HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-2023 - Sounders Site Plan and Street Modfication - LUA-22-0003571
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Sounders FC Center at Longacres
Conditional Use, Site Plan and Street
Modification
LUA22-000357,SA-H,CU-H,, MOD
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant requests site plan, conditional use permit and street modification approval for the
integration of a soccer complex for the Seattle Sounders and associated teams into the Longacres
Office Park at 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057. The proposed use includes 52,990 square
feet of an existing 311,982 square foot office building for office use and indoor training facilities as
well as the conversion of an adjoining undeveloped area and some parking into five outdoor soccer
fields. The applications are approved.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1—33 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the January 10, 2023 hearing were
entered into the record during the hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted
during the hearing:
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
Exhibit 34: January 8, 2023 Talasaea Supplemental Report
Exhibit 35: Supplemental Aerial Photos and Storm Water Plans
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The Applicant is Unico Properties,1215 4th Ave, Suite 600,Seattle,WA 98161 and
Seattle Soccer, LLC, d/b/a Seattle Sounders FC,406 Occidental Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98104
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the applications on August 13, 2019 at 11 am in the
City of Renton Council chambers.
3. Project Description. The Applicant requests site plan, conditional use permit and street
modification approval for the integration of a soccer complex for the Seattle Sounders and associated
teams into the Longacres Office Park at 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057. The proposed
use includes 52,990 square feet of an existing five story 311,982 square foot office building for office
use and indoor training facilities as well as the conversion of an adjoining undeveloped area and some
parking into five full sized outdoor soccer fields and a Goal Keepers Field along with accessory
structures.
The overall project site totals approximately 30 acres. Access to the site would be maintained via
existing curb cuts off Oakesdale Ave SW. A new accessory viewing deck proposed to overlook Field 1
from floor 2 would total approximately 1,650 sq. ft. in area and is designed to accommodate about 100
spectators. Some existing surface parking would be removed for the placement of Fields 1 and 2 and
additional parking would be removed to create a secure 1st team parking area in the existing southern
parking lot. The total remaining parking area would include approximately 766 surface parking stalls.
A maintenance building (approximately 4,000 sq. ft.) and future field restroom (approximately 800 sq.
ft.) are proposed to be co-located between fields 2 and 4.
Of the 52,990 square feet of office space used by the Sounders, they would retain 21,660 sq. ft. as
office use while converting 31,330 sq. ft. of existing office use to indoor recreational use. The indoor
recreational facilities would provide team services space, which is intended to be accessory to the
office and outdoor recreation facilities and would include locker rooms, training space, classrooms and
workspaces, and medical treatment rooms.
The Applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060 to retain the existing frontage
improvements along the site’s Oakesdale Ave SW frontage.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services. Since the existing building has been located in an
urbanized area for several years, it is already served by all necessary urban services. The proposed
maintenance building and rest room building will require extension of some services. Services are
more directly addressed as follows:
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service
areas. The Applicant will be extending water and sewer from the existing mains to the
proposed maintenance building.
B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Regional
Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that
sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the
improvements and fire impact fees required of the project.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities since
its proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform to the City’s
stormwater regulations.
The proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. A
Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Coughlin Porter Lundeen, dated August
2022 (Exhibit 12) was submitted with the project application materials to demonstrate
compliance. As detailed in the TIR, the utilizes existing surface water facilities
previously constructed onsite (i.e. Pond B) to be accompanied by installation of a new
onsite drainage system. The proposed drainage system would include a new network of
underground pipes and catch basins, to collect the drainage from the surface and under-
drain system of the proposed sports fields, as well as the surface water runoff from the
walkways and other areas adjacent to the fields within the project site. This system would
direct runoff to a flow splitter that would direct larger flows that do not require water
quality treatment, directly to Pond B. Smaller flows would be directed to the proposed
water quality treatment system. Flows from this facility would also ultimately discharge
into the existing Pond B.
In order to provide the required enhanced basic water quality treatment for the soccer
fields, the project proposes to install a Bioscape open system using Filterra media, along
the western edge of Pond B, downstream of the fields.
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space, since no
such amenities are required by City regulations this type of development and the record
does not establish any demands placed upon such amenities that need to be mitigated.
Despite no parks/open space required of the project, the proposal includes significant
mitigation for any park/open space demand that could be produced by the proposal. The
project site is part of the larger Longacres Office Park, which includes two centrally
located ponds, the south pond, Pond B is a stormwater pond and the north pond has been
classified as a Category II wetland. Both ponds include a trail system around the pond
perimeter and a vegetated with existing mature trees and shrubs.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
The project will not displace existing recreational uses. The project proposes minor
modification to the existing pathways on the site. The path that currently connects from
the West side of the Property to Building 25-20 will be removed and new path will be
created at the North edge of the fields to access Building 25-20.
E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate
transportation facilities.
A Trip Generation Memo, prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, dated
June 27, 2022 (Exhibit 16) was submitted with the project application materials.
Vehicular access to the site would remain the same, with one (1) signalized access and
one (1) unsignalized access driveway on Oakesdale Ave SW that provide access to the
main parking lot on the south side of the building, and one unsignalized access roadway
that provides access to a visitor parking lot on the north side of the building.
The weekday trip generation estimates for the office use were based on methodology
documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,
11th Edition for Land Use Code (LUC) 710 (General Office Building). The proposed
outdoor soccer training facility is not consistent with a specific land use category
established in the ITE manual. As such, project-specific information was used for the
average weekday trip generation estimates. To estimate trip generation for the proposed
Sounders training facility, the Applicant provided detailed forecasts of trips anticipated to
occur on a typical weekday based on their operational plan. These weekday trip estimates
are described in the following categories:
Players/Field Use Trips - The fields are anticipated to be used daily from
approximately 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM, however, not all fields will be used
at the same time. The peak usage of the fields and training facility is
anticipated to occur between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM.
Spectators Trips (Media and Public Session) - On a daily basis, it is
anticipated that media and a select number of visitors may view team
practices on an invitation only basis.
Summer Camp/Clinic Trips - Summer camps run June through August and
would consist of a maximum attendance of 120 students per week, with
camp/clinic hours generally between 9:30 AM and 4 PM Monday through
Thursday and between 9:30 AM and 12:00 PM on Friday.
Weekly Soccer Program Trips - The weekly soccer program consists of a
skills class that would have a maximum attendance of 50 students attending
class three (3) times per week during off peak hours (i.e. 5:30 PM to 7:00
PM).
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
Based on the trip generation estimates discussed above, it is anticipated that the proposal
will generate 147 total daily trips with a reduction in AM Peak Hour trips by 9 and an
increase in PM Peak Hour trips by 14. As the proposal is not anticipated to generate 20
new AM or PM Peak Hour trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required. A
Transportation Concurrency Test (Exhibit 17) was issued for the proposal, in which it
was concluded that the proposal passed the transportation concurrency test in accordance
with RMC 4-6-070D. It is anticipated that any new trips generated by the proposal would
be adequately mitigated through the payment of a traffic impact fee, currently due at
building permit issuance, therefore no further mitigation is necessary.
The project site includes existing internal vehicular driveways and pedestrian walkways
throughout the site. As testified by Nathan Janders from the City’s Engineering Services
department, public works staff have reviewed the proposed and existing circulation
system and determined that it provides a safe and efficient system for pedestrians and
vehicles. The circulation system is particularly efficient and well planned for the project
as testified by Mr. Proebstle because it provides for direct access from the indoor training
facilities to the soccer fields and also provides for ready building access from the secured
parking spots of the players.
Staff have also determined int the staff report that the proposed circulation system
provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties. There are existing sidewalks within the Oakesdale Ave SW public
street frontage located along the eastern boundary of the project site, in addition there are
existing pedestrian walkways interior to the project site connecting the existing buildings
and improvements to the public right-of-way and adjacent properties.
F. Schools. The project is not residential in nature. No impacts to schools are anticipated
and no fees are required.
G. Refuse and Recycling. As conditioned, the proposal complies with applicable refuse and
recycling regulations and thus provides for adequate and appropriate facilities to address
solid waste impacts.
In office, educational and institutional developments, a minimum of two (2) square
feet per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be
provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four (4) square feet per one
thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse
deposit areas. A total minimum area of one hundred (100) square feet is required for
recycling and refuse deposit areas.
Since the project site has an existing five (5)-story office building, totaling 311,982 sq.
ft., with the addition of the proposed 4,000 sq. ft. maintenance building, the proposal
would result in a total of 315,982 sq. ft. of building gross floor area. Based on the
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
proposed building gross floor area of 315,982 sq. ft., a total of 632 sq. ft. of
recyclables deposit areas would be required and a total of 1,264 sq. ft. of refuse
deposit areas would be required. The location of refuse and recyclable deposit areas
was not included on the submitted site plan application materials, so staff was unable
to verify compliance with this requirement. A condition of approval requires a revised
site plan be submitted showing as existing or proposed the required 632 sq. ft. of
recyclable and 1,264 sq. ft. of refuse deposit areas, or a modification from these
requirements shall be submitted for review and approval.
H. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the
proposed parking complies with the City’s parking standards. City parking standards
require 732 stalls to serve existing Building 25-20 along with the proposed outdoor sports
facilities and the Applicant proposes a total of 766 stalls.
The City’s requirements for off-street parking are based on RMC 4-4-080.F.10.d
(Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use), depending on the specific land use
category. The minimum code-required off-street parking for the Building 25-20 office
use is 2.0 stalls per 1,000 SF of net building floor area based on the requirements for
offices (general). Based on a total of 284,044 NSF of building area (including the
proposed Sounders FC office use), the minimum parking supply required for Building
25-20 is 568 stalls (2.0 stalls/ 1,000 NSF X 284,044 NSF).
The proposed soccer fields are not consistent with any of the land use categories for
computing required parking under RMC 4-4-080.F.10.d. Therefore, the parking
required for the fields was estimated based on the detailed project-specific trip
generation data and forecasts provided by the owner. To estimate the peak parking
demand of the outdoor soccer training facility on a typical weekday, the detailed
entering and exiting trip generation estimates provided by the owner were assigned to
15-minute periods and the entering minus exiting volume was then used to estimate
the weekday parking accumulation. The trip generation estimates for the proposed
project include players/ field use trips, spectators trips ( media and public sessions),
summer camp/ clinic trips, and weekly soccer program trips. Assuming that the
parking demand associated with the fields is 0 vehicles at midnight, the estimated
peak parking demand for the outdoor soccer training facility use is 164 stalls on an
average weekday (occurring from 9:45 AM to 12:00 PM). Consequently, the
combined Building 25-20 and outdoor soccer facility parking is 732 stalls.
The existing surface parking for Building 25-20 is 929 stalls. The proposal will remove
163 stalls leaving a net total of 766 stalls. The proposed parking satisfies the proposal’s
parking demand.
I. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping by
conforming to the City’s landscaping standards.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
As shown in the Applicant’s Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 24), the Applicant is
proposing to satisfy City landscaping requirements through a combination of retention of
existing landscaping and the planting of new landscaping.
Landscaping requirements primarily apply to street frontage and parking areas. RMC 4-
4-070F1 requires ten feet of landscaping along street frontages. There is an existing
landscape strip along the street frontage that is comprised of mature trees, shrubs, and
ground cover. This existing landscape strip has a minimum width of approximately 13
feet and would satisfy the requirement for a minimum ten-foot (10’) wide landscape strip
along the street frontage.
City regulations require an extensive amount of landscaping in parking areas. According
to the Applicant’s parking analysis, (Exhibit 25), after proposed modifications to the
parking lot, the proposed facilities will be served by 766 parking spaces. RMC 4-4-
070F6b requires 35 square feet of landscaping per parking stall for parking lots with over
100 parking spaces, which totals 26,810 sq. ft. of interior parking lot landscaping. As
shown on the submitted conceptual landscape plan, the existing and proposed interior
parking lot landscaping would total approximately 27,700 sq. ft., which would exceed the
26,810 sq. ft. requirement.
The Applicant’s landscaping plans, Ex. 24, show that the proposed facilities are shielded
from view and adjoining uses by perimeter landscaping and critical areas that surround
the site on all sides.
The staff report provides a more detailed discussion of how the proposal complies with
other landscaping requirements.
J. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and
thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. As testified by Ms. Ding, the proposal is
served by adequate transit as a Sounder station is located close to the facility and the
proposed development will not result in any interference with existing transit stops.
RMC 4-4-080F11a requires bicycle parking spaces at the rate of 10% of required
automobile parking spaces, which results in a required 16 parking spaces for the 164 new
automobile spaces required of the proposal for the newly proposed facilities (limited to
the proposed outdoor recreational use – the existing building does not trigger new bicycle
parking requirements). Bicycle parking was not included in the application materials. A
condition of approval requires a revised site plan that includes the required 16 parking
spaces.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On
November 7, 0222 the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for the
project. Upon reconsideration, the MDNS was re-issued on December 5, 2022 to revise a mitigation
measure addressing the water quality impacts of proposed synthetic turf. The MDNS was not timely
appealed. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are
more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Views. It is not anticipated that the proposal will result in any material obstruction of
views. The only views are internal to the site from Building 25-20. The views from the
lower level of Building 25-20 will be altered by a 10’ tall fence, privacy screen and ball
control netting. The light posts will also minimally change the view from Building 25-20
to the West. Views from the Longacres Campus trails will be altered by the fence and ball
control netting in some sections when looking to the East. According to the staff report,
the proposal would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding use. Adjacent properties
include medical offices, daycare, and commercial airlines uses, and are separated from
the project site by right of way and undevelopable land. The adjoining property to the
north is another Longacres Business Park office building, buffered from the sports field
by a Category II wetland and separated from the sports fields by a minimum of 500 feet.
