Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX Decision_Site Plan and Street Modfication_Sounders_202301121 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Sounders FC Center at Longacres Conditional Use, Site Plan and Street Modification LUA22-000357,SA-H,CU-H,, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant requests site plan, conditional use permit and street modification approval for the integration of a soccer complex for the Seattle Sounders and associated teams into the Longacres Office Park at 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057. The proposed use includes 52,990 square feet of an existing 311,982 square foot office building for office use and indoor training facilities as well as the conversion of an adjoining undeveloped area and some parking into five outdoor soccer fields. The applications are approved. Testimony A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Exhibits Exhibits 1—33 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the January 10, 2023 hearing were entered into the record during the hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 Exhibit 34: January 8, 2023 Talasaea Supplemental Report Exhibit 35: Supplemental Aerial Photos and Storm Water Plans FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Unico Properties,1215 4th Ave, Suite 600,Seattle,WA 98161 and Seattle Soccer, LLC, d/b/a Seattle Sounders FC,406 Occidental Avenue S, Seattle, WA 98104 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the applications on August 13, 2019 at 11 am in the City of Renton Council chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant requests site plan, conditional use permit and street modification approval for the integration of a soccer complex for the Seattle Sounders and associated teams into the Longacres Office Park at 1901 Oaksdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057. The proposed use includes 52,990 square feet of an existing five story 311,982 square foot office building for office use and indoor training facilities as well as the conversion of an adjoining undeveloped area and some parking into five full sized outdoor soccer fields and a Goal Keepers Field along with accessory structures. The overall project site totals approximately 30 acres. Access to the site would be maintained via existing curb cuts off Oakesdale Ave SW. A new accessory viewing deck proposed to overlook Field 1 from floor 2 would total approximately 1,650 sq. ft. in area and is designed to accommodate about 100 spectators. Some existing surface parking would be removed for the placement of Fields 1 and 2 and additional parking would be removed to create a secure 1st team parking area in the existing southern parking lot. The total remaining parking area would include approximately 766 surface parking stalls. A maintenance building (approximately 4,000 sq. ft.) and future field restroom (approximately 800 sq. ft.) are proposed to be co-located between fields 2 and 4. Of the 52,990 square feet of office space used by the Sounders, they would retain 21,660 sq. ft. as office use while converting 31,330 sq. ft. of existing office use to indoor recreational use. The indoor recreational facilities would provide team services space, which is intended to be accessory to the office and outdoor recreation facilities and would include locker rooms, training space, classrooms and workspaces, and medical treatment rooms. The Applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060 to retain the existing frontage improvements along the site’s Oakesdale Ave SW frontage. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services. Since the existing building has been located in an urbanized area for several years, it is already served by all necessary urban services. The proposed maintenance building and rest room building will require extension of some services. Services are more directly addressed as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service areas. The Applicant will be extending water and sewer from the existing mains to the proposed maintenance building. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Regional Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the improvements and fire impact fees required of the project. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities since its proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform to the City’s stormwater regulations. The proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. A Technical Information Report (TIR) prepared by Coughlin Porter Lundeen, dated August 2022 (Exhibit 12) was submitted with the project application materials to demonstrate compliance. As detailed in the TIR, the utilizes existing surface water facilities previously constructed onsite (i.e. Pond B) to be accompanied by installation of a new onsite drainage system. The proposed drainage system would include a new network of underground pipes and catch basins, to collect the drainage from the surface and under- drain system of the proposed sports fields, as well as the surface water runoff from the walkways and other areas adjacent to the fields within the project site. This system would direct runoff to a flow splitter that would direct larger flows that do not require water quality treatment, directly to Pond B. Smaller flows would be directed to the proposed water quality treatment system. Flows from this facility would also ultimately discharge into the existing Pond B. In order to provide the required enhanced basic water quality treatment for the soccer fields, the project proposes to install a Bioscape open system using Filterra media, along the western edge of Pond B, downstream of the fields. D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space, since no such amenities are required by City regulations this type of development and the record does not establish any demands placed upon such amenities that need to be mitigated. Despite no parks/open space required of the project, the proposal includes significant mitigation for any park/open space demand that could be produced by the proposal. The project site is part of the larger Longacres Office Park, which includes two centrally located ponds, the south pond, Pond B is a stormwater pond and the north pond has been classified as a Category II wetland. Both ponds include a trail system around the pond perimeter and a vegetated with existing mature trees and shrubs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 