HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272304(1) CITX*)F RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Earl Clymer,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren
p1 � l t °
k rysl �
May 12, 1995 MAY 1 1995 -
Mr. Gregg Zimmerman CITY Y GF RENTpt
City of Renton Engineering Dept.
RE: Lexington Ridge Realty Inc. v. City of Renton
King County Cause No . 92-2-29569-5
Dear Gregg:
I am enclosing for your information a copy of the Stipulation and
Order of Dismissal which was entered in the above captioned matter.
You will note that a copy of the final Settlement Agreement is
attached to the Order.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Jim Hanson, Mike Katterman
and Ron Straka for their information and so that they might have a
copy of the final Settlement Agreement in their file for their
reference. If you have any additional questions at this time,
please give me a call . Thank you for all of the timely
professional assistance to my office in resolving this matter.
Very truly yours,
Davi M. Dean
cc: Mayor Clymer
Beverly Nelson Glode
k_J,im Hanson
Mike Katterman
Ron Straka
Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, WashiniTton 98057 - (206)255-8678
{
l r
2
3
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
5
LEXINGTON RIDGE REALTY, INC. (as
6 successor in interest to Grahame R. Ross, NO. 92-2-29569-5
7 Trustee in Bankruptcy),
STIPULATION AND ORDER OF
8 Plaintiff, DISMISSAL
9
VS.
10
I I CITY OF RENTON, a municipal corporation,
12 Defendant.
13
STIPULATION
14
Plaintiff Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc.,by and through its attorneys, Hillis Clark Martin&
15
16 Peterson, P.S., and Sarah E. Mack, and Defendant City of Renton, by and through its attorneys,
17 Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean &Fontes, P.S., and David M. Dean,hereby stipulate as follows:
1. Plaintiff and Defendant have entered into a Settlement Agreement dated May 9, 1995,
18
19 attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
2. In accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Settlement Agreement incorporated herein, the
20
following Order may be entered dismissing with prejudice all remaining claims of the Plaintiff in the
21
22 above-entitled action.
DATED this /� ` day of May, 1995.
23
24 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S.
25
By
26
Sarah E. Mack, WSBA#12731
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff
28 Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc.
Law Offices
IIILL]S CLARK MARTIN & PE-TL-RSON .
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal -Page 1 of 3 A Professional Service Corporation
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101-2925
(206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789
I WARREN, KELLOGG, BARBER, DEAN & FONTES,
2 P.S.
3
4 By ,vld
David M. Dean, WSBA#11799
5 Attorneys for Defendant
6 City of Renton
7
ORDER
s
This matter having come on regularly before the above-entitled court upon the stipulation of
9
Plaintiff Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc. and Defendant City of Renton, and the court having reviewed
10
the stipulation of the parties, the records and files in this matter, and being fully informed in the
I1
12 premises, NOW THEREFORE.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims of the Plaintiff be
13
dismissed with prejudice.
14
15 DATED this day of May, 1995.
16P, EnTEI
17
18 -Atgz/Court Commissioner
19 Presented by:
20
Hillis Clark Martin& Peterson, P.S.
21
22 BY ��✓
23 Sarah E. Mack, WSBA #12731
24
25 BYE
1 ie G. McCarrel, #MCCA04
26 Legal Assistant
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff
28
La",Offices
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal- Page 2 of 3 HILLIS C L A R K MARTIN & P E T E-R S O N ■
A Professional Service Corporation
500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue
Seattle.Washineton 98101-2925
(206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789
1 Approved as to form;Notice of Presentation
2 waived; copy received by:
3 Warren, Kellogg, Barber, Dean & Fontes, P.S.
4
5 By:—am M•� (�1.r lVt�t'�Gc- C, c
6
David M. Dean, WSBA 411799
7
8
148952.DOC 5/09/95
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law Offices
Stipulation and Order of Dismissal - Page 3 of 3 HILLIS C L A R K MARTIN & P L-T L R S O N =
A Professional Service Corporation
500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101-2925
(206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Renton, a municipal
corporation ("Renton") and Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc., a Washington corporation.
RECITALS OF FACT
1. In 1987, Centron Equities Corporation, on behalf of Canada America
Associates, L.P., a «7ashington limited partnership, applied to the City of Renton for site
plan approval for a multi-family development known as "Lexington Ridge" consisting of
360 units on approximately 13.4 acres located in the City of Renton.