The adjoining parcel to the west is composed of Wetland A and the parcel west of that is
an undeveloped parcel in the Longacres Business Park. The closest property to the south
is the Kaiser Permanente property, which is separated from the sports fields by a
vegetated buffer and an existing stormwater pond. The east side of the sports fields is
adjoined by Oakesdale Ave SW, which is a five-lane arterial. Sidewalks, bike lanes and
street trees provide further separation. There are four lots across from Oakesdale. One of
the lots is developed with a daycare center, the remaining three are undeveloped.
C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light,
noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy.
The only new lighting impacts will result from proposed field lighting. Within the field
complex, light poles will be erected, containing directional LED lights designed
specifically to light fields after dark and directed solely downward onto the fields and
preventing light pollution outside of the field complex. Use of field lights is generally
restricted to when it is needed for visibility during evening training sessions, or possibly
off -hours maintenance activities. Evening training most frequently occurs on turf fields
(which are the furthest from Wetland A) for the MLS Next Academy Team. These
sessions typically run from 4:00 - 9:00 pm, so the duration of lighting depends upon the
time of year. For example, a winter training session may require 5 hours of lighting,
where a summer session might not require any. Occasionally, lighting may be used
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
during special events on any field. Given the absence of any sensitive land uses in the
vicinity as described in Finding of Fact 5B, the modern technology involved in LED
lighting and the limited hours of use, the light and glare created by the project is not
found to be significant.
The surrounding landscaping and critical areas and the nature of surrounding uses
provides for adequate protection of privacy for both those using the fields and
surrounding uses, as well as assisting in noise reduction. The proposed soccer fields
would be located to the interior of the project site and would be buffered along the north
and west by existing wetlands and stormwater facilities that are vegetated with mature
vegetation and would be buffered along the east by the existing office building, surface
parking lot, and mature vegetation, and along the south by existing stormwater facilities
and existing mature vegetation. As testified by Mr. Proebstle, the soccer fields will be
surrounded by a ten foot fence to ensure that experimental soccer plays and the like will
be hidden from public (and competing teams) view. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5B,
in terms of privacy there is no residential or similar development close enough to be
adversely affected by noise or privacy impacts.
D. Critical Areas. A portion of the playfields will be within the buffer of a Category II
wetland. The proposal is also in a flood hazard area and a seismic hazard area. As
mitigated, the proposal complies with the City’s critical area regulations and thus is not
found to adversely affect critical areas.
i. Seismic Hazard. A high seismic hazard is mapped on the project site. RMC 4-3-
050F2aii requires the Applicant to submit a geotechnical report for high seismic areas
that establishes that the site can safely accommodate the proposal and that the
proposal will not jeopardize other critical areas or destabilize adjoining properties.
The Applicant has complied with RMC 4-3-050F2aii and for this reason there are no
adverse impacts anticipated due to the presence of the seismic hazard area.
As required, the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Services Draft
Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, (dated June 23, 2022; Exhibit 6). According to the
geotechnical report, the loose to medium dense sand which underlies the project site
has a moderate to high risk of liquefying. The existing fill and alluvial deposits
encountered in the explorations contain a high percentage of fines and are highly
moisture sensitive. It is anticipated that the operation of equipment on these soils
would be difficult during the wet season (typically October through May) and in wet
weather conditions. In addition, the report recommends that the design of the fields
consider estimated site settlement due to the presence of the underlying fill and
alluvial deposits. In addition to being susceptible to liquefaction, the alluvial soils are
compressible and are expected to settle under new/increased loading conditions.
Static settlements will depend on the thickness of new fill placed.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
The report included recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, excavations
and permanent slopes, utility trenches, pavement recommendations, and
recommended additional geotechnical services for the construction of the proposed
fields, however the report did not include a discussion on the proposed maintenance
building and elevated exterior patio addition. Due to the concerns expressed in the
geotechnical report regarding soil stability on the project site, a SEPA mitigation
measure requires that construction on the project site comply with the
recommendations of the report. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer is required to
review the project's construction plans for the new fields and the building permit
plans for the proposed maintenance building and elevated patio addition to verify
compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall
submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building
permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the
report.
ii. Wetlands. The proposed soccer fields will encroach into a buffer of a Category II
wetland. The Applicant proposes mitigation that staff have found to conform to
critical area regulations.
A Critical Areas - Existing Conditions Letter Report prepared by Talasaea, dated
April 29, 2022 (Exhibit 7) and a Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation
Plan prepared by Talasaea, dated October 7, 2022 (Exhibit 8) were submitted with the
project application materials. The critical areas reports identified Wetlands A and F,
Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G on the project site. Wetland A is located along the
eastern boundary of the project site and would be classified as a Category II wetland
with a moderate habitat score. Wetland F is located to the north of the project site and
would also be regulated as a Category II wetland with a moderate habitat score.
Category II wetlands with a moderate habitat score require a 100-foot buffer for low
impacts land uses and a 150-foot buffer for all other land uses.
Pond B is a stormwater detention and treatment pond located directly south of
Wetland A, along the east side of the project site, and would not be classified as a
regulated wetland. Pond B hydrology is provided by direct surface flow during rain
events and from the stormwater detention pond located to the south.
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
for wetlands, and one (1) of the two (2) 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 mak e the
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
area visually appear as a wetland. Feature D would not be classified as a regulated
wetland.
The submitted Critical Areas - Existing Conditions Letter Report (Exhibit 7) was
reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant, Otak. Otak’s findings were
summarized in a Peer Review Memorandum, dated June 9, 2022 (Exhibit 9). Otak
concurred with the assessment and delineation of Wetlands A and F and also
concurred that Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G would not be classified as regulated
wetlands.
The proposed site plan (Exhibit 2) shows the proposed keeper/training area and Field
1 within the 100-foot buffer of Wetland A. The proposal would have no direct impact
to Wetland A, although it would reduce the 100-foot buffer to approximately 32 feet,
resulting in the alteration of approximately 15,467 sq. ft. of Wetland A’s buffer. The
maximum buffer reduction permitted by the City’s adopted Critical Areas Regulations
is 25% or a 25-foot reduction of a 100-foot buffer (RMC 4-3-050I). The proposal
would result in an approximately 68% reduction in the standard buffer, which is
greater than the buffer reduction permitted by the City’s Critical Areas Regulations.
Following the guidelines outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology
Publication 21-06-003, the alteration would be achieved through the use of Wetlands
as Buffers (often referred to as “paper fill”). Conversion of wetland into buffer does
not actually fill any wetland; wetland converted into buffer still functions as a wetland
in the landscape. To mitigate for the “paper fill” impacts to Wetland A, the proposal
would be required to comply with the City’s Critical Areas Regulations for
Alterations to Wetlands (RMC 4-3-050J.4) and provide the appropriate mitigation
ratio for indirect wetland impacts. The Applicant’s Conceptual Mitigation Plan
(Exhibit 8) would include the purchase of credits from the Springbrook Creek
Wetland Mitigation Bank. The Applicant proposes a mitigation ratio of 50% (i.e.,
0.5:1.0) for its indirect impact to Wetland A that causes no or only partial loss of
ecological functions to the wetland. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to enhance
the upland buffer of Wetland A existing between the proposed field locations and the
wetland edge, an area of approximately 15,151 sq. ft. in size. Most of this buffer area
is in good ecological condition; however, some areas are dominated by invasive plant
species and would benefit from enhancement. The proposed area of buffer
enhancement would total approximately 4,616 sq. ft. within the 15,151 sq. ft. buffer
area.
Secondary review of the Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan
(Exhibit 8) was conducted in a Peer Review Memorandum, prepared by Otak, dated
November 2, 2022 (Exhibit 10). The Peer Review Memorandum notes that the
submitted Mitigation Plan proposes no direct impacts to Wetland A, and 15,467 sq. ft.
of indirect impacts into the Wetland A buffer. Mitigation of these imp acts is proposed
through a combination of mitigation credit purchase through the Springbrook Creek
Mitigation Bank at a 0.5:1 ratio, and 4,616 square feet of buffer enhancement in areas
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
of the Wetland A upland buffer dominated by invasive species. The proposed buffer
enhancements would be subject to maintenance and monitoring for a period of five
(5) years per RMC 4-3-050L(2) and RMC 4-3-050L(3). In general, the Peer Review
Memorandum (Exhibit 10) takes no issue with the proposed mitigated strategy,
however there were some outstanding comments that needed to be addressed prior to
formal approval. A condition of approval requires, that a final mitigation plan be
submitted addressing the recommendations outlined in the Peer Review
Memorandum, prepared by Otak, dated November 2, 2022 (Exhibit 10). The final
mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval at the time of Construction Permit Review. Staff further recommends,
that the purchase of mitigation bank credits be completed prior to the commencement
of any paper fill activities on the project site.
Fencing and critical areas signage are required by RMC 4-3-050G.3). A condition of
approval requires that a fencing and signage detail be submitted at the time of
Construction Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval. In addition, onsite critical areas are required to be placed in a Native
Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). A condition of approval requires that any
portion of the onsite wetland and associated buffer areas be placed within a recorded
NGPE.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) submitted an email on
December 20, 2022 (Exhibit 27) asserting that Feature G should be regulated as a
wetland and that the filling of these wetland would trigger state and federal permitting
requirements. A response from the City’s peer review consultant Otak (Exhibit 28)
maintains that Feature G does not meet the definition of a wetland. The Applicant’s
wetlands consultant, Talasaea, arrived at the same conclusion based upon both its
application of applicable wetland definitions and indirect assessment of wetland
indicators. See Ex. 34 and 35.
Feature G is determined to not qualify as a wetland under the RMC 4-11-230 wetland
definition, specifically the portion that exempts water bodies “created after July 1,
1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road,
street, or highway.’ The Otak and Talasaea reports, Ex. 28, 34 and 35, conclusively
establish that Feature G was unintentionally created as a result of road and building
construction. As detailed in those reports, Feature G resulted from the ungraded
filling of a stormwater pond designed to accommodate run off from road and building
construction of the Longacres business park facilities after 1990. The only ambiguity
in application of the road construction exemption is whether the exemption still
applies if the stormwater comes from both road and building construction as opposed
to just the road construction. There is no Washington case law on this issue. The
Otak and Talasaea reports take the position that Feature G does not qualify as a
wetland under the road construction exemption. According to the testimony of Ms.
Ding, DOE was supplied a copy of the Ex. 28 Otak report and did not respond. Given
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 13
CAO VARIANCE - 13
the expertise and peer review objectivity of Otak, the lack of response from DOE and
the corroboration from Talasaea, it is concluded that Feature G does not qualify as a
wetland under the road construction exemption even if it partially originated from
building construction in addition to road construction.
iii. Floodplain. The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain of Springbrook
Creek and the proposal includes the placement of fill within this floodplain. The
City’s critical area regulations require the Applicant to compensate for the added fill
by creating additional flood capacity within the floodplain. The Applicant has
provided for the added flood capacity as required and thus the proposal is found to
adequately mitigate against flood impacts.
A Civil Engineering Narrative, prepared by Coughlin Porter Lundeen, dated August
8, 2022 (Exhibit 11) was submitted with the project application materials and
included a discussion on the grading proposed within the floodplain. The proposed
project would include approximately 575,000 sq.ft. of sports fields, which will result
in the placement of approximately 718,000 cubic feet of fill within the currently
delineated 100-year floodplain. As required by the City's Critical Areas Regulations,
floodplain fill mitigation would be required in the form of compensatory storage
below the record Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This BFE is listed as at 20 -foot
elevation at the southern area of the Sounders fields, and roughly 19.6 to 19.7 at the
northern edge. The compensatory mitigation proposal would be to calculate the
proposed compensatory volume using a BFE of 20.0 across the entire field project
limits, which would exceed the minimum volume required.
The required compensatory volume is proposed to be provided using a series of
underground storage chambers (StormTech or Eq) to hold the required flood plain fill
mitigation volume of floodwater. These chambers would connect to open, screened
inlet/outlet pipes that extend below the Pond B water surface. The chambers would
begin to store replacement flood volume when the pond elevation reaches its
maximum detention water surface elevation of 14.7 feet. A discussion of whether the
proposed compensatory storage would adversely impact salmonids, ensuring they do
not get trapped within this system was not included. Therefore, a SEPA mitigation
measure requires that the Applicant demonstrate that the proposed underground
storage chambers not have an adverse impact on salmonids and ensures that
salmonids would not get trapped within the proposed underground storage chambers
iv. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. The Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report and
Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea, dated October 7, 2022 (Exhibit 8),
which included a Biological and Habitat Assessment. The Biological and Habitat
Assessment identifies Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed or candidate species
potentially within the Project-affected areas or maybe affected by the proposed action.
Species listed under the Endangered Species Act fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for terrestrial and freshwater species, and the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous species.
The NOAA Fisheries website and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's
(WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) website were used to review listed
species within the vicinity of the project site. Two (2) ESA-listed Pacific salmon
species are potentially within the Project-affected area, or may be affected by the
proposed action: Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), designated as
Threatened, and Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) designated as
Threatened. There is final designated critical habitat for both salmon species within
the Project-affected area, Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek is approximately
1,150 feet from the project site.
The Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 8) concludes that the proposed construction and
operation of the Sounders facilities would not directly affect any of the above or any
other ESA-listed species. The entirety of the site development work takes place in an
existing urban area with no significant habitat features for any of the species listed
above. The project site is located nearly 1,900 feet from the Green River and is
outside of its drainage basin. While the project site is located within the Springbrook
Creek/Black River subbasin area, it is approximately 1,150 feet from Springbrook
Creek and has no direct connection or impact to Springbrook Creek. However,
secondary review of the Applicant's Critical Areas Report was conducted by the
City's Environmental Consultant (Otak). Concerns were expressed regarding the fill
that would be placed within the synthetic fields. There are some fill materials that
may be toxic to fish. To ensure that the fill placed within the synthetic turf fields does
not adversely impact fish species, a SEPA mitigation measure has been imposed that
requires the field materials to not result in a probable significant impact upon fish and
wildlife and that water quality be monitored for a five-year period.
v. Aquifer Recharge. Staff testified at hearing that the proposal is not located in a
mapper aquifer recharge area.
6. Tree Retention. Beyond the City’s critical area regulations, the only regulations requiring
protection of vegetation are the City’s tree retention standards. The project involves the removal of
377 trees. However, this removal is consistent with the City’s tree retention standards and thus is not
found to create any adverse impacts due to the loss of trees.
The City's tree retention standards require thirty percent (30%) retention of onsite significant trees
(after the deduction of trees within areas of public right-of-way dedication and critical areas and
buffers). The Applicant submitted an arborist report, Exhibit 13, that demonstrates compliance with
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 15
CAO VARIANCE - 15
this standard. According to the report, there are a total of 605 significant trees on the project site, of
those 24 would qualify as high-risk trees, resulting in 581 viable significant trees on the project site, of
which two (2) cottonwood trees would be considered landmark trees. The proposal would include the
removal of 377 trees (including one (1) landmark tree) for the development of the proposed soccer
fields, resulting in the retention of 204 trees and one landmark trees. The proposal to retain 204
significant trees would result in a retention percentage of thirty five percent (35%), which exceeds the
City's minimum tree retention requirements.
The City's Tree Retention Regulations also require that a minimum tree density of 30 credits per net
acre. The arborist report (Exhibit 13) included a tree density calculation and concluded that the
retained trees would result in the provision of 30.2 tree credits on the project site, which would satisfy
the minimum tree density requirements.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority The site plan and conditional use permit require hearing examiner review and final
approval. The street modification request is subject to staff approval when reviewed separately, but is
consolidated with hearing examiner review for this application.
RMC 4-9-200D2bvi requires a public hearing before the hearing examiner for site plan applications
involving projects over 10 acres in size. RMC 4-9-200F9b requires the hearing examiner to issue a
written decision after holding the hearing. RMC 4-2-060 requires a hearing examiner conditional use
permit for outdoor recreational facilities. RMC 4-8-080G classifies hearing examiner site plan and
hearing examiner conditional use permit applications as Type III applications. RMC 4 -8-080G
classifies the street modification request as a Type I application.
RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to be collectively processed under “the highest -
number procedure.” The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be
employed for the conditional use, site plan and street modification applications. As outlined in RMC 4-
8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council.
2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned
Commercial Office (CO), its comprehensive plan land use designation is Employment Area (EA) and
the project site is located in Design District D.
3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Findings and Conclusions of Street Modifications.
Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4-
9-200.E.3. All applicable review criteria for the conditional use and site plan applications are quoted
below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
The criteria for street modification requests identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are governed by RMC 4-
9-250.D.2. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 21 of the staff report are adopted by this
reference in full to conclude that all review criteria for the requested street modification are met.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 16
CAO VARIANCE - 16
CONDITIONAL USE
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the
zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and
development standards as outlined in Findings No. 17-19 of the staff report, adopted by this
reference as if set forth in full. The site is located within the Urban Design District D overlay,
however in accordance with RMC 4-2-120B the Urban Design Regulations are only applicable to
residential mixed-use buildings within the CO zone. As the proposal does not include any residential
mixed-use buildings the Urban Design Regulations would not apply to this proposal.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the
proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
5. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal is compatible with
surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create significant adverse
impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed
use. No other similar uses are located anywhere in the vicinity so the proposal does not result in a
detrimental overconcentration of use.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on
adjacent property.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4H, the site is served by adequate parking.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 17
CAO VARIANCE - 17
9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate
traffic mitigation and facilities.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will not result in any adverse light,
noise or glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
11. The criterion is met as interpreted by staff. The project area on the south end to the south end
is not developed and not within a critical area. Ms. Ding testified that this undeveloped site is not
artificially landscaped but is populated by vegetation. She testified that staff considers the naturally
growing vegetation to qualify as landscaping. Deference is given to staff’s interpretation on this
issue as it appears to be consistent with past practice and alleviates the heavy burden the requirement
would otherwise place on developers only developing small portions of large development sites. To
require such sites to be fully landscaped in the more traditional meaning of the term would result in
the loss of ecological benefit of retention of natural habitat while at the same time placing large
installation and maintenance costs upon the property owner.
SITE PLAN
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC
4-3-100.
12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the proposal is consistent with the City’s
comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 18
CAO VARIANCE - 18
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways
and adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the
appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the
proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent
properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City’s refuse
and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely
affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City’s
landscaping standards, which includes perimeter landscaping to provide buffering to adjacent uses.
The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for
the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and
soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces;
and
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 19
CAO VARIANCE - 19
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance
the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting
areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
14. The criteria quoted above are met. Privacy impacts are adequately addressed as identified in
Finding of Fact No. 5. Due to compliance with the City’s critical areas ordinance, there are no
natural features adversely affected by the proposal. As identified in the Applicant’s landscaping
plans, Ex. 24, and addressed in Finding of Fact No. 4I, significant landscaping is proposed within the
parking area as required to city regulations to protect soften the appearance of parking areas. As
noted in Finding of Fact 5C, the landscaping also provides for privacy. The landscaping plans, Ex.
24, show that the landscaping surrounds the soccer fields, thus defining and enhancing that open
space. The extensive amount of landscaping required and proposed clearly enhances the appearance
of the project. City landscaping standards include specifications to ensure that they are protected
from damage caused by vehicles and pedestrians.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the
site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian
areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
15. The proposal as conditioned provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian
circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E. As
testified by staff, the proposal is not subject to new loading and delivery standards since the
development is largely pre-existing. Transit and bicycle facilities are available as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4J.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 20
CAO VARIANCE - 20
16. The proposal provides for adequate open space as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4D.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined
in Finding of Fact No. 5A. The proposal also does not include any shorelines and is in no position to
provide public access to them.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
18. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of
significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the project protects all affected critical areas
as required by the critical area regulations.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
20. There is no phasing plan proposed
DECISION
The site plan, conditional use, and three street modification requests meet all applicable review criteria
for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law of this decision and are approved, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 5, 2022:
a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted
Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated June 23, 2022.
b. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction plans for the
new fields and the building permit plans for the proposed maintenance building and
elevated patio addition to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The
geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the
construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications
meet the intent of the report.
c. The artificial turf field program, including field design, construction and operation, together
with stormwater management and water quality treatment for drainage from the artificial
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 21
CAO VARIANCE - 21
turf fields, shall assure that the field materials do not result in a probable adverse
environmental impact on fish and wildlife. The proposed water quality treatment facility
shall be a Filterra Bioscape facility sized to treat the 2-year storm event or equivalent as
approved by the City and the Applicant shall undertake quarterly water quality tests of field
drainage, during the life of the field or for a five (5) year period, whichever comes first. The
Applicant will submit a monitoring protocol to test for SBR Crumb Rubber constituents of
concern in field drainage for City approval.
d. When the fill within the synthetic turf athletic fields is replaced, the Applicant shall be
required to go through a new Environmental Review.
e. The Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed underground storage chambers, to be
utilized for compensatory storage, would not have an adverse impact on salmonids and
would ensure that salmonids would not get trapped within the proposed underground
storage chambers.
f. The Applicant shall follow the Department of Ecology guidance for Tacoma Smelter Plume
soil contamination testing and remediation as instructed in the agency’s letter (Exhibit 15).
g. The Applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan prepared by a qualified
professional with the civil construction permit for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
2. A detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D.12 shall be submitted at the
time of Construction Permit Review. The detailed landscape plan shall verify that all proposed
reconfigured surface parking spaces shall be located within fifty feet (50’) of an interior parking lot
landscaped area. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit.
3. The Applicant shall either verify that no new utility equipment cabinets would be visible to the
public or that a screening detail shall be provided. This information shall be provided to the Current
Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval prior
to the issuance of the Construction Permit.
4. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review showing the
required 632 sq. ft. of recyclable and 1,264 sq. ft. of refuse deposit areas, or a modifica tion from
these requirements shall be submitted for review and approval. The revised site plan and/or
modification request shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit.
5. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review providing bicycle
parking for 16 additional bicycles. In addition, a bicycle parking detail shall be provided
demonstrating that the proposed bicycle parking would be provided for secure extended use and
shall protect the entire bicycle and its components and accessories from theft and weather. The
revised site plan and bicycle parking detail shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit.
6. A fence height variance shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed fencing.
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
CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 22
CAO VARIANCE - 22
7. A final wetland mitigation plan be submitted addressing the recommendations outlined in the Peer
Review Memorandum, prepared by Otak, dated November 4, 2022 (Exhibit 10). The final mitigation
plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the
time of Construction Permit Review.
8. The purchase of mitigation bank credits shall be completed prior to the commencement of any
paper fill activities on the project site.
9. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review to the
Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction
Permit.
10. Any portion of the onsite wetland and associated buffer areas shall be placed within an NGPE. The
NGPE shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for
the proposed tenant improvements.
11. The construction of frontage improvements shall be deferred to the future Master Plan application
for the larger Longacres redevelopment.
12. An updated Geotech report providing a soils analysis consistent with the 2022 RSWDM shall be
submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Civil Plan
Reviewer prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit.
DATED this 12th day of January, 2023.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the
hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 -day
appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 38
Appendix A
January 10, 2023 Hearing Transcript
Sounders -- LUA22-000357
Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The
reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the
limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available
from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, for the record, it is January 10th, 2023, 11:00 AM. I'm Phil Olbrechts, hearing examiner for the city
of Renton. This morning, we are considering a conditional use permit site plan and street modification
for Sounders FC Center at Longacres. That's file number LUA22-000357. The hearing format will be, we'll
start off with a presentation from staff. That'll be Ms. Ding who'll give us a summary of the proposal.
Once she's done, then we'll move on to the applicant to make a presentation if they want.
And once they're done, we'll move on to public comments and I'll get into more detail when we get to
that point in the hearing as to how members of the public can participate. And once we're done getting
all those comments, we'll go back to staff for Ms. Ding to be able to answer any questions that were
asked and provided any necessary rebuttal evidence. Then applicant gets final word and I get 10
business days, a couple weeks to issue a final decision. Now by state law, I'm only allowed to consider
evidence that's put into the record today. That way everyone knows exactly what information was being
considered for the final decision, and Ms. Cisneros usually has the exhibit list there to put on the screen
to show exactly what I've got in advance of the hearing. And I'll give her a chance just to post that up
there.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Okay.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, there we go. So we've got 38 total exhibits. The first 19, or actually appended to the
Environmental Review Committee Report. That was the report put together to do the environmental
review, the SEPA, State Environmental Policy Act review for the project. And on top of that we have
the... Oh, let's see. It just changed. Can you go back to what you had?
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
The [inaudible 00:02:43] report exhibits.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. So we have a pretty long list there all the way down to 19. And then let's get to
the second part there. And then on top of that, there was a request for reconsideration on the
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 38
environmental review and a decision made on that. Then we have the staff report that was given to me.
We got the public comments and city responses, conceptual landscape plan and so forth. Are there any
objections out there for entry of Exhibits one through 28?
These are all available on the city's website. If anyone needs to look at those right now, we can tell you
how to look those up. But at this point, just need to know if you have any objections over their entry. If
you do raise the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen, that's the little yellow hand or raise hand
icon, you can just press on that or just unmute yourself and say, "I object." And I am not seeing any
objections. So I'll go ahead and admit Exhibits one through 28. And Ms. Cisneros, actually, I saw the staff
PowerPoint was added in there somewhere. Was there usual core maps and that kind of stuff?
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
There is another exhibit sheet where-
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay, here we go. We have more. Okay.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
So beyond 28.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Yes, and there was a couple other exhibits added yesterday, so we added those to this list as well.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. So I see here we have that staff usually gets in the staff PowerPoint is 29. The city of written maps,
which is located there at the WebLink, is 30. That's essentially photographs of the project sites and
critical area maps, if there are any steep slopes, that kind of thing. That would show up on the maps. We
also have Google Earth, which gives us aerial views of the project site. Then 32's a vicinity map and so
forth. And finally 33 is resumes of the applicant's consultants I see there. So any objections over 29
through 33? Okay. Hearing none, those are admitted as well. All right, let's move on to Ms Ding. And Ms.
Ding, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm tell the truth, nothing but
the truth in this proceeding?
Jill Ding:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Jill Ding:
Thank you, Mr. Examiner. I will go ahead and share my screen. Okay. Are you seeing my PowerPoint?
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
Yes.
