Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-10-041_Report 01PARTIES OF RECORD LAKE WA BLVD STORM IMPROVEMENT LUA10-041, ECF, SM D] Burtenshaw Exit 7, Inc. 4425 Forest Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040-3913 tel: (206) 275-0369 (party of record) Updated: 07/15/10 (Page 1 of 1) xxx-xx-xxxx I I 1 �� � ay, -• uNi o_ .._ . cin o � o I (� I I .. I _ � 1 I - 8 ,I n �aZ cIS , Ci b FI I Z{ o p6 _. li LIIN E Iv I - I Ra � I II . II I 3; 1 yII 144 + ' I I I I' ' � 1 I I r" II I - I 9nz FI jig ... MATCHL14i STA 16+50 SEE SHEET 2 c>< o cn o I fff xxx-xx-xxxx Y...: MATCHLINE STA 16+50 SEE SHEET 1 I r I I V y 0 yj�. I P k7 z2pY q c3 1 I _ I f } 1 ttt 1� 3 Al II i p�l N o s,� 1 �v i1�JI1 _ �r t D Y...: co gym,/ I y 0 yj�. I P k7 z2pY I I S p�l N o r } I x LL--mez rz• � s ix � I, � - ] � "' i 2 = �' I � 8 _ MATCHLINE STA 22+6D SEE SHEET 3 W O NQ V` O t x — O -a ' : � � F2 � rn. i C $ L LE.-2c.e5E25.15 Ze CPP XE WT,�� �s !1 I I`I s,� 1 �v i1�JI1 _ �r t D Y...: co gym,/ I y 0 yj�. Wm P I z2pY S p�l N o v r £ MATCHLINE STA 22+6D SEE SHEET 3 W O NQ V` O i R l O F e :...`..... ..... .. .... .�� X11 2t' OPEP XE WT Y� ryFp 5Ti N I..n E "1.- 1 G -Y6]6 21 � E OUT L-20.iO 2a' CP[p 5� x xxx-xx.xxxx 22+00 SEE SHEET 2 xxx-xx-xxxx 2 �k E 00 0 \s \ - 5 [j c § \s 6° 2 � CD X m a 0 z yxxxy» - 5 - /\ ! � l\ 6° 2 � CD X m a 0 z yxxxy» m roCC) Ln 4 Z 0 W cr SSCALE: 1 "=500' NE 44TH SITE 1 a," a B105WALE City Of Pje�jt® CITY OF RENTON P.1e1 11i!t, LAKE WASHMG70N BLVD '7•isior? STORY AND HATER SYSTEM DEPROVEYENTB NEIGHBORHOOD LAP i c i i CONSMTNC ENaMMS F— LU 0 Ir OL LU LLI 0 Cl LU CO CC LLL < co LO C? ON < LU -I�i ct cr Lj- 0 U:) 0 Cl) C) o LU 2 0 C) Cr :z 0 - Cf) :lz 0 Cf) LU )(XXX -XX -)(XX Q 4 3 � Z'7* �o�aSa�a�Wo��o S P a w w$ w - z �p~x�gW'�=AGI �6iC�yc�a T}i3 03 � °m 22,SIrw 6 ?y �Gpf Fj y�lnr 0=420 00. i �3 u�3 zdz �4 z"i a� aQrc��❑z w ��=s�❑22�'Uy n8 a OO RO4 C O i 3 R N� arc4 2 vl &� �1 �•� Uz2�w5 Paw KD �� = rc ��c w �� ��• 15 r2 � Z ww IX��Jw a iur � _ _ ��,.�Wy pp�' �,W 33 a;Wo awe zn _ =m���IXw�ws°z§$a�ii``"K's ��oiizr�mrz�z❑ x��5y��ussw wwa��wnw�� �z��5r2�UW�3�uorigrcz���zi�C� �a� `��7��`2�e��s��w�3�����8$�8$$$u8um'vv"m-ol000����w�3�`s�'�-z.c�3�..3�3i������z����w�o�5z�'a�a�a�aaa��� d�'` •� mmmmu u u a„zzzooa 'oa �'S � m_�3$8 ��8���i wuc�i�oa aua�w�5.www�wc:�L��33._+�x�gw�3�34'3� z �`_�' ❑'�'$oa$�ai�d��d"� t'°` XXX)( -XX -XXX 9 } p Z° 31-w cc z IL a 2 Z w 2 0 ;z pp W J a in W Imo_ C v a cr 33 � yy s �� w ccu Z � u '� v � � azg a - --- t✓✓� u a s .- u 'm # 3 � ❑ � rc t= z u 0 Po wzLU FF gg rcrc&tai[91isi3r4�5c�[21�7i�r&tisri3333 '&��a �cn��i�ai9igl��i i�i�rlielr rrrr�i333� J I I �jry-y� m m L � p j - it � � � � � � � i , � ; •-; n8 a OO RO4 C O i 3 R N� arc4 2 vl &� �1 �•� Uz2�w5 Paw KD �� = rc ��c w �� ��• 15 r2 � Z ww IX��Jw a iur � _ _ ��,.�Wy pp�' �,W 33 a;Wo awe zn _ =m���IXw�ws°z§$a�ii``"K's ��oiizr�mrz�z❑ x��5y��ussw wwa��wnw�� �z��5r2�UW�3�uorigrcz���zi�C� �a� `��7��`2�e��s��w�3�����8$�8$$$u8um'vv"m-ol000����w�3�`s�'�-z.c�3�..3�3i������z����w�o�5z�'a�a�a�aaa��� d�'` •� mmmmu u u a„zzzooa 'oa �'S � m_�3$8 ��8���i wuc�i�oa aua�w�5.www�wc:�L��33._+�x�gw�3�34'3� z �`_�' ❑'�'$oa$�ai�d��d"� t'°` XXX)( -XX -XXX 9 } p Z° 31-w cc z IL a CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Date: February 17, 2011 To: City Clerk's Office From: Stacy M Tucker Subject: Land Use File Closeout Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement LUA (file) Number: LUA-10-041, ECF, SM Cross -References: AKA's: Project Manager: Vanessa Dolbee Acceptance Date: July 1, 2010 Applicant: City of Renton Owner: City of Renton / Port Quendall (easement/dedication) Contact: Steve Lee, City of Renton Utilities PID Number: 3224059049 ERC Decision Date: July 19, 2010 ERC Appeal Date: August 6, 2010 Administrative Approval: August 9, 2010 Appeal Period Ends: August 30, 2010 Public Hearing Date: Date Appealed to HEX: By Whom: HEX Decision: Date: Date Appealed to Council: By Whom: Council Decision: Date: Mylar Recording Number: Project Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the I-405 Exit 7 area. Location: Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N Comments: 8/26/10 - Brad Nicholson submitted appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board. 8/30/10 - DOE schedules Pre -hearing Conference for 9/15/10 and scheduled hearing dates: 1/10/11 & 1/1/11. 11/5/10 - City requests a Summary Judgement from the Shoreline Hearings Board. 12/22/10 - Order on Summary Judgement of the Shorelines Hearing Board - dismissed Nicholson appeal. As of 1/22/11 no further appeals have been submitted. 110A r<. i,,,,_�;,,,,���1 a F ,,,n :. . STATF OF WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICL Mailing Address: PO Box 4090.3, Olympia, WA 98504-0903 Physical Address: III 7 Israel Rd. Si4; rumwater, WA 98,501 December 22, 2010 Brad Nicholson Lawrence Warren 2302 NE 28" St Gannon Newson II Renton WA 98056 City of Renton Attorneys PO Box 626 Renton WA 98056 Re: SHB No. 10-016 BRAD NICHOLSON v. CITY OF RENTON Dear Parties: Enclosed please find the Order on Summary Judgment of the Shorelines Hearings Board, This is a FINAL ORDER for purposes of appeal to Superior Court within 30 days, See WAC 461-08-570 and 575, and RCW 34.05.542(2) and (4). You are being given the following notice as required by RCW 34.05.461(3): Any party may file a petition for reconsideration with the Board. A petition for reconsideration must be filed with the Board and served on all parties within ten days of mailing of the final decision. WAC 461-08-565. f incerely, i Phyllis K. Macleod Administrative Appeals Judge, Presiding PKM/dj/S 10-016 Enc. Cc-, Don Bales, Ecology City of Renton Community Development Port Quendall Company CERTIFICATION Alpert International On this day, Jforwarded a true and accurate copy of the documents to which this certificate is affixed via United States Postal Service postage prepaid or via delivery through State Consolidated Mail Services to the parties of record herein, I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Wash in tun that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED at Lacey, WA ct�l '. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SHORELINES IIEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON BRAD NICHOLSON, Petitioner, SHB NO. 10-016 V. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT CITY OF RENTON, Respondent. Petitioner Brad Nicholson filed an appeal with the Shorelines Hearings Board (Board) challenging a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) the City of Renton issued to itself for infrastructure improvements along Lake Washington Boulevard. A portion of the improvements lie within the shoreline of May Creek. Petitioner Nicholson and the City of Renton filed cross motions for summary judgment in the case. The Board considering the motions was comprised of Andrea McNamara Doyle, Chair, William H. Lynch, Kathleen D. Mix, Simon Kihia, John Boiender, and Gordon Crandall. Administrative Appeals Judge Phyllis K. Macleod presided for the Board. In deliberating on this motion the Board reviewed the following materials: 1. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. 2. Declaration of Brad Nicholson with Attachments 1-7. 3. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. 4. Declaration of Steve Lee with Exhibits A -C. 5. Declaration of Suzanne Dale Estey with Exhibits A -B. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 6. Declaration of Vanessa Dolbee with Exhibits A -H. 7. Declaration of Spencer Alpert. 8. Respondent's Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment. 9. Declaration of Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Opposition. 10, Petitioner Brad Nicholson's Response to City of Renton Motion. 11. Third Declaration of Brad Nicholson. 12. Petitioner Brad Nicholson's Final Reply to City of Renton Response. 13. City of Renton Drawings dated 2126110. 14. Respondent's Reply Affirmation. 15. Declaration of Steve Lee in Support of Renton's Reply Affirmation with Exs. A -B. The matter was decided on the record submitted without oral argument. Based upon the records and files in the case, the evidence submitted and the legal briefing, the Board enters the following decision. Factual Background The City of Renton has proposed an infrastructure project adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard designed to upgrade the roadside area and extend water lines. A portion of the project lies within the shoreline of May Creek, a Class 1 salmon bearing stream and therefore a shoreline substantial development permit is required for the construction. Lee Dect. in Support, Ex. C,- Dolbee Dect., Ex. F, The project includes five elements: (1) Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd, N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 gutter and sidewalk would continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. (2) Pervious Sidewalk: The sidewalk would be installed from approximately 270 -feet north of the May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk connection. The sidewalk is proposed to be 12 -feet wide with a 10 -foot landscape strip behind the curb and be made of porous concrete. (3) Stormwater System: The storm water system would collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharging to an existing storm water system flowing to May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. (4) Wet Bioswale: The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) of which will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. One 20 -foot wide gravel maintenance access road is proposed off of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The landscape strip is proposed to terminate just north of the maintenance access road. (5) Water Line: The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40`h St. to NE 44`h St. A 100 -foot portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Dolbee Deel., Ex. F, p. 2. The City's enunciated purposes for the project include reducing flooding, improving storm drainage for the existing roadway, and improving storm water quality treatment to protect May Creek water quality and fish habitat. The water line extension component of the project would provide needed water flow capacity and improved system reliability for fire protection to properties in the vicinity of the Exit 7 area.' Estey Decl,, Ex. B, p. 8. Prior to the City of Renton infrastructure project at issue in this appeal, the Petitioner Nicholson was involved in an appeal of the Hawk's Landing Hotel development proposed on a nearby site abutting lake Washington Boulevard, The Hawk's Landing proposal was the subject of a hearing examiner's decision dated September 10, 2009, that approved a Master Site Plan and Site Plan subject to conditions. Petitioner Nicholson appealed the Examiner's decision to the Renton City Council. The Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee and approved the Master Plan with minor modifications. The Hawk's Landing approval was not appealed to Superior Court under LUPA (RCW 36.70C.040(3)). Dolbee Decl. ¶�17-18. The Hawks' Landing project was proposed by a private developer, Spencer Alpert, for a 3.07 acre site along Lake Washington Boulevard. Dolbee Decl., Ex. H. The property had been used for decades as industrial land and warehouse space. The site is unused at this time, but was most recently the site of Pan Abode Cedar I Iomes' manufacturing facility. Esrey Decl„ Ex. A, p. 3. The hearing examiner decision in the Hawk's Landing case concluded that the hotel project ' The Fxit 7 area refers to the exit number from Interstate -405. Estey Ded, Ex. B, p. 6. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 was not located within 200 feet of May Creek and that a shoreline substantial development permit was not necessary. Petitioner Nicholson contends the City of Renton infrastructure project, which does involve activity within 200 feet of May Creek, is inconsistent with the Hawk's Landing decision. He further asserts that the Hawk's Landing project is so interrelated with the infrastructure project that it cannot be legitimately separated from it for permitting purposes. The permit for the Renton infrastructure project at issue in this case was applied for by the City of Renton as a municipal project funded by a state grant. The City's project creates improvements to the sidewalk, storm water system, and water service that will serve the general public as well as future developments in the vicinity. While the project is for the benefit of the receiving stream and may support future development, it will treat only runoff from the road right-of-way areas. Lee Decl. in Support 11¶16-17; Dolbee Decl. 1110. The City will be constructing the infrastructure improvements for Lake Washington Boulevard whether or not the Hawk's Landing project ever moves forward. Estey Decl. ¶9. By contrast, the Hawk's Landing proposal is a private commercial project which will be funded by private investment. At this time, Hawk's Landing has not been able to secure financing to proceed with the hotel project. Estey Decl. X10; Alpert Decl. If and when the Hawk's Landing project or any other project, moves forward at that site, the project developer will be responsible for satisfying all applicable Renton codes and applicable state laws related to on-site drainage and water runoff, Renton's infrastructure improvement effort is an independent project that does not depend upon ORDER ON SUMMARY .JUDGMENT SH13 NO. 10-016 (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 construction of the Hawk's Landing development and goes beyond serving just the hotel site. Lee Decl. in Support Til] 7-19. May Creek receives runoff flows from a number of named and unnamed streams in its run from Lake Kathleen to Lake Washington. The shoreline designation for the stream is "Urban" west of 1-405 and "Rural" upstream of 1-405. The creek supports transportation and rearing for most species of salmon and trout in Lake Washington. Spawning habitat for chinook, coho, and sockeye is present upstream of I-405. Lee Decl., Ex, C. The City of Renton's Lake Washington Boulevard project at issue in this case is located west (downstream) of I-405 in the Urban shoreline designation. Dolbee Decl., Ex. A. Fish and wildlife likely to occur on the site would be limited to species tolerant of traffic noise and human presence including deer, opossums, squirrels, rodents, hawks, and a variety of songbirds, crows etc. Lee Decl. in Support, Ex. C. The limited area encompassed by the project minimizes the potential impacts to significant trees. The proposed sidewalk extension and Swale will occur along the shoulder of Lake Washington Boulevard where vegetation is limited to primarily grasses, weeds, and Japanese knotweed. The swale may impact a few small alders that are less than 4 inches in diameter. The remaining trees and any on-site wetlands would not be impacted. Id., p. 4. The bed of May Creek will not be disturbed during construction and the City will utilize best management practices to keep any sediment generated by its activities from reaching the stream. Dolbee Deel., Ex. F, p. 2. The construction would not alter May Creek other than improving the quality of water entering the creek from the existing drainage pipe. Lee Decl. in Support X19. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB N0. 10-016 (6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The project's impacts on flow into May Creek were evaluated by Gray & Osborne, Inc., consulting engineers. Lee Decl. on Reply, Ex. A. They concluded that the difference between the existing land use condition and the future land use condition during the same storm would be less than 0.1 cfs. This small difference in flow is considered exempt from flow control requirements under the terms of the governing storm water manual. Ick, p. 6; Lee Decl. on Reply, p- 3. Fhe City's project actually has more water quality enhancement than is required under the applicable regulations. Lee Decl. on Reply, pp. 3-4. The project increases the net impervious area by only 1,480 square feet. The governing stormwater manuals have a threshold of 5,000 square feet for requiring water quality treatment. Similarly, the project does not trigger enhanced water quality treatment because the daily traffic count is much less than the 7,500 trips per day that would necessitate such treatment. Nevertheless, Renton has chosen to provide retrofit water quality treatments using the basic water quality treatment menu as recommended by Gray & Osborne. The project will utilize catch basins with sumps to settle solids such as rust or vehicle dust from the runoff. The wet bioswale will further improve the quality of discharges entering May Creek by providing treatment where none currently exists. Lee Deel. on Reply, p. 4. Renton's project meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the Western Washington Municipal Stormwater NDPES Phase II Permit. Lee Decl. on Reply, pp. 3-4. In addition to storm water improvements, the project will have other benefits to the public. The aesthetics of the roadside area approaching May Creek will be enhanced by filling in the ditch that currently has orange discoloration from unknown sources, without disturbing the ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (7) l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 shoreline buffer area. The natural habitat area that contains wetland buffers and the May Creek buffer areas will not be disrupted. The porous concrete sidewalk will provide a safe area from which to view May Creek and will allow improved pedestrian access along Lake Washington Boulevard. The project will improve and stabilize municipal water flow to the area providing better fire fighting flows for the Exit 7 area. Lee Decl., pp 6-7. The Petitioner Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton who owns property approximately ten blocks from the project site overlooking the May Creek basin. He enjoys walking and biking along Lake Washington Boulevard in the vicinity of the infrastructure improvements. He has recreated on and around May Creek for many years, has observed the May Creek shoreline many times from the May Creek Bridge area, and has seen wildlife using the vegetation in the area for cover. He loves May Creek and purposely invested in the neighborhood when establishing his home. Analysis Summary judgment is a procedure available to avoid unnecessary trials where formal issues cannot be factually supported and cannot lead to, or result in, a favorable outcome to the opposing party. Jacobsen v. State, 89 Wn.2d 104, 108, 569 P.2d 1152 (1977). The summary judgment procedure is designed to eliminate trial if only questions of law remain for resolution. Summary judgment is appropriate when the only controversy involves the meaning of statutes, and neither party contests the facts relevant to a legal determination. Rainier Nat'l Bank v. .Security Stale Bank, 59 Wn. App. 161, 164, 796 P.2d 443 (1990), review dented, 117 Wn.2d 1004 (1991). ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (8) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 The party moving for summary judgment must show there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Magula v, Benton Franklin Title Co., Inc., 131 Wn.2d 171, 182, 930 P.2d 307 (1997). A material fact in a summary judgment proceeding is one affecting the outcome under the governing law. Eriks v. Denver, 118 Wn.2d 451, 456, 824 P.2d 1207 (1992). If the moving party satisfies its burden, then the non-moving party must present evidence demonstrating that material facts are in dispute. Atherton Condo Assn v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 516, 799 P.2d 250 (1990), reconsideration denied (1991). Ina summary judgment proceeding, all facts and reasonable inferences must be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 291, 300, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002). However, the non-moving party cannot rely on argumentative assertions, speculative statements or conclusory allegations to defeat summary judgment. Traeger v. City of Spokane, SHB No. 07-010 (Order Granting Summary Judgment,. September 25, 2007). The City is challenging Petitioner Nicholson's standing to bring the appeal in this case. The Shoreline Management Act allows any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 to seek review from the Shorelines Hearings Board. RCW 90.58.180 (1). In order to maintain this appeal, an appellant must show that he is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of RCW 90.58.180. The term "person aggrieved" has been interpreted to include anyone with standing to sue under existing law. Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wash. App. 290, 299, 936 P.2d 432 (1997). This requires the appellant to show that he has suffered an injury in fact within the zone of interests ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (9) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 protected by the statute and that the Board has authority to redress the injury suffered. CORE v. Olympia, 33 Wash. App. 677, 657 P.2d 790 (1983). Alexander v. City of Port Angeles, SHB Nos. 02-027 & 02-028 (Order on Summary Judgment, March 13, 2003). "To show an injury in fact, the plaintiff must allege specific and perceptible harm." Suguamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap County, 92 Wash. App. 816, 829, 965 P.2d 636 (1998). The "injury in fact" test requires more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself (or herself) among the injured. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 563, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992). A party asserting general enforcement of a statute does not have standing unless he or she is "perceptibly affected by the unlawful action in question." Id. at 566. Moreover, no standing is conferred to a party alleging a conjectural or hypothetical injury. Snohomish County Property Rights Alliance v. Snohomish County, 76 Wash. App, 44, 53, 882 P.2d 807 (1994). To adequately evaluate Petitioner Nicholson's standing, it is important to delineate the proper scope of the matter before the Board for decision. The permit on appeal to the Board is the City of Renton's application to construct infrastructure improvements along a portion of Lake Washington Boulevard, including a wet bioswale treatment facility for runoff collected from the project area. The Board will examine whether the City's shoreline substantial development permit (SSDP) approval for the project is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the local Renton Shoreline Master Program (RSMP). The Board does not have any other permit before it for review and will not engage in substantive analysis of permits issued to proponents of other projects such as the nearby Hawk's Landing Hotel ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (10) 1 2 "3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 proposal" Petitioner Nicholson's standing and interests at stake must be based on injuries arising from the permit issued to the City of Renton for infrastructure improvements. Petitioner Nicholson contends the Board can, and should, consider the terms of the llawk's Landing Master Plan in this case on the basis that the Hawk's Landing Project and the Lake Washington Boulevard infrastructure improvements are essentially one project that must be considered together for permitting purposes. He claims that the City has improperly engaged in piecemeal review of the overall development. The Board has recognized the concept of piecemealing under shoreline regulations as well as under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Valero Logistics Operation LP v. City of Tacoma, SHB No. 06-001 (2006); Guon v, City of Vancouver, SHB No. 93-53 (1994). However, in this case, Petitioner Nicholson has failed to make a case for piecemealing. He has not alleged facts that demonstrate the specific activities authorized by the City's infrastructure improvements project will coerce decision -makers to approve future permit applications. Nor has he presented any convincing argument that approval of this permit; or the installation of the infrastructure improvements it authorizes, will in any way compromise full environmental review of any future development proposals. The prohibition on piecemeal review is designed to avoid artificial divisions of a project undertaken to avoid meaningful and comprehensive review: As the court observed in Merkel v" Port oJ"Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844, 850-51, 509 P.2d 390 (1973): The question, therefore, is whether the port may take a single project and divide it into segments for purposes of SEPA and SMA approval. The ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (11) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compels us to answer in the negative. In this case, the details of future development in the Exit 7 area are largely unknown. The Hawk's Landing Hotel may or may not proceed to construction. Other unoccupied property in the area is open to future development proposals. The infrastructure improvements proposed by the City will benefit the existing roadway and may benefit other projects developed on adjacent property in the future. The Board has viewed infrastructure improvements as a preliminary step to development in an area, rather than impermissible segmenting. In a case challenging infrastructure improvements proposed by the Port of Olympia as piecemealing, the Board observed; The details of any future development on the parcels being created by the Port's short plat are largely unknown at this time. While the Port of Olympia short plat may be a necessary first step in redeveloping the area, the infrastructure work authorized by this permit is more appropriately viewed as a preliminary phase of re -development rather than an impermissible segment of a single, complete, or comprehensive development proposal. West v. Port of'Olympia, SHB No. 08-013 (Order of Dismissal, November 17, 2008). Likewise, in this case the infrastructure improvements being proposed by the City will serve whatever development is constructed in the area. The City contends Petitioner Nicholson has failed to establish a concrete and personal interest in the project area that would be harmed by the infrastructure improvements. Petitioner Nicholson responds with a description of his long-time residence in the area and his ongoing use of the May Creek area generally, and the project site specifically, for recreation, observation of ORDER ON SUMMARY .JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (12) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 wildlife, enjoying the shoreline aesthetic, and possibly fishing. The City claims Petitioner Nicholson cannot establish standing because he does not own property immediately adjacent to the project site, citing Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808, 828 P.2d 549 (1992), The Board has generally construed the SMA broadly when parties attempt to bring shoreline -related environmental issues before it, consistent with the Legislatures' directive that the Act "be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted." RCW 90.58.900. The Board has recognized that the objectives of the SMA are broad and that the types of interests protected are diverse. Recreational use of the shoreline by nearby residents formed the basis for the appellants' standing in West v. City of Olympia, SHB No. 08- 013 (Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, November 17, 2008). Other cases have accepted interests in both private and public views of the shoreline as a basis for demonstrating standing. Leider v. Point Ruston LLC, SHB No. 09-005 (2009); Alexander v. Port Angeles, SHB Nos. 02-027, 028 (Summary Judgment, March 13, 2003). The Board is not persuaded that standing in a shoreline case is limited to persons holding a property interest in adjoining parcels. The Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley 118 Wn.2d 801, 828 P.2d 549 (1992) case does not establish a rule that only adjacent property owners can meet the test for standing in a shoreline case. The Cowiche Canyon case involved issues arising under RCW 90.58.230 which addresses private parties bringing suit for damages to private property resulting from shoreline act violations. Under the unique facts of that case, property ownership was central to determining standing. However, the Cowiche Canyon decision does ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (13) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 not purport to state a rule limiting standing to those persons owning adjacent property for shoreline permits appeals brought under RCW 90.58.180. Under the Board's long standing interpretation of the SMA, Petitioner Nicholson has enunciated the type of recreational and view interests that can give rise to standing in a shoreline appeal. In order to establish standing, however, an appellant must allege facts demonstrating that his legitimate interests protected by the SMA will be injured by the proposed action. As the court stated in Trepanier v. City of Everett, 64 Wn, App. 380, 382, 824 P.2d 524 (1992): Second, the petitioner must allege an "injury in fact," i.e., that he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed" by the proposed action. Save a Valuable Env't, 89 Wash.2d at 866, 576 P.2d 401; Concerned Olympia Residents v. Olympia, 33 Wash.App. 677, 683, 657 P.2d 790 (1983); Coughlin v. Seattle Sch, Dist, No. 1, 27 Wash. App. 888, 621 P.2d 183 (1980). In order to show injury in fact, Trepanier must present facts that show he will be adversely affected by Everett's decision not to prepare an EIS. His "affidavits [must] collectively demonstrate sufficient evidentiary facts to indicate that he will suffer an `injury in fact' ". Concerned Olympia Residents, 33 Wash.App, at 683, 657 P.2d 790.... If the injury is merely conjectural or hypothetical, there can be no standing. United Stales v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 688-89, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416-17,37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). Petitioner Nicholson has failed to allege such facts evidencing concrete injury. In attempting to demonstrate standing, Petitioner Nicholson argues that the project will harm a number of his identified interests including: (1) injury to May Creek, (2) injury to vegetation in the shoreline, (3) harm to wildlife and habitat, (4) harm to water quality of May Creek, (5) harm to recreation and aesthetics, and (6) harm to Petitioner Nicholson's ability to comment on a complete project and have the shoreline regulations applied to the complete project. Petitioner Nicholson's ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (14) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 asserted injuries are speculative and conjectural and the facts he alleges fall short of establishing a personal, immediate and concrete injury from the City's project. Any suggested injury to May Creek is speculative and unsubstantiated. Petitioner Nicholson has failed to allege any evidentiary facts demonstrating harm to May Creek and relies on conclusory statements of harm. "The City's project would not alter the bed or bank of May Creek. Stormwater collected and treated as part of the project would enter the Creek through an existing pipe. Excavation would not be conducted in the Creek and steps would be taken to prevent sediment generated by off -creek excavation from reaching the Creek. The City claims it is not altering or changing May Creek and Petitioner Nicholson has not alleged any facts showing otherwise. The impacts on vegetation in the area are minor. Much of the existing vegetation is non- native material and few trees of significant size will be removed. The vegetation impacted will be along the roadway and at the site of the wet bioswale. The City has acknowledged that existing regulations require it to replace vegetation that is removed. The project documents indicate that vegetation along the bank of May Creek will not be disturbed. The temporary impact on vegetation during construction does not rise to the level of a concrete injury and the replacement vegetation would be an improvement rather than an injury. Petitioner Nicholson has not alleged any facts supporting an injury to vegetation in the shoreline. Petitioner Nicholson raises the general issue of injury to habitat and wildlife in the project area. He has observed wildlife near May Creek at times over the years. The Gray & Osborne Inc. report for the project noted the presence of wildlife tolerant of urban conditions. Lee Decl. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (15) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 in Support, Ex. C. The project site is primarily composed of road right of way abutting a former industrial site with extensive paving. The primary source of habitat and cover for wildlife is in water or near the banks of May Creek. The project will not physically disturb the water in May Creek. Project specifications show anticipated flow is very close to existing conditions and the water enters the stream at the same location through the same pipe. As to vegetation benefitting wildlife, the project site will have vegetation planted as part of the construction, so cover for wildlife will not be eliminated as a result of the project. In fact, the bioswale may create new habitat for certain different types of wildlife in the area. Petitioner Nicholson makes only speculative and conclusory allegations of injury to wildlife and habitat. He has not alleged facts showing a specific and concrete injury. Petitioner Nicholson's claim that the project will harm water quality in May Creek is, likewise, speculative and unsupported by factual allegations demonstrating harm. Water from Lake Washington Boulevard currently flows untreated through a ditch to a pipe discharging into May Creek. After construction of the project, runoff will be collected and treated in a wet bioswale before flowing through a pipe into May Creek, Petitioner Nicholson claims other forms of treatment would be possible or preferable. He does not, however, make any factual allegation that the project allowed by the permit will degrade the water quality over the current conditions. The City, on the other hand, has submitted factual evidence that the project will enhance the quality of water entering May Creek. The overall impact of the infrastructure improvements is to treat runoff water that has not been treated in the past, before it is discharged to May Creek. The Board has recognized this type of overall improvement to the quality of an ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (16) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 existing discharge as a positive step under the SMA rather than a source of concrete injury. McCoy v. Kitsap County, SHB No. 07-031 (2008). Petitioner Nicholson argues that the project will injure his interest in aesthetics and recreation in the May Creek area. The allegations of injury are speculative and based, in part, on inaccurate interpretation of the project impacts. The sidewalk improvement that is contained in the project will enhance rather than detract from public recreation in the area. Members of the public will have safer and better access to the May Creek Bridge and the viewing opportunity it provides of May Creek and its surrounding vegetation and wildlife. None of the infrastructure improvements will limit existing public access to the shoreline. Water quality will not be diminished, so existing water related uses will continue unabated. The recreational and aesthetic opportunities at this point in the May Creek Basin are already somewhat limited by private property ownership and the urban nature of the project's location. Impacted vegetation will be replaced with appropriate and aesthetically pleasing plantings. Petitioner Nicholson simply has not alleged any fact showing that the City's project will cause a meaningful injury to recreation or aesthetics at the site. If anything, the existing recreational and aesthetic environment will be improved by construction of the infrastructure project. Petitioner Nicholson further maintains that he is injured by the infrastructure project because he has been deprived of the opportunity to comment on and seek enforcement of shoreline regulations on a complete project. Ile insists that the infrastructure improvements are inextricably interconnected with the Hawk's Landing Hotel project which was proposed for ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (17) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 property adjacent to parts of the infrastructure improvements .2 Petitioner Nicholson stresses that the Hawk's Landing Hotel master plan indicated that the runoff from that project would go into a roadside ditch and on into May Creek. He contends that the Hawk's Landing project stated that no work would be conducted within 200 feet of the shoreline and that the City's project should not be allowed because it conflicts with that restriction on the Hawk's Landing development. Petitioner Nicholson contends the full scope of the project has been segmented in violation of the SMA's policy against piecemeal shoreline development. As a corollary, he is convinced that the infrastructure project will coerce future development in the area because future projects would be required to use the infrastructure improvements and choices for layout (such as the contemplated foot trail along May Creek) would be limited by the presence of the wet bioswale. As the Board held above, the proper scope of review for the present appeal is limited to whether the City's infrastructure improvement project complies with the SMA and the Renton SMP, not how it relates to the prior approval provisions for a separate private development. The infrastructure proposal is a stand-alone project that does not depend upon the fate of the Hawk's Landing Hotel. The improvements will be located primarily on City road right of way and not private property. The City's permit is a public project benefitting a much wider audience than the private developers of a hotel project that may or may not be built. Petitioner Nicholson has had a full opportunity to comment on and/or appeal both the Hawk's Landing project and the City's infrastructure project. The fact that they are separate z A portion of the wet bioswale may be located on property included in the proposed hotel parcel. The City has apparently obtained rights to use a small part of that property for its proposed infrastructure improvements. Dolbee Decl. ¶10. ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (1 S) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 undertakings with separate permitting requirements has not injured his rights to have shoreline law considered and applied to each of the proposals. Petitioner Nicholson has also failed to allege facts demonstrating that the present project would prevent him from participating in consideration of future applications arising in the area. If the City's infrastructure project is completed, future development proposals will still need to obtain required shoreline approvals and Petitioner Nicholson's ability to participate in that process will not be impeded by the approval of the present project. Despite raising potentially valid interests in the shoreline of May Creek, Petitioner Nicholson's factual allegations do not demonstrate the concrete injury to his asserted interests necessary to establish standing. Accordingly, the City's Motion for Summary Judgment based on lack of standing should be granted and the Nicholson appeal dismissed. Given the Board's decision on standing, it is not necessary to rule on the other arguments raised in the motions for summary judgment. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Board enters the following: ORDER Petitioner Nicholson lacks standing to bring this appeal and the case is, therefore, DISMISSED. Done this day of �nQ�c� , 2010. SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD ANDREA MCNAMAIIA KYLE, Chair w, WILLIAM 11. LYNCH, Mdriber ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (19) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 KATHLEEN D. MIX, Member qkA AAAA SIMON M. IHIA, Member ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHB NO. 10-016 (20) 1 2 3 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LtIA f 0 -- Dy 1 Motion for Summary Judgment November 5, 2010 Without Oral Argument BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-441, BCM, SM, Brad Nicholson, Appellant, V. CITY OF RENTON, Respondent. Case NO. SHB#10-016 Declaration of Spencer Alpert Spencer Alpert hereby declares under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge: 1. That I am over 18 years of age and am competent to testify in this matter. 2. 1 am the President of the General Partner of Alpert International, L.L.P. 3. Alpert International sought site plan approval and environmental review to build the "Hawk's Landing Hotel" on what is commonly referred to as the Pan Abode site, between I- 405 and Lake Washington Boulevard North, in the City -of Renton. 4_ At the current time construction has not begun on the hotel project. Dedaralion in 5uppoo —Page I _ Renton City Attorney tGOS2"°St G j 0% + + PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone. 425.255.8678 NNSC) Fax: 425.255.5474 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 S. Alpert international has never had a confirmed source of financing for this project and has been seeking financing for this project for quite sometime. 6. At this time, Alpert International is unable to say with certainty if or when it will have the required financing to begin construction of the proposed "Hawk's landing Hotel". DATED THIS 12 November 2010, at Declaration in Support — Page 2 7 Spencer Alpe Y Renton Cfty Attorney lot) 5 2n° 5t PO Box 626 + ru + Renton, WA 380557-0526 Phone: 425.255.8678 �Q Fax: 425.255.5474 Printed: 11-05-2010 Payment Made "ITY OF RENTON 1055 S_ Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA10-041 11/05/2010 04:19 PM Total Payment: 31.60 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Receipt Number: R1004923 Payee: BRADLEY NICHOLSON #1335 Trans Account Code Description Amount 4909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 31.60 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment Check #1335 31.60 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee 4909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees 5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers 5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat 5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees 5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review 5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat 5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat 5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD 5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees 5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment 5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks 5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone 5018 000.000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt 5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev 5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval 5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence 5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees 5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee 5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend 5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies 5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable) 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage 5998 000.000000.000.231 Tax Remaining Balance Due: $0.40 --------------- .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:38 PM To: 'brad827@hotmail.com' Cc: Garmon Newsom; Larry Warren; Jo Olson Subject: LUA10-041 application material request Dear Mr. Nicholson, The copies of LUA10-041 submittal materials, as requested in your October 13, 2010 email, have been duplicated for your pick up at Renton City Hall, 6th Floor, Front Counter. The total for all the copies comes to $31.60. You may pick up the documents and pay at the 6" Floor Front Counter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Vanessa (Do(bee Senior Planner Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Renton City Hall - 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 425.430.7314 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LUAI 0- 1 . BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal of 116nton's Shoreline Substantial J Development Permit LUA10-041, BCM, SM, ) Brad Nicholson, J } Petitioner, J V5. J } City of Renton, J } Respondent. ) CASE NO. SHB#10-016 RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND EMAIL I, Jo Ann Olson, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington, as follows: 1. 1 am a citizen of the State of Washington, over the age of eighteen years, not a party to the above -entitled action, competent to be a witness herein, and I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge_ 2. On September 9, 2010, 1 caused a copy of the Respondent, City of Renton's List of Proposed Issues, Witnesses and Exhibits, together with a copy of this Declaration of Service to be served via First Class Mail, postage pre -paid and e-mail service as Y Renton City Attorney Declaration of Service b � 1 D 5 Y Mail - 1 � g � + PQ soxx 6 26 } Renton, WA 98057-D626 Phone. 425.255.8878 NQ Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indicated below, upon the following persons, by causing to be placed into a United States Postal Service outgoing mail container for deliver to: 1. Brad Nicholson 2302 N.E- 28th Street Renton, WA 98056 Brad827 ahotr3nail.com .2. Shoreline Hearings Board State of Washington Environmental Hearings Office P.O. Box 40903 Olympia, WA 98504-0903 ehoa,eho.wa. og_v 3. Port Quendall Company 111437 Attn: Steve Van Til 505 Union Station 505 5`h Avenue South, #900 Seattle, WA 98104 4. Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave. N.W. Seattle, WA 98104 5. Washington State Department of Ecology 3190 160`h Avenue S.E. Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 6. Washington Office of the Attorney General Rob McKenna 800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 DATED this 9th day of September, 2010, at Renton, WA_ Declaration of Service by Mail - 2 Olson, Declarant. V Renton City Attorney 1DOS 2"St ♦ Bax Renton, WA 98057-0626 Re W Phone; 425,255,8578 N -0 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 lfl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.5 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the appeal Of Renton's Shoreline Substantial ) Development Permit LIJA10-041, BCM, SM, ) Brad Nicholson, ) Petitioner, ) vs. ) City of Renton, ] Respondent. ) CASE NO. SHB#10-016 RESPONDENT'S LIST OF PROPOSED ISSUES, WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Respondent, City of Renton, hereby submits the following Proposed List of Legal Issues, Witnesses and Exhibits in the above -captioned case: LEGAL ISSUES 1. is Petitioner's appeal foreclosed when he doesn't appeal any aspect of the City project for which the shorelines substantial development permit was issued, nor allege any deficiencies with the permitted project but rather all of his allegations relate to an adjacent nonshoreliinn+e project, Hawks Landing Hotel? ` l' Q Respondent's List of Proposed ♦ � } Issues, Witnesses and Exhibits - 1 Nr�O Renton City Attorney 100 S 2n° 5t PO Sox 626 Renton, WA 911057-0626 Phone: 425.255.6678 Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 'C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2. Is Petitioner's primary complaint foreclosed, that complaint being that surface water will percolate into the nonshoreline Hawk's Landing Hotel site, and then drain across the heavily polluted Quendall Terminal site, not the permitted site, since it was found, on administrative appeal that such percolation and drainage will not occur and Petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a LUPA appeal. 3. Does petitioner have standing to bring this appeal if; (a) His injuries are speculative and remote because his only stated injuries come from an adjoining project, Hawks Landing Hotel, which may or may not be built; (b) He raised these claims of injury in a SEPA appeal and site plan appeal of Hawks Landing Hotel, his claims were denied and he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not filing a LUPA appeal; (c) He has alleged no factual basis for damages or injury arising from the permitted project. 4. May Petitioner, under the Samuels Furniture, 147 Wn 2"6 444, ask the Board to impose shoreline jurisdiction on Hawks Landing Hotel and argue that the appealed permit is improperly segmented from the adjoining Hawks Landing Hotel project when he did not file a LUPA appeal from the decision that Hawks Landing Hotel is more than 200 feet from the shoreline and his attorney basically conceded that issue? 5. Does Petitioner properly state a complaint that the City has improperly segmented the shoreline's substantial permit when the City infrastructure improvement, for which the shorelines substantial development permit was issued, will be built whether or not the Hawks Landing Hotel is built. 1. Vanessa Dalbee; Respondents List of Proposed Issues, Witnesses and Exhibits - 2 WITNESSES Esz,i, Renton City Attorney S st **Y t00 2" PO Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-4626 Phone; 425.255.657$ Fax: 425.255.5474 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2. Chip Vincent.- 3. incent; 3. Ron Straka or Steve Lee; IF HAWKS LANDING IS AT ISSUE: 4. Speaking agent of Alpert International S. Pat Sevenin; EXHIBITS PERMITTED PROJECT: 1. Lake Washington Boulevard Hawks Landing Storm and Water System Improvement Analysis (absent attachments). 2. Environmental checklist for permitted project. 3. Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated. 4. Land Use Permit Master Application 5. Permit for Shoreline Management_ HAWKS LANDING: 1. Notice of Appeal by SLGB and Brad Nicholson (hereinafter Brad Nicholson). 2. hearing Examiner's Report and Decision —Denying SEPA Appeal and Approving Site Plan and Master Plan. 3. Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal to City Council by Brad Nicholson. 4. Motion for Reconsideration and Appeal to City Council by Alpert International (hereinafter Applicant). 5. Hearing Examiner's Reconsideration Decision. 6. Amended Statement of Errors and Requ �p byAr.4A Iii ;pMq G 10052""st Respondent's List of Proposed + a + Po Box szs rq Renton, WA 98457-0526 Issues, Witnesses and Exhibits - 3 Phone: 425.255.8578 jN�,� Fax: 425.255.5474 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 1p 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IM 7. Amended Notice of Appeal by Applicant. 8. Amended Notice of Appeal by Nicholson. 9. Planning and Development Committee Report on Appeals. 10. City Council minutes of December 7, 2009, approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee on Appeals. This serves as the Proposed List of Legal Issues, Witnesses, and Exhibits for the Respondent, City of Renton. The City of Renton reserves the right to add or delete any witnesses or exhibits from this proposed list, and to call as a witness or offer as an exhibit any of the witnesses or exhibits listed by the Appellant. �h DATED THIS day of�72'�Yi �Cz2/ 2010. Lawrence J. W rren, WSBA No. 5853 Renton City Attorney Respondent's List of Proposed Issues, Witnesses and Exhibits - 4 Renton City Attorney 100 S 2"d St ♦ PO Box 626 ♦ Renton, WA 98057-0626 Phone: 425.255.6678 N�a Fax: 425.255.5474 I'•,II_ Our. Contin- llear'.ngs Board tihu �:rlincs He, rinp Bmrdl Ft, uti[ F ,, tl es Appeals Boarti H Orau i, '+ppeak Board i.nvimrmow,il and Land Use Hear'-rt;s Huard S7A7" pn F F }: STATE OF WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE Fol,yhone, '.i6(1, 4,,c)-,'2 - l Of Renton Planning Division Maft Address: PO Box 40903, Olympia, WA 98.504-0903 SEP' I zujo Physical Address: 4.224 - 6th Ave. SF, Bldg. 2, RoweSix, Lacey, WA 98.504--0903 CD August 30, 2010 clove a Brad Nicholson Lawrence Warren 2302 NE 28" St City of Renton City Attorney Renton WA 98056 PO Box 626 Renton WA 95056 Re: SHB No. 10-016 BRAD NICHOLSON v. CITY OF RENTON Dear Parties: This letter explains the initial process for the appeal filed with the Shorelines Hearings Board on August 26, 2010. Pre -Hearing Conference September 15, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. Qj'this date or time poses a problem, please confer with the other parties and contact Ms. Debbie Jablonski of our office to reschedule}. The presiding officer will conduct the Pre-hlearing Conference to discuss the legal issues and establish the schedule for the appeal. By September 13 you must file your proposed legal issues and preliminary lists of witnesses and exhibits with the Board. You must also serve these lists on the other parties in the case. You may file these lists by fax, but they must be mailed on the same day. To participate in the pre -hearing conference you will need to call the following telephone number and enter the pin code: Telephone Number 1-500-704-9804 Pin Code 69338784# After the Pre -Hearing Conference, the presiding officer will issue a Pre -Hearing Order that will govern the remainder of the appeal. Hearina Dates January 10 & 11, 2011 The hearing is a formal, trial -like proceeding at which parties present their case through opening statements and closing arguments, questioning of witnesses, introduction of exhibits, and the offer of other relevant evidence. SHB No. 10-016 August 30, 2010 Page 2 Hearing Location The location for the hearing has been tentatively set for 9:00 a.m. in the Board's hearing room in Tumwater, Washington (Note: the Board will be moving from its existing Lacey office to a new location in the late summer, 2010). Another location can be discussed at the pre -hearing conference with consideration given to finding a central, easily accessible location for all parties. Settlement The Board encourages the parties to explore informal resolution of this appeal. The parties should contact each other early in the appeal process to discuss settlement and inform the Board in writing of the status of settlement possibilities by December 10, 2010, Mediation The Environmental Hearings Office provides free mediation services by a trained mediator to assist parties with their settlement efforts. Material describing Board -sponsored mediation is enclosed for your review. If you are interested in pursuing mediation, please contact the Environmental Hearings Office at 360-459-6327. Procedural Assistance The Environmental Hearings Office also offers free procedural assistance to parties to help them understand the requirements of the appeal process. If you would like procedural assistance, please call 360-459-6327 and your request will be directed to the appropriate person. Interpreters and Reasonable Accommodations If a party or a necessary witness requires an interpreter, or qualifies for reasonable accommodation as an individual with disabilities, that person must notify the presiding officer at least three weeks before the hearing or any other part of the proceedings for which they seek assistance. Further Information on the Anneal Process Enclosed is an informational brochure about the Shorelines Hearings Board. This information can also be found on our website at http://www.eho.wa.gov. Also on our website are The Environmental Hearings Office Handbook, Sample Forms, and prior Board decisions SHB No. 10-016 August 30, 201 D Page 3 {under EHO Decisions}, The Board's procedural rules are in the Washington Administrative Code. If you have questions about any of the above, please call the Environmental Hearings Office staff at 360-459-6327. Sincerely, Phyllis K. Macleod Administrative Appeals Judge, Presiding PKM/dj/S 10-016 Enc. Cc: Don Bales, Ecology City of Renton Community Development Port Quendall Company Alpert International CERTIFICATION On this day, I forwarded a true and accurate copy of the documents to which this certificate is affixed via United States Postal Service postage prepaid or via delivery through State Consolidated Mail Services to the attorneys of record herein. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Was ington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED �6 at Lacey, WA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON nDEC'r"*1V nD In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SM; Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, V. City of Renton Respondents. Fame and address of Petitioner: ;rad Nicholson 302 N.E. 28th Street .enton, WA 98056 25 445 0658 rad827Qhotmail.cam fame and address of Respondents: 'anessa DolbeelSteve Lee :ity of Renton Storm Water Utility 055 South Grady Way entan WA. 98057 Parties necessary for just adjudication: Property Owner: Port Quendall Company 111437 Atte. Steve Van Til 505 Union Station, 505 5th Avenue South #900 Seattle, WA 98104 Petition for Review Pap 1 or2o Case No. Petition for Review AUG 2 g 2010 HEARR GS pF�FI E Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Proponent: Spencer Alpert Alpert International, LLP 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 Represented by: Jack McCullough 701 5t Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Parties Served; Washington State Departmeirt of Ecology 3190 160th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 Washington office of the Attorney General Rob McKenna 800 51h Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 This is a rNaest for Shorelines Board review of the decision to approve a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit designated LUA10-041, ECR, SM, issued on August 9, 2010, signed and approved by R.enton's planning director "Chip" Vincent. A copy of the decision is attached herewith. 1. DaRODUCTORY FACT Evidently, Renton's planning; priorities are severely misplaced. The decision has the effect of approving of a Shoreline variance even though no evidence of the necessary criteria is present' The attached decision contains a bulleted list that claims to describe "each part" of the proposed project while incognizant of the need for a decision balancing the needs of the public. The burn a of proof for a variance RCW 90.58.140(7) is on the applicant. Among otber requirements, the circumstances must be "extraordinary" to be consistent the with requirements RCW 90.58.100(5) P ckon for ROview brad Nichakson Page 2 of20 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The decision claim that "each part" is included on the bulleted list is very far from being the truth. The words "each part" are misleading, hiding many facts of the true nature and contents of the permit. The following provides a description of some of the absent parts with a bulleted list that is reasonable, truthful, and appropriate: • On the north of the site, a functionally interrelated, interdependent, connected, non-priority, non - water related, non-public, 100% impervious, 5 story tall pre -approved 173 room Hotel with a spa, fitness center, restaurant, and parking lot named "Hawk's Landing depends on the project. Even though required by the SMA to do so, the true proponents of the permit never sought the necessary Shoreline permits, and never sought the necessary storm water or infrastructure facilities on another segment of the same project under a different designation - LUA-09-060, ECR, SA -M, SA -H. The project will have around 350,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface. The Hotel does nothing to further public access or water related or aesthetics interest but instead interferes with those interests. The defective permit is the latest of a series of surprises with regard to how the project's water runoff will be handled. At the Hotel's SEPA hearing, they were able to sneak approval of the bogus "Rain Garden" that violates code and isn't a "Rain Gardena at all until after SEPA was performed. They said the "Rain Garden" was going to discharge to the "Ditch" Even though it has been improperly decided to designate the only portion of the "Urban." shoreline that is still undeveloped, the decision is still incorrect and the permit should still be reversed because it does nothing to allow the public to have access to the Shoreline. Some people believe them that there is a "50 foot setback" applicable to the project. On the west, there is a 500 foot long orange scum containing drainage "Ditch." that is obviously contaminated with metals with a very high elevation conveyance output pipe that ponds the site's extremely large quantity of water runoff and infiltrates a significant portion of that water runoff to Quendall Terminals and lake Washington. Now they are going to fill the "Ditch", which is the opposite of what the project described in the SEPA application for the Hotel project, This would be in lieu of the developer's responsibility, evidently because he refuses to mitigate the impacts of the hotel; a "bait and switch" tactic inconsistent with the previous pleas and decisions. Now, they contend the "Ditch" should be filled with imported material, under the guise that such action is PetiGan for Review Brad Nicholson Page 3 of 20 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acceptable continuation of a "direct discharge" to May Creek. It is simply not the case and not true, It is not a direct discharge to May Creek ---it presently significantly infilt-ates to Lake Washington. What the natural hydrologic regime would be in a natural environment in the area has been totally disregarded, One thing is clear and that is that they dont know if infiltration water will impact Lake Washington and Quendall Terminals or not, but it is easy to see (consistent with the other actions pleas) that the decision was made in support of the contention that the area is already degraded, and that since they are doing nothing to exacerbate the issues, the proposal has no impact. It is evidently hoped that chances of reversal in appeals that may cite impact to the superfund site directly downstream containing extremely hazardous chemicals would be reduced with the tactic, Le, they will contend that it has already been decided, The "wet biofiltration swale" is being separately permitted on this project for another project it is intended to service, while both have separate numbers which is the first indication that there is a problem. Without utilizing precedent for decisions in the KCSWDM, they want to conceal facts so as to affirm the developer's position regarding refusal to dedicate any band with the hope that the inconsistencies with the City's Shoreline Management Program will go unnoticed. • On the southern 200 feet of the site, there is untouched State Shoreline meetuhg the criteria for designation as a "Conservation Environment" under Renton's Shoreline Management Plan. Two regulated wetlands, and a Class one Salmon Stream #that should be protected by the Shoreline Management Act and numerous valuable species of wildlife including species listed. as "Threatened" and "Endangered" by the ESA that are directly downstream from the Hotel. At least 10,000 square feet of the site area of the shoreline have been permitted to be bulldozed, and a pit would be excavated and fenced for storm water facilities that are not approved by the Storm water manual' and would violate important regulatory requirements of the SMA, Renton's SMP and Renton's code. It is represented as an "improvement" over existing conditions even though such representation is unsupported by substantial evidence, and while there is no authority in the T The King county Surface water Design Manual (RCSWDM) 2005 or 2009 edition requires the enbanced basic water quah ty menu to be used for this project, A "stet biofiltration swalf" is a feature listed on the `Basic" menu and therefore is not allowed. Petition for Review Page 4 of 20 Brad Nicholson to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMA indicating "improvement" is all that is required. More than an "improvement" is required by the SMA and Renton's Shoreline Management flan. No restoration has been proposed. • With an ill considered location the experimental non -infiltration drainage facility inconsistent with the impositions imposed by the City in previous environmental review will be directed to May Creek should the permit stand. It thereby increases its flow, inconsistent with Penton's SMP with regard to stream alteration causing unknown downstream damage. Increasing the flow of the Creek might be a way to permit the project without drain to Quendall Terminals, but no facts are available indicating that such a decision is consistent with SMA are available. Few if no dissolved pollutants will be removed by the "Swale" even though there is a problem with metal according to the 303(d) Map, the KCSWDM, hydrologic survey of the Creek, (see exhibits) transportation estimates in excess of those permitted, and huge galvanized buildings that are dissolving into the Creek that the developer insisted would remain, It was discovered by the applicant during the SETA bearing that one of the buildings would not be removed. The galvanized building is about 20,000 sq ft. and "straddling" the Shoreline jurisdictional line. • The decision inappropriately and unreasonably permits a very large "Mystery Area" of available land straddling the shoreline regulatory limits delineation and that is right down the middle of the project. It has never been articulated what development or use will take place on the "Mystery Area" and thus its reasonableness cannot be determined, but it is suitable and possible and natural in size and characteristics to support the facilities that are listed on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu or public use elements. If they don't consider that the metals from the building in the `mystery area" dissolve and drain into May Creek, the permitted project violates the City's own. code. Considering the public interest nature of the regulations that are intended to protect those interests with specific design criteria suggest only that the permit is saving the "mystery area" with this stab at approval in hope that more tax generating development can be added later. Depending on whether the dissolving zinc warehouse and other pollution generated by the project would be permitted to remain with absolutely no disclosure as to what use the area of land will be put ---only that it is proposed to be continually dissolving heavy metals into the environment and discharging to May Creek --untreated is an important issue that has never been addressed, The permit should also be reversed because of the high traffic and high pollution generating nature of Pedfion for Review Page S of 20 BrRd Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the project. Perhaps the Seahawk's or Spencer Alpert may propose that the use on the 1--2 acre "Mystery area" in the centrr of the project within Shoreline jurisdiction be described later, on another unlawfully segmented part of the project like was done with the transportation and storm water facilities and previous plans. Originally, Spencer Alpert International applied for this project with the "Rain Garden74 Whether the current project is the best or correct course of action is a very important question. It was insisted at SEPA that the project would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, but this project does not comply with it nor is it consistent with the SMP or SMA- This segment of the project is alleged to be only for the transportation and infrastructure segment of the project including storm water. From the outset there have been so many surprises with regard to the project like the "Rain Garden" and the "filling of the "Ditch" The City issued the permit to itself. It would certainly be more compliant with full disclosure if environmental review would be conducted on actual projects, or if subsequent segments would be consistent with the previous, or if the entire true project could be reviewed all at once. The environmental review concluded that the water would be appropriately handled with respect before being discharged to the "Ditch" but now the ditch is proposed to be filled. Surprises like these that include features that have never been fully reviewed will probably continue if this type of procedure is used. The City has segmented the review to include only what is being proposed on each step of what is needed to avoid imposing the Shorelines regulations or impositions on the developer, evidently being driven the idea of securing more economic development. Perhaps that is why it is so frustrating to try to convince the applicant there are appropriate and reasonable solutions to the projects shortcomings. Closing their eyes to the obvious need for a variance or exception to the SMA, SMP, or complying with the storm water manual, evidently relying upon misinformation and misplaced priorities instead, the shoddily and poorly planned piecemeal City "revitalization" permit will needlessly tear up the shoreline i laver sinte the nrprise discovery that the ]UwVsLaoding "Rain Garden" was really an impervious perforated pipe conveyance system, petitiouer and others have put it in quoialion marks and it is continued here. Petition for Ruim Page 6 or2o Brad Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 esthetics and disturb habitat, permanently block the area from public access and enjoyment, and discharge its polluted water into May Creek, a "Shoreline of the State", and a "Class 1 Salmon stream" This appeal seeks to prevent the inherent harm caused by the uncoordinated and piecemeal development of Washington's Shorelines and disregard of numerous provisions of RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline Management Plan, fl. BACKGROUND FACTS On or around September 10, 2009 Spencer Alpert International applied for and obtained approval for a Master Site Plan for a 5 story, 60 foot high, 122,000 square foot, 173 room hotel, including retail space, a fitness center, a spa, and a restaurant at 4350 Lake Washington Boulevard North in Renton. Proposing to cut 32 trees and proposing to hydro -seed the Shoreline, the Seahawk's considered the project essential for their football operations -although essentially submitted without lawfully articulated street and storm water improvements or a clear picture of the layout of the entire site plan.. Another project that is across the street and downstream. of this project is a 20 some acre parcel commonly called Quendall Terminals, that is presently being scoped for an EIS for 800 residential units and a subdivision for `mixed use" retail development and is the subject of an EPA superfund investigation, No coordinated storm water plan is yet in place for the area. In yet another project, the Seahawk's practice facility next door was able to totally exclude the public from enjoying the shoreline. A Substantial Shoreline development permit was needed for the Seahawk's Hotel project to proceed to perform deconstruction and storm water work and/or stream alteration work within 200 feet of the high water marls on the State's Shoreline, but during it's SEPA hearing surprise Counsel insisted that the area would not be "touched" or deconstructed and thus a shoreline permit would not be required. Placing flower pots on the existing impervious asphalt was mentioned as a possible way to mitigate the distraction. It looks like the way that the proponent will keep his word now is that Planning director Chip Vincent already approved 4 Shoreline Permit to the City for the project's construction. Spencer Alpert ant his Counsel argued that storm water improvements should be identified at the permit stage of the project Pod ion for Review Page 7 of 20 Brad Nicholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 and appropriate facilities would be determined at that tune, Counsel for Spencer Alpert also argued that if the City does xiot take action within 45 days, then the project should be approved automatically. 1400 new trips per day were purported to be generated, parking was to be provided both below the hotel, and on 124 new surface parking spaces, including a number of spaces for `fiesta" electric vehicles. In addition to proposing to construct a "Koi Pond", his bogus "Rain Garden", and installing capillary break building drains to release groundwater just below the sites surface affecting the Hotel, the applicant planned to move 4, 450 yards of cut soil, and place 15,000 cubic yards of fill soil over the top of the existing asphalt, Even though the groundwater is nearly at the surface, it was contended that "best management practices" could be used to protect the environment during construction but none were specifically identified. Perhaps the construction water is proposed be directed to the "wet biofiltration swale" but it doesn't say, From a perspective of groundwater flow inferred from test pits and scientific measurements, the "Ditch" water is infiltrating directly upstream into the Port Quendall Superfund site and thence flows to Lake Washington. Port Quendall is severely polluted from past manufacturers of wood preservative products that dumped large amounts of chemicals in numerous areas of the site over decades. In summation, the "ditch" along Lake Washington Blvd is very deep and around 500 feet long, infiltrating a significant portion of its storm water directly to Quendall Tenninals. See Niassman declaration. In addition to not knowing exactly how much water infiltrates and how much runs off, it is not known how much of the supeftid chemicals are being forced or "fluxed" into Lake Washington, this recent discovery was after the Hotel's SEPA hearing. See EPA allachrnetd. There are large patches of percolating chemicals at Quendall 4-6 feet thick at significant depth significantly impacting the water quality of Lake Washington. In order to clean up QucndalI Terminals, there will probably need to be hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of contaminated soil removed and replaced on that site. Relevant here, were facts discovered that indicate a significant amount of water from the hotel project and "Ditch" could enter the superNnd site through groundwater flow. Massman exhibits. The remediation plan is presently in progress, being conducted by the EPA to guide clean up of Quendall Terminals, EPA Exhibits. The Dept. of Ecology evidently has given up on it. No facts regarding how the remediation facts Petition for Review Page 8 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 might affect the project are available. Obviously, the results are not included in any review of the project because they are not available. The questions raised by the results were the essence of a previous SEPA appeal. SEGB and Brad Nicholson's SEPA appeal to Renton's Hearing Examiner cited the Iack of the Hotel projects' compliance with SEPA and the SMA, and lack of a coordinated and compliant Storm water Plan, The errtire record of the information contained in the appeal is hereby incorporated into this appeal. The conclusion and decision for the Hotel project indicated that it was normal for the storm water system to remain un -designed and unarticulated until issuance of permits at which time the code would be applied. That is one of -lie problems. See Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Counsel for Spencer Alpert insisted on splitting the Hotel's hearings into two separate hearings one for SEPA issues and one for substantive site plan code issues. SEGB and Brad Nicholson obtained the testimony of Hydxogeologist Dr. Joel Massman to opine on the issues, On reconsideration to the City's Hearing Examiner, Dr. Massman found that a significant amount of the storm water from the ditch supplies groundwater flow into Quendall Terminals and that the groundwater flows to Lake Washington, The downstream area contains cancer causing chemicals impacting groundwater to depths up to 50 feet, such as (PAH) Poly -cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Pentaclompbmc and (BTEx) Benzine, Tolulene, Ethyl Benzine, and Xylene.. The PAH chemical family and the site contains chemicals such as P-Dibenzodioxin and P-Dibenzofiu=. They are considered to be extremely dangerous. The groundwater in that zone flows to Lake Washington. It does not flow to May Creek. The area was and still is of particular concern because, like May Creek the area is considered prime habitat for Paget Sound Chinook Salmon, Coastal Cutthroat and Steelhead Trout. EPA exhibits. There are also recreational swimming areas nearby that pose a threat to humans. May Creek basin and Lake Washington are supporting habitats for the American Bald Eagle and numerous other valuable species. May Creek's Steelhead trout and Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. and Coho Salmon are ESA listed species. Recently Dr. Massman's conclusion that there is significant groundwater flow into Lake Washington has Petition for RCYiow Page 9 of 20 Brad Nicholson 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 been verified by the EPA; through the underwater data that has been collected around Lake Washington's shoreline as part of the superfund investigations, Dr. Massman calculated the Storm water infiltration/runoff from the 5eahawks Hotel that should be supported by what was then an unarticulated water quality facility that would comply with the 2005 KCSWDM, to be 20-25 acre feet per year, which amounts to an annual average 18,000 to 22,500 gallons per day. He noted that 75,214 square feet of Buildings would be removed, but his calculation probably di not take into account the lack of footing drains on the one building that counsel and Spencer Alpert pledged would "not be touched". At least initially, it is also true that his calculations did not take into account other impervious calculations such as transportation mitigation measures or what a "Rain Garden" consisted of according to Spencer Alpert. With the fractionated review, it is next to impossible for anyone to check the calculations with regard to current project's storm water facility size (even thoug it is on the wrong menus) effectively excluding the public from participating in that aspect of the project. When asked to reconsider based upon the fact that the very high outlet pipe to May Creek causes the ditch to pond and infiltrate significantly to Quendall Terminals, Renton's Hearing Examiner refused, citing "that there is no need" because he had decided the use of the "Best Available Science" was a mandatory requirement and requiring that May Creek was "not to be put into jeopardy" would suffice, and then at Spencer Alpert's insistence Renton's City Council overturned his decision by changing the terminology to the use of "Best Management practices" and that "whatever "Rain Garden" feature" could be used as long as it would satisfy the 2005 design manual and be discharged to the "Ditch" They never decided or addressed whether more storm water flow would be added to May Creek or not or whether or where a different complain feature might be located or what type or size it might be because at the ti -MO, no complete plan was in existence. Neither was a Shoreline permit sought at that time. They reiterated that "best management practices" would be used during the dewater operation needed for construction but did not identify any of them. Sometime after the appeal requesting more consideration of the impacts of the project, the City identified State money citing community revitalization interests to provide mitigation measures for the Enterprise. This appeal follows: Petition Far Review Page 10 oC24 Brad Nitholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11111.. TIMING This petition is timely filed according to WAC 461-08-340 because it is filed within 21 days of the date the decision was made. WAC 461-08 states that, "A petition for review by any person aggrieved by the granting, denying or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state shall be filed with the board within twenty-one days of the "date of filing" as defined in WAC 461-08-305, IV. JURISDICTION A. The permit appeal issues are regulated by RCW 90.58.140(l) stating a development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of the chapter and, after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master program, and RCW 90.58.140(2) stating, "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this chapter"; B. State Law RCW 90.58.180(1) provides that "Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may, except as otherwise provided in chapter 43.21L RCW, seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for I review within twenty-one days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.5 8.140(6), I V. STANDING Appellant Brad Nicholson is a resident of the City of Renton and member of SEGB who lives a very sh( distance from the site, and uses the May Creek Shoreline and Lake Washington waters bodies adjoining the site. Declaration of Brad Nicholson, Brad Nicholson has an active interest in the integrity of City of Rmton's land use and environmental review processes, has actively participated in past land use processes including appeals relating to the site and its shoreline, and seeks to ensure that the City abides I Potilion for Review I Page 11 or2o Brad Nixho ison 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 its prior decisions and local and state SMA policies, procedures, and mandates and conducts all project reviews in an open, proper and ethical manner, and is negatively impacted by the improper processing an( lacy of appropriate designs in connection with this project. As a result of the impacts caused by the permit approval, Nicholson will suffer harm from increased damage to the shoreline quality envisioned by RCW 90.58 and Renton's Shoreline plan, including lower water quality in May Creek and Lake Washington than envisioned by local and State Shoreline policies, loss of visual and recreational amenities, and harm to Steelhead Trout and other Salmonids and numerous other wildlife that use these Shorelines that he enjoys. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. Nicholson also has a longstanding interest in the land use decisions of the City of Renton and has made and participated in appeals concerning water quality and environmental protection of fish and wildlife in the past. As a result of the City's improper segmentation and fractionated review and decision making with regard to the shoreline permit, Nicholson is already suffering from an inability to comment on a full and completed review of a single true project application and the projects lack of attention to design criteria and shoreline management purposes, He enjoys the wildlife in Lake Washington and May Creek basin areas, frequently walks, boat, fish, bicycle, or swim with his family or desires to do so and observe the areas of May Creek surrounding the proposed project, and will be impacted by the loss of water quality and wildlife, recreation, and esthetic enjoyment associated with this project. See declaration of Brad Nicholson. The improper review of the permit fails to improve the situation that will impact him, using inadequate methods to enhance the natural systems and water quality will impact him, and he will be impacted by the degradation to amenities protected by the SMA, loss of access required by code, and water quality and harm to fish habitat associated with the project's water runoff to either Lake Washington or May Creek. He wants to have his community planned and development consistent with the provisions of the Renton Comprehensive Plan Environment Element and Renton's Shoreline Master Program and State Law, and will be injured by the City's denial of the right to such a community without reversal of the Shoreline Permit and consideration of all the facts that are relevairt to this appeal. Declaration of Brad Nicholson. PeUdon for Review Page 12 of 20 Brad Niehohn I I I VI, JOINDER 2 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I WAC 461-08-445 applies in this case. The presiding officer is requested to join parties including Permittee, permitting agency and any other interested person or entity in accardance with civil rule 19. VIL ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR A. Without a variance or ecce tion Director Chip Vincent erroneous!y or arbitrarily and capriciously approved the Shoreline Substantial Development permit even though the_followin required desi n criteria of Renton's Shoreline Master Program and 90.58.1120 RCW have not been into orated into the ro'ect's design: 1. Renton Shoreline Master Program Urban Designation regulations § 5.03.01(D) reading as follows, "To enhance waterfront and ensure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities shall be redesigned to permit pedestrian waterfront activities" and, "Where practicable, various access points ought to be linked to non -motorized transportation routes, such as bicycle and hiking paths" note: A hot and parking structure is not a water -dependent use given priority for shoreline development under RCW 90.58.020 see Gislason v. Town of Friday Harbor, SHB No. 81-22 (1981); Clifford, et al.,y City of Renton and Bo ezn SHB No. 92-52 (1993). Development consisting of a unified structure, such as a connection pipe to a storm water facility servicing the project, which is part in and part out of the shoreline with a potential for an adverse shoreline effect, is "within" the shoreline for the purposes of the SMA, see Weyerhaeusery Ding County, 91 Wn.2d 721, 592 P. 2d 1108 (1979). Since the pipe is connected and the storm water facilty is intended for the Hotel, it is also "on" the shoreline under RCW 90.58.140(2), and requires a shoreline permit for the entire project. Public access and habitat protection will be needed, as reflected by the master provision, an important value under the SMA. RCW 90.58.020 see Silver Lake Community Council Y. City of Everett SHB No. 80-04 (1980). Pef3itfln for Review Page 13 of 20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Public access and habitat preservation are both part of the public gust values, which inhere in the SMA. see Caminid v. Boyle, 107 Wn.2d 262 (1987). Because time Decision Maker failed to inhere those valmies, the permit as approved fails to meet the requirements of both SEPA and the SMA 2. Renton Shoreline Master Program Utilities Landscape Native Vegetation regulations § 7.19. 01 (A) (1) reading as follows, "The native vegetation shall be maintained whenever possible" note; Public access is not the only shoreline value protected under public trust through the SMA. The policies of the SMA specifically contemplate "protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life... RCW 90.5 8.020. 3, Renton Shoreline Master Program Local Service Utility specifications § 7.19.04 (D) (1) covering discharges of pollutants reading as follows, " Discharges of pollutants into water courses and ground water shall be subject to the Department of Ecology, Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review of permits for discharge" note. It is necessary for Renton to comply with the terms of the NPDES permit issued to it as an MS4 jurisdiction. See Puget Soundkeeper - Stormwater is recognized as the leading contributor to water quality pollution in urban waterways in the United States, Ex. MUNI -0127, Fact Sheet, p. 8. In December 1999, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules regarding the regulation of municipal stormwater. Ex, COA-0028, Moon Testimony. EPA finalized the Phase U rules in 2000 (EPA Phase II Rules), which applied the NPDES permit program to certain small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (called MS Q. Ex. MUNI - 0127, Pact Sheet, p. 3. Emmett Testimony. The EPA Phase II Rules provide that the permits must require regulated MS4s to "develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater management program (SWMP) designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40 C.F.R, § 122.34(a). cite, Puget SoundkeeperAlliance, People for Puget Sound, Coalition of Governmental Entities v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation PCHB NVOS. 07-022,07-023 4. Renton Shoreline Master Program Stream Alteration regulations § 7.17.02 (A) (B) reading as follows, "Strmmn Alteration in unique and fragile areas is prohibited" and "Stream alteration solely for the purpose of enlarging the developable area of a parcel of land or increasing the economic potential of a parcel of Petition for Review Page 14 of 20 BradNicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 laid is prohibited" note: RCW 90.58.020 "The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation" and "In addition it finds that ever increasvig pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating increased coordination in the management and development of the shorelines of the state" and, "To this end uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline" 5. Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (A)(1)(2)(3), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (C), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (D)(2), Renton Municipal Code 4-6-030 (E)(3)(h)(ii) note: Maple Valley Citizens far Responsible Growth v. City of Maple Palley and Richard and Jill Brown SHB NO. 03-014 is distinguished in that the proposal discharging to Pipe Lake was not on the shoreline, not a salmon bearing water, it did comply with the KCSWDM, and they provided money and resources to insure by covenant . that it would not pollute the Lake. None of those facts exist here. 6. KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1.2.8 Core Requirement 48 Water Quality, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 1.2.8.1 Area Specific Water Quality Facility Requirement, KCSWDM 2009 edition Definitions section page 13, KCSWDM 2009 edition § 6.1.2 Enhanced Basic Water Quality Menu. Note: a "wet biofiltration Swale" is not an infiltration feature and not a stand alone enhanced basic feature. 7. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58,020, "Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state" The hotel is not on the list_ 8. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 design criteria, "Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public`s use of the water" Petition for Review Page 15 af20 Brad Nicholson 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 1U 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. The permit is inconsistcut with RCW 90.58.020 policy, `°>('he legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto axe in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associated with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest" 10. The permit is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020 policy, "Dere is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines" D. Renton's )Planning Director Chip Vincent, by approving the Substantial Development Permit I approved it fractionated and piecemeal project in violation of core requirements of the SMA 90.58 RCW. 1. A proposed development that includes both shorelines and uplands is properly reviewed in its entirety for consistency with the SMA. see Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn. App. 844 (1973). The SMA. review is applicable to those portions of a proposed development that lie within the shoreline as defined under RCW 90.58.030 and those portions of a project than may have adverse impacts on the shoreline. See also Weyerhaeuser v. Icing County, 91 Wn.2d 7Z1 (1.979); Allegra Development Company. Inc, v. Wright Hotels v. City of Seattle, SHB No. 99-08 (1999). The reference to "adjacent lands" in the shoreline management act (RCW 90.5 8.100(2) (e)), is a reflection of the legislative scheme that lands adjacent to shorelines must be considered together with the area extending 200 feet inland from high water in order to achieve the consistency necessary for a systematic and intelligent management of the shorelines. "A single improvement or project of a governmental agency including and having an interrelated el on both uplands and shorelines cannot be divided into segments for purposes of complying with provisions of the environmental policy act and the shoreline management act" cite: Appletree C .Protection Fend v. K"rtsap SHS No. 93-55 Petition for Review Page 16 of N Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The issue applicable here, the piecemeal consideration of environmental impacts from development plans, "is one which strikes at the very core of both the State Environmental Policy Act and the Management Act". Appletree Cove Protection Fund v. Kitsap SHB No. 93-55 (emphasis supplied) The question, therefore, is whether the City may take a single project and divide it into segments purposes of SEPA and SMA approval, The frustrating effect of such piecemeal administrative approvals upon the vitality of these acts compel ar answer in the negative. The factual situation in Merkel and Appletree cove is remarkably similar to tht present case. In Merkel and Appletree Cove, an overall scheme of development existed, but only ont piece was submitted for environmental review. In the instant case, an overall Project Master Plan exist and has been reviewed, but at that tine only part of the project was submitted for environmental review Now they are doing the storm water and transportation measures inconsistent with that review. TN fractionated review is why significant questions about shoreline impacts have never been addressed, conclusion that the City has an obligation to conduct a review of its entire Master Plan under the SMA and lay out the overall Master Plan of development including a storm water plan, public access wate: related use plan, and location of and priorities of the facilities iu the context of the Shorelines permi application, prior to proceeding with a permit for one portion of the Plan is in order. At the same time failing to use that master plan (which is what has occurred) to assess the overall environmental impacts a future development under this permit only leads to preventable damage to the natural environment whicl is the right of all citizens of the state. The test that is employed is that, the connection or link must be "dependant" on the other piece Picu meal review, is impermissible where a "series of interrelated steps [constitutes] an integrated plan and the current project is dependent upon subsequent phases. see Cheney v. Mountlake Terrace, 8' Wn.2d 338, 345, 552 P.2d 184 (1976) also, Murden Cove Preservation and Protection Association v Kksap county 41 Wm App. 515 stating, WAC 197-10-660 (1) and (2) provide in part: (2) The total proposal is the proposed action, together w all proposed activity functionally related to it. Future activities are functionally related to the M ioa for Review Page 17 of 20 Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 61' 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S proposal if: "(a) The future activity is an expansion of the present proposal, facilitates or is necessary operation of the present proposal; or "(b) The present proposal facilitates or is a necessary prerequisite future activities. The latest codification is as follows; WAC 197-11-060 (b) Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document. Proposals or parts of pro are closely rclated, and they shall be discussed in the same environmental document, if they: (i) Cannot or will not proceed unless the other proposals (or parts of proposals) are I simultaneously with there; or (ii) Are interdependent parts of a larger proposal and depend on the larger proposal as justification or for their implementation. VIII. GROUNDS FOR REVERSAL A. The project is reversible as piecemeal because itis related to Hawk's Landing closely enough to be a simile project and because it can _not _or will not proceed unless the other proposal is implemented simultaneously and because it is an interdependent part of the larger proposal and depends on the larger proposal as justification for its implementation" Note: The overarching purpose of the SMA. is to protect the state shorelines as fully as possible. Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d at 203, 881 P.2d 910 (1994). Consistent with this objective and the broad regulatory reach of the statute, the shoreline permit application should describe the full, unified, and integrated physical project, both within and without the shorelines of the state. The facilities or future activity and functionally related work necessary that the proj eat depends on to proceed consistent with the SMA that been ignored by the Decision Maker in this case are as follows: 1. A redesign of the project to permit public access to waterfront activities is needed. 2. The project depends on dedication of Land for location of Storm water Facilities in areas where it is possible to locate outside of the native vegetation. A Redesign of the Shoreline with "preference" to Petition for Review Page 19 of 20 Brad Nichol on 1 11 facilities that would be more representative of that of the natural environment is needed and depends on 2 11 the entire site plan for its location. . 3 3. The project depends on obtaining additional shoreline permit to remove the zinc galvanized metal 4 warehouse distracting to the shoreline experience and adding pollution. It needs to identify requirements 5 for the Hotel project's necessary work to be performed on the shoreline to remove the building. 6 4. It is necessary to redo the original application for the Hotel, to disclose and review that the applicant proposes to alter the now of the Creek by filling the "Ditch" and requiring the description of the work to be performed on the Development site. They need to include identification of piping and outfall work to 8 be performed on the Shoreline. It depends on whether it is appropriate to issue a permit that has a priority 9 to restore and enhance the natural environment with respect to May Creek water flow. 14 5. The project depends on additional planning work and additional land dedication necessary to comply 11 with the KCSWDM 2009 edition and Renton's code requirements for the "enhanced basic water quality 12 menu" The land dedication will need to come from the site. The redesign will need to include a design for 13 the project that this permit is intended to serve, such as Treatment Train, Stormwater Wetland, and 14 Stormfilter CF like is outlined on the "enhanced basic" water quality menu 16 I I B. The Errors enumerated above are grounds for reversal. 17 X. RELIEF REQUESTED 18 19 A. A declaratory order addressing whether the above Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issued b' 20 the City of Renton is consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, the Renton Shoreline Managemen Program and their implementing regulations, ordinances, and statutes in the following respects: 21 22 Issue no. 1: 23 1 Whether adequate provisions for public use consistent with the Shorelines Management Act, Renton' 24 Shoreline, Master program, regulations, ordinances, and statutes have been provided. 2� Issue no. 2 26 Whether the "Wet l3iofiltration Swale" as permitted is adequate to minimize, "insofar as practical 27 1 pollution to meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, Renton's Shoreline Maste 28 11 program, and other code regulations, design manuals, ordinances, and statutes. patiiion for Review Pato 19 or24 BradNichah:l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 N-2 Issue no. 3: Whether it is possible and appropriate for the "Wet Biofiltration Swale" or for that matter any other water facility to be located on a location different than where it is. Issue no. 4: Whether a variance should have been sought for any of the issues, and whether a variance should b granted for the project. Issue no.5: Whether the project is a prohibited uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the State's Shorelines. B. For any and all other relief that the Board deems to be appropriate and just. I I have personal knowledge of the facts in this appeal and believe the facts herein to be true and correct Petition 1'or Review Page 20 oM Dated this 21st day of August, 20 10 Brad Nicholson. Brad Nicholson 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BO 5E E j W IE' IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGT �J AUG 2 g 2010 In re the appeal of Renton's Shoreline Substantial) Case Ido: ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE Development Permit LUA10-041, ECM, SIVE ) Declaration of Brad Nicholson Brad Nicholson, Petitioner, Y. City of Renton Respondents. I, Brad Nicholson, do hereby declare as follows: I . I am a life resident of Renton, and I have lived about 12 blocks from the above Seahawks Landing Proposal for approximately 30 years. 2. I have a much greater interest in the integrity of the City's processing for this project and the outcome of the City's approvals than the general public or an average citizen of Renton, I ercated a Washington non-profit corporation specifically for the purpose protecting amenities that this appeal seeks to protect. I have invested a great deal of time and energy participating in land use proceedings and monitoring land use decisions regarding the above and other development proposals. I am the dynamic that inspired ideas that could solve the present design issues for the project. 3. I am aggrieved by the approval of the Shoreline substantial development permit for numerous reasons. I want to review information on the whole project at one time not just a number of pieces of the project, like regarding the storm water facilities such as facility size, placement, capacity, and effectiveness, and public access areas. I want to have my ideas considered and I want to comment on the entire proposal because I would like to have my community planned and developed consistent with the provisions of the Renton's Shoreline Master Program, the Shoreline Management Act RCW 90,5 8, and a compliant design plan to protect my interests. I find it impossible to consider the reasonableness of the project when some of the most important areas of the project are always being left out. No one can even figure out what they are doing or which improvements they would be willing to do, I am aggrieved by the Declaration Brad Nicholson Pag o I of 4 la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City's denial of my rights to such a community wid aggrieved by the fact that development planning does not appear to be properly prioritized. By ignoring ,State policy and the procedural and substantial protections contained in the Rentoza Murdeipal Code, its Shoreline Plan and State Laws, the City's' decisions deprived me of a Shoreline environment that is so described and that is contrary to the letter and the spirit of those laws. 1 am aggrieved that practical grid reasonable means and methods of protecting water quality and my rights to a shoreline developed consistent with the Laws are not being used or proposed when I know that there has been so much effort by the Department of Ecology to assist the City to develop practical measures to protect our interests according to Federal Laws. I have a wife and son and we enjoy taking walks in May Creek Park just a short distance upstream from the proposal and seeing Salmon and Trout. A few years ago, I personally saw an adult steelhead in May Creek. I have seen sockeye in the Creels just a few feet away from where the project is permitted to take place. We often enjoy seeing Bald Eagles that cruise the area where we live above the May Creek Basin and know that they also depend on water quality and the area habitat. I have seen Hawk's landing above the project site while bicycling. I enjoy boating and fishing in lake Washington. We have a nice canoe that we want to use but we are frightened by the threats the water quality in the area poses, but we enjoy the pleasant break that the May Creek Shoreline provides and wish to improve it. On a few occasions I have enjoyed seeing Deer slipping into the cover of the May Creek Shoreline on the very area that the permit will bulldoze and fence, 4. I aln injured by the permit decision in a number of ways. Procedurally, I am hanned by the City's improper processing of the application, including failure to study and properly describe all of the project's required physical characteristics and size and feature calculations required by the code. I am harmed by the failure to properly categorize or identify those features, and failure to submit a complete unified design so that I can develop input and be able to review and comment on an honest proposal. The project is riddled with proposals that have not notified me as to what they are really proposing. I am Harmed by the City's failure to conduct a proper consistency review of the storm water design with the SMA. and Renton's program for Shorelines. I will be harmed by the damage done to the State's Shoreline amenities by changes in flow and quality of May Creek. Substantively, I will be injured if the project is constructed in noncompliance with. the City's code. For example, Renton's past decision and code requires that the storm water features comply with the Z Dcclarabon Page 2 d4 Brad Nicholsoa7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16ng County storm. water manual and certain Shoreline regulations, conform to the Shoreline Master Plan, and Comprehensive Plan's elements, goals, objectives and policies, and must mitigate impacts (suet as impacts to threatened or endangered species and opportunity for access to the Shoreline's amenities and protection of native vegetation) as well as clear prohibition on alterations and illicit discharges into salmon bearing streams. The City should bearthe burden of proof to show the method that will be used to avoid or abate pollution and comply with the above requirements but on this project they have consistently avoided review by submitting segmented and bogus facilities that do not truly explain the fill: extent of what they are doing. I will be injured if the plan is not designed by taking into account what the natural environment should be. The City's Shoreline plan requires the City to explain the methods that will be used to mitigate pollution impacts to May Creek and demonstrate the necessity of developing the State's Shoreline but they have not done so. The proposal submitted fails to meet any of these criteria. I am injured by the City's failure to follow its own laws and that of the State. 6, If the project is built on May Creek according to inferior standards for Shoreline protection and means of achieving water quality standards in May Creek while being incompatible with the neighboring sup erfund site, I will suffer harm from the inappropriate risks and direct impacts caused by the project. The urban designations intended to protect my interests should be used and storm water measures to protect my interestsshould be used to protect many interests but as approved in the city's decision they do not provide the degree of protection to my interests as the code or Shoreline plan does and I would want the City to use those measures to protect my interests and the interests of my f&uily, I want to review and comment on a compliant plan or honest effort to formulate such a plan but I have been deprived of that right because of the applications without them. My opinion is that the developer Spencer Alpert is just plain refusing to perform many of the requiremrments. I would have to do the design, do all of the design work for them, while speculating as to the type of facilities or strategies they might contest. In the past, they have allowed applications to be submitted and reviewed even though they are nc the real project. They fooled mos and Dr. Massman by saying that they were using a "Rain Garden" in the last application, and this time by saying that the flow of May Creels will not be, altered. We actually thought it was a "Rain Garden" and that wasted a lot of our time and resources. I would like to see some effort made to restore natural conditions to the area, which there has not been. Declaration page 3 oro Brad Ni cholson 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. 1 do not have anything against the Seahawk's in general nor do I contend it is likely to be impossible i build a Hotel on the site. But the developer with a great deal inose resources than ordinary citizens that come to Renton to have taxpayers like me pay with not only money, but with our Shoreline amenities fol the needs of a private enterprise while causing the impacts I complain of does not impress me in the lease Most disturbing of all to me, is the fact that it appears it is nothing more than a strategy to disregard the City's Shoreline and to save money by using Lawyers to argue the project permits. In Renton they charge $250.00 for each appeal and it is necessary to take the issues to the Council in most instances. That is $500.00 for each LUA, and double or triple that when it is done in pieces. It looks like they just want to wear people down.....very few people can afford to participate. I am offended that variances are not behi sought with regard to non -discretionary design requirements, If they are able to just approve the project without variances, it is just the same as changing the code in response to the particular application. No other people around the area get to do that either. I think it is impacting the vitality of our Shorelines and Health, our Codes, our Laws, and the SMA and in turn the vitality of our community and economy. Who it looks like to frustrated citizens like me that take the time to consider the permits is that the developer i; just submitting a "low quality and low budget" proposal to save money and then using the Lawyers to cause so much litigation that anyone would want to just forget about it. I consider that to be very foolish and that it will be tragic to the City's long term future, My neighborhood and cornrnunity is what is sufficing now and what will suffer when the project is built. I will suffer and so will my family. In my opinion, compelling the City and the developer to adjust their priorities and plans with Shoreliakes Board power is the only thing that will improve the situation and protect my interests, that is why I made the appeal. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration. DATED this 21th day of August, 2010. Respectfully, Declaration Page 4 or4 rad Nicholson Brad Nicholson Denis Law Ci Mayor +I 8 } I+ i j August 9, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development. Alex Pietsch, Administrator State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Ave. SE . Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 SUBJECT: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit for Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvement File No. 10-041, ECF, SM Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project. The permit was issued by the City of Renton on August 9, 2010. A Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated was issued by the City -'s Environmental Review Committee on July 19, 2010. The appeal period ended on August 6, 2010, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. We are filing this action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General per WAC 173-14-090. Please review this permit and attachments and contact me at (425) 430-7314 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting)Senior Planner Enclosures: Administrative Decision Copy of Master Application Project Narrative Neighborhood Detail Map Site Plan & Details Notice of Application SEPA Checklist SEPA Determination SEPA Determination Mitigation Measures SEPA Determination Advisory Notes cc: Office of Attorney General Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager City of Renton & Port Quendall Company Applicant/Owner City of, Renton Surface Water Utility, Steve Lee / Contact Yellow File SM—Cover Ltr_10-041.dotx Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98457. • rentonwa_gov A -F DEPARTMENT OF CO IUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �Y. _a — `" PLANNING DIVISION SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT EVALUATION FORM & DECISION DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE: LAND USE ACTION FILE NO.: DATE RECEIVED DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: TYPE OF ACTION(S): August 9, 2010 LUA10-041, ECR, SM June 24, 2010 July 1, 2010 ® Substantial Development Permit ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Variance Permit Pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW, staff recommends that the City of Renton grant a Substantial Development Permit. This action is proposed on the following application: PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements PROJECT MANAGER: Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner OWNER: City of Renton, City right-of-way, Renton, WA 98057; and Port Quendall Company, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton, WA 98057 APPLICANT/CONTACT: City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn: Steve Lee, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 PROJECT LOCATION: In existing ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Within the ROW of Sec. 32, Twn. 24, R. 5 E SEC-TWN-R: Sec. 32, Twn. 24, R. 5 E WITHIN THE SHORELINES OF: May Creek APPLICABLE MASTER PROGRAM: City of Renton PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the project is to install curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area, including the Hawks Landing development. The proposed infrastructure's design expands beyond the existing City of Renton Department of Con, 'ty & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements LUA10-041, ECR, SM DATE OF PERMM August 9, 2010 Page 2 of 4 right-of-way(ROW); therefore, a portion of the development would occur on private property located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The small portion of the project that would occur outside of the existing ROW would be located on the site commonly known as the Pan Abode Site (Tax Parcel# 3224059049, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N). The following list describes each part of the proposed project: • Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk would continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. • Pervious Sidewalk: The sidewalk would be installed from approximately 270 -feet north of the May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk connection. The sidewalk is proposed to be 12 -feet wide with a 10 -foot landscape strip behind the curb and be made of porous concrete. • Stormwater System: The stormwater system would collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharging to an existing stormwater system flowing to May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. • Wet Bio Swale: The project also includes a wet bio Swale, approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) of which, will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. One 20 -foot wide gravel maintenance access road is proposed off of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The landscape strip is proposed to terminate just north of the maintenance access road. • Water Line: The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. A 100 - foot portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. The reach of May Creek near the project site has been designated as an Urban Shoreline pursuant to the City's SMP. May Creek runs through the south end of project area; it flows under Lake Washington Blvd. N into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The downstream portion of the new storm system is within 60 feet of May Creek and the new water line will cross May Creek in an existing 18 -inch steel casing located within the May Creek Bridge. Under current conditions stormwater directly discharges into May Creek from the existing road side ditch. After the proposed project completion, discharge would remain in May Creek however, the subject project includes the addition of a wet bio Swale to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into May Creek. Moreover, the subject project would result in improvements in the water quality discharging into the creek. The applicant has indicated that the creek itself would not be disturbed during construction and best management practices would be conducted to ensure the creek is protected from sediment flowing downstream during construction. No fill or dredge is proposed to be placed within May Creek. City of Renton Department of Con .ty & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements LUA10-041, ECR, SM DATE OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 Page 3 of 4 The following section/page of the Master Program is applicable to the development: RMC Section Description Page 4-3-090J Urban Environment 3-25 4-3-090K General Use Regulations for All Shoreline Uses 3-25 4-3-090L Specific Use Regulations 3-27 Development of this project shall be undertaken pursuant to the following terms and conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all construction conditions of State Agencies. 2. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the SEPA Environmental Review for the subject project_ This Permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Action of 1971 and pursuant to the following: 1. The issuance of a license under the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 shall not release the applicant from compliance with federal, state, and other permit requirements. 2. This permit may be rescinded pursuant to Section 14(7) of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 in the event the permittee fails to comply with any condition(s) hereof. 