2. A draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lexington Ridge project
was published in November, 1988. The final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Lexington Ridge project was published in January, 1989. On June 15, 1989, the
Environmental Review Committee of the City of Renton issued its final decision
imposing mitigation conditions on the Lexington Ridge project pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), RCW 43.21 C.
3. On October 13, 1989, the Lexington Ridge site plan was approved by the
City of Renton hearing examiner in file number SA-082-87. The hearing examiner's
decision approving the site plan required the applicant to comply with the conditions
imposed by the Environmental Review Committee.
4. On May 31, 1990, a petition entitled In Re: Canada-America Associates,
L.P. was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Washington in Seattle and was assigned case number 90-03783.
Lex Ridge Settlement Agreement page 1 of 8
914311 14895-2 BIJ03 .Doc �/08/9� EXHIBIT 1
5. On January 4, 1991, Grahame R. Ross (hereinafter"the Trustee") was
appointed as Chapter 11 Trustee in case number 90-03783 and was given authority to
administer the property of the bankruptcy estate including the Lexington Ridge property.
6. Grahame Ross as Trustee applied to the City of Renton for a building
permit on September 17, 1991. This application was assigned building permit application
plan review number 8810.
7. One of the conditions imposed by the Environmental Review Committee
required the applicant to obtain approval by the City's Public Works Department of plans
for a storm drainage detention system, in advance of the issuance of any building permits
for the Lexington Ridge project.
8. The Trustee was unable to obtain approval by the City's Public Works
Department of plans for a storm drainage detention system for the Lexington Ridge
project. In September, 1992, the City advised the Trustee that the Trustee's building
permit application had expired pursuant to section 304(d) of the Uniform Building Code,
1988 edition.
9. On September 16, 1992, the Trustee appealed to the Renton hearing
examiner the City of Renton's decision to terminate the Trustee's building permit
application. The appeal was assigned file number AAD-91-151. On November 10, 1992,
a hearing was held before the Renton hearing examiner to consider the Trustee's appeal.
On December 9, 1992, the Renton hearing examiner issued his decision upholding the
decision not to approve the Trustee's conceptual design of the storm drainage system and
to terminate the Trustee's building permit application number 8810. On December 23,
1992, the Trustee filed a Petition for �V'rit of Review and Complaint for Damages under
Lex Ridge Settlement Agreement page 2 of 8
#14,1 1 14995-2 [3110i1.DOC 5/08!95
King County Superior Court cause number 92-2-29569-5. On that date an Order was
issued directing a writ of review.
10. On January 21, 1993, the Trustee filed an application for, and notice of,
removal of the Superior Court action to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452.
11. On or about May 12, 1994, the Trustee conveyed by Quit Claim Deed
dated -May 10, 1994, the Lexington Ridge property to Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc. under
King County recording number 9405122166. On that same date, the Trustee assigned all
of the interest of Canada-America Associates, L.P. in and to all permits, approvals and all
other rights or claims including all causes of action against the City of Renton to
Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc.
12. On August 31, 1994, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court entered an Order
dismissing adversary proceeding number A92-10472 against the City of Renton and
named individual defendants. On that same date, a stipulated order was entered
remanding to King County Superior Court the case which was originally filed under
cause number 92-2-29569-2 and substituting Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc. in place of the
Trustee as the plaintiff in that action.
13. On September 28, 1994 the King County Superior Court entered an order
in cause number 92-2-29569-5 substituting Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc. in place of the
plaintiff in that action and directing that all further proceedings in that case be continued
by and in the name of Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc.
Lex Ridge Settlement Agl-ee»7ei7t page 3 of 8
9143,11 14895-2 B I J0,L.DOC 5/08/95
14. On October 12, 1994 an order amending the case schedule in King County
cause number 92-2-29569-5 was entered providing, among other things, for a review
hearing or trial on May 10, 1995.
15. It was agreed between representatives of Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc. and
the City of Renton that all of the plaintiff s claims against the City of Renton could be
dismissed if an agreement could be reached on design criteria for the storm drainage
system on the Lexington Ridge site a process for timely consideration of a new site plan
and an agreement regarding the maximum alloxvable units on the site. It was therefore
agreed that the deadlines contained in the case schedule order for filing of briefs would be
adjusted by mutual agreement between the parties although the actual trial date would not
be stricken.