Jill Ding:
Yes? Excellent. Okay, well happy New Year everyone. We are here today for the public hearing for the
Sounders FC Center at Longacres. My name is Jill Ding. I'm a senior planner here with the city of Renton
and the project manager for this project. So just to kind of go over a brief description of this project, the
applicant has submitted a request for a hearing examiner conditional use permit, a site plan review,
environmental SEPA review, as well as a street standards modification for this project. The project site is
located within the commercial office zoning designation. There are wetlands, a seismic hazard area, and
a flood hazard area mapped on and around the project site. And the existing development includes a
five-story office building and a surface parking lot, which you can see in the vicinity map below.
The proposal includes the reuse of a portion of the existing office building for Sounders FC office space
and indoor training facilities and associated activities. As well as outdoor recreation facilities including
five full-size soccer fields, a goalkeepers field, and accessory structures. Reconfiguration of a portion of
an existing surface parking lot, and the proposal would utilize existing curb cuts for access to the project
site. A 14-day public comment period was start started on October 13th, 2022. We had to reissue that
re-notice that the new public comment period began on October 18th, 2022. The public comment
period ended on November 21st. We received five comments during the public comment period and we
received one comment from the Washington State Department of Ecology after the conclusion of the
comment period. So as part of my review, it was determined that the proposal would be consistent with
all relevant comprehensive plan land use policies. The proposal is compliant with all relevant zoning and
critical areas regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with.
The proposal is compliant with the conditional use permit and site plan review criteria if all conditions of
approval are complied with. And the requested street standards modification is consistent with the
modification criteria if all conditions of approval are complied with. We routed this proposal for review
internally for comment from other city departments. Police and fire prevention staff indicate that
sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development. Water and sewer services
provided by the city. Water and sewer improvements will be required within the project site. A drainage
report was submitted by Coughlin Porter Lundeen. The proposed project would provide a water quality
facility as well as utilizing the existing onsite storm water system. The project would be required to
comply with the city of Renton surface water design manual for storm stormwater. So in conclusion,
staff is recommending approval of the Sounders FC Center at Longacres as depicted in Exhibit two,
subject to 12 conditions of approval. Do you have any questions for me?
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, just a few. Couple related to the DOE objections over, I think it was Feature G, has the applicant's
response been shared with DOE and did they have any further comment after that?
Jill Ding:
So I don't know if the applicant has responded directly to DOE. The city had our environmental
consultant Otak look at the response and they provided a memo that was shared to DOE and that was
made an exhibit, let's see... I'm not sure which exhibit that is off the top of my head. Exhibit 28.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 38
Jill Ding:
His staff's response to DOE and I haven't heard anything back.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, I just wasn't sure if that had been shared with DOE. I didn't see that Otak had reviewed. So
Otak was okay with the applicant's response to the DOE concern and staff's good with that then?
Jill Ding:
Well, Otak did not agree with DOE's concern and so they provided a rebuttal memo that we then
provided to DOE. In my response to DOE, I invited them to the hearing today and let them know that
they could attend and testify if they wanted to discuss the matter further. They have not reached out to
me directly and I don't know if they are here.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Jill Ding:
Or not.
Phil Olbrechts:
Gotcha. All right. Also, I was kind of curious, it's kind of a minor point, but I noticed that the project was
conditioned to comply with refuse and recycling standards, but when it came to the loading and delivery
area, the staff report response was that, "Well that's already been built so they don't need to address
that again." So I'm kind of curious why that same reasoning wasn't applied to the recycling
requirements.
Jill Ding:
Basically, I just need to make sure that they're not in violation of our refuse and recycling regulations.
We do have code compliance, so if there's trash all over the site, if they're not adequately providing
refuse and recycling areas on site, then I need to be able to verify that. So I need to be able to verify that
they're not in violation of our code and subject to code compliance, which I'm sure they're not. I don't
anticipate that they are going to be. I believe that they probably have existing facilities that it's
adequate. I just need them to verify that, so we can kind of check that box and move on.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And then another provision that's always kind of been a problem area for me is that I think one of
the site plan regulations provides that any undeveloped areas must be landscaped and or be in a critical
area. And I think there's some areas in the south of the project area that aren't critical areas that are
undeveloped. Are those all being landscaped then? I mean, how do we deal with that standard? It just
seems to be kind of difficult to enforce at times.
Jill Ding:
It is a little bit difficult. I will say I have been out to the site, there is existing vegetation out there so they
can use existing vegetation to satisfy that requirement.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, I see.
Jill Ding:
They are providing some landscaping. We also anticipate that this is going to be a future development
on and around the site too as Longacres develops in the future. So I would say right now, the existing
vegetation meets that requirement.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. And then, there's another standard that requires that there be adequate transit. And
legally we can't really require the applicant to mitigate for transit usually, but we're stuck with that
criteria. I mean, I don't think the staff report address transit. Is there a transit stop nearby or something
where I can just say that there's a transit stop two blocks away?
Jill Ding:
I don't know that off the top of my head. Hopefully the applicant can answer that. I do know I received
comments from King County Metro, they called me as well. Their main concern was just making sure
that the project wasn't going to impact any of their existing transit stops, which it's not because there's
no frontage improvements that are proposed right now. Oh it looks like I've got... Vanessa said, sorry.
Vanessa mentioned to me that there is a Sounder station in the vicinity of the project site.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Great. And then finally I need to make a finding that the circulation and transportation facilities
are safe and efficient. I was just hoping maybe someone from Public Works could say they reviewed the
existing circulation system and find it safe and efficient. That way I can note it in my decision.
Jill Ding:
Yeah, we do have staff here from development engineering. Nate Janders is here. I don't know if you
want him to pop in now.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, why don't we have... Mr. Janders, let me swear you in real quick, just raise your right hand. Do you
swear or affirm to tell the truth nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Nate Janders:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
And yeah, I just need confirmation because it's not on the record that Public Works has reviewed the
existing circulation system and finds it safe and efficient.
Nate Janders:
We do.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thanks. That's all I got. That's all I needed. Okay, fantastic. All right, well let's move on to
the applicant team at this point. Who wanted to start off on the applicant team?
Jeremy Eckert:
All right, thank you very much here, examiner Olbrechts. My name is Jeremy Eckert from Tharsis Law. I
am counsel for Unico and Unico is the owner of Longacres. Let me stop here. Can you hear me okay?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. And sorry, you're the legal counsel? Is that what you're-
Jeremy Eckert:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, so I won't swear you in then.
Jeremy Eckert:
Legal counsel for Unico.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. So you're not going to provide testimony, right? You're just going to be,
Jeremy Eckert:
That's usually not how it goes. So no, I don't think we'll do that today.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Okay, great. All right. And how do you spell your last name for the record?
Jeremy Eckert:
E-C-K-E-R-T as in Tango.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. All right, go ahead. Thank you.
Jeremy Eckert:
And I'm joined here with Ann Giggi from HCNP off to my right. She is legal counsel for Sounders FC. And
Unico and Sounders FC are the co-applicants before you today. I'll be taking the lead on behalf of the
applicants of today's hearing. And I also wanted to mention that Ann and I are joined by 11 of our
project team members. Consultants ranging from transportation engineers to civil landscape project
managers. We do not plan on calling 11 people, but we wanted to let you know that they are available if
you have any questions. And their resumes are in that exhibit that was submitted and admitted earlier
today.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 38
Our thoughts for a quick presentation today, and we can adjust if you like, wanted to provide a quick
project overview where we'll have the project architect Tom, walk you around the site just so you can
see how it works. Then have brief comments from the vice president of Unico, talk about Longacres and
the vision for this site. Followed by brief comments from Sounders FC COO, discussing their vision for
this site. Following that, what we'd like to do is to propose one amendment to the condition. We talked
with city staff about this proposal yesterday and I believe that it's a friendly amendment the city will
agree to. And that is our plan. But before we jump in, I just want to ask, does this seem like a good plan
of attack for you? And are there any questions that you would like us to address?
Phil Olbrechts:
No, that sounds fine. Yeah, just a couple questions, but I'll do that when you're done.
Jeremy Eckert:
Great. Okay, well with that, I'm going to ask Tom Proebstle to join us, who's coming in virtually from
Kansas City.
Tom Proebstle:
Hi everybody, can you hear me?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yes. Great. And let me swear you in, sir, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Tom Proebstle:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
And then just for the transcript, your last name is spelled P-R-O-E-B-S-T-L-E, is that correct?
Tom Proebstle:
That's correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Jeremy Eckert:
Okay, Tom, we've already heard your name for the record, could you please tell us your title?
Tom Proebstle:
Yeah, I'm partner in charge of this project.
Jeremy Eckert:
And could you please state your professional qualifications?
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 38
Tom Proebstle:
Yeah, sure. So I've been fortunate to work in sports for a long time, sports and entertainment, for about
30 years. And I do want to point out a couple things. One, it's good to be back in Renton. I was a project
designer for the Virginia Mason Athletics Center up to north, just a little bit, a few years ago. And then
I'll show my age a little bit. So back in the day, my current business partner and I were young designers
on what is now Lumen Field for the Seattle Seahawks.
Then most recently, we just helped complete the Kraken training center up at Northgate and helping on
that project. And then obviously we're down here back in Renton, coming full circle, I guess, with the
Seattle Sounders, which we're really excited about. So long-standing work in sports, in every sport you
can imagine, both nationally and internationally, having the opportunity to work on not only marketing
facilities like Lumen Field over to the renovation of Lambeau Field, to Fenway Park and everything in
between. So really excited to work with stellar organization like the Seattle Sounders, and of course glad
to be working with the Renton team again.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you, Tom. And if I could ask Ms. Cisneros or the clerk to bring up what I believe is now listed as
Exhibit 32, the vicinity map? What we'd like to do is have Tom talk to a handful of these slides.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Sure, I can do that.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you, Ms. Cisneros. And if you don't mind, maybe you could be the... We'll say beep, and you could
help us out a little bit if you don't mind.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
No problem.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you.
Tom Proebstle:
Yeah, and Ms. Cisneros, just for clarification, are you able to move your cursor around and point by
chance or not? It's fine, if you can't.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Maybe, I'm not quite sure, but I can try and just see if that works.
Tom Proebstle:
I think most people are familiar with the site, but we wanted to take a few minutes and just orient
everybody, walk you through, Mr. Examiner, through the project. Talk about a day in the life of the
different users and you're welcome to jump in at any point and ask questions.
Phil Olbrechts:
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 38
Okay.
Jeremy Eckert:
And Ms. Cisneros, let us know when you have it up. We'll pause for a moment. Thank you.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Okay.
Jeremy Eckert:
Yes, thank you.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
You're welcome.
Jeremy Eckert:
All right. So Tom, could you please describe the vicinity where this proposal is located?
Tom Proebstle:
You bet. So in this exhibit, this plan is north at the top of the page. And again, I think you're all familiar
with the site. At the top of the page is 405, I'm going to go counterclockwise onto the west side of the
overall site is a Tukwila Train Station, which Mr. Examiner, I believe addresses your question about mass
transit and availability of transit. And that is one of the key reasons why the Sounders chose this site. As
we move around to the south side, the two existing buildings at the south end of the site are the current
Kaiser Permanente buildings. As we move around to the east side, as we all know, that is Oakesdale.
And the primary entry point day in, day out, for users under this site. There are several buildings on this
campus. Our building is the one that is out in the middle of the site.
It's a little hard to see here, but it's about where you see Oakesdale Avenue, the southwest part. If you
could point to that. Again, it's a little bit difficult to see, but right at the edge, just go south a little bit
and then back up. You're circling it. There you go. So that's the existing five-story building. It's about
300,000 square feet. There's an existing parking lot to the south of that building. And we'll talk about
this in further detail, what's going on with that. Two more things I'd like to point out, if you will. There
are three sort of north south sections to that parking lot. There's the eastern side along Oakesdale,
there's a middle part and then there's a small western existing parking, that will go away in this
proposal. We'll talk about that further. And then finally west of there and north, is a key consideration,
Wetland A.
So that is the open water that you see in this plan now, which again is Wetland A in the various exhibits.
I do want to add a couple more things about this location. The opportunity to work with a sports
franchise like the Sounders is a wonderful opportunity for all of us and the opportunity to be involved
with sports and the impact of that. I'll tell you, we looked around quite a bit at sites around Puget
Sound. Boy, it might have been a dozen sites by the end of the day. This one stood up far and above all
the other site opportunities and for a couple different reasons that I wanted to point out to you today.
We mentioned the train station and access to mass transit, that's really important and to build upon
that, that was a big factor.
Another part or another key factor is that Boeing and you think about the legacy and the arc of history
on this site, more modern times of course, or more recent modern times. Of course, there was the old
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 38
racetrack, which you can see a little bit of the remnants of it on this site plan for the old racetrack. When
Boeing took this over and master planned this site for a denser future, the buildings that they've built,
and what we've discovered over time, and it probably doesn't surprise anybody, but they're well built.
And so it's a really unique opportunity to be able to go into an existing building that's well built, which
means that we don't have to build a new building at the end of the day, which helps us from a
sustainability standpoint. So that's a great feature that attracted the Sounders to this.
And then of course, Boeing abandoned the site over time and Unico and Sounders in finding a
relationship to move this thing forward and to build upon the legacy of the site is truly incredible. Then
on top of it, the final part, and not all the factors, but one of the final big components to it that made
this site impressive for ownership, was the fact that there is flat land here, relatively flat land that we
can work with to put the various pitches that are required for the site. And then finally the network of
trails that Boeing established that starts over the Tukwila Station and sort of circulates around the site.
