inventory,
NWI) (https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/);
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey
(www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app);
• King County Critical Areas Database (King County IMap, 2022);
• City of Renton Environmental Data (Renton COR Maps, 2022);
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
Database on the Web (https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs/);
• Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage GIS database, 2022;
• Fish usage data from SalmonScape (http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html),
StreamNet (https://www.streamnet.org/home/data-maps/sn-mapper/ and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission (https://geo.nwifc.org/swifd/);
• Orthophotography from Earth Explorer (2022), and Google Earth (2022); and
• Previous Reports Prepared for the Property (various, discussed above).
Three (3) wetlands were identified within the area of the property investigated. Two (2) other features
were identified within the same area and formally documented and determined not to be regulated
features. For the sake of completeness, these features are still discussed below. Various other areas that
have previously been identified as wetlands (Wetland D and Wetland G per the 2021 NV5 report) were
also investigated and documented. These features were found not to be wetlands but are also discussed
herein. Included in the discussion of each feature below are the vegetative, hydrologic and soil
conditions of the feature (aside from Feature D and G), a brief review of the past documentation of the
feature, and a general regulatory conclusion and associated rationale. To avoid potential confusion
regarding the wetland naming schemes and how they compare to past reports for the property, a naming
summary has been provided in Table 1.
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 15 of 38
Table 1: Naming Scheme of Individual Features by Report.
Talasaea
Consultants
(2022)
Shapiro and
Associates (1999)
Sverdrup Civil
(1998)
Amec Foster
Wheeler (2016)
NV5 (2021)
Wetland A
Mitigation area /
Mitigation
Wetland
CSTC Wetland /
Detention Pond North Pond Wetland A
Pond B Wet pond /
detention pond
Wet pond /
detention pond /
Wetland D
South Pond Wetland B
Wetland C Not Explicitly
Identified
Not Explicitly
Identified
Not Explicitly
Identified Wetland C
Feature D Not Explicitly
Identified
Not Explicitly
Identified
Not Explicitly
Identified Wetland D
Wetland F
Not Explicitly
Identified,
potentially
included as
mitigation area
CSTC Delta Area Not Explicitly
Identified
Wetland F &
Wetland E
Feature G Not Explicitly
Identified Pond B Not Explicitly
Identified Wetland G
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 16 of 38
5.1 Wetland A
Wetland A is a Category II depressional wetland and the northern-most pond located on the property
(Photo 1). Wetland A scored 7 points for Improving Water Quality, 8 points for Hydrologic Functions,
and 6 points for Habitat Functions. RMC 4-3-050G.2 establishes a 150-foot standard buffer for
Category II wetlands with moderate habitat scores.
Wetland A hydrology is provided by direct precipitation, surface runoff, and from Pond B located to the
south (discussed below). Pursuant to the 1999 Mitigation Plan, Wetland A was designed as part of the
LOP SWMP and receives stormwater from the Campus. Vegetation within Wetland A is characterized
by red alder, black cottonwood, salmonberry, slough sedge (Carex obnupta), and cattail (Typha
latifolia). Soils within Wetland A were generally a dark, greyish brown (10YR 3/2 to 4/2 and 2.5Y 4/2)
loam or silty clay loam dependent on the location within the Wetland. Dark yellowish brown to dark
brown redox features (10YR 4/2 to 4/6) were commonly found within Wetland A (Attachment 14).
The use of Wetland A as compensatory mitigation, as well as its use in stormwater treatment, is clearly
explained by numerous reports previously prepared for the Site (Sverdrup Civil, 1998; Shapiro and
Associates, 1999; Amec Foster Wheeler 2016). As compensatory mitigation, Wetland A was an
expansion of a previously existing wetland (Shapiro and Associates 1992; 1993; 1998; 1999) and
included the creation of wetland from previously upland areas. Due to its inclusion as compensatory
mitigation in the mitigation plan outlined in the 1999 Mitigation Plan, this wetland is considered a
regulated feature at the local, State and Federal levels.