3. Construction permits shall not be issued until twenty-one (21) days after approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology or until any review proceedings initiated within this twenty-one (21) day review period have been completed. C. E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director Planning Division Date APPEALS: Appeals of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit issuance must be made directly to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appeals are made by filing a request in writing within the twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the final order and concurrently filing copies of such request with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office as provided in section 18(1) of the Shorelines Management Act of 1971. All copies of appeal notices shall also be filed with the City of Renton Planning Division and the City Clerk's office. EXPIRATION: Unless a different time period is specified in the shoreline permit as authorized by RCW 90.58.143 and subsection J1 of RMC 4-9-190, construction activities, or a use or City of Renton Deportment of Corr lity & Economic Development Shoreline Management Permit Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements LUA10-041, FCR, SM DATE OF PERMIT: August 9, 2010 Page 4 of 4 activity, for which a permit has been granted pursuant to this Master Program must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of a shoreline permit, or the shoreline permit shall terminate, and a new permit shall be necessary. However, the Planning Division may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed with the Planning Division before the expiration date, and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and the Washington State Department of Ecology. DEFINITION OF COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: the construction applications must be submitted, permits must be issued, and foundation inspections must be completed before the end of the two (2) year period. Attachments: A. Neighborhood Detail Map cc: Attorney General's Office Owners)/Applicant — City of Renton & Port Quendall Company Contact — City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Steve Lee City of Renton Official File SCALE: 1 "=500' NE 44TH SITE � ,q Lo _ - �� a B10SWALE i Pi; at Fenton I r;rii� DiviFio,., CITY OF RENTCN LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD STDRH AHD WATER SYSM DiPROVHIMM .? NIIGHBORHOOD HAP EDD cam,,., CONSULTING EWNEMS oc^ u ;h u 7 ._ c x c p X G C x .Lr-. i-ru - 1` v �x O.�F G'J.�L` C1�,�yvvLij Pv'F2 Ovim.', !C��t v ! v �v -�' v �'a v ., t ,lye. y '� �,o j - ys f, J LL; r � � 7J �r. :. P v � I � � � �1i �. � CJ y L I w �k yD C,-� LL] t - s' �t --- ';' :n C C r, C �.0 G��.•- v yr J � R� t__� �JOG�x��'� o � �� r Jrt3�:F- � � cL � "ti c �"` ° ��''�U r'a.•c�--s�;j Cr`I ���� L-�F nL v r,-�.� v �d �� C,,�O �r - a_ > < -zj L� G.�•� G "j O ami �'O u o y7Z� GIS N CU O � � � L � f C � "' Q •p 01) J.4 cC O p 0 v 005 C/] A �� u� m'� Qin O� n.. �-.� W v��•Q O al �s �4 5 V p v C a 1 a bO.= =U v Fy..l ..� G15 In. r�: H o g H L� �� City 77-7 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (ONS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONIAMALACTION PRO ECT M ELT NA[: take Washington Blvd Seorm hnpruaemenea PItO1ECT NUM9ER: WA10-043-PCF, SM LOCATION: Lake W eshington Blvd N RAW ltwting 4150 Lake Washington Blvd N DE50RIPHON: The applied k requesting SERA Enwro mol 11 im and a Sh-41,e Sobstatrdal Ox+ebpntent permh for the instalNdm of uohfgpner and Parddss of a ddewalk, a new sewsp ey 4m, and a wafer Gne a rO Jon withkn Lek, Wmhi,Mw BNd. N. W mee5 the Infr oerom needs for fotom derdopmed in Une vienhy d the 1-905 Edt 7 area. Thep je r b primarily I—eed within the h thf, rigMof- way of Lake wee*,,on Bhd. N adiaoene m 4350 take Wa In, Pon ehd. N. Ntaeevn, a pnoH pordon for the prepool would ctend auto Vrivale property IOFted rt 4150 take WashinHon Blvd. R The pmpnred onb and tter gu=Bald extend on the east aide or Lake Wastt:ngmn Blvd. N. from Hipley tan. N. aP W. "600 feet wa sth. and curb, g— end ed-1kwill tsmIf _ south an the ed side of lake Wasbingron Blvd. N. to ronse� to the "ostia( bite ever Me,, Geek The new dorm system ww,id mrWs of approaWWelY 010 fn 4 Feer of 24nd& storm Ppe wfth a pedfdadn uolledaon system and the new water line extension would wnsiae of ahpue 1,450 feet of 124rgh ware, fine In iake Wd.natoo Blvd. N. horn NE 70th 5t. to NE 4eth SL The pruiect also Indodm a we bo 1% apprmmslatdV 140 Weel feet The appken I— prodded pleam end wetland etedies, a p-amr Wady, a geoted—W report, and. bydroingc anahysk with dtei appho i— THE fTtY CF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMrTEF IEALI HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SVGNMCANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeak of the emirotunerihal determination meat lam filed in writing on or before S -W p.m. on August 6, 2014 Appeak rmue be filed in writing together with tine required fee vAdc HwrLng Exarnwer, OILY or Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Reru=n, WA 48057. Appeals w the EKamhwr are governed by tley or Renton Municipal fade Section 4d110 -B, Adelina, information regarding the appeal pro— may be obmined "M the Rental City raerk'a Office, f42S]430-6S10. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 6 APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WRL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. � • -" FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (42514-10-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper isle Identification. CERTIFICATION r *L + hereby certify that copies of the above do were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: Signed: STATE OF WASHINGTON ] SS COUNTY OF KING certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that lv� 'e c "\ signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1 ` Notary Public in for the State of Washington Notary (Print): ' ,A r_t_.ab e v - My appointment expires: CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 21st day of July, 2010, l deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Steve Lee, City of Renton Applicant/Contact DJ Burtenshaw Party of Record (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON SS COUNTY OF KING ) Offis u l�''+�li~r- �►� 'f ` I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker ''M1tHtiy��a*►�`�' signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act forthe uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: t Notary (Print): My appointment expires: A cA Notary is in and for the State of Washington k( . A b 11; f, aci f :)0'3 Project Name: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements Project Number: LUA10-041, ECF, SM template - affidavit of service by mailing " • AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 — 172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckle -shoot Cultural Resources Program Attm Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev, Serv,, MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015172 nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing City of j OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-041, ECF, SM LOCATION: Lake Washington Blvd N R -O -W fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of- way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 6, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Law City Of t Mayor Jr July 21, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator Steve Lee City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Dear Mr. Lee; This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Nan -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 6, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee-, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner Enclosure cc: DJ Burtenshaw / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Dena Draw City ofri Jul 21 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development July Alex Pietsch, Admini5trator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental review Committee (ERC) on July 19, 2010: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-041, ECF, SM LOCATION: Lake Washington Blvd N R -O -W fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd N to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m, on August 6, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to'the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4.8- 1.10.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Please refer to the enclosed Notice of.Environ mental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7314. For the Environmental Review Committee, i7f Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov Washington State Department o Ecology Page 2 of 2 July 21, 2010 Enclosure cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WS DOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal Office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA10-041, ECF, SM APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd N to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found within the Geotechnical Study, prepared by S&EE, Inc., dated March 17, 2010, 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included within the Archaeological Assessment completed by Landau Associates, dated December 24, 2009. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYD tff AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA10-041, ECF, SM APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd N to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Plan Review - Water: 1. All fire hydrants must be capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM. 2. Water System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 Plan Review — Sewer: 1. Sanitary sewer requirements are not triggered by this project. 2. Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. Plan Review — Storm drainage: 1. Storm Water System Development Fees are not triggered by this project Plan Review—Transportation: 1. All street restoration shall be per the current City of Renton Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements details. 2. Traffic Mitigation Fees are not triggered by this project. 3. Any existing pavement markings and channelization (ie, bike lane) and signing disturbed during construction will need to be replaced in kind by this project. Plan Review —General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City's current horizontal and vertical control plan Fire Department: 1. The project shall meet City fire hydrant ordinances with regards to spacing of a maximum of 300 -feet in commercial districts. Property Services: 1. No monuments were noted on the plan; if there are any in the field that would be affected by construction, a permit should be obtained pursuant to RCW 332-120-040. Parks: 1. Recommends modification to plan details for sidewalk and landscape strip to reflect what is included on plans. 2. Recommends irrigation and irrigation contour to be included as a part of design. For detailed irrigation requirements coordinate with Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager. Irrigation should be designed to accommodate a turf landscape strip. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 City of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D n AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT o r ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA10-041, ECF, SM APPLICANT: City of Renton PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd N to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on August 6, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: July 23, 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 19, 2010 SIGNATURES: �j eeartment GreggZim ei i tr rMarl Peterson, A ministrator Public Wo ks Date Fire & Emergency Services -1 L_" Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Alex Pietsch, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development 7 is /o Date X119 It,, Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY fiftwa AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: Monday, July 19, 2010 TIME: 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Gustine Short Plat (Timmons) L UA10-038, ECF, SHPL-A Location: 3401, 3405, 3411 Lake Washington Blvd. Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an existing parcel into 3 lots which contains 3 existing single family residences all proposed to be retained, resulting in a density of 6.84 du/ac. The proposed lots would range in size from 8,517 square feet up to 20,935 square feet. The 39,718 square foot project site is located within the Residential - 8 (R- 8) dwelling units per acre zoning designation. The property is situated between Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad and Lake Washington with the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) encroaching onto the property. Access for the proposed lots would be provided via an existing driveway extended from Lake Washington Blvd which is proposed to be placed in a 20 -foot wide access easement. No improvements are neccessary for the proposed short plat. Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvements _ . (Oolbee) LUA10-041, ECF, SM Location: Lake Washington Blvd N right-of-way fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. Description: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd N to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N from Ripley Lane N approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMI, , �E MEETING AGENDA PAGE 2 OF 2 JULY 15, 2410 Washington Blvd N to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd N from NE 40th St to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director 11 W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Richard Perteet, Deputy PW Administrator - Transportation C. Vincent, CED Planning Director N. Watts, Development services Director L. Warren, City Attorney m F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medxegian, Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 'iyof AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS r ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: July 19, 2010 Project Name: Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements Owner: City of Renton, City right-of-way, Renton, WA 98057; and Port Quendali Company, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N, Renton, WA 98057 Applicant/Contact: City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn: Steve Lee, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 File Number: LUA10-041, ECF, SM Project Manager., Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. Project Location: Lake Washington Blvd. N right-of-way fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N Exist. Bldg. Area SF: N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (footprint): N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): N/A Site Area: 34,000 sq. ft. Total Building Area GSF: N/A STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination RECOMMENDATION. of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). Project Location Map ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmentol Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPROVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 — Page 2 of 9 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The purpose of the project is to install curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area, including the Hawks Landing development. The proposed infrastructure's design expands beyond the existing right-of-way(ROW); therefore, a portion of the development would occur on private property located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The small portion of the project that would occur outside of the existing ROW would be located on the site commonly known as the Pan Abode Site (Tax Parcel# 3224059049, 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N). The applicant has indicated that a portion of the Pan Abode Site would need to be dedicated to the City for the proposed sidewalk and storm drainage improvements. The width of the necessary dedication would vary from 9.5 feet wide to only a few feet wide as you move north along the frontage. Other portions of the project, including the wet bioswale could be maintained in easements and a dedication would not be required. Existing ROW does not receive a land use or zoning designation, however, private property does. The Pan Abode Site is located within the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) land use designation and zoning designation in addition to being located within Urban Design District "C" overlay. The proposed improvements are permitted within the COR zone and would meet all the development standards where applicable. The project area is comprised of an eclectic mix of development types, styles, and zones. On the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N is property zoned COR, Residential S (R-8), and Residential 10 (R-10) unit per net acre and on the west side, the property is zone COR and R-8. The many different land uses surrounding the site include, but are not limited to, paired homes in the Barbee Mill development, single- family residential, multi -family residential, old industrial, the Virginia Mason Athletic Center (VMAC), and vacant property. The following list describes each part of the proposed project: • Curb and Gutter: The curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk would continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. • Pervious Sidewalk: The sidewalk would be installed from approximately 270 -feet north of the May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk connection. The sidewalk is proposed to be 12 -feet wide with a 10 -foot landscape strip behind the curb and be made of porous concrete. • Stormwater System: The stormwater system would collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharging to an existing stormwater system flowing to May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. • Wet Bio swale: The project also includes a wet bio swale, approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) of which, will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. One 20 -foot wide gravel maintenance access road is proposed off of Lake Washington Blvd. N. The landscape strip is proposed to terminate just north of the maintenance access road. ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Communi Economic Development E nmentai Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM !MPnuVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 — — Page 3 of 9 • Water Line: The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44t' St. A 100 -foot portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. To complete the proposed infrastructure improvements approximately 2,380 cubic yards of cut would occur and approximately 2,450 cubic yards of fill would be imported from licensed gravel pits. In addition, various franchise utilities may need to be relocated to accommodate the stormwater and water line construction including, but not limited to, power poles, fiber optic, telephone and gas/power. As identified on the City of Renton Sensitive Area Maps, the Pan Abode site and portions of ROW contain seismic hazards and flood hazards. In addition, just south of the site is May Creek, a Class 1 water. The drainage ditch that runs immediately adjacent to Lake Washington Boulevard has been identified by the applicants provided Wetland/Stream Study as a Class 5 non-regulated stream with an associated non- reguiatea weiiana. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW in compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found within the Geotechnical Study, prepared by S&EE, Inc., dated March 17, 2010. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included within the Archaeological Assessment completed by Landau Associates, dated December 24, 2009. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Neighborhood Map Exhibit 2 Project Cover Sheet Exhibit 3 Project Sheet 3 Exhibit 4 Project Sheet 4 Exhibit 5 Project Sheet 5 Exhibit 6 Project Details, Sheet D-1 D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPROVEMENTS LUA10-041, CCF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 Page 4 of 9 1. Earth Impacts: With the project application, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical Study prepared by S&EE, Inc., dated March 17, 2010. The study indicated that the majority of the proposed storm line would be located in the existing roadside drainage ditch and the water line would be located in the road shoulder just to the west of the drainage ditch. The bottom of this ditch is 4 to 6 feet below the street level, resulting in the need for approximately 5 to 6 feet of fill to bring the ground to street level, for sidewalk construction. The majority of the ditch is 5 -feet in width at the bottom with the exception of the northern section where the ditch reaches 15 feet in width. An existing single -story, metal building is present along the east side of the ditch, at the closest point the building is approximately 10 -feet from the centerline of the ditch. Pursuant to the provided Geotechnical Study, the subsurface soil conditions along the storm line show relatively consistent conditions. The subsurface soils include existing fill, recent sedimentary deposits about 20 -feet thick and glacial soils that are found at about 30 feet below the ground surface. S&EE completed their field exploration on December 28, 2009; at this time 6 to 12 inches of water was present in the drainage ditch. SUE indicated that groundwater was found at about the same depth during drilling. The shallowest groundwater table in the project vicinity has an average depth of 15 -feet below ground surface. It is anticipated that the depth of this shallow groundwater will vary with the season and precipitation levels. Based on the groundwater level, S&EE has included recommends for construction dewatering within the provided study. Overall, the report indicates that groundwater flow can be handled by sump pumps spaced at 50 to 100 feet along the ditch. The Geotechnical Study provides recommendations for both the storm line and water line construction including recommendations for settlement, subgrade preparation in the existing ditch, pipe bedding, ditch fill, catch basin subgrade, trench excavation and backfill, thrust block design, and temporary and permanent slopes. Furthermore, the subject site is located within a seismic hazard area. Pursuant to the provided Geotechnical Study, the site is located within Seismic Zone 3 and is susceptible to liquefaction hazards. S&EE conclude that the soft subsoils of the site have a moderate to high liquefaction potential, therefore moderate to sever distortion to the storm line may occur. S&EE believe, that post -earthquake maintenance would be a reasonable mitigation option for the potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. Based on the potential for seismic and geological impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendations within the Geotechnical Study, prepared by SUE, Inc., dated March 17, 2010. In the SEPA checklist the applicant indicated that they anticipate that construction would result in approximately 2,380 cubic yards of cut and approximately 2,450 cubic yards of fill. During site excavation, it is anticipated that erosion may occur along the slope of the ditch, specifically in the northern section of the ditch. The applicant has indicated that typical erosion control methods described in the 2009 City of Renton Stormwater Design Manual to control erosion from excavation and soil stockpiles would be utilized. This would include the use of filter fabric fences and catchbasin inlet protection. Stormwater would be diverted around the work area and sandbags and silt fencing would be used to keep any water and sediment out of the open channel of the ditch and stream. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found within the Geotechnical Study, prepared by SUE, Inc., dated March 17, 2010. ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPROVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Review, RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations, RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations. 2. Water a. Wetland, Streams, Lakes Impacts: The applicants submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009 and a Stream Assessment completed by Gray & Osborne, Inc. dated, June 16, 2010_ The GBA study identified two streams, and one wetland within the vicinity of the project site. The first stream is May Creek, which is a Shoreline of the State regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The reach of May Creek near the project site has been designated as an Urban Shoreline pursuant to the City's SMP. May Creek runs through the south end of project area; it flows under Lake Washington Blvd. N into Lake Washington approximately 0.25 miles southwest of the subject property. The provided Wetland/Stream Study identified that no salmonids or resident fish species were observed during their site investigation, although May Creek is reportedly utilized by Chinook and Sockeye salmon. Furthermore, winter steelhead and cutthroat trout are also known to utilize the creek. The area of jurisdiction under the SMA and SMP extends 200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). The downstream portion of the new storm system is within 60 feet of May Creek and the new water line will cross May Creek in an existing 18 -inch steel casing located within the May Creek Bridge. Under current conditions stormwater directly discharges into May Creek from the existing road side ditch. After the proposed project completion, discharge would remain in May Creek however, the subject project includes the addition of a wet bio swale to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into May Creek. Moreover, the subject project would result in improvements in the water quality discharging into the creek_ The applicant has indicated that the creek itself would not be disturbed during construction and best management practices would be conducted to ensure the creek is protected from sediment flowing downstream during construction. No fill or dredge is proposed to be placed within May Creek. However, development will occur within 200 -feet of the OHWM of May Creek; as such, the subject project would be subject to SMA and SMP regulations. The applicant has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The second stream, which is also a drainage ditch located along Lake Washington Boulevard, was identified to be a Class 5 stream. This drainage ditch is located predominantly within the right of way of Lake Washington Blvd. N. Pursuant to the provided Study, flows for this stream are maintained by stormwater runoff from the north and the subject site. The City of Renton's Critical Areas Regulations identify Class 5 waters as "non-regulated non salmonid -bearing waters...". GBA also met with the Area Habitat Biologist from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on April 24, 2009 to provide guidance and further observations of this ditch. WDFW concluded that the ditch was a man- made feature, and that work within the trench would not require Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Based on the consultation with the Area Habitat Biologist and observations gathered during the site investigation GBA determined that the drainage ditch is a non -salmonid bearing water. The location and profile of the ditch indicated that it is an artificially constructed channel designed and actively maintained to convey stormwater runoff from 1-405, Lake Washington Boulevard, and the existing Pan Abode facility. As such GBA concluded that Criterion (a) of RMC 4-3-050.L.1.a.v. Streams and Lakes Class 5 waters is satisfied and therefore the subject Class 5 water would not be regulated. Within the drainage ditch, GBA also identified wetland characteristics. Based on the City's definition of Regulated and Non-regulated Wetlands GBA determined that the drainage ditch was intentionally created from a non -wetland site for the purpose of stormwater conveyance and is therefore a non-regulated wetland under the City's Critical Area Regulations ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPROVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 Page 6 of 9 The project is located within the vicinity of the 100 -year flood plain of May Creek. Pursuant to the Gray & Osborne assessment the 100 -year flood elevation extends north from the OHWM of May Creek to the fence line of the Pan Abode Site and as much as 40 feet north beyond the fence. The 100 -year flood elevations ranges from 26 to 32 MSL, feet across the site, however the subject project is approximately 55 -feet outside the flood plain. As such, the project would not have impacts on the flood plain nor would the flood plain have impacts on the project. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A b. Ground Water Impacts: The shallowest groundwater table in the project vicinity has an average depth of 15 -feet below ground surface. It is anticipated that the depth of this shallow groundwater will vary with season and precipitation. The applicant has indicated if there is a high water table at time of construction, temporary pumping would be needed to keep the excavation dry. Any groundwater would be filtered to remove sediment and discharged back to the downstream storm system through the use of sediment and erosion control best management practices. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A c. Storm Water Impacts: The proposed project is not anticipated to increase stormwater run off. However, the project proposes the addition of a wet bio Swale to treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge into May Creek, resulting in improved stormwater conditions for the surrounding area. In addition, sidewalk is proposed to be made of porous concrete allowing for additional stormwater infiltration, effetely reducing the amount of stormwater run off that would be anticipated for a 12 -foot wide sidewalk. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A 3. Vegetation Impacts: Pursuant to the provided Gray & Osborne, Inc. Stream Assessment, vegetation within the project area includes large big leaf maple, alder, and Japanese knotweed. Within the existing ditch, near the warehouse a few wetland grasses including reed canary grass were found. In the project vacancy, vegetation includes black cottonwoods, alders, vine maples, Canadian thistles, nettles, Indian plum, horsetail, alfalfa, clover and wild carrot. The riparian area of May Creek upstream of the project site is dominated by several red alders in addition to Japanese knotweed, Himalayan blackberries, salmonberry, nettles, sward fern, holly, horsetail, ivy, piggyback/youth-on-age, and a variety of grasses. The proposed location of the subject project, immediacy adjacent to existing ROW, essentially eliminates potential impacts to significant trees or vegetation, with the exception of some grasses, weeds, Japanese knotweed, and a few small alders less then 4 -inches in diameter. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPROVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, 5M Report of July 19, 2010 Page 7 of 9 4. Wildlife Impacts: The applicant submitted a "Wetland/Stream Study", prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates (GBA), dated May 12, 2009 a Stream Assessment completed by Gray & Osborne, Inc. dated, June 16, 2010. These reports also evaluated wildlife within are vicinity of the subject site in addition to streams. The report concludes that wildlife likely to occur on the site would be limited to species tolerant of traffic noise and human presence including deer, raccoons, opossums, squirrels, rodents, hawks and a variety of songbirds, crows, etc. Although located within the riparian area of May Creek, small mammals and birds were observed. The submitted report indicated that such wildlife as voles, blacktail deer, short tailed weasel, and a pair of Osprey were observed within this area. In addition to common species such as song sparrow, house finch, American crow and gull species were also observed within the riparian area. The reports indicate that other species such as reptiles and amphibians are likely to be present in the area including garter snakes, alligator lizards, salamanders and chorus frogs. In addition, south of the subject site in Lake Washington a nesting platform is maintained at the old Barbee Mill Site for ospreys and bald and golden eagles. As mentioned above the proposed development would be immediacy adjacent to and within the existing ROW of Lake Washington Blvd. N; as such, impacts to the habitat for the above mention species is not anticipated as a part of this development. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus. N/A 5. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: The applicant completed an Archaeological Assessment subject to the provisions of the Washington State Governor's Executive Order 05-05. This assessment was completed by Landau Associates, dated December 24, 2009. The assessment concludes that no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the investigation and no further archaeological work was recommended for the subject project area. However, the assessment concludes that no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during their investigation, the potential for such discoveries remain. The project area is in a high probability zone given its proximity to Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. The report recommends that if archaeological deposits of unevaluated significance are encountered during construction activities, ground disturbance should be halted and activities directed away from the area. If human skeletal remains are encountered during construction activities, all work activities should cease immediately. The area should be screened off, and the construction foreman should contact the necessary organizations. Based on the potential for cultural resources to be discovered within the project vicinity, staff recommends a mitigation measure that the applicant comply with the recommendation included within the Archaeological Assessment completed by Landau Associates, dated December 24, 2009. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the recommendation included within the Archaeological Assessment completed by Landau Associates, dated December 24, 2009. Nexus: SEPA and EO 05-05 6. Transportation Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary traffic impacts. For the construction of the waterline, one lane of Lake Washington Blvd. N. would need to be reduced for short sections. The applicant proposes to use flaggers to permit one lane to be closed during ERC Report 10-041 City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPROVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 Page 8 of 9 waterline construction. Reduced speeds are anticipated during the storm pipe and manhole construction. Traffic signs and cones are proposed to be utilized to provide safety for traffic and pedestrians passing through the area. Biking access would remain open during construction. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation required. Nexus: N/A E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." +f Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, August 5, 2010. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY (VOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. Plan Review - Water: 1. All fire hydrants must be capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM. 2. Water System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. ERC Report 10-041 City of Denton Department of Communi Economic Development E Fnmenta! review Committee Report LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD. STORM IMPrtuVEMENTS LUA10-041, ECF, SM Report of July 19, 2010 Page 9 of 9 Plan Review—Sewer: 1. Sanitary sewer requirements are not triggered by this project. 2. Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. Plan Review — Storm drainage: 1. Storm Water System Development Fees are not triggered by this project Plan Review —Transportation: 1. All street restoration shall be per the current City of Renton Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements details. 2. Traffic Mitigation Fees are not triggered by this project. 3. Any existing pavement markings and channelization (ie, bike lane) and signing disturbed during construction will need to be replaced in kind by this project. Plan Review —General: 1. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City's current horizontal and vertical control plan Fire Department: 1. The project shall meet City fire hydrant ordinances with regards to spacing of a maximum of 300 - feet in commercial districts. Property Services: 1. No monuments were noted on the plan; if there are any in the field that would be affected by construction, a permit should be obtained pursuant to RCW 332-120-040. Parks: 1. Recommends modification to plan details for sidewalk and landscape strip to reflect what is included on plans. 2. Recommends irrigation and irrigation contour to be included as a part of design. For detailed irrigation requirements coordinate with Urban Forestry and Natural Resources Manager. Irrigation should be designed to accommodate a turf landscape strip. ERC Report 10-041 SCALE: V=50 NE 44TH SITE m" o B10SWAL_E pity of Renton �'Ilrn+nviv 5,or, CITY OF RENTON LM WASHMGTON BLVD STORY AND WATER SYSTEM DUWViNnM NEIGHBORHOOD NAP PD) cam, CONSAT G ENGINEERS m x W � LU 0 rr CL � � LU :E LU � 0 m 0- �E mi LU F - Cf) � U) rr W � < C'D C?� � C\j < LU � :�E CL � O Ct) >- Cf) C) F- CD w C) Ir Q � CO � � Q Z � � cn 2: O F- � Z Z � � � W � »)(X - 9x � 2 2 \(�2 ] q! § § § „§2■ n s §m2 2 ■a;RE � � - !� ! . k§§ Wim§ 0 % ,§: ! r � � � | W � - !� ! . k§§ Wim§ 0 % ,§: ! Z 133HS 33S 09+4L VIS 9N]-IHOIVW � KS r � .g { xwx-XX-xxx 1 — R ...... L Ln F M-61 } - :�v o ,a t r o tlV ~ W 0.2 =xy j .... w - i � �• did 0 r p n Ym a z } o .....: M m. l h. s a A L� Z D ig U d` r I yi '1 � 3 �i �d ! T d F� o .. .. ... 't O r i • . 4 f... ...........3 e� a G'I J. �II Yl F, €3 I s. ZO!] LL H om g 'ZZ .......w�� -.. -. !. X31 !... I�i� Ali SW1 r H Co H X W , 9 3NnHOStlW L � � m I I � F t J �i y7 =tea O q 2 6 cq f z °' . 2 Lu . p o pXI— G 4 i � LIO YS Me ..z SaYi-TI Z tj oa IL E� u s rux ti ti Ij A �%j� i�J 11 ..... us Y ' I ,I I a� M s J1 MZ -71 ixE8 tC...w x ma -�z znax-�a y� F 1l0 SCS dld] .fi 29 92.]