We're really excited about that, promoting outdoor activity and fitness. And so that's just more icing to
the cake. So I think I hit on all the key parts, Jeremy.
Jeremy Eckert:
Perfect. Thank you, Tom. Now if we go to the next slide please. Thank you. All right. So Tom, we've
zoomed in a bit here. Could you please describe the proposal, now that we've zoomed in?
Tom Proebstle:
You bet. So if you bear with me, we've elected to turn the site plan, so north is now to the right, okay?
We did that so it's a little bit easier to zoom in. So what that means is that Oakesdale is at the bottom of
the page. 4 5 would be to the right. As we circulate around, then Wetland A is up at the upper right
corner.
Tom Proebstle:
A is up at the upper right corner, is Wetland A. And then the Kaiser Permanente Building would be to the
left on the left side of the page, just outside of this site plan. So what I wanted to point out-
Jeremy Eckert:
If I just pause one quick second, I want to make sure we understand where Wetland A is located. So if
we could take the cursor and move it to the far upper right hand corner, a little bit more to the right,
just a little bit where the text box is to the right just a little bit more. Keep going to the right. There, right
there. Tom, is that where Wetland A is located?
Tom Proebstle:
That is correct.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cisneros. Appreciate that. So, please go ahead.
Tom Proebstle:
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 38
Yeah, you bet. And if you could back out just for a second, sorry, Ms. Cisneros. The existing building is
hatched, and it's the dark gray building there. Then I think we're all familiar with the curved atrium
element, which is up in this case in the upper right corner of that building.
That's the large five-story atrium. So what I want to take a minute and talk about, the reasoning for this
pitch layout, I think it's important to discuss that and take a couple minutes to do so. As I mentioned on
the previous slide, there is a small area of parking that we need to remove to fit the five pitches here as
you see. And I wanted to just mention that in removing those parking spots, we still are in excess of the
parking requirements for this building and the proposed project.
So in spite of the elimination of those parking spots, we are still in excess of, and I think we're at 766
current parking spots in this diagram, in what we propose for you. So why this layout? So there are a
couple factors. One of the key factors is that with an MLS facility and NFL, but in this case MLS, a really
critical factor is adjacency of what we call Pitch 1, which is the pitch that's immediately adjacent to the
west side of the building, or in this case, on the top side of the building there and it's labeled Lot 11.
Those are the legal points. But the Lot 11 is what we call Pitch 1. And that has immediate access from
the building. So that team one of the Sounders can easily get onto the site. That pitch and the pitch...
The sump there, and what's noted as Lot 13, Pitch 1 and 2 are grass, are natural grass. The three
remaining pitches are artificial turf. And then in between there, so south or to the left of Pitch 2, there's
a 4,000-square-foot maintenance building in that location.
Of course, these pitches need to be maintained. There's a variety of equipment that's required, and
material that is housed in that building. The pitches themselves, why are they this size? So they're 75
yards by 116 yards. And that is what is at Lumen Field. So when the Sounders play and when they train,
ideally we try to recreate the conditions of Lumen Field, which creates home field advantage for the
organization.
So that is why the pitches are that size. Now, I'll point out that the five pitches help support the
programming for this project, which I just want to take a second and discuss. So what's really unique
about this for an MLS team is that, and this is the first time for the Sounders as well, is that their entire
organization is going to be under one roof, at this complex. Really amazing, wonderful opportunity for
Sounders Nation, and all this is happening here.
So what does that mean? So in the roughly 50,000 square feet that the Sounders are going to lease in
the building, on the ground floor and in the second floor, the ground floor is primarily team one. So it's
their locker room training area, various activities related to that media, your entry as you arrive through
the public or press, and then in addition to that, again under one roof, which is a great opportunity, is
that defiance in academy.
So the Sounders Youth Triangle that builds all the way up to Team 1 is all housed here. A really
incredible thing. So that is what drives the five pitches at the end of the day, is that we're going to have
a variety of soccer-related activities occurring here, not only with Team 1, the Sounders as we know it,
but also their youth programs that will be based here as well.
So pretty amazing thing. A couple other things I want to point out before we go onto the next page, the
fields themselves, so there's a couple factors here. There is a fence. We're proposing a 10-foot fence.
And the reason for that is that, and this is a privacy fence, so it has a screening on it. The reason for that
is that as it turns out, a team like the Sounders and any MLS team for that matter, they actually work on
plays specific to the opposing team that is coming to town or that they're training for.
So as you can imagine, there are people that are interested in what those plays are. So we need a level
of privacy on the site and around the pitches that prevents people from easily taking photos. Anything's
possible, but the de facto standard in the MLS is that there's a 10-foot privacy fence that
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 38
circumnavigates the site. And then within that, there are a couple additional net areas that prevent
errant balls from launching out into different places, into the parking lot and so on.
So we've got a couple areas, as an example, right behind the nets where we would have larger netting
that's more open. We don't need privacy in that case, but there's a few of those nets that happen to
prevent errant balls around the site. Couple other additional points here, the triangular flat area which is
directly above Pitch 1, so there's a little triangulated space there. If you could point that out? Yeah. And
then go right. Yeah, right there.
So that space is for goalkeeper training, for the most part. So this is an ancillary area that allows
goalkeepers to move aside and do what they need to do without impacting the other pitches where the
rest of the team might be training. So we use that for a variety of different reasons. Primarily it is for
goalkeepers to train there and other stretching, and so on.
The last thing I'd like to point out is that on this diagram, you'll see the network of trails that happen
around the site, outside of our boundary. So those will remain intact and in fact, we're going to add a
little bit to them and bring it over to our building on the north side of the site. So we're excited to
continue to improve the site circulation from the pedestrian standpoint around the beautiful wetland.
Sorry, I said the last thing.
There's one other point I want to make. So between those pedestrian paths and our site fencing, you'll
see what looks like a hatched area and that is our landscape restoration area. So as we build these
pitches, as you can expect, there's a little more area that the existing landscape will be disturbed to
some degree. So that area that's hatched is a fairly significant transitional area that allows us to restore
native vegetation onto this site, which is a very important thing for us. Jeremy, I think I covered
everything.
Jeremy Eckert:
Tom, I love it. Thank you. Now, if we could go to the next slide, Examiner, one of the things that Tom
and I talked about is that we both really wish that we were professional athletes, but this is as close as
we're ever going to get. So what we're hoping to do today is show how the site works by talking about
the life in the day of a professional soccer player, a Sounder FC player.
So Tom, could you please describe how this site works for players, coaches, front of the house office,
press, would you mind just describing how this works?
Tom Proebstle:
Yeah, thanks, Jeremy. As I mentioned at the start, what seems like a fairly easy office project, in fact it's
quite complicated. There's a lot of different user types that are involved with this and very exciting. I just
want to take a second and point out a couple things.
Again, Oaksdale's at the bottom of the page. And you can just see a part of the pitches at the top, the
one to the right is Pitch 1, and the one to the left is Pitch 2. These are both natural grass, at the top of
the page. I do want to point out that there's a little transitional area between Pitch 1 and the existing
building that's shaded light green. So we'll talk about that for just a second. Then after this slide, we'll go
to the pretty pictures and show you how it all comes together.
So that light green area is a generally flat area that is transitioned from the existing building to the pitch.
So this is where the players and coaches are going to assemble, in a flat area. They'll be stretching and
that sort of thing. So it's a small tarmac if you will, that is artificial turf, that allow the players to go
directly from their training and their locker room out to Pitch 1. So that convenience, again, it was a very
compelling reason to choose this site, that we could have that.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 38
So this area is also fenced in. Right to the south of that, right where the cursor is, is the secured player
and coaches parking lot. So there's a zone that's 59 parking spaces that is dedicated to the players and
coaches, in a secure zone. And I'll talk more about that pathway here in a second. So what happens? If
I'm a player, I will arrive via Oaksdale as will all public and staff with the Sounders.
So the players and coaches, in essence, pick the same line. So that's the green color and the blue color
that arrive onto site to the existing curb cut head west or towards the top of the page, then they go
around and this line isn't quite perfect, but you go up to the Pitch 2. You take a left, sorry, take a right.
Then you head into the secure parking area. There will be a card pass that allows players and coaches
into that area, they're now secure. So unfortunately-
Jeremy Eckert:
A question if I could interrupt real quick for a second, why is secure parking important?
Tom Proebstle:
It's important because unfortunately in this era of fandom and excessive fandom and other things that
can happen to professional athletes and high profile individuals, it's a requirement to have a secure
parking area now with MLS, and not just MLS, but every major sport.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you. Please proceed.
Tom Proebstle:
Yeah, you bet. So if I'm a player, once I'm into this parking lot parked, then I'm going to head north or to
the right out of that parking lot into that light green area. So that's the area again, I arrive, I go through a
gate, again through a card pass, and I arrive into that area and I can go directly into the locker room and
get changed.
What's interesting about this, and we'll show this in the renderings, it's hard to see here, but there's a
little outline there, a little rectangle that is an elevated viewing platform. So the players in fact will be
undercover when they get to this location. So if it's inclement weather, they can wait until they
absolutely have to go out onto the pitch and deal with rain and inclement weather.
So we'll show what that looks like here in a couple seconds. Coaches, similar pathway, they have a
different entrance than the players, which is just over there as you can see. With that separate entry
then Defiance and Academy, the youth programs will also go through that gate and then into the
building separately from Team 1. So they have a different path into the building than Team 1. So that's
why they're entering into the building. Again, there's a bunch of different technical reasons to do that,
but basically we want to separate all users from Team 1 for a variety of reasons.
And it also, it's important to protect the youth in these programs to make sure that there's very little
interface when they're under the control of the Sounders with the public. So they will have a separate
entrance from the main entry of the building. The front office and the rest of the building tenants to be
determined will arrive and park in the south parking lot as shown by the red line. Again, a little further
south there. So most people will park in the south day-in, day-out.
So this is the administration for the Seattle Sounders. They'll come in the main entryway, the existing
entry into the building, then go up the stairs to the elevator onto the second floor space that they're
going to occupy, which overlooks the pitches. If we go to the north side of the building, then there's a
couple different user groups.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 38
There are occasions when there's activities going on on the site related to Team 1 where Defiance and
Academy may need to come through the five-story atrium. So we've accommodated that in the site
plan. In those rare cases, that would allow them to come in, be dropped off usually by their family
members in a convenient way. I think you're all familiar that on the north side of the site, there's an
existing porte cochere. Really beautiful, so there's parking there that's existing and then there's also a
roundabout as well, again at the north end or to the right there.
Yeah, there's a roundabout there that allows vehicles to come around. So in addition to the alternative
entry for Defiance and Academy, if I'm the delivery, the mail, UPS, so on and so forth, they will arrive
there at that porte cochere, drop off the mail, that sort of thing. General public will also come to the
spot and enter and be greeted by administration there on the ground floor of that atrium space.
Finally, I mentioned how complicated this is. Day-in, day-out press that will come in and interview
coaches and players, we're asking that they will also, in that yellow line there, that they will come up
and park in the existing parking lot and then enter into the building, check in, and then go to where they
need to go to support the various press-related activities that are occurring. I think that's it here.
Jeremy, did I miss anything?
Jeremy Eckert:
No, that's great, Tom. Thank you. Let's just move on and show what this looks like and walk us around
the site with your beautiful renderings. So you can go to the next slide, please.
Tom Proebstle:
And Mr. Examiner, I promise I'll tighten it up and we'll get this wrapped up for you and allow you to ask
any questions. I think you've seen all these images, but I just want to take a minute and talk about them
and what's going on here. So we're hovering above Pitch 1, and we're looking northeast towards the
existing building. I had mentioned over to the right side, you'll see there's privacy fencing, that's clear
parking, they'll walk north.
There's an existing covered parking area that is partially maintained. The players will walk underneath
that, and you can see that as lit underneath there. So then there's a player and coach gate that allows
them to go into the transitional area between Pitch 1 and the existing building. That's the area they're
going to stretch and so on. Right above that is the viewing platform.
That viewing platform aligns with level two, which is the Sounders administration. We'll show what that
looks like here in a second. As we keep going north or to the left, then it's the beautiful existing five-
story atrium, which again is day-in, day-out, the public that might be visiting, they may be picking up a
signed jersey, mail, deliveries, that sort of thing, press all go through that front lobby as we see it. Next
slide.
All right, so now we've come over and we're actually hovering above the viewing balcony. So we are
actually looking southwest, so way beyond in the distance, you can't really see it here, but the Kaiser
Permanente Buildings would be off in the distance there. So this is on level two for Sounders
administration. The purpose of this viewing balcony is there's multiple things that will be happening out
here. Obviously, it's a great amenity for the employees of the Sounders to go out and enjoy lunch and
those sorts of things, have outdoor meetings.
The other component to this is that the Sounders do have fairly routine meetings with potential
sponsors, existing sponsors, marketing efforts, ticket sales, so on and so forth, various events where this
viewing deck would allow that to happen, perhaps in coordination at the end of a training session with
Team 1 down below. Those sorts of things can happen.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 38
The viewing platform itself is 1,600 square feet and we're allocating a maximum occupancy of 100
people on this viewing platform. So we could fit more, but there's going to be various furniture and
railings and so on and so forth that will limit it to 100 people. If inclement weather were to come in
while an activity is happening on this deck, you're allowed to go right back into the level two where
there is a fairly large lunch. It's a multi-use space for the Sounders administration on a second level. So
you can retreat inside if inclement weather comes in. Onto the next slide.