The project will not displace existing recreational uses. The project proposes minor modification to the existing pathways on the site. The path that currently connects from the West side of the Property to Building 25-20 will be removed and new path will be created at the North edge of the fields to access Building 25-20. E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. A Trip Generation Memo, prepared by Transportation Engineering Northwest, dated June 27, 2022 (Exhibit 16) was submitted with the project application materials. Vehicular access to the site would remain the same, with one (1) signalized access and one (1) unsignalized access driveway on Oakesdale Ave SW that provide access to the main parking lot on the south side of the building, and one unsignalized access roadway that provides access to a visitor parking lot on the north side of the building. The weekday trip generation estimates for the office use were based on methodology documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition for Land Use Code (LUC) 710 (General Office Building). The proposed outdoor soccer training facility is not consistent with a specific land use category established in the ITE manual. As such, project-specific information was used for the average weekday trip generation estimates. To estimate trip generation for the proposed Sounders training facility, the Applicant provided detailed forecasts of trips anticipated to occur on a typical weekday based on their operational plan. These weekday trip estimates are described in the following categories: Players/Field Use Trips - The fields are anticipated to be used daily from approximately 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM, however, not all fields will be used at the same time. The peak usage of the fields and training facility is anticipated to occur between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM. Spectators Trips (Media and Public Session) - On a daily basis, it is anticipated that media and a select number of visitors may view team practices on an invitation only basis. Summer Camp/Clinic Trips - Summer camps run June through August and would consist of a maximum attendance of 120 students per week, with camp/clinic hours generally between 9:30 AM and 4 PM Monday through Thursday and between 9:30 AM and 12:00 PM on Friday. Weekly Soccer Program Trips - The weekly soccer program consists of a skills class that would have a maximum attendance of 50 students attending class three (3) times per week during off peak hours (i.e. 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 Based on the trip generation estimates discussed above, it is anticipated that the proposal will generate 147 total daily trips with a reduction in AM Peak Hour trips by 9 and an increase in PM Peak Hour trips by 14. As the proposal is not anticipated to generate 20 new AM or PM Peak Hour trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis was not required. A Transportation Concurrency Test (Exhibit 17) was issued for the proposal, in which it was concluded that the proposal passed the transportation concurrency test in accordance with RMC 4-6-070D. It is anticipated that any new trips generated by the proposal would be adequately mitigated through the payment of a traffic impact fee, currently due at building permit issuance, therefore no further mitigation is necessary. The project site includes existing internal vehicular driveways and pedestrian walkways throughout the site. As testified by Nathan Janders from the City’s Engineering Services department, public works staff have reviewed the proposed and existing circulation system and determined that it provides a safe and efficient system for pedestrians and vehicles. The circulation system is particularly efficient and well planned for the project as testified by Mr. Proebstle because it provides for direct access from the indoor training facilities to the soccer fields and also provides for ready building access from the secured parking spots of the players. Staff have also determined int the staff report that the proposed circulation system provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. There are existing sidewalks within the Oakesdale Ave SW public street frontage located along the eastern boundary of the project site, in addition there are existing pedestrian walkways interior to the project site connecting the existing buildings and improvements to the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. F. Schools. The project is not residential in nature. No impacts to schools are anticipated and no fees are required. G. Refuse and Recycling. As conditioned, the proposal complies with applicable refuse and recycling regulations and thus provides for adequate and appropriate facilities to address solid waste impacts. In office, educational and institutional developments, a minimum of two (2) square feet per every one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas and a minimum of four (4) square feet per one thousand (1,000) square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of one hundred (100) square feet is required for recycling and refuse deposit areas. Since the project site has an existing five (5)-story office building, totaling 311,982 sq. ft., with the addition of the proposed 4,000 sq. ft. maintenance building, the proposal would result in a total of 315,982 sq. ft. of building gross floor area. Based on the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 proposed building gross floor area of 315,982 sq. ft., a total of 632 sq. ft. of recyclables deposit areas would be required and a total of 1,264 sq. ft. of refuse deposit areas would be required. The location of refuse and recyclable deposit areas was not included on the submitted site plan application materials, so staff was unable to verify compliance with this requirement. A condition of approval requires a revised site plan be submitted showing as existing or proposed the required 632 sq. ft. of recyclable and 1,264 sq. ft. of refuse deposit areas, or a modification from these requirements shall be submitted for review and approval. H. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the proposed parking complies with the City’s parking standards. City parking standards require 732 stalls to serve existing Building 25-20 along with the proposed outdoor sports facilities and the Applicant proposes a total of 766 stalls. The City’s requirements for off-street parking are based on RMC 4-4-080.F.10.d (Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use), depending on the specific land use category. The minimum code-required off-street parking for the Building 25-20 office use is 2.0 stalls per 1,000 SF of net building floor area based on the requirements for offices (general). Based on a total of 284,044 NSF of building area (including the proposed Sounders FC office use), the minimum parking supply required for Building 25-20 is 568 stalls (2.0 stalls/ 1,000 NSF X 284,044 NSF). The proposed soccer fields are not consistent with any of the land use categories for computing required parking under RMC 4-4-080.F.10.d. Therefore, the parking required for the fields was estimated based on the detailed project-specific trip generation data and forecasts provided by the owner. To estimate the peak parking demand of the outdoor soccer training facility on a typical weekday, the detailed entering and exiting trip generation estimates provided by the owner were assigned to 15-minute periods and the entering minus exiting volume was then used to estimate the weekday parking accumulation. The trip generation estimates for the proposed project include players/ field use trips, spectators trips ( media and public sessions), summer camp/ clinic trips, and weekly soccer program trips. Assuming that the parking demand associated with the fields is 0 vehicles at midnight, the estimated peak parking demand for the outdoor soccer training facility use is 164 stalls on an average weekday (occurring from 9:45 AM to 12:00 PM). Consequently, the combined Building 25-20 and outdoor soccer facility parking is 732 stalls. The existing surface parking for Building 25-20 is 929 stalls. The proposal will remove 163 stalls leaving a net total of 766 stalls. The proposed parking satisfies the proposal’s parking demand. I. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping by conforming to the City’s landscaping standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 As shown in the Applicant’s Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 24), the Applicant is proposing to satisfy City landscaping requirements through a combination of retention of existing landscaping and the planting of new landscaping. Landscaping requirements primarily apply to street frontage and parking areas. RMC 4- 4-070F1 requires ten feet of landscaping along street frontages. There is an existing landscape strip along the street frontage that is comprised of mature trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This existing landscape strip has a minimum width of approximately 13 feet and would satisfy the requirement for a minimum ten-foot (10’) wide landscape strip along the street frontage. City regulations require an extensive amount of landscaping in parking areas. According to the Applicant’s parking analysis, (Exhibit 25), after proposed modifications to the parking lot, the proposed facilities will be served by 766 parking spaces. RMC 4-4- 070F6b requires 35 square feet of landscaping per parking stall for parking lots with over 100 parking spaces, which totals 26,810 sq. ft. of interior parking lot landscaping. As shown on the submitted conceptual landscape plan, the existing and proposed interior parking lot landscaping would total approximately 27,700 sq. ft., which would exceed the 26,810 sq. ft. requirement. The Applicant’s landscaping plans, Ex. 24, show that the proposed facilities are shielded from view and adjoining uses by perimeter landscaping and critical areas that surround the site on all sides. The staff report provides a more detailed discussion of how the proposal complies with other landscaping requirements. J. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. As testified by Ms. Ding, the proposal is served by adequate transit as a Sounder station is located close to the facility and the proposed development will not result in any interference with existing transit stops. RMC 4-4-080F11a requires bicycle parking spaces at the rate of 10% of required automobile parking spaces, which results in a required 16 parking spaces for the 164 new automobile spaces required of the proposal for the newly proposed facilities (limited to the proposed outdoor recreational use – the existing building does not trigger new bicycle parking requirements). Bicycle parking was not included in the application materials. A condition of approval requires a revised site plan that includes the required 16 parking spaces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On November 7, 0222 the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for the project. Upon reconsideration, the MDNS was re-issued on December 5, 2022 to revise a mitigation measure addressing the water quality impacts of proposed synthetic turf. The MDNS was not timely appealed. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Views. It is not anticipated that the proposal will result in any material obstruction of views. The only views are internal to the site from Building 25-20. The views from the lower level of Building 25-20 will be altered by a 10’ tall fence, privacy screen and ball control netting. The light posts will also minimally change the view from Building 25-20 to the West. Views from the Longacres Campus trails will be altered by the fence and ball control netting in some sections when looking to the East. According to the staff report, the proposal would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding use. Adjacent properties include medical offices, daycare, and commercial airlines uses, and are separated from the project site by right of way and undevelopable land. The adjoining property to the north is another Longacres Business Park office building, buffered from the sports field by a Category II wetland and separated from the sports fields by a minimum of 500 feet. The adjoining parcel to the west is composed of Wetland A and the parcel west of that is an undeveloped parcel in the Longacres Business Park. The closest property to the south is the Kaiser Permanente property, which is separated from the sports fields by a vegetated buffer and an existing stormwater pond. The east side of the sports fields is adjoined by Oakesdale Ave SW, which is a five-lane arterial. Sidewalks, bike lanes and street trees provide further separation. There are four lots across from Oakesdale. One of the lots is developed with a daycare center, the remaining three are undeveloped. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy. The only new lighting impacts will result from proposed field lighting. Within the field complex, light poles will be erected, containing directional LED lights designed specifically to light fields after dark and directed solely downward onto the fields and preventing light pollution outside of the field complex. Use of field lights is generally restricted to when it is needed for visibility during evening training sessions, or possibly off -hours maintenance activities. Evening training most frequently occurs on turf fields (which are the furthest from Wetland A) for the MLS Next Academy Team. These sessions typically run from 4:00 - 9:00 pm, so the duration of lighting depends upon the time of year. For example, a winter training session may require 5 hours of lighting, where a summer session might not require any. Occasionally, lighting may be used 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 during special events on any field. Given the absence of any sensitive land uses in the vicinity as described in Finding of Fact 5B, the modern technology involved in LED lighting and the limited hours of use, the light and glare created by the project is not found to be significant. The surrounding landscaping and critical areas and the nature of surrounding uses provides for adequate protection of privacy for both those using the fields and surrounding uses, as well as assisting in noise reduction. The proposed soccer fields would be located to the interior of the project site and would be buffered along the north and west by existing wetlands and stormwater facilities that are vegetated with mature vegetation and would be buffered along the east by the existing office building, surface parking lot, and mature vegetation, and along the south by existing stormwater facilities and existing mature vegetation. As testified by Mr. Proebstle, the soccer fields will be surrounded by a ten foot fence to ensure that experimental soccer plays and the like will be hidden from public (and competing teams) view. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5B, in terms of privacy there is no residential or similar development close enough to be adversely affected by noise or privacy impacts. D. Critical Areas. A portion of the playfields will be within the buffer of a Category II wetland. The proposal is also in a flood hazard area and a seismic hazard area. As mitigated, the proposal complies with the City’s critical area regulations and thus is not found to adversely affect critical areas. i. Seismic Hazard. A high seismic hazard is mapped on the project site. RMC 4-3- 050F2aii requires the Applicant to submit a geotechnical report for high seismic areas that establishes that the site can safely accommodate the proposal and that the proposal will not jeopardize other critical areas or destabilize adjoining properties. The Applicant has complied with RMC 4-3-050F2aii and for this reason there are no adverse impacts anticipated due to the presence of the seismic hazard area. As required, the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Services Draft Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, (dated June 23, 2022; Exhibit 6). According to the geotechnical report, the loose to medium dense sand which underlies the project site has a moderate to high risk of liquefying. The existing fill and alluvial deposits encountered in the explorations contain a high percentage of fines and are highly moisture sensitive. It is anticipated that the operation of equipment on these soils would be difficult during the wet season (typically October through May) and in wet weather conditions. In addition, the report recommends that the design of the fields consider estimated site settlement due to the presence of the underlying fill and alluvial deposits. In addition to being susceptible to liquefaction, the alluvial soils are compressible and are expected to settle under new/increased loading conditions. Static settlements will depend on the thickness of new fill placed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 The report included recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, excavations and permanent slopes, utility trenches, pavement recommendations, and recommended additional geotechnical services for the construction of the proposed fields, however the report did not include a discussion on the proposed maintenance building and elevated exterior patio addition. Due to the concerns expressed in the geotechnical report regarding soil stability on the project site, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that construction on the project site comply with the recommendations of the report. The Applicant's geotechnical engineer is required to review the project's construction plans for the new fields and the building permit plans for the proposed maintenance building and elevated patio addition to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report. ii. Wetlands. The proposed soccer fields will encroach into a buffer of a Category II wetland. The Applicant proposes mitigation that staff have found to conform to critical area regulations. A Critical Areas - Existing Conditions Letter Report prepared by Talasaea, dated April 29, 2022 (Exhibit 7) and a Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea, dated October 7, 2022 (Exhibit 8) were submitted with the project application materials. The critical areas reports identified Wetlands A and F, Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G on the project site. Wetland A is located along the eastern boundary of the project site and would be classified as a Category II wetland with a moderate habitat score. Wetland F is located to the north of the project site and would also be regulated as a Category II wetland with a moderate habitat score. Category II wetlands with a moderate habitat score require a 100-foot buffer for low impacts land uses and a 150-foot buffer for all other land uses. Pond B is a stormwater detention and treatment pond located directly south of Wetland A, along the east side of the project site, and would not be classified as a regulated wetland. Pond B hydrology is provided by direct surface flow during rain events and from the stormwater detention pond located to the south. Feature D is an upland area located upslope and east of Pond B. Both test plots conducted within Feature D failed to satisfy the requirements of a hydrology indicator for wetlands, and one (1) of the two (2) test plots