� �A - 3dC1 -eJ �_. I'lllf� ' .. .ini 81�a f . �I F to 11 w ] [ad]Az 00 - W -31-'I 1 _ lig I 4 I Fi i FI7' M �m OM e t9-92 « y dz rizz 1 3 g Cu m' 4 133HS 33S 09+9L VIS 3NI-IHOIVW v r'ni roi n n xxxx-xx-xxx r o Zoo Z CL U :m Y, m x W xxxx-xx-xxx A 4 2 3� 4S va 3� KU�z �6 Ww _ 4 R 5 3�Z •I ,I „� • � � ���� a I Ng xxxx-xx-xxx 4S va h xxxx-xx-xxx a g 5 „� • � � ���� a I Ng xxxx-xx-xxx �g�4 s } o z LL AF J 0 00PE 4ZZ IL v Y, a g 5 N - il 31, �g�4 s } o z LL AF J 0 00PE 4ZZ IL v Y, City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT. COMMENTS DUE: JULY 15, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-041, ECF, SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 1, 2010 APPLICANT: Steve Lee, City of Renton PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 34,000 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & Small section on subject site PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St_ to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Malar Information impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlore Recreation Utilities Trons ortation Public Services Historic/Culturol Preservation Airport Environment 10,00OFeet 14, 000 Feet We hove reviewed this application with particulor attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addipQnrrnfarmatjon is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: JULY 15, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-041, ECF, SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 1, 2010 APPLICANT: Steve Lee, City of Renton PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 34,000 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & Small section on subject site PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storms stem and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to mee a in ras ruc ure nee s for future development in the vicinit of the 1-40S Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing rig -o -wa as ington Blvd_ N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension wauTd consis�al auout_35Dee t o nch water line jnLakebjngo_n BLyd_N. from NE 40th St_ to NE 44th St_ The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, an a y ro off- gc`ana ysis� with their application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Nor: -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics tight/Glare Recreotion Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. r _ 12-5 A - Signature, df Dire for or Authorized Representative / Date Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 04:37 PM To: 'brad nicholson' Subject: RE; I am requesting a copy of the shoreline permit decision for LUA10-041, ECF, SIV{ Brad, At this time the City has not issued a shoreline permit for LUA10-041, ECF, SM. However, we would be happy to provide you a copy once the permit has been issued. We expect to issue the permit sometime in early August. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 south Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 From: brad nicholson [mailto:brad827@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 01:21 PM To: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: I am requesting a copy of the shoreline permit decision for LUA10-041, ECF, SM I am requesting a copy of the shoreline permit decision for LUA10- 041, ECF, SM If possible to email electronically 1 would appreciate, or I can come down and pick up paying for reproduction costs. Thank you Brad Nicholson The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started. 1 Fire: 1. None. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall be required to shift the shared property line between Lots 2 and 3, in order to comply with the minimum 5 -foot side yard setback for each existing single family residence. A revised short plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to short plat recording. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised short plat plan depicting at least a 20 -foot wide access easement to be recorded across Lots 2 and 3 for the benefit of Lots 1 and 2. The revised short plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to short plat recording. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 Vanessa Dolbee From: brad nicholson [brad827@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 0121 PM To: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: I am requesting a copy of the shoreline permit decision for LUA10-041, ECF, SM I am requesting a copy of the shoreline permit decision for LUA10- 041, ECF, SM If possible to email electronically I would appreciate, or I can come down and pick up paying for reproduction costs. Thank you Brad Nicholson The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and a -mail from your inbox. Get started. I Vanessa Dolbee From: Steve Lee Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:01 PM To: Karen Waiter; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Hello Karen, I can clarify question 3 and your follow up question on our initial response to the question. I may not have properly answered your question before and can expand with the following: All flows (including the existing Pan Abode runoff that drains to the ditch) will drain to the proposed 24 -inch pipe upstream of the proposed biaswale. Then all upstream flows (including current Pan Abode site) under the water quality flow -rate drains into the wet-bioswale that will always have wetland plants and 4 -inch or more standing water to treat the runoff. This bioswale also serves to capture any roadway runoff (or Pan Abode area runoff) that might contain some sort of potential oil -spill that we will have the ability to clean-out in the bioswale. It will drain there first. The high flow bypass structure protects the plantings and natural cleaning agents in the bioswale from having too much flows flush the sediments, plants, etc. back into the 24 -inch pipe that currently drains into May Creek. Usually higher flows will be cleaner and diluted and have much less potential contaminants so the bypass structure is needed. The grades in the area also do not support the full runoff from draining to the bioswale (without the 24 -inch pipe) since then the bioswale width would then need to be expanded to a very wide structure (approximately 90 feet or more in width). Also we do not have the land rights to construct that wide of structure on private property. Initially we looked into constructing a dry bioswale that would take all runoff from the roadways and Pan Abode without the need of a pipe, but the grades in the area do not support such a structure. Only a wet-bioswale would provide the treatment given the flat roadway grades. Wet bioswales can be constructed for less than 1% slope and dry bioswales can be constructed for grades greater than 2%. The roadway is flat in that area north of May Creek. It is also my understanding that the private adjacent property, that used to accommodate the Pan Abode homes warehouses, may in the near future be developed and will also have water quality treated from their site that complies with runoff requirements. Hopefully this helps to clarify my initial response. Thanks, Steve Lee, PE, MS, CESCL Surface Water Utility City of Renton From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:28 AM To: Steve Lee; Vanessa Dolbee Subject: RE: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Steve and Vanessa, Thank you to Steve for getting back to the MITFD with responses to our questions below. We have a follow-up question based on the responses. Fallow -up to question 3 - We appreciate the City's efforts to improve water quality by constructing a retrofit water quality structure in the form of the proposed wet bioswale to treat stormwater from portions of Lake Washington Boulevard. Since there is an opportunity to conduct a retrofit project at this site, why not expand the existing bioswale (and potentially the stormwater facility proposed for Hawk's Landing) to treat more stormwater and potentially avoid the need for high flow by-pass the will result in some untreated stormwater being discharged directly to May Creek? Thank you again for your prompt responses to our questions. Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39095 1720' Ave Aubum WA 98092 253-876-3116 From: Steve Lee [mailto:Slee@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:16 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee; Karen Walter Cc: Ronald Straka Subject: RE: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance To Karen and Vanessa, This email response addresses Ms. Walter's July 13th email questions regarding the stream assessment memo dated June 16, 2010 and the wetland/stream study dated May 12, 2009. Ms. Walter's questions are provided in italics and applicants' responses are in bold font type. 1. Will any of the stormwater runoff from Hawk's Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel be directed to the new wet bioswale? Runoff currently discharges into the Lake Washington ditch that drains directly into May Creek. The runoff pathway will not be altered with this project and all existing runoff will collect current ditch flows into the bypass pipe and discharge into May Creek. The potential future Hawks Landing project, which is being developed separately from this project, will propose water quality treatment from it's site that will be directed to the bypass pipe. The proposed Hawks Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel runoff will not discharge directly into the new wet bioswale. 2. The response to project description indicates that the project will have a water quantity or detention component. Will the wet bioswale be used for detention or is another facility proposed? The proposed wet bioswale is a retrofit water quality structure that will treat runoff from portions of Lake Washington Boulevard. The proposed facilities for the project complies and exceeds the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM-2009). Currently no water quality treatment from Lake Washington Boulevard runoff is being treated so the proposed project should improve water quality from the site. The proposed increase in impervious areas (new sidewalk) from the project does not exceed impervious area thresholds that would trigger flow control structure requirements. The project does propose to infiltrate runoff from the 250 LF —10 -feet wide sidewalk into the soils by proposing pervious pavement. For water quality requirements, per the KCSWDM-2009, the project is not required to provide water quality treatment since the project proposes minimal additional vehicular impervious areas. This project exceeds the KCSWDM-2009 requirement by proposing to retrofit and treat for water quality on a significant portion of area from Lake Washington Boulevard. 3. Sheet 4 of the project drawings shows a high flow bypass structure outletting from the bioswale. Why is a high flow by-pass needed as part of the stormwater improvements? A high flow bypass structure is proposed to bypass the wet bio-swale facility due to design requirements needing high flows to bypass the wet bioswale. (See Section 6.3 Biofiltration Facility Designs page 6-56 of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual). The high flow bypass structure protects the proposed wetland vegetation in the wet bioswale from damage. Flows greater than the water quality design flow will flow to the 24 -inch bypass pipe. Thank you for reviewing the proposed Lake Washington Boulevard Storm and Water System Improvement Project LUA10-041. If you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Vanessa Dolbee via email vdolbee@rentanwa.gov or phone (425-430-7314). Sincerely, Steve Lee, PE Surface Water utility City of Renton .. ........ .... ... From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:10 PM To: Steve Lee Subject: FW: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Steve, Could you provide Karen Walter a response to her questions below. Please cc me on the response so I can include the response in the official file. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee x7314 From: Karen Walter[mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 02:00 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Nan -Significance Vanessa, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials which included the environmental checklist; project plans; Stream assessment memo dated June 16 2010; and Wetland/Stream Study dated May 12, 2009. We have some questions about this project as noted below: 1. Will any of the stormwater runoff from Hawk's Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel be directed to the new wet bioswale? 2. The response to project description indicates that the project will have a water quantity or detention component. Will the wet bioswale be used for detention or is another facility proposed? 3. Sheet 4 of the project drawings shows a high flow bypass structure outletting from the bioswale. Why is a high flow by-pass needed as part of the stormwater improvements? 3 We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses to our questions. We may have subsequent comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172n° Ave Auburn WA 98092 253-876-3116 Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 03:12 PM To: 'Jerry Burtenshaw' Subject: RE: Land Use Number LUA10-041, ECF,SM dated 7/1110 -LW Storm Improvement Jerry, You have been added to the party of record list for the subject project. If you have any questions please let me know. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-731.4 From: Jerry Burtenshaw [mailto:jerryb1960@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 02:36 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Land Use Number LUA10-041, ECF,SM dated 7/1/10 -LW Storm Improvement Dear Ms Vanessa Dolbee; (acting) Senior Planner Would you please put me on the list for further information on the above proposed project. Thank you; D J Burtenshaw Exit 7, Inc. 4425 Forest Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA 98040-3913 tele. 206 275 0369 I Vanessa Dolbee From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 01:28 PM To: Leslie A Betlach Subject: RE: Lake Wash. Blvd Storm Drain (AKA Hawks Landing) LUA10-041, ECF, SM Attachments: image001.jpg Leslie, After review of the provided plans for the subject project, it appears that the detail on sheet D-1 may be incorrect. The engineering drawings on sheet 4 indicate the sidewalk would be 12 -feet in width and a 10 -foot landscape strip would be provided. However, a landscaping plan was not provided for the landscape strip. If there is room in the projects budget, the plan is to add trees to the landscape strip. If this can not be completed the addition of landscaping would be the responsibility of the property developer. The proposed 12 -foot sidewalk is consistent with the approved site plan for the Hawk's Landing Hotel. The goal is to have a consistent pattern along the frontage of Lake Washington Blvd. N when both the Hotel project and the City's project are completed. Please let me know if you have any other comments or questions. Vanessa Dolbee x7314 From: Leslie A Betlach Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 01:22 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Cc: Chip Vincent Subject: FW: Lake Wash. Blvd Storm Drain (AKA Hawks Landing) LUA10-041, ECF, SM Oops —the sidewalk width is the standard S' width, not 8' as noted below. Leslie Zedw Al. 644Tc4 Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-6619 Fax: 425-430-6603 I betlachP rentonwa.gov From: Leslie A Betlach Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:13 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Ce: Chip Vincent Subject: Lake Wash. Blvd Storm Drain (AKA Hawks Landing) LUAfO-041, ECF, SM 1 Hi Vanessa, I had the impression that a landscape strip between the road and sidewalk would be included as part of this project, but after reviewing the plans and narrative none exists. The sidewalk fronts the road ; this does not meet the standard for complete streets. Would you please clarify the discrepancy? I also thought that a widened sidewalk for making the connection from the May Creek Trail, north to the Quendal Terminal project was to be included. The sidewalk width is the standard 8'width. Would you please clarify that as well? Thanks, Leslie ;edit //t ve&4d Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone. 425-430-6619 Fax: 425-430-6603 Ibetlach@rentonwa.goov Vanessa Dolbee From: Steve Lee Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 09:16 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee; KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us Cc: Ronald Straka Subject: RE: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance To Karen and Vanessa, This email response addresses Ms. Walter's July 1P email questions regarding the stream assessment memo dated June 16, 2010 and the wetland/stream study dated May 12, 2009. Ms. Walter's questions are provided in italics and applicants' responses are in bold font type. Will any of the stormwater runoff from Hawk's Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel be directed to the new wet bioswale? Runoff currently discharges into the Lake Washington ditch that drains directly into May Creek. The runoff pathway will not be altered with this project and all existing runoff will collect current ditch flows into the bypass pipe and discharge into May Creek. The potential future Hawks Landing project, which is being developed separately from this project, will propose water quality treatment from it's site that will be directed to the bypass pipe. The proposed Hawks Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel runoff will not discharge directly into the new wet bioswale. 2. The response to project description indicates that the project will have a water quantity or detention component. Will the wet bioswale be used for detention or is another facility proposed? The proposed wet bioswale is a retrofit water quality structure that will treat runoff from portions of Lake Washington Boulevard. The proposed facilities for the project complies and exceeds the 2010 City of Renton Amendments to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM-2009). Currently no water quality treatment from Lake Washington Boulevard runoff is being treated so the proposed project should improve water quality from the site. The proposed increase in impervious areas (new sidewalk) from the project does not exceed impervious area thresholds that would trigger flow control structure requirements. The project does propose to infiltrate runoff from the 250 LF —10 -feet wide sidewalk into the soils by proposing pervious pavement. For water quality requirements, per the KCSWDM-2009, the project is not required to provide water quality treatment since the project proposes minimal additional vehicular impervious areas. This project exceeds the KCSWDM-2009 requirement by proposing to retrofit and treat for water quality on a significant portion of area from Lake Washington Boulevard. 3. Sheet 4 of the project drawings shows a high flow bypass structure outletting from the bioswale. Why is a high flow by-pass needed as part of the stormwater improvements? A high flow bypass structure is proposed to bypass the wet bio-swale facility due to design requirements needing high flows to bypass the wet bioswale. (See Section 6.3 Biofiltration Facility Designs page 6-56 of the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual). The high flow bypass structure protects the proposed wetland vegetation in the wet bioswale from damage. Flows greater than the water quality design flow will flow to the 24 -inch bypass pipe. Thank you for reviewing the proposed Lake Washington Boulevard Storm and Water System Improvement Project LUA10-041. If you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Vanessa Dolbee via email vdolbee rentonwa. ov or phone (425-430-7314). Sincerely, Steve Lee, PE Surface Water Utility City of Renton From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 2:10 PM To: Steve Lee Subject: FW: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Steve, Could you provide }Caren Walter a response to her questions below. Please cc me on the response so I can include the response in the official file. Thank you, Vanessa Dolbee x7314 From: Karen Walter [ma !Ito:KWalter@m uckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 02:00 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Vanessa, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials which included the environmental checklist; project plans; Stream assessment memo dated June 16 2010; and Wetland/Stream Study dated May 12, 2009. We have some questions about this project as noted below: 1, Will any of the stormwater runoff from Hawk's Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel be directed to the new wet bioswale? 2. The response to project description indicates that the project will have a water quantity or detention component. Will the wet bioswale be used for detention or is another facility proposed? 3. Sheet 4 of the project drawings shows a high flow bypass structure outletting from the bioswale. Why is a high flow by-pass needed as part of the stormwater improvements? We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses to our questions. We may have subsequent comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172nd Ave Auburn WA 98092 253-876-3916 REJ T R A N S M I T T A L Date: July 6, 2010 To: Spencer Alpert Company: Hawk's Landing, LLC Address: 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 961 7 t Phone: cc: We are sending: ® Attached ® Originals ❑ Copies ❑ Samples ❑ Other pity of Renton Planning Division JUL 1.2 Lulu M c U ou k VULCAN From: Betsy Lawless for Clint Chase Re: Letter of Understanding Project: Pan Abode Site Phone: 206-342-2217 Pages: Action required: ❑ Information and use ® As indicated below ❑ Review and comment ❑ For signature and return ❑ As requested ❑ None Comments: Spencer, Enclosed please find the partially executed Letter of Understanding for the Pan Abode site. Steve Van Til has indicated that you would sign for Hawk's Landing and then mail it to the City, who will distribute fully executed pdf's to both parties. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Betsy Lawless Contract Specialist Vulcan Inc. - 505 Fifth Ave S Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 betsyl@v'ulcan.com Originals sent via: Method 505 FItth Ave S Suite 900 Seattle, WA 913104 Copies sent via_ Method 206 342 2000 Tel 206 342 3000 Fax V U L C A N. C 0 M June 22, 2010 Mr. Clint Chase, Underwriting Manager Vulcan 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Spencer Alpert, President Hawk's Landing, LLC 10218 Richwood Ave NW Seattle, WA 98177 RE: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING FOR LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH STORM AND WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: PAN ABODE SITE, RENTON, WA Dear Mr. Chase and Mr. Alpert: The City of Renton is interested in working with Port Quendall Company (land owner) and Hawk's Landing, LLC (Hawk's Landing hotel developer) in gaining sidewalk right-of-way dedication, easements, temporary construction easements and rights -of -entry for the City's Lake Washington Boulevard North Storm and Water System Improvement Project (City Project). The City Project is located west of Interstate 405 at exit 7, south of the NE 44th Street overpass, and north of May Creek. The project proposes to provide improved drinking water and fire flow services, stormwater conveyance and water quality treatment to the frontage of the Pan Abode site that is owned by the Port Quendall Company (PQC). Attached is a revised exhibit and property owner land rights and approval needs document describing the right-of-way dedications, easements, and approvals that are needed from PQC and Hawk's Landing, LLC for the City Project. An earlier version of this information was previously provided to you for review on March 29, 2010, and discussed in detail at our meeting on April 21, 2010. The City has completed the 35% design and construction plans for the project. The City is requesting approval in concept from the PQC and Hawk's Landing, LLC on the following item so we can proceed with the permitting and completion of the design of the City Project as needed prior to project construction. The agreement in concept is necessary so the City can proceed with the project design with the understanding that there is assurance from both parties Mr. Chase and Nor. Alpert June 22, 2010 Page 2 of 4 regarding the need for granting of required land rights (dedications and easements, temporary construction easements, right -of -entry) and other commitments needed for the City Project. The City will prepare the final documents that will need to be executed for the sidewalk area right-of-way dedication, permanent easements, rights -of -entry, and temporary construction easements for review and approval by the PQC and Hawk's Landing, LLC prior to the City Project being advertised for contractor construction bids. This Letter of Understanding outlines the general terms and conditions under which the City, PQC and Hawk's Landing LLC will advance the design and construction plans for the City Project. This letter is not binding upon the City, PQC and/or Hawk's Landing, LLC. This letter is, however, an expression of the parties' mutual intent to conduct serious discussions that could result in binding agreements associated with the design and construction of the City Project. Please review and agree in concept to the following list of items needed from PQC and Hawk's Landing, LLC for the City Project as described and shown in more detail in the attached Pan Abode Site Land Rights and Approval Needs document and Exhibit: 1. The PQC agrees to authorize the City of Renton to submit permit applications for Environmental Review, Shoreline Review, and the JARPA Application that includes work on the privately -owned property (biofiltration swale and a new 24" storm system in a new WSDOT easement). 2. The Port Quendall Company agrees to grant the City of Renton the required easement for the bio -filtration swale area to be located on private property south of the proposed Hawk's Landing hotel project in exchange for the vacated City of Renton right-of-way (VAC009-001) that currently provides entrance to the Pan Abode site (PQC property). 3. The Port Quendall Company will grant free of charge a temporary construction easement for the new 24 -inch storm system on the north end of the property, to be constructed by the City and located in a new WSDOT easement. 4. The Port Quendall Company agrees to dedicate to the City of Renton the additional right-of-way area required for the sidewalk to be constructed by the City Project located on private property south of the proposed Hawk's Landing Hotel project in exchange for the vacated City of Renton right-of-way that currently provides entrance to the Pan Abode site (PQC property). 5. Hawk's Landing, LLC agrees to dedicate to the City of Renton free of charge the additional right-of-way required for the sidewalk area located on the proposed Hawk's C:\Users\ClintC\Documents\Attachrnents\100428 Ltr of Understanding for Easements -Dedication (2).doc\STLtp Mr. Chase and Mr. Alpert June 22, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Landing hotel frontage as part of the City's approval process for the proposed hotel project. The sidewalk will be constructed as part of the proposed hotel project. 6. The Port Quendall Company agrees to grant WSDOT a new permanent easement of approximately 1,960 square feet in exchange for WSDOT releasing the existing WSDOT easement of approximately 4,116 square feet currently located under the proposed Hawk's Landing hotel building. The City of Renton will take the lead in working with WSDOT on the preparation of the new WSDOT easement. 7. Hawk's Landing, LLC agrees to assume payment responsibilities for any compensation required by WSDOT for the release of the existing WSDOT easement on the property, if any additional compensation is required, which will be determined after appraisals and negotiations are completed with WSDOT. 8. The Port Quendall Company and/or Hawk's Landing, LLC agrees to grant to the City free of charge right -of -entry and temporary construction easements for the construction of back of sidewalk slopes, installation of storm system catch basin(s) to provide drainage to the private property, and provide a lay-down/staging area. The City will coordinate with the Port Quendall Company and/or Hawk's Landing, LLC to identify the best location for lay-down/staging area to be used by the City to minimize disruptions of existing on-site operations or the proposed Hawk's Landing hotel project construction. We would like your assurance of the above numbered items in order to move ahead with the project that will benefit the City, the Port Quendall Company, and Hawk's Landing, LLC. Please sign below indicating your agreement to work with the City toward the review and approval of the final documents pertaining to the above listed land right needs and approvals necessary for the construction of the City's Lake Washington Boulevard Storm and Water System Improvement Project. C:\Users\CiintC\Documents\Attachments\100428 Ltr of Understanding for Easements -Dedication (2).doc\STLtp Mr. Chase and Mr. Alpert June 22, 2010 Page 4 of 4 Port Que'ndAll Hawk's Landing, LLC ny/Vulcan Representative �ntative Q�'2� --jI« Date Date ,1 � k D I 1 0 If you have any questions, please contact Ron Straka, Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor, at (425) 430-7248. Sincerely, Gregg Zimmerman, P.E. Public Works Administrator Attachments cc: Alex Pietsch, Community and Economic Development Administrator Chip Vincent, Community and Economic Development Planning Director Suzanne Dale Estey, Community and Economic Development Director Lys Hornsby, P.E., Utility Systems Director Ron Straka, P -E., Surface Water Utility Engineering Supervisor Steve Lee, P.E., Surface Water Utility Engineer Vanessa Dolbee, Community and Economic Development Senior Planner C:\Users\ClintC\Documents\Attachment5\100428 Ltr of Understanding for Easements -Dedication (2).doc\STLtp Vanessa Dolbee From: Karen Walter [KWalter[7a muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 02:00 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee Subject: Lake Washington Boulevard Storm Improvement for Hawk's Landing project, LUA10-041, ECF, SM Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance Vanessa, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application materials which included the environmental checklist; project plans; Stream assessment memo dated June 16 2010, and Wetland/Stream Study dated May 12, 2009. We have some questions about this project as noted below: 1. Will any of the stormwater runoff from Hawk's Landing/Crown Plaza Hotel be directed to the new wet bioswale? 2. The response to project description indicates that the project will have a water quantity or detention component, Will the wet bioswale be used for detention or is another facility proposed? 3. Sheet 4 of the project drawings shows a high flow bypass structure outletting from the bioswale. Why is a high flow by-pass needed as part of the stormwater improvements? We appreciate the opportunity to review this proposal and look forward to the City's responses to our questions. We may have subsequent comments. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172rd Ave Auburn WA 98092 253-876-3116 Vanessa Dolbee t)A to J 0Lj From: Vanessa Dolbee Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2030 10:46 AM To; 'Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov' Subject: City of Renton Project, Ea 05 05 Attachments: Ltr from DAHP 1-5-10.pdf; Archaeological Assess men t_Itrrpt.pdf G retche n, The City is currently conducting SEPA Environmental Review for improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. N. You should have received a Notice with a SEPA check list and request for comments from the City about a week ago. However, I wanted to follow up, as the project manager in Renton, on this notice. The SEPA check list did not indicate that an EO 05-05 has been completed for this project. DAHP has had an opportunity to review the report this past January. Please find attached a copy of the EO 05-05 and a letter from DAHP. One additional note, the EO 05-05 also included a study for a trial which is not a part of the subject Notice and SEPA check list. If you have further question about this document or the Lake Washington Blvd. Storm Improvements project (City File# LUA10-041) please fell free to contact me. Sincerely, Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 (425)430-7314 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 46343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wa.gov January 5, 2010 Mr, Stephen Dunk Public Works Board PO Box 48319 Olympia, Washington 98502 Re: Hawk's Landing Project Log No.: 090809 -10 -COMM Public Works A N.A. Dear Mr. Dunk: We have been contacted by Ms. Jennifer Henning, City of Renton, pursuant to Executive Order 05-05. We have reviewed the professional archaeological survey report she provided for the proposed Hawk's Landing Project in Renton, King County, Washington. We concur with the professional finding of No Cultural Resources Impact. We would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other parties that you receive. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with Executive Order 05-05. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised, including information regarding historic properties that have not yet been identified. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity must stop, the area secured, and the concerned tribe's cultural staff and cultural committee and this department notified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360)586-3080 email: rob.whit1am@dahp.wa..gov DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION IFroie-1 the Post. Sn e rhe Fca;re Author: Kara M. Kanab Linda Naoi Goetz Douglas F. Tin wall and Thomas C. Rust Ph.D. Title of Report: Archaeological Assessment City of Renton Hawk's Landing Project Renton, Washington Date of Report: December 24 2009 County (ies):Kim Section: 32 Township: 24N Range: 5E E/W Quad: Belleuve South 1983 Acres: 2.13 CD Submitted? M Yes No PDF of Report? ® Historic Property Export Files? (� Archaeological Site s /Isolates Found or Amended? Yes M No TCP(s) found? Yes M No Replace a draft? Yes M No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? F71 Yes # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Please submit paper copies of reports unbound. • Submission of PDFs is encouraged. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments, correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. LANDAU ASSOCIATES December 24, 2009 City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98057 Attn: Jennifer T. Henning RE: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT CITY OF RENTON HAWK's LANDING PROJECT RENTON, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Henning: This letter report outlines the archaeological assessment that was conducted for the Hawk's Landing project area and will support the environmental compliance documentation effort by the City of Renton (City). This report addresses cultural resource -related compliance requirements pertaining to state -funded projects, as outlined in the Revised Code of Washington and Washington State Governor's Executive Order 05-05. The City provided the following information regarding the project location and proposed improvements. The proposed project is located in the City of Renton, Washington in Section 32 of Township 24 North, Range 5 East. The proposed improvements will consist of the following: a stormwater system and water pipelines that will be located in currently paved areas of the Lake Washington Boulevard right-of-way and a 1,000 -foot -long by 20 -foot -wide trail segment extending in a southeastern direction from Lake Washington Boulevard to Interstate 405 (I-405). The proposed trail segment will be distributed atop stream terraces in a forested area on the north side of May Creek just south of the existing industrial area. Ground disturbance associated with the trail segment will not exceed 50 centimeters (cm) below ground surface (BGS). This letter report summarizes the environmental and cultural context of the project area, and the results of Landau Associates' archaeological survey. Although no cultural materials were identified in the project area, recommendations for treatment of unanticipated discoveries, if any, made during the subsequent construction phase are also included in this letter report. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT The following sections provide overviews of the natural and cultural history of the Hawk's Landing project area and include summary descriptions of physiography, hydrography, climate, geology, soils, flora, fauna, prehistory, ethnohistory, local Native American place names, and history. 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 % fax (425) 778-6409 . www.landauinc.com Environmental Setting The Hawk's Landing project area is situated within the Puget Trough, a physiographic province dominated by Puget Sound and bounded by the Olympic Range to the west and the Cascade Range to the east (Franklin and Dyrness 1988; Weaver 1937). The littoral zone in the region is characterized by a concave shoreline of narrow beaches fronted by precipitous bluffs, while the interior areas are characterized by forested north -to -south -trending upland plateaus of subdued relief dissected by numerous drainages. Glacial scouring during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation 12,000 years ago created generally north- or south -trending drainages and lakes. Lake Washington is an extensive, glacially scoured trough filled in by glacial meltwaters at the end of the Pleistocene era approximately 18,000 to 14,000 years ago that is located approximately .20 mile west of the project area. The lake covers an area of 21,500 acres (87.6 square kilometers), averages 108 feet (ft) [32.9 meters (m)] in depth, is fed by both the Cedar and Sammamish rivers, and is connected to Puget Sound via Lake Union and the Washington Ship Canal, which was constructed in 1916 (King County website 2009). Lake Boren is situated 1.5 miles to the east of the project area. The shoreline along Lake Washington, in the project vicinity, is characterized by a zone of narrow beaches fronted in places by precipitous bluffs while the interior areas are characterized by forested north -to -south -trending upland swales atop plateaus of subdued relief dissected by drainages. Drainages are steep and deeply incised, and trend northwesterly. The primary drainage in the project area is the northwest -flowing May Creek, which empties into Lake Washington opposite the southern end of Mercer Island. The elevation of the project area is approximately 25 ft above sea level (ASL) although elevations exceed 400 ft ASL in the Newport Hills area approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast (USGS 1973). Given the influence of maritime and continental air masses, the climate of the project area is characterized by dry summers and wet winters with mild temperatures and moderate -to -heavy precipitation (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). The following specific data were derived from a local weather station between 1931 and 2006 (Western Regional Climate Center website 2009). Average recorded temperatures for the project area ranged from 757 in July to 35°F in January. The average annual precipitation recorded for this weather station was 38 inches. Regionally, rainfall averages between 30 and 35 inches annually, although the presence of the Olympic Range to the west creates a rain shadow effect for the western part of Puget Sound (Franklin and Dyrness 1988; Luzier 1969). Geology and Soils The most extensive glacial deposit evident in the project vicinity is the Vashon Drift till consisting of unsorted, unstratified, compact clay, silt, and sand, gravel with interbedded stratified sand, 12124109 P:18295009�FileRmlRlArrhaeologicalAssessment_Itrrptdoc LAND,4,jAssoclATES 2 silt, and gravel. Vashon Drift was deposited approximately 18,000 to 14,000 years ago by a continental ice sheet approximately 3,500 to 4,500 ft thick during the Fraser Glaciation (Dragovich et at. 2002; Thorson 1980; Wright and Frey 1965; Wright and Porter 1983). The Hawk's Landing project area exhibits a combination of alluvial overbank and stream channel deposits comprised of silt, sand, and gravels distributed across low stream terraces on both sides of May Creek. The primary soil type within the Hawk's Landing project area is Norma sandy loam formed from alluvium on floodplains with 0 to 2 percent slopes. The typical profile consists of sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches (150 cm) BGS. In addition, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is located within the project area just south of May Creek and comprises the remainder of the southern portion of the project area. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is formed from a mixture of basal till and volcanic ash on till plains and moraines. The typical profile consists of 12 inches (30 cm) of gravelly sandy loam over very gravelly sandy loam extending to a depth of 60 inches (150 cm) BGS (NRCS website 2009; Snyder et al. 1973). Flora and Fauna The biotic communities in the Renton area were historically not limited to the current distribution of plants and animals. Historic, ethnographic, and archaeological data in the vicinity attest to the diversity of floral and faunal resources that were locally available for human procurement that were used for food, medical purposes, tools, and adornment. Moreover, the complex physiography of the area with its mosaic -like distribution of resources from upland forest to riverine and lake margin environments facilitated this rich biotic community. The project area lies within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) zone of the Puget Lowland, which also contains Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzi.esii), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), red alder (Alnus rubra), and big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) with an understory of bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa), salal (Gaultheria shallop), and berry vines (Rebus spp.) (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Historically, deer (Odocoileus spp.), elk (Cervus canadensis), black bear (Ursus americanus), cougar (Felis concolor), and coyote (Canis latrans) lived in the Renton area. These mammals have extensive ranges and were at one time common in both bottomland and uplands. Riverine, lacustrine, and upland habitats within and proximal to the Hawk's Landing project also supported a diverse array of smaller mammals, birds, and fish (Dalquest 1948). Lake Washington supports populations of sockeye salmon (Oneorhynchus nerka), cutthroat trout (O, clarki), rainbow trout (O. mykiss), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), prickly sculpin (Coitus asper), and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) (Williams et al. 1975; Wydoski and Whitney 1979). 9204109 P%82gkODMFileRmei AmheeologicalAssessmenl_1MZdoc LANDAuAssoclATEs 3 Prehistory Cultural change in Northwest Coast prehistory is evaluated on temporal and spatial variations in archaeological assemblage, subsistence, and settlement patterns within regional environmental contexts. The prehistoric record for Puget Sound is divided into three broad chronological periods: the early [13,000-5,000 years Before Present (BP)], middle (5,000-1,000 years BP), and late (1,000-250 years BP). The early period is characterized by chipped stone tools such as fluted projectile points, leaf -shaped projectile points, and cobble tools with associated core and blade industries. Subsistence patterns exhibit a reliance on inland hunting supplemented with fishing and marine invertebrate procurement in riverine and littoral contexts. Settlements were typically located on upland plateaus or river terraces, although littoral occupations may have been inundated by seismic or eustatic processes during the Holocene (Carlson 1990; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Wessen and Stilson 1987). The middle period represented a proliferation in toot diversity within regional assemblages. Notched stone projectile points were characterized by a decrease in size, and toolkits were supplemented with groundstone, bone, and antler industries. Subsistence practices showed an increased orientation toward marine and riverine habitats; shellfish, salmon, and sea mammals became more important resources during this period. Shell middens appear in the archaeological record during this period. Occupation areas expanded to include modern shorelines and islands in Puget Sound, characterized by the earliest evidence of seasonal village sites (Carlson 1990; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Wessen and Stilson 1987). The late period is characterized by assemblages containing exotic trade goods imported from indigenous populations in the Columbia Plateau, as well as metal arrowheads and trade beads from Euro -American groups. Small side -notched and triangular stone projectile points persisted but were superseded by an emphasis on bone and antler tools. Salmon became a major staple, indicated by the construction and maintenance of elaborate fish weirs. Aquatic subsistence practices were supplemented by terrestrial hunting and plant procurement. Permanent, ethnographically described village sites were established and persisted into the historic period (Carlson 1990; Kidd 1964; Nelson 1990; Wessen and Stilson 1987). Ethnohistory During late historic times, Southern Coast Salish Indians occupied the Puget Sound area, from the Skagit River in the north to the Deschutes River near present-day Olympia in the south, reaching inland to the Cascade Range crest. The project vicinity is located in the traditional territory of the Duwamish Tribe (Duwamish), a coast Salishan group that oriented their settlement -subsistence systems toward the saltwater, riverine, and inland environments around Puget Sound (Ruby and Brown 1992; Suttles and 12124109 P 18 M081FileR0RL4rchaeologira1Assessment_Itrrpt.doc LAN DAu Assoc iATEs 4 Lane 1990; Swanton 1952). The Southern Lushootseed-speaking Duwamish (Dxwdetivabs) Tribe's territory included the Black River, Cedar River, Green River, and White River drainage areas, extending from Puget Sound to the foothills of the Cascades. The name Duwamish is said to mean "inside the bay people" (Ruby and Brown 1992; Suttles and Lane 1990; Swanton 1952). The Duwamish are currently a non -federally recognized tribe whose ancestors greeted the first white settlers that arrived in what was to become the city of Seattle (Ruby and Brown 1992; Swanton 1952). Upon the signing of the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Duwamish were assigned to the Port Madison Reservation on the Kitsap Peninsula. However, the Port Madison Reservation was in the traditional homeland of the Suquamish who felt the Duwamish were infringing on their territory (Ruby and Brown 1992). By the winter of 1856, many of the Duwamish had returned to their traditional homeland. Some settled on the Muckleshoot Reservation while other Duwamish chose not to live on the reservations at all. The Duwamish that chose not to settle onto various reservations have tried repeatedly to gain federal recognition only to be denied by the U.S. government (Ruby and Brown 1992). The project area also falls within the ceded territory of the Muckleshoot Tribe, which consists of those tribes who signed the Treaty of Medicine Creek in 1854 and the Treaty of Point Elliott in 1855 (Ruby and Brown 1992). The tribes that make up the Muckleshoot Reservation and signed the Medicine Creek Treaty included the Skipahmishes or Green River Indians; the Stakamishes, or White River Indians; and the Smulkamishes, whose traditional territory encompasses present-day Enumclaw (Ruby and Brown 1992). After signing the Medicine Creek Treaty, the Green and White River Indians were relocated to the Nisqually Reservation with a provision that they could be moved to a more suitable place. In 1856, Washington Territory Governor Isaac Stevens established the Muckleshoot Reservation, located on Muckleshoot Prairie between the White and Green rivers (Ruby and Brown 1992). The Southern Coast Salish oriented their settlement -subsistence systems toward the saltwater, riverine, and inland environments within their territories. As with other western Washington groups, the Duwamish and Muckleshoot peoples relied on salmon as a staple resource. They established fishing stations along area rivers and streams, and traveled to troll the saltwater from which they harvested various salmonids and shellfish (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Suttles and Lane 1990). The focus of the Duwamish and Muckleshoot yearly cycles was the permanent winter village, which consisted of one or more cedar plank longhouses in which several related families resided (Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). At other times of the year, they used temporary pole and mat structures that were easily transported. Winter villages may not have been completely abandoned during the warmer months as family groups moved seasonally to various environmental zones to harvest abundant resources, process them for storage, and transport the supplies to the permanent village (Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). 12/24149 Pa9295W81Fi1eRm\RWr0aeo1ogica1Assessment Itnpt.doc LANDAuAssocIATES 5 Subsistence revolved around seasonal harvests of salmon and shellfish, including butter clams, littleneck clams, horse clams, geoduck, Olympia oysters, mussels, snails, and barnacles (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). Fish were caught using wooden weirs, woven nets, and rakes (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Suttles and Lane 1990). In addition to marine resources, plants and berries were gathered including camas, hazelnuts, red elderberries, blackberries, salmonberries, salal berries, thimble berries, dandelion roots, wild carrot, onion, and wapato (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Noel 1980). Hunting land mammals provided a large share of food for these groups; men specialized in the pursuit of deer, elk, bear, and beaver (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Noel 1980; Suttles and Lane 1990). Native American Place Names The area surrounding Renton exhibits many ethnographic locations in the form of toponyms, or place names, that describe areas associated with Coast Salish tradition, settlements, and subsistence. These traditional places are located along the shores of Lake Washington and along the length of the Duwamish River, Black River, and Green (White) River. The ethnographer T.T. Waterman noted that the survival and oral transmission of place names varied according to tribal recollection, and his informants admitted that many locations were lost to tradition over time (Waterman 1922, 2001). Native American place names include geographic features or names associated with traditional subsistence locations. Place names near the project area include Tugwi'tL('s meaning "red face," for a bluff located east of Renton; Cbal t% meaning "place were things are dried," for May Creek where large amounts of red fish were taken; Kwa'krvau, for a small promontory; p3E'swi3, meaning "pressed, crowded back," for a place at the foot of Lake Washington, opposite the south end of Mercer Island; Spa pLxad, or "marshes" for wetlands at the south end of make Washington and east of the Black River; Cige'd, meaning "head or source," where the Black River flows out of Lake Washington; ct3u'lEgwER, meaning "resembling a trail," for a creek that drains into a swamp where silver salmon were caught and a fish weir was located; tuwa'Ldad3-aL3t or "Jack salmon's home or King Salmon house," for a deep place in the Black River were abundant salmon were located in the summer; bstsxEhe'dats, meaning "place of ironwood," where people went to gather ironwood; b1sxu'g1d, "where there are cranes," for a swamp located west of the Duwamish River; t3awe'dltc, mcaning "river duck," for level land below the mouth of the Black River; and sgali'ls or "bad looking, the rocks are ugly," for a highland area that extends down to the Duwamish River (Waterman 2001). Some toponyms are suggestive of mystical happenings and include a location named Sq fats ("dirty face") where the Grandmother of South Wind (Grandmother) lived (Waterman 2001). The mottled sediments exposed in the bluffs are the basis for the name and describes the squalid fate of Grandmother when her people left (Waterman 2001). Another location on 1=4109 PT29OMFRIeRm1RlArchaeologioa!Assessmeri_Itnpt_dac tANDAuAssOCIATE$ 6 the west side of the Duwamish River is called h0lesa'tei ("cut in two with reference to the hand"; Waterman 2001). Other toponyms are suggestive of village locations and include: Sa'tasakaL or "water at the head of a bay" for a village site north of the project area; Sext'itclb ("place where one wades") for an old village site at present-day Bryn Mawr; Sgoa'l-qo ("meeting of rivers"), a village site at the location of the confluence of the Black River and Green River; Slu'bla ("North -Wind"), located on a hillside south of the present-day Interurban Bridge where North -Wind had an ancient village; Sba'badi'd ("crags") for a deep hole in the Black River with cliffs on both sides where a village was located; and TuxE'b-qo (`confluence"), designating a village at the confluence of the historic Cedar and Black rivers (Waterman 2001). Currently, Indian tribes are concerned about development that occurs within their ceded territories and traditional use areas. These tribal groups often want to protect cultural properties, which include archaeological, traditional procurement, historic or landmark, and religious sites (Kennedy 1993). History Although Russian, Spanish, and British naval expeditions are thought to have penetrated the coastal waters off Washington as early as the middle 1500s, British Captain George Vancouver's arrival in 1792 marks the earliest undisputed record of Euro -American contact in the Puget Sound region. Many of the region's physiographic eponyms such as Puget Sound, Hood Canal, Mount Baker, Mount Rainier; and Dungeness Spit were derived from members of Vancouver's party and the British admiralty (Cole and Darling 1990; Kirk and Alexander 1990; Marino 1990; Meany 1923; Morgan 1979). Exploration was followed by incursions of Euro -American fur traders under the aegis of the Hudson's Bay Company during the 1830s. Early contacts between Euro -American traders and native populations proved disastrous to the latter as they fell victim to waves of malaria, tuberculosis, and smallpox epidemics in the late 1700s and middle 1800s (Cole and Darling 1990; Kirk and Alexander 1990; Marino 1990). Washington Territory was organized in 1853 by its first Governor, Isaac Stevens, who helped pave the way for Euro -American settlement and a Northern Pacific Railway route by compelling regional Indian tribes to relocate to reservations under a series of treaties in 1854 and 1855. The unpopularity of enforced removal amongst indigenous peoples was manifested by widespread tribal rebellion that was suppressed by the U.S. Army and territorial militias. Washington eventually achieved statehood on November 11, 1889 (Kirk and Alexander 1990). An especially significant stimulus for settlement in the region was the Donation Land Act of 1850. The law granted each male American citizen 18 and older a half section, or 320 acres, of public 1204M P,02g1068lRleRmlRlArchaeeloglcal Assessment_Ilnptdoc LANDAu ASSOCIATES 7 lands, requiring that he occupy, cultivate, and "improve" it for 4 consecutive years. Wives of the settlers were granted an additional 320 acres in their own names (Ficken and LeWarne 1988; Johansen and Gates 1967). A review of the 1865 General Land Office (GLO) map indicates that May Creek was formerly named Honey Dew Creek and the presence of a wagon road extending east from the shores of Lake Washington to the north of the project area (GLO 1865). The GLO map exhibits no structures, villages, or land ownership information within the project area (Figure 2). Comparisons of the 1865 location of May Creek with its current configuration suggest that the original course of the creek was located north of the project area (GLO 1865; USGS 1983). The City of Renton was founded on the Duwamish River delta, where historically the Cedar and the Black rivers merged to join the Duwamish River. In 1853, Henry Tobin staked a claim with the intention of starting a lumber mill. In 1854, a coal seam was discovered on the land claim of Dr. R.H. Bigelow. The area surrounding the Duwamish, Cedar, Black, and White (Green) rivers had fertile farm land, abundant timber for logging, and salmon could be caught in the surrounding rivers. Logs were floated down the river, and several of the settlers provided logs to Henry Yesler's saw mill in Seattle and other saw mills in the area (Buerge 1989; Slauson 1976). Lumber, coal, and agriculture attracted settlers to the area, but it was not until 1873 that coal mining became a serious endeavor with the beginnings of the Renton Coal Company established by Captain William Renton. Due to its location and easy access to Seattle, Renton became the center of the coal industry in Puget Sound. In 1875, the City of Renton was platted by Erasmus Smithers, and its eponymous derivation suggests the importance of both Captain Renton and his coal mining operation to the town's historic economy (Bagley 1929; Buerge 1989; HistoryLink website 2009a,b; Meany 1923; Slauson 1976). The City of Renton was incorporated in 1901 (Bagley 1929; HistoryLink website 2009a,b; WPA 1941). Other industries in Renton included farming, a glass factory, lumber mills, and brick and tile plants. As the coal mining industry began to decline, the rise of other industries, the improvement of roads, and the completion of the Interurban rail line made Renton an attractive place for people to live (Bagley 1929; Rowe 1987). The Hawks Landing project area lies within the Kennydale neighborhood of Renton. Kennydale was platted as a separate community in 1904 by real estate developer C.D. Hillman with the tracts being referred to as the Garden of Eden (Buerge 1989; Slauson 1976). As mentioned previously, May Creek was formerly known as Honey Dew Creek and probably acquired its current designation in honor of a Mr. May who was the first Euro -American to homestead along its banks (Meavy 1923). May Creek was lauded as being filled with "millions" of brook trout in an early advertisement for the tracts along its course. In 1904, the Kennydale Post Office was opened and by 1905 Kennydale's population was approximately 100 people who lived in small farmhouses on 1 -acre tracts. Logging and coal mining were 12!24109 P. 18291D081FileRmlRLArchaeological Assessrnent_ItrrptAoc LAN DAu AssocIATES 8 important industries resulting in the construction of a 1 I6 -ft -tall log trestle over May Creek that was used to deliver timber from various logging operations and coal from the New Castle coal mines (Slauson 1976). A sawmill was located nearby on the shores of Lake Washington (HistoryLink website 2009a b; Slauson 1976). A review of later historical maps reveals changes in local land ownership, as well as changes in the shoreline morphology of Lake Washington and channel of May Creek. The shoreline morphology of Lake Washington west of the project area did not change much between 1865 and 1912 based upon a comparison of the 1865 GLO map with the 1912 Kroll map. By 1912, the project area was located on a parcel originally owned by Joseph Jenotte (GLO 1865; Kroll Map Company 1912). By 1927, the property switched ownership to Jason M. Colman who oversaw its subdivision prior to 1936. During this time period, the course of May Creek remained relatively unchanged from its 1865 channel although the shoreline along Lake Washington had begun to be filled (Metsker 1927, 1936). At some point between 1936 and 1950, significant filling occurred along the shoreline of Lake Washington west of the project area (Figure 2; GLO 1865). By 1950, the course of May Creek shifted farther south to its current alignment in the project area. This change in the creek channel is most likely attributable to the construction of an unnamed road north of the project area in Section 29 affiliated with the Republic of Creosoting Company that bisected Lake Washington Boulevard and the railroad tracks (Kroll Map Company 1958; USGS 1973). PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS/LITERATURE REVIEW This section and those following include information about archaeological investigations and field data. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) requires that survey data such as transect intervals, excavation depths, and prehistoric or ethnohistoric artifact measurements be recorded in metric units; English measurements are used only for historic period materials. Metric measurements are provided in this document to meet these reporting requirements. Cultural Resource Surveys Seven cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a 1 -mile radius of the Hawk's Landing project area (Table 1) that are on file with DAHP. In 2008, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conducted an archaeological inventory of two dry docks (45K1814) that were previously submerged in Lake Washington atop a Superfund site; DNR removed the dry docks in December 2008 (Henning 2009). The dry docks were inventoried in part due to the DNR Derelict Vessel Removal Program, which removes environmental and navigational hazards caused by derelict watercraft. In 2007, a historic resource inventory was conducted for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) 12!24M P:58291DOB%FiieRm\RlArchaeulogical Assessment_Itrrpt.doc LANDAU ASsocIATES 9 railroad, which is proposing to abandon segments of railroad tracks. Within the proposed railroad segments subject to abandonment, seven railroad bridges were recorded and recommended eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Allen 2007). In 2007, WSDOT completed a cultural resources discipline report for the I-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement project. One resource, the Renton Civic Dump, was identified and recorded but is located more than I mile from the Hawk's Landing project area (WSDOT 2007). A cultural resources assessment was conducted in 1976 for the May Creek interceptor and no cultural resources were identified (Lorenz 1976). In 1997, LAAS conducted a cultural resources assessment for a proposed development project. No cultural resources were identified; however, monitoring was recommended for the removal of hazardous material as well as ground -disturbing construction activities (Bowden et al. 1997). A cultural resources inventory was conducted in 2001 by NWAA for the proposed Washington Light Lanes project. No cultural resources were identified near the proposed Hawk's Landing project area (NWAA 2001). Archaeological monitoring was conducted in 2003 by LAAS for a pipeline excavation project; however, no cultural resources were identified (Murphy and Larson 2003). TABLE 1 PREVIOUS CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATONS CONDUCTED WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA None recorded within 1 mile of project area. 12124109 P.1829100B1FileRm%RlArchaeological Assessment—Itrrpt.doc LAN DAu ASSOCIATES 10 Resources Author Date Report Title Recorded Major 2008 Archaeological Inventory Survey Report, Lake Washington Floating Dry 45KI814 Docks, King County W X of the SW Y, Section 29, Township 24N, Range 5E (State -Owned Aquatic Land) Allen 2007 Historic Resource Inventory of the BNSF King County Abandonment Project, None Washington WSDOT 2007 1-405, Tukwila to Renton Improvement Project None' Murphy and 2003 Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP # 200799) Archaeological None Larson Resources Monitoring NWAA 2001 Cultural Resources Inventory of the proposed Washington Light Lanes Project None Bowden et al. 1997 Cultural Resource Assessment, JAG Development, King County Washington None Lorenz 1976 Archaeological Assessment, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Permit N. 0741- None o YB- 1-002916, Phase I -May Creek Interceptor, METRO/King County Water District No. 107 None recorded within 1 mile of project area. 12124109 P.1829100B1FileRm%RlArchaeological Assessment—Itrrpt.doc LAN DAu ASSOCIATES 10 Archaeological Sites Two archaeological sites have been identified within a 1 -mile radius of the Hawk's Landing project area. Site 45KI425, a submerged aircraft in Lake Washington, is located approximately l mile to the northwest (Mester 1990). The site form does not provide any additional information on the aircraft. The aforementioned floating dry docks (45KI814), formerly located .25 mile to the northwest, were originally used by the U.S. Army during World War II and subsequently used by the Lake Union Dry Dock Company before they sank in Lake Washington (Major 2008). TABLE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN 1 MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Site No. Description Distance Reference 45KI425 Submerged Aircraft 1 mile northwest (in Mester 1990 Lake Washington) 45KI814 Floating Dry Docks YFD 48 and 51* 0.25 mile northwest Major 2008 (in Lake Washington) * As noted previously, the dry docks were removed by DNR in December 2008. Historic Structures No historic structures listed on either the National Register of Historic Places or the Washington Heritage Register are located within a 1 -mile radius of the project area. Inventory Methods and Results Three Landau Associates archaeologists excavated a total of 14 shovel probes (SP) at approximately 20-m intervals in unpaved areas located along the proposed trail route on November 24, 2009 (Figure 3). Each shovel probe was 40 cm in diameter and was excavated to a maximum depth of 50 cm BGS. Three Landau Associates archaeologists (Kara Kanaby, Douglas Tingwall, and Linda Naoi Goetz) examined the sidewalls and bottom of each shovel probe for shell, charcoal, bone, lithic, glass, and ceramic artifacts or features and investigated the excavated matrix for cultural materials. All sediments (from the soil profile) derived from the shovel probes were sifted through Ya -inch rnesh screens over tarps. Sediments were described by color, compactness, and content. Depth measurements were taken at soil boundaries. Once completed, each shovel probe was photographed and backfilled with the sediment collected atop the tarp, and the sod layer was put back in place. The shovel testing took place along the proposed trail route, which is located on the north side of May Creek. Due to the presence of impervious surfaces, shovel probes were not able to be excavated along the proposed water and storm pipeline routes; however, these features will be located in previously 12!24!09 R:582910081 FileRmlRlArchaeologiealAssessmeniltrrptdoc LANDAuAssocIATES 11 disturbed right-of-way along Lake Washington Boulevard (Figure 3). Surface visibility was poor and vegetation in the project area consisted of alder, reed canarygrass, dense blackberry, and scotch broom. Photographs 1 through 10 in Attachment i provide overviews of the project area and representative plan views of the shovel probes. Descriptions of the shovel probes are provided in Table 3. The shovel probes exhibited fairly uniform sediment profiles consistent with depositional regimes comprised of fining upward sequences of alluvial overbank sediments and channel marginal sediments associated with May Creek. Six shovel probes exhibited similar sediment profiles consisting of dark olive brown to dark brown fine sandy silt to silt. SP -3 exhibited dark olive brown, fine, sandy, silty clay over extremely compact, olive gray silty clay interspersed with lenses of dark yellowish brown, fine sand. SP -5 exhibited dark olive brown silty clay with dark reddish brown mottling over olive gray silty clay with dark yellowish brown and dark reddish brown mottling. SP -9 and SP -12 both contained black silty sand over very dark brown sandy silt. In SP -9 the very dark brown sandy silt was underlain by dark brown silty sand. SP -10 exhibited very dark brown silt with trace fine sands overlying dark brown silt with trace fine sands atop a basal stratum of olive brown clayey silt. SP -12 yielded grayish brown clay with sand under the stratum of very dark brown sandy silt. SP -13 exhibited dark brown sandy silt with less than 5 percent gravels over olive brown clayey silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent gravels. Six shovel probes exhibited similar sediment profiles consisting of very dark grayish brown sandy silt to clayey sandy silt. SP -1 exhibited very dark grayish brown, sandy, silty clay with less than 5 percent subrounded to subangular gravels and cobbles over very compact, olive brown sandy silt with a large cobble. SP -2 exhibited a very dark grayish brown sandy silt with mottling with lenses of dark gray clay and yellowish brown sandy silt. SP -4 contained very dark grayish brown sandy silt with clay over dark yellowish brown sandy silt and mottles of dark gray clay. SP -6 exhibited very dark grayish brown silty fine sand over dark olive brown fine sand over dark brown sandy silt. SP -7 exhibited very dark grayish brown, clayey, sandy silt over very dark grayish brown sandy silt over clayey sandy silt with less than 5 percent subrounded to rounded gravels. The gravel content increased with depth to less than 60 percent before decreasing to less than 20 percent near the base of the profile. SP -8 exhibited very dark grayish brown sandy silt with less than 5 percent subrounded to rounded gravels. SP -11 and SP -14 contained very dark grayish brown fine sandy silt with less than 5 percent gravels over olive brown to dark olive brown gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles. The high density of gravels and cobbles in both shovel probes are indicative of.a channel deposit associated with May Creek. 12/24109 P:582910081FileRmlRlArehaeological Assessment-Itrtpt.doc LANDAU ,4ssocIATES 12 TABLE 3 SHOVEL PROBE SUMMARY 12124109 P 1829WMFileRmlRlArchaeoiogical Assessment ltrrpt doc LA,N DAu Assoc IATES 13 Depth Resources SP # BGS Soil Description Identified 1 33 cm 0-32 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2), sandy silty clay with fess than 5 percent None subrounded to subangular gravels and cobbles 32-33 cm: Very compact, olive brown (2.5Y414), sandy silt with large cobble at base — till 2 50 cm 0-50 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR312), sandy silt with some clay and less than 1 None percent round gravels and cobbles, (5Y411) dark gray clay with dark yellowish brown (10YR316) mottling and lens 3 52 cm 0-20 cm: Dark alive brown (2.5Y313), fine sandy silty clay with no gravels or cobbles None 20-50 cm: Extremely compact, olive gray (5Y412), silty clay interspersed with lens of dark yellowish brown (10YR314) fine sand with no gravels or cobbles 4 50 cm 0-40 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR312), sandy silt with clay and less than 10 percent None rounded gravels and cobbles 40-50 cm: Dark yellowish brown (10YR316), sandy silt with dark gray (5Y411) clay 5 50 cm 0-40 cm: Dark olive brown (2.5Y313), silty clay with mottling of dark reddish brown (5YR3/4) None beginning at 20 cm BGS 40-50 cm: Olive gray (5Y412), silly clay with mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR414 to 1 DYR314) and dark reddish brown (5YR314); becoming increasingly compact with depth 6 50 cm 0-6 cm: Very dark grayish brown (7.5YR211), silty fine sand None 6-30 cm: Dark olive brown (2.5Y313), fine sand 30-50 cm: Dark brown (10YR313), sandy silt 7 60 cm 0-28 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR312), clayey sandy silt with less than 5 percent None subrounded to rounded gravels 28-40 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR312), sandy silt with gravels increasing in density from 20 percent to less than 60 percent subangular and subrounded gravels and cobbles 40-60 cm: Dark grayish brawn (2.5Y412), clayey sandy silt with less than 20 percent gravels and very sparse cobbles 8 48 cm 0-48 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR312), sandy sill with less than 5 percent subrounded None to rounded gravels; roots encountered at 40 cm BGS 9 50 cm 0-10 cm: Forest duff and black (10YR211), silty sand None 10-20 cm: Very dark brown (7.5YR2.512), sandy silt 20-50 cm: Dark brown (10YR313), silty sand 10 50 cm 0-20 cm: Very dark brown (10YR212), silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent gravels None 20-40 cm: Dark brown (IOYR313), silt with trace fine sand 40-50 cm: Olive brown (2.5Y413), clayey silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent gravels 11 50 cm 0-11 cm: Very dark grayish brown (10YR2l2) fine sandy silt with less than 5 percent gravels None 11-21 cm: Olive brown (2.5Y414), very gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles — channel deposit 21-50 cm: Dark olive brown, gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles — channel deposit 12 50 cm 0-10 cm: Forest duff and black (10YR211), silty sand None 10-35 cm: Very dark brown (7.45YR2.512), sandy silt 35-50 cm: Grayish brown (2.5Y512), clay with sand 13 50 cm 0-25 cm: Dark brawn (10YR313), sandy silt with less than 5 percent gravels None 25-50 cm: Olive brown (2.5Y413), clayey silt with trace fine sand and less than 5 percent gravels 14 50 cm 0-4 cm: Very dark grayish brawn (1 OYR30 fine sandy silt with less than 10 percent gravels None 40-50 cm: Olive brown (2.5Y4/4), very gravelly sand with 60 percent subrounded gravels and cobbles — channel deposit 12124109 P 1829WMFileRmlRlArchaeoiogical Assessment ltrrpt doc LA,N DAu Assoc IATES 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the current investigation. The pedestrian survey did not identify any archaeological materials on the surface or in the shovel probes. No further archaeological work is recommended for the project area based upon the degree of previous ground disturbance along the routes of the proposed stormwater system and water pipelines and the absence of cultural materials in shovel probes excavated along the proposed trail. Although no prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified during the current investigation, the potential for such discoveries remains. The project area is in a high probability zone given its proximity to Lake Washington and ethnographic associations. If archaeological deposits of unevaluated significance are encountered during construction activities, ground disturbance should be halted and activities directed away from the area. The construction foreman should notify the City of Renton Project Manager, Jennifer T. Henning (425-430- 7286) and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Archaeologist Gretchen Kaehler (360-586-3088) of any cultural materials uncovered and consult with them about the significance of the materials. If human skeletal remains are encountered during construction activities, all work activities should cease immediately. The area should be screened off, and the construction foreman should contact the City of Renton Project Manager, Jennifer T. Henning (425-430-7286), who will call the King County Medical Examiner's Office (206-731-3232), DAHP Archaeologist Gretchen Kaehler (360-586-3088), and State Physical Anthropologist Guy Tasa (360-586-3534). if the Medical Examiner determines that the burial is Native American, DAHP staff will assist the City in notifying appropriate Tribal representatives to confer with the City on the protocol to sensitively treat the remains. The City of Renton will provide strict 24-hour security of the area of the burial until appropriate treatment of the remains has been determined. Copies of this letter report should be sent to DAHP and the Tribes with which the City is consulting for their review and comments USE OF THIS REPORT This cultural resources assessment has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Renton for specific application to the Hawk's Landing project. No other party (with the exception of the appropriate reviewing agencies) is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of Landau Associates. Further, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by Landau Associates, shall be at the user's sole risk. The 1224109 P',%52950081FileRmlRSArchaeologicalAssessment Itnpt_dw LANDAuAssocIATES 14 conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based upon information currently available to us and are made within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget for this project. The determinations made in this report are considered preliminary until concurrence with the determinations is received from the appropriate agencies. Our services have been provided in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions as this project. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Kara M. Kanaby Senior Staff Archaeologist 44 fj. (/J� Linda Naoi Goetz Associate Archaeologist/Cultural Resource Specialist C l ugl F. Tin gwag Senior Project Archaeologist Thomas C. Rust Principal Investigator KMK/LNGMFT/TCR/ccy Attachments Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: 1865 General Land Office Map and Project Area Figure 3: Shovel Probe Locations Attachment 1: Selected Site Photographs 12124109 P',N$29WMFilLRm5RlArchaeological Assessment_IVrpteac LANQAu AssocIATES 15 REFERENCES Allen, Jason. 2007. Historic Resource Inventory of the BNSF King County Abandonment Project, Washington. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Bagley, Clarence. 1929. History of King County, Washington. Volume I. S.J. Clarke. Chicago, Illinois. Bowden, Bradley, Leonard A. Forsman, Lynn L. Larson, and Dennis E. Lewarch. 1997. Cultural Resource Assessment, JAG Development, King County Washington. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Buerge, David. 1989. Renton: Where the Water Took Wing. Windsor Publications. Northridge, California. Carlson, Roy L. 1990. "Cultural Antecedents." In: Handbook of North American Indians. Northwest Coast. Vol. 7. pp. 60-69. Wayne Suttles, ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Cole, Douglas and David Darling. 1990. "History of the Early Period." In: Handbook of North American Indians. Northwest Coast. Vol. 7, pp. 119-134. Wayne Suttles, ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Dalquest, Walter W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Press. Lawrence, Kansas. Dragovich, Joe D., Robert L. Logan, Henry W. Schasse, Timothy J. Walsh, William S. Lingley, Jr., David K. Norman, Wendy J. Gerstel, Thomas J. Lapen, J. Eric Schuster, and Karen D. Meyers. 2002. Geologic Map of Washington -Northwest Quadrant. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM -50. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. Ficken, Robert E. and Charles P. LeWarne. 1988. Washington: A Centennial History. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-8. Portland, Oregon. GLO. 1865. Survey Plat of'Township 24 North, Range S East. East Willamette Meridian. General Land Office. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection, Suzzallo Library, University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Haeberlin, Hermann and Erna Gunther. 