Again, we've seen these images. So we're looking southeast, you can see we're near in the distance. So
this is the beautiful five-story atrium, the porte cochere in the foreground. Also the connection from the
existing building with a new path over to the existing path for pedestrians that ties this all together. And
again, this porte cochere day-in, day-out will be deliveries, press, and those various activities that I
mentioned before. You see the viewing deck there over underneath Mount Rainier, that's the viewing
deck. And then of course, Pitch 1. And then finally as we zoom out is one final image.
You could go to the next slide. We're hovering over the Kaiser Permanente Building looking northeast.
So this shows the entire development. And I'd like to point out a couple things. If we move from left to
right, so over to the left, we're probably a little aggressive with the amount of water we're showing
there, but right where the cursor is, go up. Yeah, right there, that's Wetland A. So I want to take a
minute.
We've purposefully only put Pitch 1 at the very northern end. We've oriented it in that way to minimize
the impact to our one wetland that we have, that Wetland A up there. As we move south towards
where the camera is here, then with the land as it opens up, that allows us to build the side-by-side
pitches as we move south towards where this camera is.
So we purposefully worked to lay out these pitches in a way that reduces the impact to Wetland A that
maintains the existing pedestrian trails on the site. And then again, as we head south here, we've got
the multiple pitches as they line up. Further to the right then, you'll see the existing or the maintenance
building, not the existing maintenance building, but proposed maintenance building right there. And
again, that's going to house the various materials and equipment required to maintain the site.
And then the parking lot, the existing parking lot is beyond that, just south of the building and then in
this case, to the right of our existing pages. So Jeremy, I think that concludes what I wanted to say and
I'm certainly happy to address any other questions, comments, concerns?
Jeremy Eckert:
Examiner, do you have any questions for the architect?
Examiner:
Oh, no, not at this point. Thank you.
Tom Proebstle:
All right, thank you.
Jeremy Eckert:
All right, Tom, thank you very much for your time. Just two more short witnesses and then we will be
done with our presentation. Our next witness will be Unico's Vice President, Alec Nelson. He's shuffling
from one conference room into the room with me right now. He'll be here in just one second.
Examiner:
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 38
Okay.
Jeremy Eckert:
All right. This is amazing technology. All right, so Examiner, should we swear in Alec Nelson?
Examiner:
Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Nelson, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the
truth in this proceeding?
Alec Nelson:
I do.
Examiner:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Jeremy Eckert:
Right. Thanks, Alec. Alec, could you please state and spell your name for the record?
Alec Nelson:
Yeah, my name's Alec Nelson. A-L-E-C N-E-L-S-O-N.
Jeremy Eckert:
Okay. And what's your title?
Alec Nelson:
Vice President of Investments and Development at Unico.
Jeremy Eckert:
How many years of real estate experience do you have?
Alec Nelson:
11.
Jeremy Eckert:
And what's your role in this proposal?
Alec Nelson:
So I worked on the acquisition of the property, and then my role in this proposal is I'm lead on the Unico
side on executing on the vision for the campus.
Jeremy Eckert:
Okay. And could you please provide some background on Unico and its acquisition of Longacres?
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 38
Alec Nelson:
Sure. So Unico's a 70-year-old Seattle-based owner and operator. We're a leader in the Puget Sound real
estate community. We own over six million square feet in the region, across over 50 buildings. But we
have deep ties to Renton. We've owned numerous properties over our history down in Renton.
Jeremy Eckert:
And what's Unico's long-term vision for the Sounders FC Center at Longacres?
Alec Nelson:
Yeah, so we bought this property last December. We purchased it from Boeing after they had
abandoned the campus. We knew the property being local as the former horse racing track. And then
more recently, as this vacated Boeing campus.
But really our interest in the property was piqued when we had our initial conversations with the
Sounders, about making them an [inaudible 00:49:44] in the campus. And then that interest turned into
excitement as we learned more about the site, and then through conversations with Chip Vincent and
Vanessa Dolby and Mayor Pavone learned about the history of the site and how important it is to the
city and to the town. And then the Sounders FC Center is-
Jeremy Eckert:
Okay. And then the Sounders FC Center is just a small portion of Longacres. Could you talk about Unico's
vision for the remainder of Longacres?
Alec Nelson:
Yeah. Yes. It's a huge campus and obviously, this is just one piece. It's the first piece of it and it's a critical
piece, but we have big plans for the entirety of the Longacres campus, and really, our goal is to restore
Longacres. It was formerly a horse racing track that brought a lot of energy to the campus, and our goal
is to restore it to that and make it one of the most exciting developments in Puget Sound.
Jeremy Eckert:
Okay. Is the Sounders FC proposal a standalone proposal?
Alec Nelson:
Yes. While it's one piece of a bigger project and a critical one, it doesn't rely upon anything else to
happen or anything in the master plan.
Jeremy Eckert:
Examiner, do you have any questions for Alex?
Phil Olbrechts:
No, I do not. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
Jeremy Eckert:
All right, thank you. We're down to our last one. Thank you, Owen. All right. The final witness we're
going to have is Maya Mendoza-Exstrom, and if you wouldn't mind, Examiner, swear in.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. I have to swear you in there. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in
this proceeding?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Ma'am, could you spell your last name for the record transcript?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
Sure. It's Mendoza, M-E-N-D-O-Z-A, hyphen Exstrom, E-X-S-T-R-O-M.
Phil Olbrechts:
Great, thank you.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thanks, Maya. Thanks for being here.
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
Yeah, no problem.
Jeremy Eckert:
Maya, what's your title?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
I'm the Chief Operating Officer for the Seattle Sounders.
Jeremy Eckert:
How many years have you worked for the Sounders?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
I'm entering my 10th season. That's how we measure things in sports is by season. This is my 10th
season with the Sounders.
Jeremy Eckert:
Okay. Thank you. What's your role in this proposal?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
I've been working as one of the leads on this process of getting us to this point in partnership with the
architects and the designers and all of the consultants to ensure that we answer questions in a timely
manner, get applicant information in a timely manner, and can proceed with the fun stuff, which is
construction.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 19 of 38
Jeremy Eckert:
This wasn't a question that we talked about before, but why is a timely manner so important here?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
It isn't, but I guess it is, too. 2024 marks our 50th anniversary as an organization. Believe it or not, we've
been around since 1974. It is not a surprise that we're hoping to open this facility in our 50th year as
really putting down our roots for the next phase of our club. More importantly than that, maybe for me,
one of the projects that I've been working on behalf of the Sounders and behalf of the state of
Washington, really, is to bring the World Cup here in 2026. This facility has been a key component of the
bid, especially in the last several years, and will be a training site for that particular event, and as a
result, needs to be operational and reviewed by FIFA in a really short order, and 2024 is that same
horizon line. Good that it's all the same date, I guess, but it is coming very quickly.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you. Could you describe the Sounders FC and its process to secure a new headquarters?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
Tom mentioned it, so I won't go back so far. We had our architect design 12 sites, but really, the process
started in earnest in 2016, 2017 to evaluate our future. When we came into the league and MLS, even
though we're 50 years old, when we came into the league in 2009, Starfire was a perfect and state-of-
the-art facility in the league. We had one team, as Tom mentioned. By 2016, we had two professional
teams, so our first team and Defiance as well as, as Tom mentioned, four and sometimes five youth
academy teams, professional youth academy teams, training four nights a week year round. As a result,
we've outgrown the facility and the available resources that are at Starfire. In 2016, 2017, we started
looking in earnest about what the future would hold for us knowing that we weren't going to shrink
back down.
And then in 2018, evaluated about a hundred sites across the metro Seattle, Puget Sound, south King
County region. We needed sites that were between 12 and 20 acres, because we also wanted to
facilitate bringing our business office and our technical office together. Tom mentioned that as well. But
it was critical for us to be under one roof and you know what? We're committed to do things at the best
in class standards of excellence and to set the bar in the league. Tukwila and Starfire was at that level in
2009. The league has changed, our operations have changed, and we needed a bigger footprint.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you. What does the future look like for the Sounders at this facility in Renton?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
I think this is the part that gets me the most excited. It's all of the things Tom just walked you through.
It's the ability for us to not only meet the needs of our first team players, our second team players, our
academy players, but the needs of our coaches to have state-of-the-art film rooms to put us on par with
clubs in Europe and in Asia and in South America to continue to try to win continental titles like the CCL
Champions League. Our club will travel to Morocco and be the first MLS team to play in a FIFA Club
World Cup here in a few weeks.
Hopefully, you all will find those matches and tune in, but more opportunities for us to compete on that
global stage. It meets those needs. But it also is an opportunity for us to think about what it means for
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 20 of 38
the community and how we use every aspect of the convening power of soccer and sport to make our
community more equitable? How do we win trophies and build a more equitable community? We can
do that by having all of our resources, all of our people under one roof, working together day in and day
out.
Jeremy Eckert:
Last question for you here. Tell me about the Sounders commitment to the Renton community.
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
Yeah. I think it goes back to our mission, and maybe it's one of those things we don't talk about all the
time. I know Adrian, our owner, does all the time, so I will parrot him here. But our mission as an
organization is to create moments, enrich lives, and unify through soccer. As cool as the World Cup will
be coming here in 2026 and uniting the world, we endeavor to do that every day through everything
that we do. This facility allows us to live our values in a different way, to intentionally plan. You heard
Tom talk about the ways we're thinking about sustainability onsite. That's not just in building and
repurposing really good infrastructure ensuring we're reusing things that are there. That's also, and how
do we make sure that our facilities could be a learning lab, that we could utilize some of the natural
environment and water features on this site as part of our regular programs?
That soccer has the power to convene kids around sustainability. We're committed to make Washington
state the safest and most inclusive place to play soccer. We do that work in large part through our
partnership with the Rave Foundation and our effort to build mini pitches that are dedicated for free
play in and around the region. Our first Renton mini pitch in partnership with Renton Public Schools is at
Highland Park Elementary. We are working with Renton Parks to work on Tiffany Park, which is coming
online and are already planning for the third. I think even more than that, how do we use our facility?
It's a platform for us to think differently about how we partner with local small businesses. We have a
robust partnership with the intentional netwo and use our match day to bring small businesses to the
north lot, and give them the opportunity to sell to a different group of people than maybe in their
communities.
How do we do that with Renton businesses using that atrium, using our site, bringing those forces
together, and ultimately, how do we make sure we ensure accessibility? Because that's one of the
hallmarks of our franchise. I think one of the things at Starfire we've done so well is players and coaches
interact and mingle with the community, the youth players that are coming there. While yes, we have
sincere needs and part of my job, I think a lot about risk management and access to players from a
safety perspective, we don't want to lose that character of our franchise because it is so a part of who
we are. How do we make sure that that platform you can see is accessible, that our trainings are
accessible, that we're really a benefit to the community, and that we don't lose that accessibility? We
just shift it across the freeway to our new site.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thanks Anything else you'd like to add?
Maya Mendoza-Exstrom:
I'm just really excited to continue to partner with the city of Renton. I think that is something that we'd
like to get through this process and want to continue working with you all to use soccer to make the
world a better place.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 21 of 38
Jeremy Eckert:
Any questions, Examiner, for Maya?
Phil Olbrechts:
Nope. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you, Maya. Examiner [inaudible 00:59:05], those are the three witnesses that we had planned for
our presentation. Before we move into public comment, with your permission, what I would like to do is
just identify two items in the staff report before you, and some minor modifications that we would
[inaudible 00:59:21].
Phil Olbrechts:
But before we do that, I did have some questions, technical ones. You mentioned you'd have 11 people
there. I take it those are going to be some of your technical experts, then. Is your critical areas
consultant with you today?
Jeremy Eckert:
Yes, he is.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah. Just one quick question and my question is going to be very technical and boring compared
to the level of testimony that's been presented so far. I apologize for that, but that's what I have to
focus on. I noticed in the geotechnical report, it talked about the fact that the groundwater level gets up
actually, is very shallow, and actually, during major rain events actually gets up to the surface level at
times. I know that there is concerns raised about the synthetic fields and also fertilizers used for the
natural fields. Springbrook Creek is about 1100 feet away, and it's got protected ESA fish in there. I
recognize probably that the surface waters are adequately treated and contamination of the river isn't
an issue. But what about the groundwater? Isn't the groundwater connected to Springbrook Creek? And
then couldn't the fertilizers affect the river that way? I was curious if your consultants had looked into
that.
Jeremy Eckert:
That's a good question, and I would think the correct person to address that issue while we have the
team standing by hearing your question, my thinking is that CPL might be the correct person to discuss
the stormwater treatment and what's happening with hydrology at the site. We have CPL standing by to
answer those questions.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me see.
Jeremy Eckert:
Are there any other questions? Just so our setup here, we have the 11 consultant sitting in a different
room. What other questions do you have so they can start preparing responses for you?
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 22 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
Another one was cultural resources. I might be asking that of Ms. Ding rather than yourself. Do you have
anyone on cultural resources with you there today?
Jeremy Eckert:
Not today. Our project manager, Julia Reed, has been working on the cultural resources front so she
could speak to what's been done on that front and how we'll comply with the condition.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And then another one just dealt with the lighting. A lot of times, when I see new lighting for sports
fields, there's usually some kind of a, I'm probably not using the correct term terminology, but a lumen
analysis that identifies light spillage and how bright it is. I was curious, and maybe this is more for Ms.
