HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 01 - 1 of 3PARTIES 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