Photo 1: Aerial of Wetland A (Oriented North).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 17 of 38
5.2 Pond B
Pond B is a stormwater detention and treatment pond located directly south of Wetland A. Pond B
hydrology is provided by direct surface flow during rain events and from the stormwater detention pond
located to the south. Pursuant to the 1999 Mitigation Plan, Pond B is designed to receive and treat
stormwater from the Campus. Vegetation within and adjacent to Pond B is characterized by red alder,
black cottonwood, salmonberry, slough sedge, and cattail. Soils within Pond B are generally a black to
dark, greyish brown (10YR 2/1 to 3/2) sandy or silty loam, dependent on the location within the Pond.
Dark yellowish to grayish brown redox features (10YR 4/3 to 5/4) were commonly found within Pond B
(Attachment 13).
Unlike Wetland A, Pond B was not included as part of the compensatory mitigation for the construction
of the LOP. This conclusion is supported in Section 4. Thus, Pond B is excluded from permits issued
by the Corps and exempt from the City’s wetland critical area regulations. Per RMC 4-3-050B,
“regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites,
including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities.” Pursuant to this section
of the RMC, and considered concurrently with the previous documents prepared for the Site, we do not
consider Pond B a regulated feature, and is instead a stormwater management facility.
5.3 Wetland C
Wetland C is a Category II depressional wetland located to the northwest of Wetland A (Photo 2).
Wetland C scored 7 points for Improving Water Quality, 8 points for Hy drologic Functions, and 5 points
for Habitat Functions. RMC 4-3-050G.2 establishes a 150-foot standard buffer for Category II wetlands
with moderate habitat scores (5-7). Although outside the Site, Wetland C was included in the study area
due to its relative proximity to Wetland A and as part of the research into the 1999 Mitigation Plan.
Wetland C hydrology is provided by direct surface flow during rain events and potentially from Wetland
A during above average rain events. Although Wetland C is not explicitly mentioned by any reports
predating the NV5 Report, we believe it was included as part of the mitigation outlined by the 1999
Mitigation Plan. Vegetation within Wetland C is characterized by red alder, Sitka willow, and hairy
bitter cress (Cardamine hisuta). Soils within Wetland C are a dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silty clay
loam with yellowish brown (10YR 5/8) redoximorphic features (Attachment 14).
The potential use of Wetland C as compensatory mitigation, as well as its use in stormwater treatment,
results in a regulatory standing similar to that of Wetland A. As compensatory mitigation, Wetland C
was the result of the wetland creation and restoration outlined by the 1999 Mitigation Plan and is
considered a regulated feature at the local, State and Federal levels.
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 18 of 38
5.4 Feature D
Feature D is an upland area located upslope and east of Pond B. Both test plots conducted within
Feature D failed to satisfy the requirements of a hydrology indicator, and one of the two test plots failed
to satisfy the requirements of either a hydrology or hydric soil indicator.
Feature D hydrology, when present, appears to be historically provided by an installed irrigation system
which draws water directly from Pond B. Aside from the installed irrigation system, hydrology can only
otherwise be provided by direct precipitation due to local topography. Feature D is an area that is
indicative of intentional plantings designed to make the area visually appear as a wetland. Vegetation
within Feature D is almost entirely dominated by slough sedge, with various red alders, black
cottonwoods, and Sitka willows. The soil profile within Feature D was characterized by a dark brown
(10YR 3/3) coarse sandy loam overlying a very dark gray to dark brown (10YR 3/1to 3/3) dense
restrictive layer composed of silty loam/clay (Attachment 14).
Because the area does not meet the criteria of a wetland according to the methodology set forth in the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010), a regulatory discussion is not
warranted.
Conclusion: Feature D does not meet wetland designation criteria and is not a regulated wetland.
Photo 2: Aerial of Wetland C (Oriented Southeast).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 19 of 38
5.5 Wetland F
Wetland F is a Category II depressional wetland located to the east of Wetland A and directs water from
Wetland A towards the CTSE Wetlands located east of Oakesdale Avenue SW (Photo 3). It is the only
wetland located on the property where the open water habitat has any measurable flow, although the
flow velocity is minimal. Wetland F scored 7 points for Improving Water Quality, 8 points for
Hydrologic Functions, and 6 points for Habitat Functions. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050G(2), Category II
wetlands with moderate habitat scores (5-7) are subject to a standard 150’ buffer (Attachment 14).