Ding, while that wasn't done for this project, whether there's any chance that glare would affect people
driving up and down nearby 405, that kind of thing.
Jeremy Eckert:
Oh my God. Yes. There are a couple items on the lighting front. One is there is a lighting exhibit, which is
in your plans, Exhibit 14, which shows the spillage.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, it does. Oh, okay. I misread that, then. Yeah.
Jeremy Eckert:
That's quite a ways away. We also have Tom from generator who can speak to the advancements in
lighting over the past 20 years, 30 years of his career.
Tom Proebstle:
Just as CPL or Eric are coming on the screen here, I'll just take a second and say that the advancements
in lighting has been astounding over the last few years, as you know, with LEDs. Also, the technology
allows us to directly focus the lighting to only where it needs to be. It's almost shocking how exact it is
now, and when you see it on TV, if the Sounders are on TV or the football team, it's very focused on the
field itself, and it minimizes spillage both up and then horizontally into adjacent properties. We don't
anticipate any issues of glare or spillage.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Yeah, and I just need to reevaluate that lighting plan. I just missed that readings had been
done there. And then finally, just on traffic, and I suspect this is just totally a non-issue, but I was curious
about if the use of the reviewing stands would have any traffic impacts. I've recalled Mr. [inaudible
01:03:14]'s testimony that they only accommodates up to a hundred people, so I would imagine that's
not going to have any AM or PM traffic impacts, but I don't recall that being addressed in the traffic
report. Maybe it's just someone to confirm that's not going to be an issue.
Jeremy Eckert:
Yeah. We have Amy Wasserman from 10W standing by to answer traffic-related questions.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 23 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Yeah, and I think those are all the questions I had for the applicant at this point.
Jeremy Eckert:
Well, Examiner, if you would like, what I would propose to do is let's just shuffle through the consultants
who we have available. You can pose the questions and we'll have a conversation and get to the bottom
of things. The first witness I believe would be helpful is Tim Brockway from CPL. Tim, if you could sit
down here and we'll sign you in.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, Mr. Brockway, let me swear you in. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth in this proceeding?
Tim Brockway:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
How do you spell your last name for the record?
Tim Brockway:
B as in boy, R-O-C-K-W-A-Y.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. All right. Yeah, you heard my question. I was just concerned about the connectivity of the
groundwater to Springbrook Creek and whether any contaminants used on the fields could get there
and affect the protected fish, that kind of thing.
Tim Brockway:
Yeah, we're going to, I think, have a geotech address the specificity of the groundwater. I think there is
some nuance to what you read about at the ground surface. I don't believe there's actually, we'll let
them clarify that part of their statement for the report. Storm water wise, the system that's underneath
the fields will capture and convey that water to our treatment system that's on the site as part of this
development. From there, the water will discharge to the ponds that exist on the campus right now.
Those ponds then drain down to Springbrook Creek, ultimately, as was originally designed with the
Boeing master plan that those ponds are part of.
Jeremy Eckert:
Excuse me. If you don't mind, maybe we should just back up a bit. We've talked a lot about how
stormwater works at Longacres, but maybe we should talk about water going from the fields to some
somewhere else, to pond B, to wetland A, and then out. Maybe just describe how that works.
Tim Brockway:
Yeah. In our specific case, as I said, the fields are designed with a collection system beneath them. The
synthetic turf fields actually have a liner beneath them in this project. That would not let the water get
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 24 of 38
down to the groundwater or the groundwater theoretically push up to that without a large amount of
hydrostatic pressure, which I don't think the geotech, we'll let them answer that part, but that part is
not a concern as far as I understand it. With those drains under the fields, they capture the water,
convey it through the pipes we're building with this development, and take them to the treatment
system that sits next to pond B. The treatment system is the one that's addressing the concerns on
water quality per code. It basically filters and holds the water for a little bit before it discharges it to
pond B.
Pond B, in turn, has a control [inaudible 01:06:25]. This is the Boeing design that we're draining into.
Pond B flows into pond A, which is wetland A as well. It's a combination detention pond and wetland per
the original design. That then flows through a system of swales and culverts to Springbrook Creek and
maybe say it like that. That's the way a droplet of water will hit the field, go to our treatment system, go
to pond B, pond A, wetland A, and then eventually out to Springbrook Creek. That's the life cycle of the
water droplet on this project.
Jeremy Eckert:
And then Ken, who owns the stormwater system?
Tim Brockway:
The stormwater system onsite is privately owned and maintained. It becomes public only for the culvert
that crosses beneath Oaksdale Avenue.
Jeremy Eckert:
Examiner, Tim knows quite a bit about stormwater here. I've always been amazed at how much
background he has here. Do you have any additional stormwater or infrastructure related questions for
Tim? I want to make sure we're answering your question.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. My thing was mainly about the groundwater and the connection to the river, if there was one,
even.
Tim Brockway:
I think the geotechnical engineer will be able to answer any specific questions about groundwater and
its function. But again, from a stormwater conveyance capture treatment perspective, we believe that it
has been sequestered and conveyed to match the surface runoff from the rest of the campus via the
ponds and the treatment system.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Now, is your expertise in wetlands as well? Is that correct?
Tim Brockway:
I'm not a wetland biologist. I didn't vet my credentials, but I've been a consultant in stormwater for civil
engineering for years.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Just that. Gotcha.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 25 of 38
Tim Brockway:
[inaudible 01:08:05] for 25 years. Most of my projects have in some way or shape either been directly or
downstream, connected through wetland systems like that.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. That's great. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony.
Tim Brockway:
Sure.
Jeremy Eckert:
Thank you, Tim. Well, we have Matt Smith virtually here with us, who is the geoengineer. We could
bring Matt on to answer your questions [inaudible 01:08:26] then answer any questions.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah. Mr. Smith, I'll have to swear you in. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the
truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 5:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Yeah. Like I said, my just concern was any contaminants on the field, fertilizers or the
synthetic turf getting into groundwater, getting into Springbrook, is that a route that could take this
bypassing the whole stormwater system that was just discussed?
Speaker 5:
Do you want me to respond now? Okay. All right. The soils that are present at this site in the near
surface consist of a combination of silt fill and silt alluvium, so they're finer grained soils that are not
particularly permeable. They have a low infiltration capacity. We're not expecting a lot of surface water
infiltration to occur here, just given that near surface soil condition.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. That's all I needed. Thank you. All right.
Jeremy Eckert:
Examiner, what should we hit next? What do you think?
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, well, I think the only other one I had was a knockoff, just the traffic. I just want to confirm that that
reviewing stand doesn't materially add to the traffic impacts. Like I said, I don't recall that the potential
for spectators being invited over in a group or something was addressed in the traffic report. I want to
make sure that was de minimis, in a sense, or maybe it was addressed and I didn't see it.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 26 of 38
Jeremy Eckert:
Sounds good. We'll have Amy Wasserman from [inaudible 01:10:09] W step in here.
Speaker 4:
Good morning or afternoon. I'm not sure what time it is.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Ms. Wasserman, let me swear you in. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but
the truth in this proceeding?
Speaker 4:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
How do you spell your last name for the record?
Speaker 4:
W-A-S-S-E-R-M-A-N.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. You heard my question. It was just about the reviewing stands and Mr. [inaudible 01:10:33]
had testified you're just going to have a hundred people there at most at a time. If there is some event
where people are invited to come over during AM or PM peak hour, is that going to affect your traffic
analysis at all?
Speaker 4:
No, that would not. Based on information received from the Saunders, that hundred capacity would be a
rare occasion and it's been accounted for on the traffic analysis that's included in Exhibit 16.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, is it? Okay, great. Okay, thanks. Yeah, that's all I had on that. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, are my
significant questions. I wanted to go back to Ms. Sting, if I could, at this point then. Ms. Ding, I forgot to
ask you about this one. For life of me, I can't find the Duwamish comment letter anymore. I had read
that a couple weeks ago, and they had expressed that since this site is near Lake Washington and so
forth, that this was a high-risk area for cultural resources. The SEPA checklist just said there are no
known cultural resources anywhere near here. I read somewhere else that the DEIS had assessed this
issue, but that's not in the record. Could you clarify what kind of analysis was done in the DEIS and why
the Duwamish concerns weren't found to be something that required further mitigation here?
Jill Ding:
I did receive comments from the Duwamish. I believe they're in Exhibit 15, and then they might have
been included again under Exhibit 23. Their concerns were archeological in nature. I know that the SEPA
checklist talked about the DEIS, but in my conversations with the applicant, they looked at the DEIS. I
didn't look at it as part of my review, but they didn't find that any archeological studies were actually
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 27 of 38
done as part of the DEIS. I'll have Jeremy confirm that, but I believe that was what I heard when I talked
about that with them. They were going to do a separate study, a separate analysis that they were going
to submit to us evaluating that. That was the reasoning behind the mitigation measure that we
implemented through CPA.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, I see. You're not addressing it through the DEIS, it's really through this mitigation measure. What
was that mitigation measure again?
Jill Ding:
Let's see here.
Jeremy Eckert:
If I may jump in, Jill and Examiner, I believe we're looking at condition 1G. What that discusses is having
an inadvertent discoveries plan prepared by a qualified professional. We would not be preparing a
report or going out and doing pits, but we would be having the inadvertent discoveries plan. We have
Julia Reebe here to discuss the consultant who we've identified to help with that work, if that'd be
helpful.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, actually yeah, that would, since the Duwamish did raise some pretty specific issues about that. If we
could just kind of clarify, because I know that the inadvertent discovery plan is an intermediate response
to the issue of cultural resources, and I'm sure the Duwamish tribe usually wants to have a full cultural
resources assessment done. I'm curious why that wasn't found necessary in this case, given the
Duwamish comments. Ma'am, let me swear you in, if I could real quick. Just raise your right hand. Do
you swear and affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding? And then let us know
how to spell your last name.
Julia Reebe:
I do. Julia Reebe. R-E-E-B-E.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Go ahead.
Julia Reebe:
We have hired Dave Iverson from ASM Affiliates to prepare the IDP, which would be in compliance with
any ethical regulations and the DAHP requirements. That's our proposed path forward on this item.
Obviously, we would monitor the site closely and work to the best we can to accommodate anything we
see on the site.
Phil Olbrechts:
Under what circumstances is a more intense review required? Like I said, my recollection isn't entirely
clear, but is it a cultural resources assessment that's the next level of assessment for a project site if
there's a higher risk of artifacts?
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 28 of 38
Julia Reebe:
That's my understanding.
Phil Olbrechts:
Why didn't it rise to that level in this case? I just need clarification for the record.
Julia Reebe:
Based on the knowledge we have of the history of the site, it was once a farm in the late 1880's, I
believe, if my history is correct. Then it became the Longacres Racetrack, and then Boeing developed the
site. There's been so much manipulation of the landscape and a lot of artificial development happened
there. To the best of my knowledge, we don't believe that there's a lot of untouched surface. There's
been a lot of fill and adaptation of that landscape.
Phil Olbrechts:
Just kind of further clarification, then, based on your professional judgment as an expert in cultural
resources, you didn't see that because of these circumstances, that a cultural resources report was
necessary or assessment I mean. Is that correct?
Julia Reebe:
Yeah, I apologize. I would like to clarify. I am not a cultural resources expert. I work for Unico Properties.
I am the project manager.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Julia Reebe:
We have done some internet research and dug into what we can find about historical data of the site. At
one point, they did try to preserve and put under the historical registry the properties at Longacres. It
was determined that there was not enough left to actually have that be implemented. That is what
much of what my knowledge is based off is that document and research.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you. That's really helpful. Okay.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
Mr. [inaudible 01:16:40], I'd like to add that Nancy Sackman had her hand up and she is with Duwamish
Tribe. She's their Cultural Preservation Officer.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, when we get to the public comments we'll allow them to make their comments at that point.
Ms. Cisneros Cisneros:
All right.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 29 of 38
Phil Olbrechts:
All right. Let me get back to Ms. Ding, just another quick question. Where's the nearest residence to this
whole project, it looks like it's pretty far away, right?
Ms. Cisneros:
I think it's pretty far away yeah. The immediate area, this is all in our employment area valley. I don't
know specifically how close the nearest residence is, but most of the nearby properties are zoned either
commercial office or industrial.
Phil Olbrechts:
Then finally, are there any mapped aquifer recharge areas in the area? I don't think that was addressed
in the staff report.
Jill Ding:
It's not mapped within our aquifer, no.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, all right, perfect. All right. Let me get back to the applicants. Any final comments before we open
it up to public?
Jeremy Eckert:
Yes, just the two quick cleanup items that we talked about with the staff report. The first one involves
bicycle parking, specifically in section J of the staff report recommended condition number five. It calls
for 73 bicycle parking stalls. As background here, the code requires that 10% of the number of required
off-street vehicle parking spaces, you have 10% be bicycle parking. So in this case, if we have 732
required parking stalls, the city came to a figure of 73 bicycle parking stalls.
In talking with the city yesterday, we determined that only 16 stalls should be required under code. The
existing office building is exactly that. It's an existing office building. We don't need to bring that up to
code. But we do have a new use, which is a outdoor recreation facility use.
The 10-W report in Exhibit 25 identifies 164 parking stalls associated with this outdoor recreational
facility use. The city and the applicant agreed that the 73 stalls should be reduced to 16 bicycle parking
stalls.