16. On March 17, 1995 a stipulation and order was entered dismissing all of
the plaintiffs claims against all of the individual defendants in King County cause
number 92-2-29569-5.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein
contained, the parties agree as follows:
1. Lexington Ridge Realty, Inc. (or its successors or assignee to the real
property described in Exhibit A to this Agreement) agrees to submit within 180 days
from the date of this agreement a new site plan for development of the Lexington Ridge
property to the City of Renton for approval in accordance with the process agreed upon in
Paragraph 3 of this Agreement.
Lex Ridge Settlement Agreement page 4 of 8
+"14i 1 1 14595-2 B IJ03!.DOC 5/08/95
2. The City of Renton agrees that the standards set forth in this paragraph shall
apply to the drainage system for the Lexington Ridge site, and agrees to approve,
pursuant to Section 4-22-16B of the Renton Municipal Code, a modification of the Storm
and Surface Water Drainage Code standards for the Lexington Ridge site, as follows:
(a) The performance goal for the Lexington Ridge drainage system
will be to minimize or reduce the rate of surface water flowing into the Bronson Way
conveyance system west and south(immediately downstream) of the point of connection
of the Lexington Ridge System.
(b) Water quality wet vaults shall be incorporated into the design of
the detention vaults. The wet vault volume shall be in addition to the active storage
volume of the detention vaults.
(c) The existing 8-inch diameter storm drain in Bronson Way at the
intersection of N.E. 3rd will be replaced. The determination of the final pipe size will be
based on methods described in Section 4.3.4 of the 1990 King County Surface Water
Design Manual ("KCSWDM").
(d) The post development outflows from the Lexington Ridge site for
the 2-year through 100-year design events will not exceed the values given in the table
below:
Lex Ridge Settlement Agreement page 5 of 8
9 143 11 14895-2 131 J03!.DOC 5/08/95
Return Interval Increment*
(CFS)
2 year 0.44
10 year 0.44
25 year 0.50
100 year 0.50
* Increment above "undeveloped" peak flow rate. "Undeveloped"
conditions mean as of the date of this Agreement.
This table is based on allowing increases for the developed peak rate of runoff for
the site to not exceed 0.5 cfs above the undeveloped peak rates of runoff for the 2-year
through the 100-year design storms. By only allowing a negligible increase in developed
peak rates of runoff from the site for the 2-year through the 100-year design storms and
by performing the downstream improvements as specified in this Agreement, the
completed improvements will provide the equivalent surface water management controls
as those required by the KCSWDM.
(e) No volume safety factor will be added to detention volumes since
the system is being designed for detention of a 100-year storm.
(f) No biofiltration will be required. Equivalent water quality controls
are being provided by the wet vaults referenced in section(b).
3. The City of Renton further agrees to process any new site plan for the
Lexington Ridge site in a reasonably timely manner and in substantial conformance with
the time table attached to this agreement as Exhibit B.
4. The City of Renton represents that the applicable zoning designation for the
Lexington Ridge site is Multi-Family Infill District, with a maximum allowable dwelling
Lex Ridge Settlement Agreement page 6 of 8
,14311 14895-2 BIJOI DOC 5/08!95
MHY-09-1995 17:15 FROM S.?S CLAR: ET PL. TO IO12136243380 P.04
MAY- 9-95 TUE 10:13 BARREN, KELL00G FAY W, 12062555474 P, 03
unit density of 10 to 20 Uinta ACT acre,os 25 urats per acre if affordable housing metiag
zonina code rcquirtga Is provided, rue City aglccs to alluW the maximum number of
dweilinZ units per acre on the Laxington Ride site,provided tilt site plan oomplies with
�l,plicablc doy+clopment st=d6zd5.
$. Lexington Rid5c RealtY.Inc,agrees to entry or a Stipulated order
dismissing with prcjudice&11 rcmgizliug olaims W rst tlx City of Renters ander,Kiag
Count? Superio.Court cause number 92-3-29569-5.
6 Vn,Ue and j urlsdictlor,to rnfome the prMiSions of tld$Agroo�e:tt Sbali be
in th-King County Supraior CQart.
7, Thi3 Agm=col is w'w entire agrecrncm txrwcm the panics. Ita terms
cannot be modified, eacept by a sepxate writing between da parties.
S. Tltna iS of tltc essence in tl-ns AFL
9. This Agreement is intended to bind aid inure to the benefit of eacb pstty'r,
heir$,eucvossom sad astdgns.
10, TS1is AgTCOrt1014t 1CC>aZy he Qwo gcrd in cw 1wpai't w4nals. A faesimile
signature of any party Abell be rmognimd as im ofi&A signature.