1930. The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Henning, Jennifer. 2009. E-mail message from Jennifer T. Henning, A.I.C.P., Planning Manager, City of Renton Planning Division, to Linda Goetz, Associate Archaeologist, Landau Associates. Re: hawk's Landing CR Report. December 22. HistoryLink website. 2009a. Renton -Thumbnail History. www.historylink.org. Accessed November 30. HistoryLink website. 2009b. Renton Beginning — Kennydale Post Office Opens on August 18, 1904. www.history link.or . Accessed November 30. 12!24109 P:58291OCB1FileRm\RWchaeologicalAssessment_ltrrpt.doc LANaAu ASSOCIATES 16 Johansen, Dorothy O. and Charles M. Gates. 1967. Empire c?f the Columbia. Harper and Row. New York, New York. Kennedy, Dorothy. 1993. Draft Ethnographic Site Typology. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia, Washington. Kidd, Robert. 1964. A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. King County website. 2009. Lake Washington and Physical Characteristics. http://green.kingcounty.gov/lakes/LakeWa_sliington.asps. Accessed December 16. Kirk, Ruth and Carmela Alexander. 1990. Exploring Washington's Past: A Road Guide to History. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Kroll Map Company. 1912. Kroll's Atlas of'King County. Seattle, Washington. Kroll Map Company. 1958. Kroll'sAtlas of King County, Seattle, Washington. Lorenz, Thomas H. 1976. Archaeological Assessment, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Permit No. 071- OYB-1-002916, Phase 1, May Creek Interceptor. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Luzier, J.E. 1969. "Geology and Ground -water Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington." Water -Supply Bulletin No. 28. State of Washington Department of Water Resources and United States Geological Survey Water Division. Major, Maurice. 2008. State of'Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form: 45KI814. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Marino, Cesare. 1990. "History of Western Washington since 1846." In: Handbook gf'North American Indians. Vol. 7. Northwest Coast. pp. 169-179. Wayne Suttles, ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Meany, Edmond S. 1923. Origin of Washington Geographic Names. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Mester, Robert. 1990. Department of Community Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 45K1425. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Metsker, Charles F. 1927. Metsker's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company. Seattle, Washington. Metsker, Charles F. 1936. Metsker's Atlas of King County. Metsker Map Company. Seattle, Washington. Morgan, Murray. 1979. Puget's Sound: A Narrative of Early Tacoma and the Southern Sound. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. 12124109 P1829100&FileRmtRSArchaeologicalAssessment _ItrTt.doc LAN DAu Ass oc IATE S 17 Murphy, Laura and Lynn L. Larson. 2003, Final Ripley Lane Pipeline Excavation Project (CIP 4 200799) Archaeological Resources Monitoring. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Nelson, Charles M. 1990. "Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region." In: Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 7. Northwest Coast. pp. 481-484. Wayne Suttles, ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Noel, Patricia Siettvei. 1980. Muckleshoot Indian History. Auburn School District No. 408. Auburn, Washington. NWAA, 2001. Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Washington Light Lanes Project. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. NRCS website. 2009. Washington Soil Survey Reports. www.or.nrcs_usda..gov/Vnw soil! Nya reports.litnll. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed November 23. Rowe, Paul. 1987. Little History of Washington. SCW Publications. Seattle, Washington. Ruby, Robert H. and John A. Brown. 1992. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacija'c Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, Oklahoma. Slauson, Morda C. 1976. Renton, from Coal to Jets. Ethel Telban, ed. Renton Historical Society. Renton, Washington. Snyder, Dale F., Philip S. Gale, and Russell F. Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County Area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Suttles, Wayne and Barbara Lane. 1990. "Southern Coast Salish." In: Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7. Northwest Coast. pp. 485-502. Wayne Suttles, ed. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. Swanton, John Reed. 1952, Indian Tribes of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Ye Galleon Press. Fairfield, Washington. Thorson, Robert M. 1980. "Ice -sheet Glaciation of the Puget Lowland, Washington, during the Vashon Stade (Late Pleistocene)." Quaternary Research. 13:303-321. USGS. 1973, photorevised from 1968 and 1950. Mercer Island Quadrangle, Wash. 7.5 -Minute Series Topographic Map. U.S. Geological Survey. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle, Washington, USGS, 1983. Bellevue South Quadrangle, Wash. I5 -Minute Series Topographic Map. U.S. Geological Survey. Manuscript on file at the Map Collection Division, University of Washington Libraries. Seattle, Washington. Waterman, T.T. 1922. "The Geographical Names Used by the Indians of the Pacific Coast." The Geographical Review. 12:175-194. 12124709 P.182910081FileRm%RlArchaeological AssessmerY_IVrpl.doc LANDAu ASSOCIATES 18 Waterman, T.T. 2001. Puget Sound Geography. Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller, and Galmai Zahir, eds. Lushootseed Press. Federal Way, Washington. Weaver, Charles E. 1937. Tertiary Stratigraphy of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon, Vol. 4. University of Washington Publications in Geology. Seattle, Washington. Wessen, G.C. and M.L. Stilson. 1987. Resource Protection Planning Process: Southern Puget Sound Study Unit. An RP3 document prepared for the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Western Regional Climate Center website. 2009. Historical Climate Information, Climate of Washington. �vwv,wrcc_dri_edulindex.html. Accessed November 30. Williams, R.W., R.M. Laramie, and J.J. Ames. 1975. A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. Volume 1: Puget Sound Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. WPA. 1941. Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State, Works Progress Administration. Binford and Mort. Portland, Oregon. Wright, H.E., Jr., and David G. Frey, eds. 1965. The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. Wright, H_C. Jr., and Stephen C. Porter, eds. 1983. Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota. WSDOT. 2007. I-405 Tukwila to Renton Improvements Project. Manuscript on file at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Olympia, Washington. Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of'Washington. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. 12!24109 P:582g1008lFileRmlRlArchaeological AssessmeM_Itrrpt.doc LANOAu ASSOCIATES 19 J 7 Y �I l V e �'s +i �l � • � .-. g� `} ;; �'� Y,�+�,,3 r� j s t r�lj�it� � •1. :, .57 � `e,' tr 4:f r t � c,,,-.I..t-!�' ` i J�ji j i " i BM 14th. R �' •'�} j.�s Pow rF, '' "j'/ r rJ' c ' f ( �■j ' Yy [ �� - i / f • --y \fit I r �'+-t�'/i. ems' � f sl 7 .z - v • j4 A tot l •6f f 1, � � • � i r �I• f • 4 � , N 1 f '/ r �, F! Ab �'"'�' 1 � ! � ♦ : iRl, nll .q ��{ : I ! I! , lr`y ,,. ' r/ - . -``� Project Location�> ,I Lai' ` __���'•� .i�� �� �I f Ir16gF, _ Wf- tgkw . 3o--' `� ` � � i : ., ✓_� -�.',' .4' ,\ 7i Park ti � _ � � � � �� '_E\ � l l 1. _ _� � • � l �� r `•,� �� ti ,r/ �-..� V _ � �. ,, - 1� •Y '. ', .?,. ice-. ,i �• 1��" -_ rn a 0 Project Location Q Everett Seattle Spokane .21 Renton Tacoma 8 N Miles Washington cos U Data Source: ESRI 2008 d a. City of Renton Figure Hawks Landing LANDAU Improvement Project Vicinity Map ure g 1AASSOCIATES Renton, Washington a C+J lb 0110010101.. , Lenend Modem Shoreline 32. 2 Data Source: General Land Office 1865 City of Renton Hawks Landing LANDAU Improvement Project ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington t TS p v Z i. �^ ` ` T�1v' �._ Rik RX14" r e. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 1,500 3,000 Scale in Feet 1865 General Land Office Figure Map and Project Area 1 2 jj z _ j o 71 / " I gal L }7Vj Project Location =. y �� -� — :f 1 lb 0110010101.. , Lenend Modem Shoreline 32. 2 Data Source: General Land Office 1865 City of Renton Hawks Landing LANDAU Improvement Project ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington t TS p v Z i. �^ ` ` T�1v' �._ Rik RX14" r e. Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. 0 1,500 3,000 Scale in Feet 1865 General Land Office Figure Map and Project Area 1 2 z P jxx;jj_ e M ti� N Legend Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color • Negative Shovel Probe — — Proposed Trail Route original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. a Proposed Water & Storm i Pipelines that are 0 220 440 J L :- in an Area with Impervious Surface � I ¢ jpq A 3iAA � z P jxx;jj_ e M ti� N Legend Note 1. Black and white reproduction of this color • Negative Shovel Probe — — Proposed Trail Route original may reduce its effectiveness and lead to incorrect interpretation. a Proposed Water & Storm i Pipelines that are 0 220 440 J L :- in an Area with Impervious Surface ATTACHMENT Selected Site Photographs MAR 1 q .S.s fid. y .w' .._-0yq+._9 4. e4 , AWAY : 1 lid �' }ON _ � f f rw A i �,• ! .� S. .,,,, . r I...., MY � .44 a"/ i ♦► -r4 �I�a g- • , . �. .� _T-111. Z.: 1 !' lk ♦ i 7. Plan view of SP -4. S. Plan view of SP -7. City of Renton Figure Hawks Landing Selected Site Photographs LANDAU Improvement Project 1-4 14 ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington a 9. Plan view of SP -12. City of Renton Figure Hawks Landing Selected Site Photographs LANDAU Improvement Project 1-5 LA ASSOCIATES Renton, Washington �Y O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 13, 2010 TO: Vanessa Dolbee FROM: Arneta Henninger f�W- SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for LUAIO-041 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N STORM VICINITY OF 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N am including the following Transportation comments. There are no other changes. CODE REQUIREMENTS TRANSPORTATION: Review of the materials in the Green Folder for the subject project has resulted in the following comments: -- Any existing pavement markings and channelization (ie, bike lane) and signing disturbed during construction will need to be replaced in kind by this project. -- We understand from the project narrative and improvement plans included in the Green Folder that the new curb and gutter will extend across the future proposed main access driveway serving the proposed Hawk's Landing development site. The Hawk's Landing development will then remove the curb and gutter, where necessary, to construct the access driveway. -- We are taking the opportunity of this Green Folder review to again express our desire that the Hawk's Landing main access driveway location on Lake Washington Blvd be aligned across from the existing Barbee Mill access road. This will provide a safer and more efficient traffic operation at both the proposed Hawk's Landing access and the Barbee Mill access. c:%documents and settings\stuckerVocal settingsVemporary internet files\content.outlook\29bjkvbv\lakewashingblvdstortngft.doc y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND � ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT \�� ��� ♦ M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 9, 2010 TO: Vanessa Dolbee FROM: Arneta Henninger /�W_ SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for LUA10-041 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N STORM VICINITY OF 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N 1 have completed the review for the above -referenced development proposal. The following comments are based on application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. Existing Conditions: Water -- This site is served by the City of Renton and is not located in the Aquifer Protection Zone. This site is located in the 320 Water Pressure Zone. Sanitary Sewer -- There is an existing Metro Sewer Main in Lake Washington Blvd N. Storm -- There are storm drainage facilities in Lake Washington Blvd N. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER: • All fire hydrants must be capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 GPM. • Water System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. SEWER: • Sanitary sewer requirements are not triggered by this project. • Sanitary Sewer System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. STORM DRAINAGE: A storm drainage report and conceptual drainage plan was submitted with the formal application. The storm drainage states that the project will be designed in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. Storm Water System Development Fees are not triggered by this project. STREET IMPROVEMENTS: • All street restoration shall be per the current City of Renton Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements details. • Traffic Mitigation Fees are not triggered by this project. GENERAL: • All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. All plans shall be tied to a minimum of two of the City's current horizontal and vertical control plan. e:ldocuments and scttings\stucker\locat settingsltempormy internet files\content.outlook\29bjkv0v\lakewashingblvdstonrngf (2).doc City of Renton Department of Community & Economic—e,.elopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: -PrAPPLICATION COMMENTS DUE: JULY 15, 2010 NO: LUA10-041, ECF, SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 1, 2010 APPLICANT: Steve Lee, City of Renton PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 34,000 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & Small section on subject site PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd_ N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Elementofthe Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Farah Air water Plana Land/Shoreline use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED C MMENTS t h Cl C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infortnotion is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Bisector or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Devr_pment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:/#�S COMMENTS DUE: JULY 15, 2010 Earth APPLICATION NO: LUA10-041, ECF, SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 1, 2010 r APPLICANT: Steve Lee, City of Renton PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee'^ Land/Shorekne Use PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick Environmental Health SITE AREA: 34,000 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A C7 r rn LOCATION: ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A VJ Small section on subject site SUMMARY OF PROP05AL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd_ N_ to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south,- and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek_ The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N_ from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Environment Minor Impacts Probable More Major Information Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shorekne Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Pubfic Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet �� ��G�LGIG�tG./��l C�1 •��%yG�"7 G��'1�i1 �'�1fj�'c.�7�2�-�7�12t'L-fi'� ,� .i'y7G-G GrG'�G��t7�'I1Gr°�>���.� " �. . �'1 G�:G��i�i ✓��ir�`" `� C CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional - forma ti is needed to properly assess this proposal. X, 7 Z Signature of Director or Auth rized Representative Date City of _-_nton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: y COMMENTS DUE: JULY 15, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-041, ECF, SM DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 1, 2010 CITY OF RENTON APPLICANT: Steve Lee, City of Renton PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee JUL 0 2 2010 PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 34,000 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & Small section on subject site PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N_ to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area_ The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application_ A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Mc or information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS 111JArC; C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Probable More Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment Ip 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areA�wre dditional information is ne ded to properly assess this proposal. .__ 1� - �14"_ A&�_ Signature of Direct r Authorized Representative Date CES City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:yi ISM COMMENTS DUE: JULY 15, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-041, ECF, DATE CIRCULATED: JULY 1, 2010 APPLICANT: Steve Lee, City of Renton PLANNER: Vanessa Dolbee PROJECT TITLE: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 34,000 square feet EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & Small section on subject site PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N_ from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plon is Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor molar Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet IA4 41� *?, /y O've. C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS ell c:. /'ISL C dl it vel 5 i 1 G� .._ A/ Ccs �r.� a, e._ G 1 �✓ Vic,. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informatigp is needed to properly a ess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Replq§ientative Date City of, NOTICE of APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) OATS Jvky 1, 2911) LAND VSE NUMBER LOAN -043, ECF, EM PROJECT NAME: lake Washlrlpnon REvd Storm ImpmvemlM PROJF=DESO1IPTIONr The applitant Is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and i, 9,ordine Substantial Devdnpmem Mrmh For the InSW ILatyn of curblgrrtten and portians of a sidewalk a rrwstorm sy"a n, acid a water ung ii—rnu n within Lake WasNnew 11M. N, to meet Th! iM -m-tum needs For Sudan devdopmnd in she .kirvty of the %405 Etat 7— The Anoka is primarily iowted within the eabting n�ttaf-wry of lake Was N ngmn Old N adlaceni w 4350 Uke Washington 8W. N. Naseevey, a -an portion for the preputial would eatano onto privabe Property "caned n 43501ake Waskngton Nvd. N. The proposed tort and patter would extend m else east aka of take washin6ton 6Nd. N, ham Ripley ld ane N. appromatdoo y Sfeet south; and curb, puttersidewa and lk wu mr idnue south an S the east eta ! 0Lake Washington BW. N. w conrrct to the eatrlNg bridge wet May Geek. The new storm rymm would to 6, of approai,nately 810 lineal feeins t of Y4-tal storm v pqpe with a lcMecdnn basin roilsys4m " the newwater Brie ert-14. world —st of about 1,450 feet of 124nch water Ln , in take Wrihing•on gNd. M from NE 40th 5L to NE "I, 5t Tose project also Indudes a wet b—le, appr¢vmateiy 140 Aral seen The apha ,11MM s ,—o. Assam and wetkrd studles, a tfalRt study, a geoiedvtkd repo,% and a hydrologic arulVsis wtdr their application. PROJECT LOCATION: R -0-w frown, 435D Late Washington gid N 8 a onoll secdnn on tul," she OMONAL OMRMINATION OF NON-SIGNIf1CAala (ONS): As the lrad ARemy, t* Pty of A.mi has determined tham I siprAcant emeironen tai impacts are uriikely to mud From the proposed projta Therefpe, as pertratunder und the RCW 4321L11U, the CGty of Rcrtx is 1418 the Gpdonel ONS pntsresn flu " notice that a ONS is likely to be issued Comment periods for Nur project and the Proposed DNS are amnnr ed I— ,Single comme,q period. Tha,e will be ---nit Period 1'.3 mg Nie 'awanoe of the Th--ftU 0etemdmhcn of Nc,r•5 9Wfi-nue (DNS). A 14 -day appeal period will foBmw the n unn a, of the DJBS PERMm APPLICATION DATE June 24, 2019 NOTICE OF CDMPLM APPNCATION: "y 1, 2010 APPVCAN I/ FCr rONTACr PERSON: S—L— Gly or R -tun; Lml: deia&rNdorr.aapav Pe.JWReA- Requested' F ---W [SEPA) Reviewr Shoneline srbatanne D—.k, sent Permit OtF— Femnit—NIh may be required: CnratnsGbn Pamit Requested Swipes: Stream M dy, Hydrologic Arrahs anad m= == � — Study Location where application may be reviewed: Departrrreet.0G—riNya E—orsic Gaadopmerrrt lam)-aHming Dhri,kon Siath Floor Renton Gly Hail, 1G55 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98357 S you wild Rke to be made a partyof record to reer receive fvdhEdematlon on ziH proposed project, canpktc th'm Icor and ratam to: City of Renton, IED -Pham" DlnsioM 1055 So. Gordy Wry, Renton, WA 98057. N.—F, a No.: Lake Walhingtun Bird Stam Imp rnem/LIJA30-041, ECF, SM NAME: MAIVNGADORE55: TELEPHONE NO.: rusuC NEARING: N/A CONNNCY OY RVIFW: 2onin,SILand Use: The subject sine ;5 deskg,ued commercial; affr�J Residentlal [COR)nn the Gly of Renton CompreisensNe Land use Map and LommerciWOMWRl Idemial (ZUNI on the Ltvl Zoning Map- EnvironmentalD lin sots that Evaluate dsa Proposed Proia . Enrironmemal ISEPAI Checklist tscve{upnen2 Regsdattons Used Fo, p,nja,tt Midgaki— The prvje_'1 will he subject W the uWt SEPA VdinarKe, RMC &- MO, RMC 4-7- OYU, RMC d-3;90 and other applicable cedes and reg�latinnc as appropriate. Comments on the above "Oncatina must be submlwed in weiling to Vanessa Gabes, (Acting) Senior Planner. [E0 - planninp Dhdslon, 1055 South Grady Wry, Ranton, WA 98OS7, by SAO PM on July 15, 1010. H yov hate q—ti— abnut oris proponal, ar wish to be made a party of record and receive addrti—i netifation by ma];, Immo dr Pr- Oe Manager. Anyone who wbm,ss wrhten [pnments will automatically become a party of road and will be rsoufed of any d,r sbn nn this Project CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 4347314; Eml: vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROIECr NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION z„t-.n.P_... .. �—Wr uf pEhFypp enton CERTIFICATION here" cert; that copies of the above document Y certify r were posted in - conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that T V ctV1 e J)oi bee signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. CA tc� =� "I Notary Public ig and for the State of Washington • rV Nota Print • L e MY appointment expires: ,LSk ;7- q G f.3 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1st day of July, 2010, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing NOA, Environmental Checklist, PMT, & Lake/Stream Study documents. This information was sent to: �3 ...iRepresenting Agencies — Env. Checklist, NOA, & PMT See Attached 300' Surrounding Property Owners - NOA only See Attached Karen Walter - Lake/Stream Study State Agency NtK (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTOI COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know orf.. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: C Ak Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary(Print): L;, , My appointment expires: f,\ n-�' \ ?��J •-)- C t_3 Project Name:: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement Project Number LUA10-041, ECF, SM template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015-172 nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attm Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS -240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172"d Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp, of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn., SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn. Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attm SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing 334270053708 051850080006 292405900500 ADKINS DOROTHY ANTEZANA RICARDO+MARIA T BNSF 1417 N 40TH ST 1025 N 42ND PL PO BOX 961089 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FORT WORTH TX 76161 051850054001 BYRON MICHAEL W+STACEY E 1009 N 41ST PL RENTON WA 98056 051850087001 CHIU VICTOR+CHEN CHRISTINE 1128 N 41ST PL RENTON WA 98056 334570009509 DIETSCH CHARLES C 3737 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056 322405910702 GOULD RAYMOND L VENA CANDACE 1426 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334570006000 HEATH PROPERTIES LTD PTSHP PO BOX 1211 EATONVILLE WA 98328 334570005903 KOREAN ANTIOCH PRESBYTERIAN 4308 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 322405910603 NGUYEN ANDREW+VILAY LATSAMY 1438 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 292405900104 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY C/O SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 12 SEAHAWKS WAY RENTON WA 98056 334270053807 CARLSON KATHLEEN & RUSSEL 1409 N 40TH RENTON WA 98056 051850114003 CONNER HOMES AT BARBEE MILL 846 108TH AVE NE BELLEVUE WA 98004 322405903806 DIEU RANDY+JULIE 1312 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 051850072003 HARDEN HARRY 1235 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 322405906205 HUTTON H DOUGLAS+SUSAN 1432 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 322405903905 LANGE ROBERT H 4017 PARK AVE N RENTON WA 98056 334570009707 CHANCELLOR JOHN 11009 ISSAQUAH HOBART RD SE ISSAQUAH WA 98027 051850088009 COUNSELL JAMES A+YINGYU 1122N41STST RENTON WA 98056 334330114201 EXIT 7 INC 4425 FOREST AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 322405905405 HAUER ALFRED H 1330 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 334570008303 C JOHNSON PETER W & NATALIE F 310 14TH ST RAYMOND WA 98577 051850071005 O'CONNELL MICHAEL EDWIN+CAR 1241 N 42ND PL RENTON WA 98056 322405904903 PORT QUENDALL COMPANY 505 5TH AVE S #900 SEATTLE WA 98104 334270054003 LOPEZ CHRISTOPHER+JENNIFER 3932 MEADOW AVE N RENTON WA 98056 322405904101 PALKA ADAM 1412 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 292405900203 QUENDALL TERMINALS PO BOX 477 RENTON WA 98055 051850075006 334270054607 322405908102 REID LEONARD FREDERICK+PAIR RICHTER GARY H JR ROBCLARISSA PARTNERSHIP LL 1217 N 42ND PL 3940 MEADOW AVE N PO BOX 402 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FALL CITY WA 98024 322405908300 322405905009 322405910801 SNYDER VERA O THOMSON NEIL TRAVIS HUGH LEE IV 1328 N 40TH ST PO BOX 76 1420 N 40TH ST RENTON WA 98056 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 RENTON WA 98055 334570008501 TRIDELT INC 6840 112TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98056 - City Of���, m NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: July 1, 2010 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA10-041, ECF, SM PROJECT NAME: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the installation of curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area. The project is primarily located within the existing right-of-way of Lake Washington Blvd. N adjacent to 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N. However, a small portion for the proposal would extend onto private property located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd_ N_ The proposed curb and gutter would extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd_ N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The new storm system would consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system and the new water line extension would consist of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd_ N. from NE 40th St_ to NE 44th St. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet. The applicant has provided stream and wetland studies, a traffic study, a geotechnical report, and a hydrologic analysis with their application_ PROJECT LOCATION: R -O -W fronting 4350 Lake Washington Blvd N & a small section on subject site OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). A 14 -day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: June 24, 2010 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: July 1, 2010 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Steve Lee, City of Renton; Emil: slee@rentonwa.gov Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Other Permits which may be required: Construction Permit Requested Studies: Stream Study, Hydrologic Analysis, and Geotechnical Study Location where application may be reviewed: Department of Community & Economic Development (CED) — Planning Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 if you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, CED — Planning Division, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Name/f=ile No.: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Imp rove ment/LU A10-041, ECF, SM NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Commercial/ Office/ Residential (COR) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) on the City's Zoning Map_ Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, RMC 4-3-090, RMC 4-7- 070, RMC 4-9-190 and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner, CED — Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 PM on July 15, 2010, If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Vanessa Dolbee, (Acting) Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7314; Ernk vdolbee@rentonwa.gov PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION Denis Law city of Mayor' Department of Community and Economic Development July 1, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement LUA10-041, ECF, SM .Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of Application for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. if you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email them to at vdolbee@rentonwa.gov. The Environmental Review Committee is scheduled for July 19, 2010. 1 would appreciate your comments prior to the meeting, preferably by July 15, 2010, if possible, so that I may incorporate them into the staff report. Sincerely, ry w o, e - L, lb Vanessa Dolbee (Acting) Senior Planner Enclosures CC Project File Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton — Plan Review Renton City Hail • 1055 South Grady Way + Renton, Washington 98057. 0 rentonwa.gov DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY InCity of .�:-. AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Q`'�� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 1, 2010 TO: Steve Lee, Utility Systems FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Division SUBJECT: Notice of Complete Application LUA10-041, ECF, SM / Lake Washington Blvd Storm Improvement The Planning Division has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on July 19, 2010. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at x7314 if you have any questions. cc: Yellow File h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\10-041.vanessa\acceptance memo 10-041.doc HAhle Sys1SWP - Surface Water Ptojects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks LandingA600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks Landing\Master Plan Appl.doc 0612 1110 Renton City of Renton P nn;11.q LAND USE PERMIT Ju." �z :; L'o MASTER APPLICATlOt4kiEr—c,,,,�,-,�\vjEr,) PROPERTY OWNER(S) TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: NAME: City Of Renton Port Quendall Com pan y(easement/dedication) PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: ADDRESS: City ROW in streets and easements: Lake Washington Blvd N Storm and Water System Port Quendall Company, 4350 Lake Improvement Project Washington Blvd North PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: Located in ROW fronting 4350 Lake Washington CITY: Renton, WA ZIP-City 98057 Boulevard North, Renton, WA 98056 Esmts- 98056 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): City ROW and Private property on: TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 430-7205 3224059049 APPLICANT (if other than owner) EXISTING LAND USE(S): City ROW and C-Commercial NAME: City of Renton Surface Water Utility Attn: PROPOSED LAND USE(S): NO CHANGE Steve Lee COMPANY (if applicable): City of Renton EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: ADDRESS: 1035 South Grady Way City ROW and C-Commercial CITY: Renton, WA ZIP: 98057 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): NA TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-7205 slee@rentonwa.gov EXISTING ZONING: C CONTACT PERSON PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): C NAME: Same as Applicant SITE AREA (in square feet): appx. 34000 sf ( appx. 630 LF of new storm pipe x 4 ft width ) COMPANY (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: 3,300 Square Feet ADDRESS: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: NA CITY: ZIP: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NA HAhle Sys1SWP - Surface Water Ptojects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks LandingA600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks Landing\Master Plan Appl.doc 0612 1110 ,{ P ECT INFOR NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): None NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): None NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): None SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NA NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA MATIIOON contig d) I NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): NA PROJECT VALUE: $1,200,000.00 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO Yes ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES 6,000 sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included) SITUATE IN THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 32 , TOWNSHIP 24N , RANGE 5E W.M. , IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Review $1,000.00 2. Yrrrn4- -�21000• o1 Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3. 4. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print Namels) 54 T -T LcQ— , declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or C the aut prized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. RTile Sys1SWP - Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (C1P)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing\1600 PrrmitslFCF attachments Hawks LandingNaster Plan Appl,doc 06/21/10 OJECT INFORMATION (continu I certify that 1 know or have satisfactory evidence that Y1 ` signed this instrument and acknowledged it his/her/their f e and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representative) `#,���*`,r•�rirrry�1rT'A�ilf' 1 Notary Public in and for the State of Was ngton i X. S 4OZA+ 4 yy (Signature of Owner/Representative) A��oo _~ x Notary (Print) y�w�� ,r x 1x V7 k,� �9tQail — OP WAS My appointment expires: a ` t �[ y l H:1File Sys1S WP - Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (C[P)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks LandinglMaster Plan Appl,doc 06/21/10 Steve Lee From: Clint Chase [ClintC@vulcan.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:44 PM To: Ronald Straka Cc: spencer@alpertcapital.com; danmitzel@hansellmitzel.com; Steve Lee; Suzanne Dale Estey; Vanessa Dolbee; Gregg A. Zimmerman; Steve Van Til Subject: RE: Renton Storm and Water System Improvement Project - Pan Abode Site Letter of Understanding - Update request Ron, The City of Renton Surface Water Utility is authorized to submit permit applications that show work on the Pan Abode site that is owned by the Port Quendall Company, provided that final land rights (easements and dedications) are executed prior to the construction of the proposed improvements. The letter of understanding is routing through our approval process and should be complete in about a week. I am leaving tomorrow on vacation for a couple of weeks, and in my absence, Steve Van Til, the head of our portfolio management group, can answer any questions regarding any status updates. I am copying Steve here so you have his email address. Thanks, Clint From: Ronald Straka [mailto:rstraka@Rentonwa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:0+ PM To: Clint Chase Cc: spencer@alpertcapital.com; danmitzel@hansellmitzel.com; Steve Lee; Suzanne Dale Estey; Vanessa Dolbee; Gregg A. Zimmerman Subject: RE: Renton Storm and Water System Improvement Project - Pan Abode Site Letter of Understanding - Update request Clint, I just wanted see if you could give me an update on the status of the letter of understanding approval. If getting the letter of understanding finalized is going to take another week or more, I wanted to see if it would be possible to get permission via email from the Port Quendall Company to proceed with submitting our permit application (SEPA/Shoreline permit) for the City project in advance of the letter of understanding being completed. The permission is needed because the City project includes the construction of the biofiltration swale and sidewalk on the Pan Abode site. Every week that the start of the City project permitting process is delayed, the start of the City project construction is delayed by one week. An email stating that "the City of Renton Surface Water Utility is authorized to submit permit applications that show work on the Pan Abode site that is owned by the Port Quendall Company, provided that final land rights (easements and dedications) are executed prior to the construction of the proposed improvements" is all that we need in order to start the City project permit review process. The idea is to use the email to allow the permit applications to be submitted and then place the letter of understanding in the permit file once it has been approved and signed. Please authorize the City to submit permit applications that includes work on the Pan Abode site this week, if it is going to take another week or more to finalize the letter of understanding. Please also provide your best estimate as to when Vulcan's approval of the Letter of Understanding will be completed. Thanks PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS Plat Name Reservation 4 Pr Um L'AM-45 0 tr i Public Works Approval Lettere Screening Detail 4 Stream or Lake Study, Standard 4 :.t Y7 Stream or Lake Mitigation Plan 4 7 Title Report or.Plat.C.ertifiCat.e. 4 CapOgr 0: p.n MaR y Traffic Study 2 Urban Design Regulations Analysis 4 LD M y ev 6N— - Wetlands Mitigation Plar., Final 4 -'777777777777 h, Pr _JA ogs-ki6q!ipn� f Y' �W 7 1 H Wetlands Report/Delineation Wl .... ....... Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites 2 AND 3 Lease Ag reem ent, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2AND 3 Map of View Area 2 AND 3 PhotosimulationS 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: LcA�e, WA 1. Property Services PROJECT NAME: 2. Public Works Plan Review 3. Building DATE: 4, Planning H.1,C,F-DO,it$\Forms-�7emplaies%Self-Help HancloutslPlanninUNwaivemfsubmittalreqs As 06109 City of Renton April 5, 2010 ,. Hawks Landing Storm and Water System Improvement Project Project Narrative • Project Name: Lake Washington Blvd, Hawks Landing Storm and Water SystemrL� Improvement Project. L • Project Size/Extent. The curb and gutter will extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. North from Ripley Lane south approximately 600 feet, Curb, gutter & sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. North to connect to an existing bridge over May Creek. The stormwater collection system will collect road & sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharge to an existing stormwater system and May Creek. The new storm system will consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading and curb and gutter along the frontage of the hotel site to direct runoff into the catch basins, Sidewalk will be installed from approximately 270 feet north of May Creek Bridge to the existing sidewalk connection immediately north of May Creek Bridge on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard. The project also includes a wet bioswale with a top length of approximately 140 feet that would treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Boulevard North. The water line extension consists of approximately 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th Street to 44"' Street. A 100 -feet portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. Various franchise utilities may need to be relocated to accommodate the stormwater and water construction including, but not limited to, power poles, fiber optic, telephone and gas/power. • Project Location: The project is located in the NW quarter of Section 32, Township 24 North, Range 5 East in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Latitude 47.53055 North, Longitude 122.20035 West. • Land Use Permits: City of Renton Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, City or Renton Grading Permit & City of Renton Right -of -Way Permit. • Zoning Classification of Project Site: C -Commercial • Current Land Use: The project site limits' landuse currently includes Lake Washington Boulevard roadway, a roadside ditch, and a small portion of parking lot where the proposed wet bioswale is proposed. • Special Site Features: New curb and gutter will be constructed from the existing north entrance to north of May Creek Bridge with a proposed new stormwater pipe to be directed to a wet bioswale. Proposed pervious sidewalk will be installed from 270 feet north of May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk, The new water main will extend approximately 450 feet south of May Creek, cross the May Creek Bridge using an existing 18 -inch steel casing, and end at the north entry of the Pan Abode site (proposed hotel site's north entrance). • Soils: The King County Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey classifies the soils in the project area as Norma Sandy Loam, which is described as soil having a low runoff potential and high infiltration rate. It consists of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and has a high rate of water transmission. The geotechnical report for the project area found fill consisting of silty sand with gravel to a depth of about six feet, which was underlain by very loose to loose sand with lenses of very soft silt to a thickness of 20 feet below the fill. There are no known indications of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. • Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development: The purpose of the project is to install curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, and a water line extension within Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of the 1-405 Exit 7 area, including the Hawks Landing development. The curb and gutter will extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. to connect to the existing bridge over May Creek. The sidewalk will be installed from approximately 270 -feet north of the May Creek Bridge to the existing May Creek Bridge sidewalk connection. The stormwater system will collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing road prior to discharging to an existing stormwater system flowing to May Creek. The new storm system will consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24 -inch storm pipe with a catch -basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. The project also includes a wet bioswale, approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) of which, will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12 - inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE 40th St. to NE 40 St. A 100 -foot portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. • Plats: Not applicable. • Access: Access to the project will be off of Lake Washington Boulevard North and most likely be coming from I-405 exit 5 (NE44th Street Exit). • Proposed off-site improvements: The adjacent site to the east is proposed to be developed into a hotel. Hotel improvements will install the landscaping plants and trees, as well as construct the remaining portions of the sidewalk from 270 feet north of May Creek Bridge to it's existing north entryway. • Total estimated construction costs & estimated fair market value to the proposal: Total construction cost is estimated to be approximately $1,000,000. The fair market value is unknown. • Estimated quantities and type of materials involved, if any fill or excavation is proposed: About 2,380 cubic yards of cut will occur associated with the proposed project, and approximately 2,450 cubic yards of fill will be imported by the contractor from licensed gravel pits. • Number, type and size of trees to be removed: 0 • Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City: Some land will need to be dedicated to the City from the proposed hotel south entryway to the southwest corner of the adjacent parcel. The wide of the dedication will vary from 9.5 feet wide to a few feet wide closer to the south entryway. • Any proposed job shacks, sales trailers, and/or model homes: NA • Any proposed modifications being requested for projects located within 200 feet of May Creek or Lake Washington provide the following information: o Distance from the nearest work area to the OHWM: 1 to 2 vertical feet from pipeline conduit under May Creek Bridge to the OHWM. The new stormwater pipe will connect approximately 55' away from the discharge point to May Creek's OHWM. o Description of the nature of the existing shoreline: The May Creek shoreline through the project area is Urban. May Creek flows west through rural King County and the City of Renton through a 2 -mile long, largely undeveloped ravine immediately above I-405. It passes through a 200 -foot culvert under the freeway west to Lake Washington Blvd. N. which is approximately 1,100 feet from Lake Washington. Vegetation along the creek includes alders, cottonwoods, willows, salmonberry etc. The approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an obstructed view in the event the proposed project exceeds a height of 35 -feet above the average grade level: Not applicable, as all new infrastructure associated with the proposed project will be below grade. Potential impacts associated with the future hotel development will be addressed in a future SEPA Checklist, Shoreline Substantial Development, Grading and ROW permits. CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION: The following bulleted description provides approximate construction dates, hours of operation, traffic routes, construction best management practices to be used and description of traffic control plan. • Proposed construction dates: Construction is anticipated to begin during middle to late September and end the following summer of 2011. • Hours and days of operation: Hours of operation will be from lam until 5:30pm from Monday to Friday. • Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes: The incoming haul route will be from 1-405's exit ramp from the north of the project site along Lake Washington Boulevard. The outgoing haul route will be leaving south along Lake Washington Boulevard. • Dust/Traffic/Transportation/Erosion/Noise characteristic Impacts: Dust will be minimized by utilizing water trucks when needed mostly during summer and dry months. Traffic impacts will be minimized by utilizing flaggers for one lane road conditions, traffic signs, cones, and other safety devices in compliance with WSDOT traffic control plans. Erosion will be contained on site by using silt fences, barriers, sandbags and other erosion control BMPs. In addition, any sediment laden runoff will be collected and treated in baker tanks if runoff is to discharge from the project site. * Special Hours: No special hours are anticipated for this project that would fall outside of the City noise ordinance hours. ■ Preliminary Traffic Control Plan: o For the 12 -inch waterline construction a lane of lake Washington Boulevard will need to reduced for short sections of Lake Washington Boulevard. The two lane roadway is heavily used and will utilize flaggers to permit one lane to be closed during waterline construction. Reduced speeds is anticipated during the storm pipe and manhole construction. Traffic signs and cones will be utilized to provide safety to this area and any traffic or pedestrians passing through the area. Biking access will also be kept open during this time with caution signs to bikers when steel plates or other gravelly materials are used. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL -CHECKLIST,,',�0 City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax; 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: fJfa f Jf�c'(Q 4 1/ � The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions.. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to Help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce .or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. 1f you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply. IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively_ H.Tiie Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (ClP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landin911600 Permits\ECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621 Aoc fl� J1� r��Cl A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lake Washington Blvd. Hawks Landing Storm and Water System Improvement Project Name of applicant: City of Renton Surface Water Utility, Attn: Steve Lee 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: City of Renton Surface Water Utility Attn: Steve Lee 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 425-430-7205 4. Date checklist prepared: June 2010 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Submit Environmental Checklist: June 2010 Advertise Project for Bids: August 2010 Construction: October 2010 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. The adjacent parcel located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd., south of NE 40 St., may be developed into a hotel. The developer is proposing to install the remaining frontage improvements (landscaping and sidewalk) in front of this property. Any portions of this project that does not get completed shall be completed by the hotel developer including the remaining landscape plantings along the frontage. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Wetland/Stream Study: Hawk's Landing Crowne Plaza Hotel prepared by Graham -Bunting Associates on May 12, 2009. A Geotechnical Report for the existing soil conditions and construction recommendations was prepared by Soil & Environmental Engineers Inc. on March 17, 2010. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Renton Shoreline Permit, Grading Permit and Right -of -Way Use Permit. HAFile SysISWP - Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing11600 PerrnitslECF attachments Hawks Landing%SEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. The purpose of the project is to install curb/gutter and portions of a sidewalk, a new storm system, a retrofit water quality facility and a water line extension along Lake Washington Blvd. N. to meet the infrastructure needs for future development in the vicinity of 1-405 Exit 7 area, including the Hawks Landing development. The curb and gutter will extend on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. from Ripley Lane N. approximately 600 feet south; and curb, gutter and sidewalk will continue south from 270 feet north of the May Creek Bridge on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and connect to the existing sidewalk north of the May Creek Bridge. The stormwater system will collect road, curb, gutter, and sidewalk runoff and provide water quality treatment for a portion of the existing Lake Washington Boulevard roadway prior to discharge to an existing stormwater pipe that discharges to May Creek. The new storm system will consist of approximately 810 lineal feet of 24" storm pipe with a catch basin collection system capable of carrying traffic loading. The project also includes a wet bioswale approximately 140 lineal feet (top length) which will be used to treat a portion of the runoff from Lake Washington Blvd. N. Water quality (and quantity) treatment follows the 2009 City of Renton Stormwater Design Manual that follows the 2005 Ecology Stormwater Design Manual. The water line extension consists of the installation of about 1,450 feet of 12 -inch water line in Lake Washington Blvd. N. from NE. 401h St. to NE 44th St. A 100' portion of the water line will be installed inside an existing 18 -inch steel casing within the May Creek Bridge. It is anticipated that existing utilities may be in conflict with the proposed work and therefore relocation of some existing facilities and utilities is expected. Conflicts may include PSE poles, fiber optics, Qwest lines, Comcast, and other franchise utilities. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist, The project is located in the NW quarter of Section 32, Township 24N, Range 5E in the City of Renton, King County, Washington. Latitude 47.53055 N, Longitude 122.20035 W. The new storm system, curb, gutter, and sidewalk will be begin near the east side of the intersection of Ripley Lane and Lake Washington Blvd North. The system will extend along the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. to a point just north of the May Creek Bridge. The water main is near the same alignment however, it will be located under the east half of Lake Washington Blvd. and will extend under the May Creek Bridge to a point 450' south of the bridge. See the attached figures and plans. HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects%SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CJP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 3 Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other . Gently sloped. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Approximately 3 % G. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The soils in the area are classified as Norma Sandy Loam by the Soil Conservation Service King County Soil Survey. Norma Sandy Loam is described as soil that has low runoff potential and high infiltration rates that consist of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission. A geotechnical report for the area found fill consisting of silty sand with gravel to a depth of about 6 feet which was underlain by very loose to loose sand with lenses of very soft silt to a thickness of 20 feet below the fill. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. About 2,380 cubic yards will be cut and approximately 2,450 cubic yards will be used for fill. The contractor will supply the backfill from licensed gravel pits. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Surface erasion may occur along the slope of the ditch in the northern section however, the contractor will be required to use typical erosion control methods described in the 2009 City of Renton Stormwater Design Manual (which follows the 2006 Ecology Stormwater Manual) to control erosion from the excavation and any soil stockpiles. Flow in the existing storm system will be diverted around the work area. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 61.9% of the drainage area for this project will be covered with impervious surfaces which is an increase over the 57.2% that exists today. H:1File Sys%SWP - Surface Water Projects%SWP-27 - surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 4 Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The contractor will be required to use typical erosion control methods in the City of Renton 2009 Stormwater Design Manual (document follows the 2005 Ecology Manual BMPs), including filter fabric fences and catchbasin inlet protection. Stormwater will be diverted around the work area, and sandbags and silt fencing will be used to keep any water and sediment out of the open channel. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, dust and exhaust from construction equipment will occur. After construction, no emissions are expected from the site. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction equipment will have mufflers and exhaust systems in good working order. Dust will be kept down by watering the excavation and stockpiles as needed. 3. WATER a. Surface Water. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, May Creek is within the vicinity of the project and is considered a Class 9 (City system classification) stream. A wetland evaluation was performed where the existing storm water system discharges to the open channel. The evaluation found that the area did not meet the criteria to be classified as a wetland and was reviewed as part of the adjacent hotel developer's determination. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? if yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. The downstream part of the new 24" storm system is within 60 feet of May Creek. The new 24" storm system will connect to an existing 24" CMP pipe that will continue to discharge to May Creek. The creek itself will not be disturbed during construction of this project. Best management practices will be conducted to ensure the creek is protected from sediment flowing downstream during construction. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge will be placed within May Creek. Fill will be located in the ditch where the current Stormwater discharges to along HAFile SysISWP - Surface Water PrajectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing11600 Permits\ECF attachments Hawks Landing\SEPA Checklist-Final-STLed!led 100621.doc J , 1 . the east side of Lake Washington Blvd. About 2,380 cubic yards will be cut and approximately 2,450 cubic yards will be used for fill throughout the project area. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, the project site is located approximately 55 feet outside of the 100 -year flood plain. The project will also involve going through an existing 18" sleeve underneath May Creek bridge. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. If there is a high water table which affects construction excavation temporary pumping would be needed to keep the excavation dry. Any groundwater would be filtered to remove sediment and discharged back to the downstream storm system through the use of sediment and erosion control best management practices. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The Hawk's Landing area is located at the downstream end of a 15 -acre basin that mostly consists of impervious pavement from 1-405, NE W St., and the existing development on the Hawk's Landing site. For existing conditions the peak flow from the basin for the 100 -,year, 24-hour storm is approximately 12 cfs. The majority of the storm water runoff from the basin is currently carried by a 24 - inch pipe, which begins near a depressed area located south of the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd. N. and Ripley Lane/NE 44th. The 24 -inch pipe conveys flows to the northwest edge of the proposed Hawk's Landing development where it then enters a 450 -foot long ditch. This ditch is connected to a 24" CMP pipe that is 120 lineal feet and discharges directly to May Creek at a point approximately 1,100 feet upstream of Lake Washington. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water ProjecWSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 6 Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 1OD621.doc Any liquid spills on site could enter the drainage system. The same potential exists with the current drainage system. Best management practices will be. in place to limit impacts. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No new impacts are expected. The City of Renton Maintenance Department would respond to any problems with the storm system or liquid spills in City ROW. The project includes the construction of a wet bio swale to treat storm water runoff from Lake Washington Boulevard. Sediment and erosion control standards follow the adopted: 2009 City of Renton Stormwater Design Manual (2009 KCSWDM). E IF -3 Z 11111K a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other possibly cottonwood, aspen, alder X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other possibly small fir or pine trees X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b_ What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Vegetation (weeds, long grass and some cattails) within the existing ditch will be replaced with fill. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposed wet bioswale located just upstream from May Creek will include plants that are tolerant of saturated conditions. Grass will be used within the planter strips. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other small birds in -general Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Typical small mammals such as mice, muskrats and squirrels may be present Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other _Chinook, Coho. Sockeye, Steelhead and Cutthroat. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water ProjectMSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (C1P)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landin911600 Permits\ECF attachments Hawks Landing%SEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead in May Creek are a threatened species. C. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NA. HAFile Sys1SWP- Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing11B00 Permits\ECF attachments Hawks Landing\SEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None needed for the completed project. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any, NA. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. During construction fuel and oil spills could occur. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Typical emergency services by the Fire Department and the City Maintenance Division in case of fire, injury, or fuel spills. 2} Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: The Contractor will be required to keep construction equipment in good operating condition, and will be responsible to cleanup any oil or fuel leaks and spills, and repair leaking equipment. Operators will be trained in the use of onsite spill kits. b. Noise 1} What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short-term: Noise from construction equipment may occur between the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM, Monday through Friday during construction. There will be no long term noise impacts. All noise impacts would be contained within the City's neighborhood work time and dates. HAFile Sys%SWP - Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 9 Landingl1600 Permits\ECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The contractor will be required to keep the construction equipment's mufflers and exhaust systems in good operating condition. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site consists of a paved road. The adjacent property currently houses abandoned buildings and parking lots. The site is proposed to be developed into a hotel. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. C. Describe any structures on the site. No structures exist on the project site itself except for the May Creek bridge. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Portions of the existing storm system will be removed and replaced, or abandoned. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C -Commercial What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial Office Residential (COR) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. A wetland report obtained by the City does not classify the existing ditch as a wetland. A letter has been written for the Army Corps describing this area as a ditch. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NA Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NA k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 10 Landing11600 Permits\ECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project replaces an existing stormwater drainage system with a new storm system that will have adequate flow capacity. The water main will provide better water quality in the future and allow development to occur. The new storm system will be under ground and the asphalt street will be restored to its existing use. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None C_ Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, 'if any: NA 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The utilities will be under ground and the curb will be less than a foot taller than the existing pavement. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The wet bioswale will be planted with appropriate vegetation and the planter strips will contain grass or other appropriate landscaping vegetation. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NA HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects%SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None b_ Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NA 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL. PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: In the event any materials of historic cultural or archaeological significance are encountered during construction, construction shall be stopped and the dept. of Archaeology Historic Preservation and appropriate tribes shall be consulted. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by Lake Washington Blvd N. and NE 44th St. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Metro serves a park n' ride lot at 30'" and Park, approximately a mile and a half north of the project area. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? NIA. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 12 Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks Landing\SEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc Safety along Lake Washington Blvd. N. will improve by adding curb, gutter, and sidewalks. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If.so, generally describe. No - How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NA =311L9.W4A►/[y*1 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? if so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Safety will be improved along the Lake Washington Blvd. by adding curb, gutter and sidewalks. The new water and storm services will serve adjacent development. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site; electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, natural gas, water, and telephone, are available. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The new 24 -inch stormwater pipes and water quality facility will be owned by the City of Renton in City ROW, or in easements granted by the private property owners. The new stormwater system will be installed in trenches excavated in the asphalted street or in City ROW. A new 12 -inch water pipe is proposed within City ROW and existing asphalted street. The new water pipe will reduce to 9 0 -inch diameter steel in order to sleeve within the existing 12 -inch steel pipe located on the May Creek Bridge. Construction will be provided by the City of Renton through private contractors via state bidding laws. HARe Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects%SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 13 Landing11600 PermitsTzCF attachments Hawks Landing\SEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Date: Zl, 2,010 _ HAFile Sys1SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 14 Landing11600 PermitslECF attachments Hawks LandinMSEPA Check] ist-Final-STL.edited 100621Aoc D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These ;;sheets should .;only be used ;for;actions: involving., decisions on policies,. plans. and programs.. You do'notoneed to fill `out these sheets for project`actions }: Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment_ When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Proiects%SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 15 Landing11600 Permits%ECF attachments Hawks Landing%SEPA Checklist-Final-STLedited 100621.doc - Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent-. Name Printed: Date: ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 619$ HAFIle Sys1SWP - Surface Water ProjectslSWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)127-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks 16 Landingl9600 Permits%ECF attachments Hawks LandinglSEPA Checklist-Final-STLedRed 100621 doe r� cx xy Inc. ° P Pmol slon MEMORANDUM TO: STEVE LEE, BARRY BAKER & STACEY CLEAR FROM:9�JIM DOUGHERTY DATE: JUNE 16, 2010 SUBJECT: STREAM ASSESSMENT (CONSISTENT WITH RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4-8-120) FOR THE WATER MAIN INSTALLATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE IIAWK'S LANDING WATER AND STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON G&O 409583 Stream Assessment Narrative for the proposed water main crossing of May Creek associated with the Hawk's Landing Project: • May Creek is a City of Renton "Class I Stream" with a 25 -foot buffer requirement (Renton Municipal Code 4-3-050 Q4, personal communication with Steve Lee 6-9-2010). Buried pipelines in existing rights-of-way have no buffer requirements (RMC 4-3-90E Regulated Water Bodies). The Shoreline Designation for this reach of May Creek is "Urban" (RMC 4-3-90 Map G-3). • The Ditch along the cast side of Lake Washington Blvd. adjacent to the water main project is a City of Renton "Class 5 Stream" with no regulatory restrictions for water lines. • According to the City of Renton Floodplain Map for the area, except for the very northwest corner of the site, the I00 -year flood elevation extends north from the Ordinary High Water Mark of May Creek to the fence line of the existing warehouse complex and as much as 40 feet north beyond the fence. The 100 -year flood elevation ranges from 26 to 32 feet across the site Vegetation in the Project Vicinity includes: • East of the bridge along May Creek: Large big leaf maple {Acer macrophyllum) 30+ inches diameter breast height (DBH), alder (Alnus -01 Dexter Avpn:ic N . S.jito 200 Seat -lo, Washington 981 U9 (2M) 284-0860 Fax (206) June 16, 2010 Page 2 rubra) and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa) dominate the overstory. Himalayan blackberries with some salmonberry and small willows dominate the understory to the east of the bridge. North of the bridge: Grasses, dandelions, milkweed, clover, yarrow and Japanese knotweed are present along the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard are the only plant species likely to be impacted by the proposed sidewalk installation. Several small alders (approx. 4 -inches DBH) will be removed for installation of the drainage swale. Between 100 and 200 feet north of the bridge Japanese knotweed (10 -feet tall) dominates from the road prism, and on both sides of the ditch, all the way to the warehouse. To the east trees are limited to small alders and a few cottonwoods 4 to 6 inches DBH along the fence line. • The ditch draining the area to the warehouse area to the north contains some wetland grasses reeds canary grass along with a few other wet -soil plants. Iron bacteria have turned the water in the ditch orange. • Overstory includes black cottonwoods, alders and vine maples. • Other vegetation present includes nettles, (Urtica dioica), Canadian thistles (Cirsium edule), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) horsetail (Equistum .sp.), yarrow (Achillea sp.), alfalfa, clover and wild carrot. • Riparian vegetation along May creek upstream (east) of the bridge is dominated by several age classes of red alder ranging in size from 4 inches DBH to 12 inches DBH. Willows, Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), Himalayan blackberries (Rubes discolor), salmonberry (R. spectabilis), nettles, sword fern (Polystichum munitum), holly, horsetail, ivy, piggyback/youth-on-age (Tolmiea menziesii) and a variety of grasses are present in the understory. Knotweed is not as tall farther to the east, shaded by the large cottonwoods (28 to 30 inches DBH) to the NE about 30 feet north of the SF property corner. There is a small muddy wetland delineated approximately 35 feet NW of the SE property corner marker and 140 feet east of the bridge. Wetland vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris anundinacea) and Japanese knotweed. The proposed sidewalk extension, stormwater improvements and water main installation will not impact this wetland or the associated buffers. June 16, 2010 Page 3 G Vegetation on the west side of the Lake Washington Boulevard ROW includes many of the same plants as the project area, with the addition of piggyback, purple loosestrife and buttercups. The bank in this area is low and within the 100 -year floodplain of May Creek according to the City of Renton Floodplain Maps. The bank steepens as May Creek curves to the north, just northeast of the SE property corner marker. Ecological Functions May Creek drains approximately 8.6 miles from Lake Kathleen and receives flows from a number of named and unnamed streams and lakes including Lake Boren. While Shoreline Designation for the stream is "Urban" west of I-405, it is "Rural" upstream of I-405 for several miles where it passes through a steep -sided valley dominated by deciduous trees with a few Douglas fir, western redeedar and other conifers. There are a few alder and cottonwood snags scattered throughout the riparian area. Wildlife in this middle portion of May Creek includes deer, coyotes, black bear, raccoons, opossums and various species of rabbits, and rodents including mice, voles, moles, chipmunks and squirrels. May Creek flows across the south end of the project area and supports transportation and rearing for most species of salmon and trout in Lake Washington. Spawning habitat for chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch) and sockeye (O_ nerka) is present upstream of I-405. Human development limiting the habitat value of the project area includes 1-405 to the east, Lake Washington Blvd. to the west, the warehouse area (future site of Hawk's Landing) to the north and residential areas to the south on the Kennydale Hill. Wildlife likely to occur on the site would be limited to species tolerant of traffic noise and human presence including deer, raccoons, opossums, squirrels, rodents, hawks and a variety of songbirds, crows etc. 4. Fish & Wildlife Birds observed during the field visit included robins, chickadees and an unidentified hawk. Other bird species likely to be present in the project area include crows, sparrows, woodpeckers, flickers, Steller's jay, and chickadees, warblers and nuthatches. A nesting platform is maintained at the old Barbee Mill Site for ospreys and bald and golden eagles are observed downstream along Lake Washington. Other raptors that could be present include red-tailed hawks, G� June 16, 2010 Page 4 Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, western screech owl and the barred owl (AOA 2007, Matthews 1999). Reptiles and amphibians likely to be present in the area include garter snakes, alligator lizards, salamanders and chorus frogs. May Creek flows through the project are from east to west under the Lake Washington Boulevard Bridge. It is classified as a City of Renton Class 1 Stream with a 25 -foot buffer (RMC 4-3-90), which supports chinook, coho and sockeye salmon; steelhead are also present (WDFW Salmonscape). 5. Measures to Protect Trees: The scope of the proposed project essentially eliminates potential impacts to significant trees on the subject property, because the proposed sidewalk extension and Swale will occur along the shoulder of Lake Washington Boulevard where vegetation is limited to grasses, weeds and Japanese knotweed. The Swale proposed may impact a few small alders that are less than 4 inches DBH. The remaining trees and any on-site wetlands would not be impacted (See attached Project Site Map). June lb, 2010 Page S Photo 1 — Project site looking south toward bridge over May Creek. G June 16, 2010 Page 6 Photo 2 — Project site looking north from bridge over May Creek. Vegetation to be impacted by sidewalk extension is visible along the shoulder. GAJ June 16, 2010 Page 7 Photo 3 - Photo looking west on left hydraulic bank of May Creek showing typical riparian vegetation and Lake Washington Blvd bridge crossing. REFERENCES Altman Oliver Associates, LLC 2007. Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Stream Review: Lake Washington View Estates, Renton, WA, Parcel 322405-9081. Hart, J. L. 1973. Pacific Fishes of Canada, Fisheries Research Board of Canada: Bulletin 180, Ottawa. Lee, Steve 2010. Personal communication regarding Renton Municipal Code and Shoreline Master Program, June 9, 2010. Mathews, Daniel 1999. Cascade -Olympic Natural History. A Trailside Reference, Raven Editions, Portland, Oregon. G June 16, 2010 Page 8 Renton City Code 2007. Sections 4-3-05 (Q4), 4-3-90F Shoreline Master Program Regulated Water Bodies, and 4-3-90 Map (G-3) website reviewed 6-10 & 11. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 2010. SalmonScape Website, accessed June 9, Olympia, Washington. JD/sn Printed: 06-24-2010 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 88055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA10-041 Payment Made: 06/24/2010 05.30 PM Total Payment: 3,000.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: City at Renton -�l�r)TiinC7 UivrSior? 0 Receipt Number: R1002840 Payee: INTERFUND TRANSFER Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 1,000.00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Bev 2,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount Payment IOT R STRAKA 3,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000.00.345.85 ------------------------------- Park Mitigation Fee _--------------- .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees 00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345-81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks -00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval -00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies -00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 INTERFUND TRANSFER FORM TO: Casaundra Commodore DATE: 06/23/2010 FROM: RON STRAKA, FIS DEPT. SURFACE WATER UTfLITY Please prepare the following cash transfer: DEBIT: W/O Function Account Number U65470 I F040 1427.475470.018.595.38.63.000 U65470 I F040 427.475470.018,595.38.63.000 Amount Description I-V)q/0 - 6YI $1,006.00 Lake Washington Boulevard N-­;—rt-h---S--t o--r-m and Water System Improvement Project _ (SEPA) $2,60__0"_._0_0____ Lake Washington Boulevard North Storm and Water System Improvement Project (Shoreline Permit) Reason: SEPA Application Review Fees & Shoreline Permit Application Review Fees Approval Signature: / ___� t; Date: 61�1z_711Ls Note: Documentation to support this transfer request must be attached. H:\File SysISWP - Surface Water Pr4ijects%SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-3531 Lake Washington Blvd -Hawks Landing\1600 Permits\FCF attachments Hawks Landing1100621 InterFund-Transfer-Fl8555.doc\ Revised 912006 cor