failed to satisfy the requirements of either a hydrology or hydric soil indicator. Feature D hydrology, when present, appears to be historically provided by an installed irrigation system which draws water directly from Pond B. Aside from the installed irrigation system, hydrology can only otherwise be provided by direct precipitation due to local topography. Feature D is an area that is indicative of intentional plantings designed to mak e the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 area visually appear as a wetland. Feature D would not be classified as a regulated wetland. The submitted Critical Areas - Existing Conditions Letter Report (Exhibit 7) was reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant, Otak. Otak’s findings were summarized in a Peer Review Memorandum, dated June 9, 2022 (Exhibit 9). Otak concurred with the assessment and delineation of Wetlands A and F and also concurred that Pond B, Feature D, and Feature G would not be classified as regulated wetlands. The proposed site plan (Exhibit 2) shows the proposed keeper/training area and Field 1 within the 100-foot buffer of Wetland A. The proposal would have no direct impact to Wetland A, although it would reduce the 100-foot buffer to approximately 32 feet, resulting in the alteration of approximately 15,467 sq. ft. of Wetland A’s buffer. The maximum buffer reduction permitted by the City’s adopted Critical Areas Regulations is 25% or a 25-foot reduction of a 100-foot buffer (RMC 4-3-050I). The proposal would result in an approximately 68% reduction in the standard buffer, which is greater than the buffer reduction permitted by the City’s Critical Areas Regulations. Following the guidelines outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 21-06-003, the alteration would be achieved through the use of Wetlands as Buffers (often referred to as “paper fill”). Conversion of wetland into buffer does not actually fill any wetland; wetland converted into buffer still functions as a wetland in the landscape. To mitigate for the “paper fill” impacts to Wetland A, the proposal would be required to comply with the City’s Critical Areas Regulations for Alterations to Wetlands (RMC 4-3-050J.4) and provide the appropriate mitigation ratio for indirect wetland impacts. The Applicant’s Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Exhibit 8) would include the purchase of credits from the Springbrook Creek Wetland Mitigation Bank. The Applicant proposes a mitigation ratio of 50% (i.e., 0.5:1.0) for its indirect impact to Wetland A that causes no or only partial loss of ecological functions to the wetland. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to enhance the upland buffer of Wetland A existing between the proposed field locations and the wetland edge, an area of approximately 15,151 sq. ft. in size. Most of this buffer area is in good ecological condition; however, some areas are dominated by invasive plant species and would benefit from enhancement. The proposed area of buffer enhancement would total approximately 4,616 sq. ft. within the 15,151 sq. ft. buffer area. Secondary review of the Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Exhibit 8) was conducted in a Peer Review Memorandum, prepared by Otak, dated November 2, 2022 (Exhibit 10). The Peer Review Memorandum notes that the submitted Mitigation Plan proposes no direct impacts to Wetland A, and 15,467 sq. ft. of indirect impacts into the Wetland A buffer. Mitigation of these imp acts is proposed through a combination of mitigation credit purchase through the Springbrook Creek Mitigation Bank at a 0.5:1 ratio, and 4,616 square feet of buffer enhancement in areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 of the Wetland A upland buffer dominated by invasive species. The proposed buffer enhancements would be subject to maintenance and monitoring for a period of five (5) years per RMC 4-3-050L(2) and RMC 4-3-050L(3). In general, the Peer Review Memorandum (Exhibit 10) takes no issue with the proposed mitigated strategy, however there were some outstanding comments that needed to be addressed prior to formal approval. A condition of approval requires, that a final mitigation plan be submitted addressing the recommendations outlined in the Peer Review Memorandum, prepared by Otak, dated November 2, 2022 (Exhibit 10). The final mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Construction Permit Review. Staff further recommends, that the purchase of mitigation bank credits be completed prior to the commencement of any paper fill activities on the project site. Fencing and critical areas signage are required by RMC 4-3-050G.3). A condition of approval requires that a fencing and signage detail be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. In addition, onsite critical areas are required to be placed in a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). A condition of approval requires that any portion of the onsite wetland and associated buffer areas be placed within a recorded NGPE. The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) submitted an email on December 20, 2022 (Exhibit 27) asserting that Feature G should be regulated as a wetland and that the filling of these wetland would trigger state and federal permitting requirements. A response from the City’s peer review consultant Otak (Exhibit 28) maintains that Feature G does not meet the definition of a wetland. The Applicant’s wetlands consultant, Talasaea, arrived at the same conclusion based upon both its application of applicable wetland definitions and indirect assessment of wetland indicators. See Ex. 34 and 35. Feature G is determined to not qualify as a wetland under the RMC 4-11-230 wetland definition, specifically the portion that exempts water bodies “created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.’ The Otak and Talasaea reports, Ex. 28, 34 and 35, conclusively establish that Feature G was unintentionally created as a result of road and building construction. As detailed in those reports, Feature G resulted from the ungraded filling of a stormwater pond designed to accommodate run off from road and building construction of the Longacres business park facilities after 1990. The only ambiguity in application of the road construction exemption is whether the exemption still applies if the stormwater comes from both road and building construction as opposed to just the road construction. There is no Washington case law on this issue. The Otak and Talasaea reports take the position that Feature G does not qualify as a wetland under the road construction exemption. According to the testimony of Ms. Ding, DOE was supplied a copy of the Ex. 28 Otak report and did not respond. Given 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 the expertise and peer review objectivity of Otak, the lack of response from DOE and the corroboration from Talasaea, it is concluded that Feature G does not qualify as a wetland under the road construction exemption even if it partially originated from building construction in addition to road construction. iii. Floodplain. The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain of Springbrook Creek and the proposal includes the placement of fill within this floodplain. The City’s critical area regulations require the Applicant to compensate for the added fill by creating additional flood capacity within the floodplain. The Applicant has provided for the added flood capacity as required and thus the proposal is found to adequately mitigate against flood impacts. A Civil Engineering Narrative, prepared by Coughlin Porter Lundeen, dated August 8, 2022 (Exhibit 11) was submitted with the project application materials and included a discussion on the grading proposed within the floodplain. The proposed project would include approximately 575,000 sq.ft. of sports fields, which will result in the placement of approximately 718,000 cubic feet of fill within the currently delineated 100-year floodplain. As required by the City's Critical Areas Regulations, floodplain fill mitigation would be required in the form of compensatory storage below the record Base Flood Elevation (BFE). This BFE is listed as at 20 -foot elevation at the southern area of the Sounders fields, and roughly 19.6 to 19.7 at the northern edge. The compensatory mitigation proposal would be to calculate the proposed compensatory volume using a BFE of 20.0 across the entire field project limits, which would exceed the minimum volume required. The required compensatory volume is proposed to be provided using a series of underground storage chambers (StormTech or Eq) to hold the required flood plain fill mitigation volume of floodwater. These chambers would connect to open, screened inlet/outlet pipes that extend below the Pond B water surface. The chambers would begin to store replacement flood volume when the pond elevation reaches its maximum detention water surface elevation of 14.7 feet. A discussion of whether the proposed compensatory storage would adversely impact salmonids, ensuring they do not get trapped within this system was not included. Therefore, a SEPA mitigation measure requires that the Applicant demonstrate that the proposed underground storage chambers not have an adverse impact on salmonids and ensures that salmonids would not get trapped within the proposed underground storage chambers iv. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Area. The Applicant submitted a Critical Areas Report and Conceptual Mitigation Plan prepared by Talasaea, dated October 7, 2022 (Exhibit 8), which included a Biological and Habitat Assessment. The Biological and Habitat Assessment identifies Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed or candidate species potentially within the Project-affected areas or maybe affected by the proposed action. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for terrestrial and freshwater species, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous species. The NOAA Fisheries website and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) website were used to review listed species within the vicinity of the project site. Two (2) ESA-listed Pacific salmon species are potentially within the Project-affected area, or may be affected by the proposed action: Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), designated as Threatened, and Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) designated as Threatened. There is final designated critical habitat for both salmon species within the Project-affected area, Springbrook Creek. Springbrook Creek is approximately 1,150 feet from the project site. The Critical Areas Report (Exhibit 8) concludes that the proposed construction and operation of the Sounders facilities would not directly affect any of the above or any other ESA-listed species. The entirety of the site development work takes place in an existing urban area with no significant habitat features for any of the species listed above. The project site is located nearly 1,900 feet from the Green River and is outside of its drainage basin. While the project site is located within the Springbrook Creek/Black River subbasin area, it is approximately 1,150 feet from Springbrook Creek and has no direct connection or impact to Springbrook Creek. However, secondary review of the Applicant's Critical Areas Report was conducted by the City's Environmental Consultant (Otak). Concerns were expressed regarding the fill that would be placed within the synthetic fields. There are some fill materials that may be toxic to fish. To ensure that the fill placed within the synthetic turf fields does not adversely impact fish species, a SEPA mitigation measure has been imposed that requires the field materials to not result in a probable significant impact upon fish and wildlife and that water quality be monitored for a five-year period. v. Aquifer Recharge. Staff testified at hearing that the proposal is not located in a mapper aquifer recharge area. 6. Tree Retention. Beyond the City’s critical area regulations, the only regulations requiring protection of vegetation are the City’s tree retention standards. The project involves the removal of 377 trees. However, this removal is consistent with the City’s tree retention standards and thus is not found to create any adverse impacts due to the loss of trees. The City's tree retention standards require thirty percent (30%) retention of onsite significant trees (after the deduction of trees within areas of public right-of-way dedication and critical areas and buffers). The Applicant submitted an arborist report, Exhibit 13, that demonstrates compliance with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 this standard. According to the report, there are a total of 605 significant trees on the project site, of those 24 would qualify as high-risk trees, resulting in 581 viable significant trees on the project site, of which two (2) cottonwood trees would be considered landmark trees. The proposal would include the removal of 377 trees (including one (1) landmark tree) for the development of the proposed soccer fields, resulting in the retention of 204 trees and one landmark trees. The proposal to retain 204 significant trees would result in a retention percentage of thirty five percent (35%), which exceeds the City's minimum tree retention requirements. The City's Tree Retention Regulations also require that a minimum tree density of 30 credits per net acre. The arborist report (Exhibit 13) included a tree density calculation and concluded that the retained trees would result in the provision of 30.2 tree credits on the project site, which would satisfy the minimum tree density requirements. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority The site plan and conditional use permit require hearing examiner review and final approval. The street modification request is subject to staff approval when reviewed separately, but is consolidated with hearing examiner review for this application. RMC 4-9-200D2bvi requires a public hearing before the hearing examiner for site plan applications involving projects over 10 acres in size. RMC 4-9-200F9b requires the hearing examiner to issue a written decision after holding the hearing. RMC 4-2-060 requires a hearing examiner conditional use permit for outdoor recreational facilities. RMC 4-8-080G classifies hearing examiner site plan and hearing examiner conditional use permit applications as Type III applications. RMC 4 -8-080G classifies the street modification request as a Type I application. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to be collectively processed under “the highest - number procedure.” The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for the conditional use, site plan and street modification applications. As outlined in RMC 4- 8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Commercial Office (CO), its comprehensive plan land use designation is Employment Area (EA) and the project site is located in Design District D. 3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Findings and Conclusions of Street Modifications. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4- 9-200.E.3. All applicable review criteria for the conditional use and site plan applications are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The criteria for street modification requests identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are governed by RMC 4- 9-250.D.2. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 21 of the staff report are adopted by this reference in full to conclude that all review criteria for the requested street modification are met. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 CONDITIONAL USE The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as outlined in Findings No. 17-19 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The site is located within the Urban Design District D overlay, however in accordance with RMC 4-2-120B the Urban Design Regulations are only applicable to residential mixed-use buildings within the CO zone. As the proposal does not include any residential mixed-use buildings the Urban Design Regulations would not apply to this proposal. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. No other similar uses are located anywhere in the vicinity so the proposal does not result in a detrimental overconcentration of use. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4H, the site is served by adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. The criterion is met as interpreted by staff. The project area on the south end to the south end is not developed and not within a critical area. Ms. Ding testified that this undeveloped site is not artificially landscaped but is populated by vegetation. She testified that staff considers the naturally growing vegetation to qualify as landscaping. Deference is given to staff’s interpretation on this issue as it appears to be consistent with past practice and alleviates the heavy burden the requirement would otherwise place on developers only developing small portions of large development sites. To require such sites to be fully landscaped in the more traditional meaning of the term would result in the loss of ecological benefit of retention of natural habitat while at the same time placing large installation and maintenance costs upon the property owner. SITE PLAN RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 18 CAO VARIANCE - 18 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City’s refuse and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards, which includes perimeter landscaping to provide buffering to adjacent uses. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 19 CAO VARIANCE - 19 iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 14. The criteria quoted above are met. Privacy impacts are adequately addressed as identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. Due to compliance with the City’s critical areas ordinance, there are no natural features adversely affected by the proposal. As identified in the Applicant’s landscaping plans, Ex. 24, and addressed in Finding of Fact No. 4I, significant landscaping is proposed within the parking area as required to city regulations to protect soften the appearance of parking areas. As noted in Finding of Fact 5C, the landscaping also provides for privacy. The landscaping plans, Ex. 24, show that the landscaping surrounds the soccer fields, thus defining and enhancing that open space. The extensive amount of landscaping required and proposed clearly enhances the appearance of the project. City landscaping standards include specifications to ensure that they are protected from damage caused by vehicles and pedestrians. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 15. The proposal as conditioned provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E. As testified by staff, the proposal is not subject to new loading and delivery standards since the development is largely pre-existing. Transit and bicycle facilities are available as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4J. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 20 CAO VARIANCE - 20 16. The proposal provides for adequate open space as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4D. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A. The proposal also does not include any shorelines and is in no position to provide public access to them. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the project protects all affected critical areas as required by the critical area regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 20. There is no phasing plan proposed DECISION The site plan, conditional use, and three street modification requests meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law of this decision and are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the revised Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 5, 2022: a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted Geotechnical Report, prepared by GeoEngineers, dated June 23, 2022. b. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction plans for the new fields and the building permit plans for the proposed maintenance building and elevated patio addition to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report. c. The artificial turf field program, including field design, construction and operation, together with stormwater management and water quality treatment for drainage from the artificial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 21 CAO VARIANCE - 21 turf fields, shall assure that the field materials do not result in a probable adverse environmental impact on fish and wildlife. The proposed water quality treatment facility shall be a Filterra Bioscape facility sized to treat the 2-year storm event or equivalent as approved by the City and the Applicant shall undertake quarterly water quality tests of field drainage, during the life of the field or for a five (5) year period, whichever comes first. The Applicant will submit a monitoring protocol to test for SBR Crumb Rubber constituents of concern in field drainage for City approval. d. When the fill within the synthetic turf athletic fields is replaced, the Applicant shall be required to go through a new Environmental Review. e. The Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed underground storage chambers, to be utilized for compensatory storage, would not have an adverse impact on salmonids and would ensure that salmonids would not get trapped within the proposed underground storage chambers. f. The Applicant shall follow the Department of Ecology guidance for Tacoma Smelter Plume soil contamination testing and remediation as instructed in the agency’s letter (Exhibit 15). g. The Applicant shall submit an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan prepared by a qualified professional with the civil construction permit for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 2. A detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D.12 shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit Review. The detailed landscape plan shall verify that all proposed reconfigured surface parking spaces shall be located within fifty feet (50’) of an interior parking lot landscaped area. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit. 3. The Applicant shall either verify that no new utility equipment cabinets would be visible to the public or that a screening detail shall be provided. This information shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit. 4. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review showing the required 632 sq. ft. of recyclable and 1,264 sq. ft. of refuse deposit areas, or a modifica tion from these requirements shall be submitted for review and approval. The revised site plan and/or modification request shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit. 5. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review providing bicycle parking for 16 additional bicycles. In addition, a bicycle parking detail shall be provided demonstrating that the proposed bicycle parking would be provided for secure extended use and shall protect the entire bicycle and its components and accessories from theft and weather. The revised site plan and bicycle parking detail shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. 6. A fence height variance shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed fencing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and STREET MOD- 22 CAO VARIANCE - 22 7. A final wetland mitigation plan be submitted addressing the recommendations outlined in the Peer Review Memorandum, prepared by Otak, dated November 4, 2022 (Exhibit 10). The final mitigation plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Construction Permit Review. 8. The purchase of mitigation bank credits shall be completed prior to the commencement of any paper fill activities on the project site. 9. A fencing and signage detail shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. 10. Any portion of the onsite wetland and associated buffer areas shall be placed within an NGPE. The NGPE shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed tenant improvements. 11. The construction of frontage improvements shall be deferred to the future Master Plan application for the larger Longacres redevelopment. 12. An updated Geotech report providing a soils analysis consistent with the 2022 RSWDM shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Civil Plan Reviewer prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. DATED this 12th day of January, 2023. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 -day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER DECISION EXHIBITS Project Name: Sounders FC Center at Longacres Project Number: LUA22-000357, SA-H, CU-H, ECF, MOD Date of Hearing January 10, 2023 Staff Contact Jill Ding Senior Planner Project Contact/Applicant Julia Reeve Unico Properties 1215 4th Ace, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98161 Project Location 1901 Oakesdale Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057 The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision: Exhibits 1-19: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report Exhibits 20-28: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 29: Staff PowerPoint Exhibit 30: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps Exhibit 31: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/ Exhibit 32: Vicinity Map, Site Plan, and Renderings Submitted by Applicant (January 9, 2023) Exhibit 33: Compilation of Applicant Consultant Resume Submitted by Applicant (January 9, 2023) Exhibit 34: Talasaea Supplemental Report and Analysis Submitted by Applicant (January 10, 2023) Exhibit 35: Supplemental Aerial Photos and Stormwater Plans Submitted by Applicant (January 10, 2023)