DATED., May
LU NUI'DN RIDGE R$A►LTY,INC.
Phillip E.l/ambardi
Vice Prealdnnt
LexRidgySrtlTOriaatA eaarant page7ofd
914311 14M-2 >LMDUC SlOWS
MAY- 9-95 TUE 16: 14 WAS, KELLOGG FAX NO. 12062074 P. 04
CITY OF UNTON
By
1`1a�or�E-arllymer
Approved as to fonia; Attest:
City Clcr
City Attorney •^
Lez Ridge Settlement Agreement Page 8 of 8
#14311 14895-2 B 13031.DOC 5108/95
E x=IT A
Legal Description
PARCEL A:
That portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter and
the northwest quarter of the northeast cruarter of Section 17 ,
Township 23 North, Range 5 East , W.M. , in King County, Washington,
lying easterly of Bronson Way 'County Road No . 174 " , northerly of
3rd Avenue North extension as established by the City of Renton, an.,
westerly of the following described line :
Beginning at the intersection of the westerly line of the 200 foot
Puget Sound Power & Light Company right -of way, as delineated on the
Plat of Windsor Hills Addition to Renton, acco:ding to the plat
thereof recorded in Volume 38 of Plats, page 22 , in King County,
Washington, and the southerly line of Southeast 128th Street "Count%
Road No. 174" as delineated on said plat;
thence southwesterly along the southerly line of said street 265 . 70
feet to the northwest corner of Tract of land conveyed to the First
Methodist . Church of Renton, by Deed recorded under Recording Number
5911567, to the true point of beginning of the line herein described
thence south 26°49 `30" east 379 .30 feet;
thence southwesterly 900 feet more or less, to the intersection of
the -north line of 3rd Avenue North Extension as established by the
C� City of Renton and the west -line of -the east 100 feet of the
C) ncrthvjest Tlarter of the northeast quarter of sai
terminus of said line; d Section and the
C�2 EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the City of Renton by Deed recorded
under Recording Number 4494467 described as follows :
The south 425 feet of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter
lying easterly of Bronson Way North, and north of Mt . Olivet
Cemetery Road;
EXCEPT the east 100 feet thereof ; and
EXCEPT the following described Parcels :
"A" Commencing at the southeast corner of the northwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5
East, W.M. , in King County, Washington;
thence north 1011117" east along the east line of said subdivision,
a distance of 425 . 04 feet;
thence north 890361411, west, parallel to and 425 . 00 feet distance
from the south line of said subdivision, a distance of 100 . 01 feet
to the true point of beginning;
(legal description , continued)
- 1-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued :
thence continuing north 89036 ' 41" west , a distance of 141 . 91 feet tc
the easterly margin of Bronson Way North;
thence north 31049 ' 57" east along said easterly margin, a distance
241 . 87 feet ;
thence north 19021 ' 57" east a distance of 15 . 80 feet ;
thence south 61016 ' 4,0" east a distance of 151 . 62 feet ;
thence south 31049157" west, a distance of 236 . 42 feet to a ooint 0-
:a line west of , parallel to and 100 . 00 feet distant to the east line
of said subdivision;
thence north 1011 ' 17" east, a distance of 52 . 83 feet to the true
point of beginning,
"B" Commencing at the southeast corner of the northwest quarter of
the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5
East, W.M. , in King County, Washington,
thence north 1°11 ' 17" east along the east line of said subdivision,
a distance of 425 . 04 feet ;
thence north 89036141" west, parallel to and 425 . 00 feet distant
from the south line of said subdivision, a distance of 141 . 91 feet
to the easterly margin of Bronson Way- North;
thence along said margin north 31049157" east a distance of 241 . 87
feet;
thence north 19021157" east a distance of 76 . 60 feet to the true
point of beginning;
thence continuing north 19021157" east, a distance of 72 . 82 feet;
thence north 52016137" east a distance of 80 . 00 feet;
thence south 37°43103" east, a distance of 138 - 40 feet;
(� thence south 28043 ' 20" west, a distance of 89 . 86 feet;
C�2 thence north 61016140" west, a distance of 147 . 00 feet to the true
e-i point of beginning.
11'?