Wetland F hydrology is provided by direct surface flow during rain events and from Wetland A located
to the west. Vegetation within Wetland F is similar to other wetlands found on the property, with a
prevalence of red alder, Sitka willow, slough sedge, and several Western redcedars. Soils within
Wetland F were generally dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2 to 4/2) sandy/silty loam. A gravel fill layer
occupied the upper stratum of the soil profiles collected within and around Wetland F. Dark yellowish
brown and strong brown redox features (10YR 3/6 to 4/4 and 7/5YR 5/8) were commonly found within
Wetland F.
Wetland F is not explicitly mentioned in the 1999 Mitigation Plan but is referred to as “CTSC Delta
Area” by Sverdrup Civil (1998). Sverdrup Civil (1998) explains this area as a constructed wetland area
designed to accept stormwater flows from the upstream site (Wetland A). Based on the figures included
in the 1999 Mitigation Report, it appears to have not been included in the “wetland mitigation area” but
Photo 3: Aerial of Wetland F (Oriented Northeast).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 20 of 38
is highlighted as an existing wetland by the 1993 Existing Conditions Report prepared by Shapiro.
Wetland F as it exists today is potentially a restoration and/or expansion of the pre-existing wetland.
Conclusion: Due to the Wetland being identified prior to the construction of the LOP SWMP, Wetland
F should be considered a regulated feature at the local, State and Federal levels.
5.6 Feature G
Feature G is a depressional wetland located east of Pond B (Photo 4). Feature G hydrology is supported
by both surface water flow during periods of above average precipitation, and by shallow groundwater
flow. However, Feature G is also noted as being a site of stormwater treatment by the City of Renton
(Photo 5) and indicates numerous private surface water mains entering and exiting the area. Vegetation
within Feature G is characterized by a predominance of invasive species such as reed canarygrass and
Himalayan blackberry with various other grass species such as bent grass (Agrostis sp.) and velvet grass
(Hocus lanatus). The soil profile within Feature G is characterized by a dark gray (10YR 4/1) silty clay
loam with strong brown (10YR 4/6) redoximorphic features overlying a dense, restrictive clay layer
(Attachment 14).
Feature G is identified by the NV5 Report. However, the Svedrup Draining Report (1998) outlines the
construction of a “Pond D” (present day Pond B) and a temporary water quality treatment and control
pond which directed water into Pond D. This Pond, referred to as “Pond B” in the Sverdrup Drainage
Report (1998), is the location of present-day Feature G. This temporary water treatment pond was
constructed sometime during the late 1990s and removed within two years following the construction of
the present-day Pond B (Attachment 1). It is unclear how “Pond D” was removed or filled; however,
Photo 4: Aerial of Feature G (Oriented Northwest).
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 21 of 38
no wetlands were identified in this area prior to the construction of the temporary water treatment pond
by any reports published throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Additionally, fragments of concrete and
terracotta tile remaining from the previously constructed and filled stormwater ponds were removed
from test plots examined within Feature G. Feature G is a non-regulated feature when these fragments
are considered concurrently with the construction of roads, paved pathways and berms surrounding the
feature, as well as the past construction and fill of the temporary “Pond D.” Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050B,
this feature meets (1) exemption criteria of “wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were
unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway” and/or (2) the
exemption criteria for an existing stormwater facility per photo 5 above.
Conclusion: Feature G is not a regulated wetland.
Photo 5: Surface Water System mapping of Pond B and Feature G from City of Renton COR Maps.
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 22 of 38
6 Compliance with Critical Area Regulations for Buffer Alterations To Critical Areas RMC 4 -3-
050J.4
This Letter Report asks the City to confirm the following:
1. Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G are not subject to the City’s critical area regulations pursuant
to RMC 4-3-050B.1;
2. Wetland A is a Category II wetland with moderate habitat scores; and
3. Field 1 and GK Field (as identified in Figure 4) are low intensity uses pursuant to RMC 4-3-
050G.2, note 7 and RMC 4-11-120.7 Therefore, the appropriate buffer for these uses is 100 feet.