What we would propose is we would revise condition five to say that there would be 16 stalls provided
and that we could submit a modification request so we could address timing issues with the city in
providing those stalls while allowing the fields to move forward.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Ms. Ding is that staff is okay with that?
Jill Ding:
Correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. All right. Great. Okay, sir, go ahead.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 30 of 38
Jeremy Eckert:
On the last item, we entirely agree with the condition related to protecting the environment and related
to fields, which is condition 1C. We spent a lot of time working with staff on that front. We're happy
with how that ended. I think everybody is.
What we want to do is just clean up in the staff report on page 16, it discusses a condition which is
labeled number one. That portion, page 16 of the staff report is the old [inaudible 01:20:03] condition
related to fields. What we would just propose is strike that condition in the staff report and just keep
the language as is in the conditions found on page 32.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Jeremy Eckert:
That's all we have.
Phil Olbrechts:
Actually, I did have one remaining question. I don't know if you're prepared to answer it. This has to do
with the DOE disagreement on feature G. Kind of a legal argument on what wetlands are exempt. Like I
said, I don't know if you're prepared to address it, I can just figure it out on my own. But if you'll recall, I
think OTAC's position was that it didn't qualify as a wetland because it was unintentionally created as a
result of road construction. They decided that road construction that had occurred after 1990.
But I'm assuming road construction is only a small part of the Longacres development project, right?
Most of the storm water generated by that construction work would've been for the buildings and the
impervious surface created by them.
Again, I'm just making assumptions here, maybe I'm incorrect. Maybe most of the storm water was
generated by the road construction, but if it's the case that is generated by the buildings, is that really an
appropriate exemption to use in this case?
Jeremy Eckert:
We've spoken quite a bit. Our consultant team and the city consultant team have discussed Ecology's
letter and our consultants in the city's consultant degree that this feature is not a regulated wetland.
There's actually a handful of reasons why it isn't.
One, we agree with OTAC's analysis, but there's also supplemental information as well. What we've
prepared and what we'd be willing to submit today is a letter prepared by our consultant that provides
the additional information to inform your analysis.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, that would be great.
Jeremy Eckert:
So we can provide that, I sent it to Jill earlier today, so we could submit that as an Exhibit. In addition,
we have historical photos and as-built stormwater records that Julia prepared for us, and we could
submit that as well.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 31 of 38
I think between Otac's consultant or the city's consultant, Otac, our consultant Talasea, the nearly 1000
page existing conditions report, the mitigation report, Otac's letter, and now Talasea Supplemental
Information plus the aerial photos. There's legal and technical reasons why feature G is not a regulated
[inaudible 01:22:40].
Phil Olbrechts:
Ms. Cisneros, what Exhibit number are we at right now? I don't have the...
Ms. Cisneros:
Let me check here real quick.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah,
Ms. Cisneros:
33.
Jeremy Eckert:
What I would-
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay.
Jeremy Eckert:
I suppose examiner, what I would propose is that I believe we're on number 33 now. So number 34
would be the supplemental Talisea [inaudible 01:23:08] report, which I sent to the city earlier this
morning.
Ms. Cisneros:
I just forwarded it to you, Ms. Cisneros, in an email.
Ms. Cisneros:
Thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
This would be number 33. Could we maybe post that up on the screen? I'll just ask if there are any
objections to entry of this after I see it.
Ms. Cisneros:
You want me to [inaudible 01:23:30] the document?
Phil Olbrechts:
Pardon?
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 32 of 38
Ms. Cisneros:
What was the name of the document?
Jeremy Eckert:
It was titled... Just a second here. It's titled C Talasea Supplemental Report and Analysis 1.9.23.
Ms. Cisneros:
Thank you.
Ms. Cisneros:
Mr. Hearing Examiner, would you like me to bring up the document?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, yeah, if you could.
Ms. Cisneros:
Okay.
Phil Olbrechts:
We have a document that's being presented by the applicant stated, my vision is not too great here,
January, what's the, oh, there we go. Yeah. January. Is that eighth? Yeah. 2023.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Regarding the feature G issue, anyone need to see that at this point or object to its entry of the record?
If so, raise your virtual hand. Let's click on the hand button at the bottom of your screen or unmute
yourself and say, "I object", or "I need to see this document." Not seeing any takers. I'll admit it as
Exhibit 33 then.
You said there were other things, your Honor, to present as well as beyond this, or does this happen?
Speaker 8:
That's correct, examiner. I believe to get our numbering correct, I might be mistaken, but I believe
Exhibit 32 is our vicinity site plans and renderings.
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, I recall that's the case, right?
Speaker 8:
Exhibit 33 is our project team resume, so I believe what was just submitted should be Exhibit 34.
Phil Olbrechts:
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 33 of 38
Okay. I'll correct that to 34 then. Thank you.
Speaker 8:
You're welcome.
Jeremy Eckert:
Then the other item we'd like to submit, which will be item number 35 I sent to the city, and it's titled D,
Supplemental Aerial Photos and Storm Water Plans.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Have you sent that to Mrs. Snares as well?
Ms. Cisneros:
I did.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let's post that real quick. Ms. Cisneros, if you can.
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, I'll pull that up. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble with my email. It's not letting me pull that up. Just
a second.
Ms. Ding:
I can pull it up as well too. Ms. Cisneros?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, please. Yeah, it doesn't let me open up the tab.
Ms. Cisneros:
This is the supplemental aerial photos. There, you see that?
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, yeah. Quick, could you scroll through real quick or...
Ms. Ding:
Here's historical Longacres photos.
Ms. Ding:
The 1998 King County Aerial. 2000 King County aerial. 2005 King County aerial.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, perfect.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 34 of 38
Ms. Ding:
This is an as built of the facility, I believe.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. This was, I believe 35. Right? Any objections over this Exhibit 35 coming in? Okay, hearing none.
Then we'll admit the aerial photographs in as-built as Exhibit 35. Anything else?
Jeremy Eckert:
That's all we have.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. I guess finally we get to the public comments. Why don't we allow the Duwamish Tribe to speak
first then I suppose. Let me see who that... Who was that? Mrs. Cisneros, do you recall?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes. Nancy Sackman.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. let's see here.
Ms. Cisneros:
I've allowed her to talk if she wants.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, Ms. Sackman, go ahead. At this point, I'll have to swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you
swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
Nancy Sackman:
Yes, I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Your last name is spelled S-A-C-K-M-A-N, is that correct?
Nancy Sackman:
Yes. That's correct.
Phil Olbrechts:
Just for your information, we don't have video of you right now. I don't know if you were intended yet.
Nancy Sackman:
Oh.
Phil Olbrechts:
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 35 of 38
We don't need it. You don't have to have video on.
Nancy Sackman:
Sorry.
Phil Olbrechts:
We just have your voice and that's just fine. So go ahead.
Nancy Sackman:
Okay. Yeah. My name is Nancy Sackman. I'm of the Duwamish Tribe. I'm from the Sackman family, and
I'm our tribe's Cultural Preservation Officer. I wanted to thank you for the opportunity to attend this
webinar and hearing to talk about three things that we had mentioned in our previous comment.
One, has to do with cultural resources. This is an area you are near some of our sacred sites along near
the Black River and the Green River that eventually come into the Duwamish River. We do realize that
this area has been developed. We would accept an IDP for cultural resource monitoring, particularly if
excavation cuts below fill, so into the alluvium.
The second thing that we would like to discuss or to ensure is that any of the artificial turf is as
environmentally friendly as possible to the surrounding waters and hydrology of the area.
Then finally, we definitely and strongly recommend that native vegetation only be used for landscaping,
any proposed landscaping.
Phil Olbrechts:
Thank you, Ms. Sackman, appreciate your comments. Okay, move on now to anyone else who wants to
speak at this time. Just click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen and we'll let you chime in
or unmute yourself. Not seeing any takers.
Ms. Cisneros:
I do have instructions, Mr. Examiner, if you'd like me to put them up.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh yeah. Put them up. Yeah, let's do that.
Ms. Cisneros:
There's a raise hand at the bottom of the page if anybody would like to comment. It looks like there are
two participants that have raised their hand, Mr. Hearing Examiner.
Phil Olbrechts:
Oh, okay. Great. Let me see here. All right, let's start-
Ms. Cisneros:
Marina McVicker and Cultures United.
Phil Olbrechts:
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 36 of 38
Let's start off with Ms. MacVicar then. Is she unmuted?
Ms. Cisneros:
Yes, she is.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Ms. MacVicar, let me swear in real quick. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth, nothing but
the truth in this proceedings?
Ms. MacVicar:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. And for the record, is your name spelled M-A-C-V-I-C-A-R, is that correct?
Ms. MacVicar:
Yes.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Also like the last speaker, we don't have video of you. That's not a problem at all, but just don't do
that.
Ms. MacVicar:
That's okay.
Phil Olbrechts:
All right, go ahead.
Ms. MacVicar:
My name is Marina MacVicar and I am 43 years old. I've been a resident in Renton my entire life and my
parents as well. My family has been here for over 70 years. My family and I live in one of the first homes
in Renton up the hill where there was literally nothing. We're on the historical hill. There was nothing on
the east of us moving upwards. We're truly in a pioneer home here in Renton.
I am an athlete. I've played soccer my whole life as well as my father. I remember going to Starfire Fort
Den area before there was even a Starfire or that building. They would call it Fort Den. But I have seen
so many new transformations in Renton my entire life being here. It's amazing. I am direct proof that the
Sounders and the Ray Foundation is nothing but a benefit to the community and has touched so many
lives through growth and through development like this.
I am the women's head coach for Cultures United, and thanks to the Ray Foundation and Sounders FC, I
am a direct leader in the community and am able to touch other people's lives through soccer and
through growth and development. I'm just so happy to be here. I'm so happy to be part of the team.
I can only see that with this growth, we will be able to touch the community even more so. For that, I'm
excited and I'm just thankful for this opportunity to be here and have a chance to speak to you and let
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 37 of 38
you know how this does actually affect everyone in the soccer community and the kids most
importantly. So, thank you.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Thank you for your testimony. All right, moving on. Is there anyone else who wanted to speak at
this point? I don't see any raised hands anymore. Ms. Cisneros-
Ms. MacVicar:
I'm not sure if Culture-
Ms. Cisneros:
Oh, there we go. Is a different applicant or I mean a different,
Phil Olbrechts:
Yeah, they just raised their hand again, so let's get them in there. Somebody for Cultures United. Who
do we have here on behalf of Cultures United?
Sebastian Diaz:
Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to change my name real fast. My name is Sebastian Diaz. I'm the
Executive Director of Cultures United.
Phil Olbrechts:
Sir, how do you spell your last name?
Ms. MacVicar:
D-I-A-Z.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the
truth in this proceeding?
Sebastian Diaz:
I do.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Like the other speakers, we don't have video of you, but we can certainly hear you. So go
ahead.
Sebastian Diaz:
First of all, I'm really thankful to be the opportunity to be here and listen more into details of this new
project. I'm personally really, really excited about the advancements that the soccer community is
making here in the Seattle area. We've always been a soccer city, not just because of the trophies, but
also because of the community that we create, that we have around the sport. Our fans say it louder
than anybody else in the states.
Sounders
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 38 of 38
I'm a first generation immigrant founder of Cultures United Football Club, a local non-profit serving
youth and young adults through the sport of soccer. We are partners with the Ray Foundation and the
Sounders. We are really thankful for the resources that they brought towards us so that we are
successful in the things that we do. They sponsor our women's team and our efforts to generate equal
access to sport, not just racially, but through gender as well.
I'd like to just say that it is really important for us as a whole to make these kinds of advancements in the
field because we have a really big important event coming up in a few years, four years. That's the
workup. To be honest with you, that's the dream of so many people. So many people to just be part of
it, to just witness it, and we got to get ready. I believe this is one of the steps that will allow us to be
there.
Aside from that, just empowering our local community to have facilities that are up to standards with
the worldwide of the sport. Like Maya was saying, we'll be outside next to big things in the world, so our
kids that watch TV, watch the Sounders to be able to go and connect and potentially just see this team
grow and one day dream to be part of it. That's huge. Once again, thank you for having me here and
listening and learning more about this project.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay, thank you Mr. Diaz. Really appreciate your testimony. All right. Is there anyone else who wanted
to speak at this point? Doesn't look like it. We go back to Ms. Ding. Any cleanup comments at this point
for rebuttal?
Ms. Cisneros:
No, I don't think so.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. Then the applicant, final word?
Jeremy Eckert:
No, nothing at all.
Phil Olbrechts:
Okay. I think, we've all probably talked enough today. Just for the soccer fans out there who sat through
this whole hearing, thank you so much for doing that. I mean, I know, this is obviously a very exciting
project, a great addition to the Renton community. I mean, I've lived in the Renton area a couple miles
up since I was five years old and to see the community grow like this with projects like this, that's really
exciting and transforming.
They get the Seahawks, they get the Sounders. That's really something. it looks like a fantastic project. I
don't see any obstacles to approval. I think that the most complicated thing I've just got to look at is that
whole feature G thing, and I really appreciate the applicant providing additional information that'll make
it easier to assess that issue.
Beyond that, I don't see any problems at all with this project. It's been very well designed. I've read all
the reports already and it seems like everything has been thoroughly addressed and mitigated. Again, a
great project. Congratulations to you all for putting it together. We're adjourned for today. Have a great
day. Thanks. Bye-bye.