Q PARCEL B-
That portion of the north half of the northeast quarter of
Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, W.M. , in King County,
Washington, described as follows :
Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly line of right of
way of Puget Sound Power & Light Company with the southerly line of
Southeast 128th Street, as shown on Windsor Hills Addition to
Renton, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 38 of
Plats, page 22 , in King County, Washington;
thence south 26049 ' 30" east along said southwesterly line 450 . 00
feet to the true point of beginning;
( legal description , continued)
-2-
r
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, continued :
thence south 63010 ` 30" west 250 . 00 feet ;
thence southwesterly 900 feet , more or less, to an intersection with
the north 1-ne of 3rd Avenue North extension as established by City
of Renton and existing on September 26 , 1967 , with the west line of
the east 100 . 00 feet of the northwest quarter of the northeast
Quarter of said Section;
thence southerly along said west line to the south line cf the
northwest cruarter of the northeast Quarter of said Section;
thence easterly along the south line of the north half of the
northeast quarter of saidSection to the southwesterly line of said
Puget Sound Power & Light Comnanv richt of way;
thence north 2614913011 west along said southwesterly line to true
point of beginning;
EXCEPT that portion of the northwest quarter of the northeast
quarter of said Section lying south of the north line of a strip of
land Deeded to City of Renton for street by Deed recorded under
Recording Number 5947084 ; and
EXCEPT that portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of said Section lying between the northerly line of the more
northerly strip .of land Deeded to City of Renton for street by Deed
recorded under Recording Number 5684198 and the southerly line of
the more southerly strip of land Deeded to City of Renton by said
Deed; also
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying south of the northerly line of Mt .
Olivet Cemetary Road, as deeded to King County by Deed recorded
under Recording -Number 2722078 ; and
EXCEPT that portion of the south 115 . 00 fee= of the northeast
quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section 17 , lying east of
p said road; also
EXCEPT that portion of the northeast quarter of the northeast
quarter of said Section, deeded to City of Renton for street by Deed
recorded under Recording Number 5947084 .
TOGETHER WITH that portion of Mt . Olivet Cemetery Road, vacated
under Ordinance Number 2329 of the City of Renton, which would
attach to said premises by operation of law.
r
-3-
CITY OF RENTON
11EARING EXAMINER
Cll'Y COUNT r _—
R VIEM PROCESS
1<learlD Examiner City
ERC weeting Post Notices � Council
Receipt-of Tbrr hold Public Decisiatt&lor
Pnv. Decision far T'ttblic 3vTce-titr
ApiAication lNelerrninztion published 1learlag Re:ttriAg �tecommenttation
Staff Frspare Cva,7utux! Appeal 1
Staff Appeal Appeal Pv-d0d
Review Rep"t ^� Period Ews
__ f'criol w
ombi,ycd - Its Days
15 to 17 Days Apprvx. 6 Days tr 13 Days 14 Days 14 Days APProx. H
5 Days 30 Days
' - x
X
w
City staff'or vthatagenelcs may request atklitkmbl informa6oa
dwinl,thr reyicw and tltcision making pro;mts& It is impnc-tant
that the applicaig submit dr.uqucsicclmaterial gWuRly io
avoid delays inthtprouss. Any timeq��ttgatltcrinbtl+tt
and/or addiuowl city review of revisions is noc included in tho
above chart and will-incrtam the furx rcqui.rcd to proccss ttc:
application.
CITY OF RENTON
PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 14, 1995
APR 1
TO: David Dean
U�pt.
FROM: �=n, it Bering
Gregg Zimmerman (y ;7
SUBJECT: Proposed Drainage System Design Criteria For Lexington Ridge
Site
I have carefully reviewed the attached proposal regarding the proposed drainage system design
criteria for the Lexington Ridge site. As Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator I would
support a storm water code modification based upon the attached criteria with the following
revisions. Section 4-22-16B of the Storm and Surface Water Drainage Code grants authority to
the Administrator to grant such a modification.
A) A condition of granting such a modification is that the pending lawsuit against the City
over this project be dropped.
B) Item 2 on the attached criteria be deleted and replaced with the following provision:
"Water quality wet vaults shall be incorporated into the design of the detention vaults.
The volume of the wet vaults shall not be included in the active storage volume of the
detention vaults."
C) Item 3 on the attached criteria be deleted and replaced with the following provision.
"The existing 8-inch diameter storm drain in Bronson Way at the intersection of N.E.
3rd will be replaced. The determination of the final pipe size will be based on
methods described in Section 4.3.4 of the 1990 KCSWCM."