Thus, the proposal will require buffer alteration to Wetland A as depicted in Figure 4. There will be no
alteration to Wetland A itself. A subsequent Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan
(“Mitigation Report”) will identify compensatory mitigation in greater detail.
The Mitigation Report will propose mitigation that considers a variety of available compensatory
mitigation methods for wetland buffer impacts. Available mitigation methods may include on-site
wetland buffer enhancement at a 1:1 ratio (authorized per RMC 4-3-040J.4.d); the purchase of credits
from an approved Mitigation Bank; employing the Wetlands as Buffers concept from the Ecology
Wetlands Mitigation Handbook (Ecology Publication 06-06-011a, as updated by Publication 21-06-
003); other methods that are determined to appropriately safeguard applicable wetland functions and
values; or a combination of the above. The determination of whether the soccer pitches and GK Field
are low intensity land uses will govern applicable buffer widths and may influence the mitigation
proposal. Mitigation for any encroachment from the parking component of the proposal will be
calculated using the standard 150-foot buffer width, and if the pitches and field are determined to be low
intensity land uses a hybrid buffer may be proposed as depicted in Figure 4.
Should you have any questions or require additional information at this time, please feel free to contact
Jacob Prater or me at (425) 861-7550.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, INC.
William E. Shiels
Principal
7 Footnote 2 of this Letter Report describes the use of Field 1 and the GK Field.
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 23 of 38
Attachment: Figures, Talasaea Consultants Inc., 2022
Attachment 1: Chronological Photo Documentation, Numerous Sources & Dates
Attachment 2: Full List of Background Materials
Attachment 3: City of Renton Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for
Longacres Park Development Project, Shapiro, and Associates Inc., 1992
Attachment 4: Existing Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Study Report for the
Longacres Office Park Project, Shapiro, and Associates Inc., 1993
Attachment 5: City of Renton Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for
Longacres Park Development Project, Shapiro, and Associates Inc., 1998
Attachment 6: Longacres Office Park Surface Water Management Project and
Conceptual Mitigation Plan, Shapiro, and Associates Inc., 1998
Attachment 7: Revised Longacres Office Park Surface Water Management
Project and Conceptual Mitigation Plan, Shapiro, and Associates Inc., 1999
Attachment 8: Drainage Report for Conceptual Drainage Plan for Longacres
Office Park, Sverdrup Civil Inc., 1998
Attachment 9: Biological Assessment and Critical Areas Study, Terracon
Consultants Inc., 2015
Attachment 10: Wetlands Delineation and Regulatory Analysis Memorandum,
Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016
Attachment 11: Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters, NV5, 2021
Attachment 12: 2003 Binding Site Plan
Attachment 13: 2005 Binding Site Plan
Attachment 14: Wetland Determination Data Forms, Talasaea Consultants Inc.,
2022
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 24 of 38
FIGURES
TALASAEA CONSULTANTS, 2022
Figure 1. Vicinity & Driving Directions
Figure 2. Parcel Map
Figure 3. Existing Conditions
Figure 4. Proposed Site Plan with Buffer Width Alternatives
a
a
OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHTx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx
SSxSSxSSxSSx SSxSSx
SS
x
SS
x
SS
x
S
S
x
SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx
SDxSDx SDx SDx
SDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDx SDx
SSxSSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx
SSx SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSx SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSx
SSx
SSx
SSx SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
S
D
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxS
D
x
SDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
S
D
x
S
D
x
S
D
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SD
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDxSDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
S
D
x
S
D
x
S
D
x
S
D
x
SD
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDx SDx
SSx SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
Wx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
Wx
Wx
Wx
W
x
W
x
W
x
W
x
Wx
WxWxWx
WxWxWx
WxWx
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx WxWxWxWxWx Wx WxWxWxWxWxWxWx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
W
x
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
Wx
Wx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
S
D
xSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDxSDxSD
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxa
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
W
x
W
x
Wx
OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHTx
OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx OHPx
OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx
OHPx OHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPxOHPx OHPx
SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSx
SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx
SSxSSx
S
S
x
SS
x
SS
x
SS
x
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx
SSxSSxSSxSSxSSx SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx
SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSx SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx
SSx SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDxSDxSDx
SDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SD
x
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx
SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDx
SDx
SD
xSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
S
D
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxS
D
x
SDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
S
D
x
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SD
x
S
D
x
SD
x
S
D
x
SD
x
SDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx SDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDx
SDxSDxSDx
SDx
SSx SSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSSxSDxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
Wx
Wx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
Wx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx Wx WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx WxWxWxWx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWx WxWxWxWxWxWx
WxWxWxWx WxWxWxWx Wx Wx Wx WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
Wx
WxWx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx
Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx Wx
WxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWxWx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx SDx
SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx
S
D
x
S
D
xSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx SDx SDx SDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDx
SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx SDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SDx
SD
x
S
D
x
SDx
SDx
SDx
S
D
xSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDxSDx
SDxa
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 25 of 38
ATTACHMENT 1
CHRONOLOGICAL PHOTO-DOCUMENTATION, NUMEROUS SOURCES
& DATES
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 1: 1936 Aerial, King County iMap.
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 2: 1990 Aerial, Google Earth
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 3: 1998 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 4: 2000 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 5: 2002 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 6: 2005 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 7: 2007 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 8: 2009 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 9: 2012 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 10: 2013 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 11: 2015 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 12: 2016 Aerial, Google Earth
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 13: 2017 Aerial, King County iMap
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
Photo 14: 2021 Aerial, Google Earth
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 26 of 38
ATTACHMENT 2
FULL LIST OF BACKGROUND MATERIALS, GENERATED BY TALASAEA
CONSULTANTS INC., 2022
Resource & Environmental Planning
15020 Bear Creek Road Northeast • Woodinville, Washington 98077 • Bus: (425)861-7550 Fax: (425)861-7549
1. City of Renton and Boeing Customer Service Training Center Agreement, 1992
2. City of Renton Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Park
Development Project, Shapiro and Associates Inc., 1992
3. Existing Habitat Conditions and Wildlife Study Report for the Longacres Office Park,
Shapiro and Associates Inc., 1993
4. Longacres Public Notice of Application For Permit, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1994
5. Longacres Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jones & Stokes Associates Inc.,
1995
6. Longacres Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Document, City of Renton,
1995
7. City of Renton Jurisdictional Wetland Determination for Longacres Park
Development Project, Shapiro and Associates Inc., 1998
8. Longacres Office Park Surface Water Management Project and Conceptual
Mitigation Plan, Shapiro and Associates Inc., 1998
9. Drainage Report for Conceptual Drainage Plan for Longacres Office Park, Sverdrup
Civil Inc., 1998
10. Longacres Permitting Memos and Permits Reference 93-4-00059, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1999
11. Revised Water Quality Certification for Corps Public Notice #93-4-00059,
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1999
12. Revised Longacres Office Park Surface Water Management Project and Conceptual
Mitigation Plan, Shapiro and Associates Inc., 1999
13. City of Renton and Boeing Development Agreement, City of Renton, 2000
14. Renton City Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 24 2002, City of Renton, 2002
15. Boeing Longacres Binding Site Plans, W&H Pacific, 2003
16. Boeing Longacres Binding Site Plans, W&H Pacific, 2005
17. Resolution No. 4078, City of Renton, 2010
18. Biological Assessment and Critical Areas Study, Terracon Consultants Inc., 2015
19. Wetlands Delineation and Regulatory Analysis Memorandum, Amec Foster Wheeler,
2016
20. Certificate of Exemption from Shoreline Substantial Development Project Number
LUA16-000727, City of Renton, 2016
21. Delineation of Wetlands and Other Waters, NV5, 2021
Ms. Jill Ding
29 April 2022
Page 27 of 38
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY OF RENTON JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION FOR
LONGACRES PARK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SHAPIRO, AND
ASSOCIATES INC., 1992