D) Item 4 on the attached criteria be modified by deleting the following wording from the
first sentence:
"In the event the Lexington system is designed to treat on-site flows only (i.e. no off-site
flows from Bronson Way will be diverted for treatment into the Lexington system)"
The added items in B) and C) are not new, and actually repeat language from a letter from Sally
Clark, dated February 11, 1993 (attached).
cc: Ron Straka,Jim Hanson,Neil Watts
MAR 30 '95 11:20AM D0 ENGINEERS, INC
P.2/2
PR POSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
LEXINGTON - a.,..' DESIGN�• CRITERIA FOR
RIDGE SITE
1_ The parties agree the performance goal for the Lexington Ridge drainage system will be to
ace water flowing into the Bronson Way conveyance
minimize or reduce the rate of surf
system west and south (immediately downstream) of the point of connection of the Lexington
system.
2. This goal can be achieved by designing a system on the Lexington site which limits flows
accumulated in the Bronson Way system from off-site lands east (upstream) of Lexington
flows experienced
combined with the flows from the Lexington site to equal or less than those
currently by the Bronson conveyance system immediately downstream of Lexington.
3. In the event the Lexington system is designed to accept and treat water from the Bronson
Way system in addition to its own, the criteria will be that post-development flows calculated
by the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph (SB
1990 King County Surface Water Management Csthod as described in Chapter 3 of the
than the flows in the Bronson system existing � WM) Manual will be equal to or less
through 100-year return events. 8 Prior to Lexington's development for the 2-year
4. In the event the Lexington system is designed to treat on-site flows only (i.e. no off-site flow
from Bronson Way will be diverted for treatment into the Lexington System), the s
development outflows from the Lexington ) post
lsite for the 2-year through 100-year design events
will not exceed the values given in the table below:
Return SBUH Calculated
Interval Undeveloped Flow Increment SBUH Calculated
CFS (CFS) Post Developed Flow
2 ear 0.16 CFS
10 ear 0.44 0.60
U. 0.44
25 ear 0.63 0.85
100 ear 0.50 1.13
0.89 0.50
1.39
This table is based on increases not exceeding 0.5 cfs for any event through the 100- ear
The KCSWM manual categorically exempts projects development, do not from detention which, after
increase offsite flows more than 0.5 cfs for Therefore, adhering to this criteria will produce a site whose outflow 100-year events.
characteristics would
otherwise classify it as exempt_
5- No volume safety factor will be added to detention volumes. KCSWM does not re uir
volume safety factor where designs contemplate 100-year events. q e a
6. No biofiltration will be required.
870750SO.DOC;0324.gS; Page:1
! i
• H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N •
A Prof'c sional Service Corpoi,mo t
7,00 Galland Ruilding, 1221 Second"VCnuc
Seattle, Atiashin""ton 08IU1-2'12:�
�4_
February 11, 1993
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren IVCity Attorney ��
City of Renton O
P.O. Box 2 S. 2ndStreet
Renton, WA 98057 NS4N
�( pePt,
Re: Lexington Ridge ON,,neeC'OV'
Dear Larry:
Thank you for arranging the meeting on January 14 , 1993 to
discuss a possible settlement and some modifications to the
Lexington Ridge project. As we discussed at that meeting, before
we can finalize any design alternatives, we need to come to an
agreement with the City on the storm drainage design parameters
and other conditions applicable to the project.
As you know, since our meeting, Gregg Zimmerman and Bruce
Dodds have had several discussions about the storm drainage
issue, and have reached a consensus regarding the design of the
system for this site. The purpose of this letter is to summarize
our understanding of the engineers' agreement, and to propose
necessary modifications to the applicable conditions of the site
plan approval.
Storm Drainage
The conditions of site plan approval relating to storm
drainage are found in the ERC Report dated April 15, 1989 , as
modified on May 16, 1989, and June 15, 1989. The conditions are
set forth in paragraphs C. 2 . (a) and (e) on page 7 of the ERC
Report. We propose that Condition C, 2 , (a) be amended as follows
to delete the general reference to the Garth Cray memo and add
the specific language from the Garth Cray memo that relates to
biofiltration:
C. 2 . (a) . That the applicant provide a tightline storm
drainage system;--f,See-&f -Ga� i
e�ap`.--Ptble`- ar`Its 9epa� xie�r .-} (due to concerns
of the slope of the property and project location
biofiltration will not be required) ;
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
February 11, 1993
Page 2
We also propose that Condition C.2 . (e) be amended in its
entirety as follows to clarify the design parameters of the
system and delete the reference to the Garth Cray memo and any
requirement to analyze the downstream capacity of the system.
C. 2 . (e) . That--t-lte -4ete2tt-i-a2r-&Yat-O--M
aepar�aten�.---fNster-'Pk�g-g�s"t-erx-�-g-t-a-be
eeara ra -w-t-tlg-eEe[,��rs resx�-susteat-eapse �-
atrPP even -ta-earr�-s-2-S wear-eterat-and
neerperarn�-a-tea wear-s"t-arat -gin
s-great-Elie-gate-€ar-thatr-tea pear-starat-aa-a
regtr� -a€-�eb e�epaten .---'Plte-d et-en an-ads tern
eapae�-��f-eles�n-s"katr�-be pra��d�,basec�-rxpa�
dada pra��elee�-�n-s�t��-es"-�:en�tte�-�-n-eanj-trne��-an
jff&thaed -m&2ta- rant-6art-J?r-Gras-Ptx19� e
w&rlte"9epar aterr -}
That the applicant provide a detention system
which limits the post-development stormwater
discharge rates from the project to the existing
drainage system in Bronson Way as follows:
Design Event Discharge (cfs)
2-year 0. 60
10-year 0. 85
25-year 1. 15
100-year 1. 40
The discharge rates will be computed using SCS
hydrograph methods as described in the 1990 King
County Surface Water Design Manual chapter 3
The_Manual's "factor of safety" requirement
(Section 1. 2 . 3-3) shall not be applied to detention
facility sizing. The system may provide detention
for off-site flows in addition to on-site flows
if such off-site flow detention is approved by the
Public Works Department Water quality controls
shall be provided in the detention vault(s)
directly connected to the off-site system in
Bronson Way. The existing 8-inch diameter storm
1
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
February 11, 1993
Page 3
drain in Bronson Way at the intersection of N.E.
3rd Street will be replaced. The determination
of the final pipe size will be based on methods
described in Section 4 . 3 . 4 of the KCSWDM.
Puget Power Right-of-Way
If the number of dwelling units is reduced sufficiently to
eliminate the need to provide additional parking on the Puget
Power right-of-way, we also ask that Hearing Examiner Condition
No. 5 be deleted.
Mitigation Fees
Please confirm that the modified project will be subject to
the mitigation fees (e.g. , SUCC fees, TBZ fees) applicable to
the original site plan approval and building permit application,
as modified by any change in the number or type of units and/or,
in the case of TBZ fees, actual per-trip fees currently imposed
by the City (not to exceed $288 . 00 per trip) . ERC Condition No.
C. 6. (c) (3) should be amended to reflect any adjustment in the TBZ
mitigation fee. Please also confirm that any fee ordinance
enacted subsequent to filing of the original building permit
application will not apply to the modified project.
We appreciate the City's willingness to work with us to
achieve a good result for all parties. We hope that we can come
to an agreement on the design parameters and go forward with the
development of this site. Thank you for your help. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Very truly yours,
Sally H. Clarke
SHC:kkh
cc: Mr. Jim Hanson
Mr. Gregg Zimmerman
Canada America Associates
Dodds Engineers
Mr. Iry Sandman
2 1 5 6 9 1
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 1, 1995
TO: David Dean, Assistant City Attorney
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman (277-621 1)
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka (277-5548) 4d
SUBJECT: LEXINGTON RIDGE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
As we had discussed on Friday, April 28, 1995, the following is the suggested wording
of Section #4 of the above-referenced agreement:
"This table is based on allowing increases for the developed peak
rates of runoff for the site to not exceed 0.5 cfs above the
undeveloped peak rates of runoff for the 2-year through the 100-year
design storms. By only allowing a negligible increase in developed
peak rates of runoff from the site for the 2-year through the 100-year
design storms and by performing the downstream improvements as
specified in this agreement, the completed improvements will provide
the equivalent surface water management controls as those required
by the City of Renton adopted 1990 King County Surface Water
Design Manual. The alternative system can be approved by the City
of Renton by the granting of a Code Modification Alteration request."
If you have any questions regarding the suggested wording, please contact me or Ron
Straka.
H:DOCS:95-364:RJS:ps
APR-26z 95 WED 14:21 WARR KELLOGG FAK 1d4. 120 5474 P. 02
fZPR-2£a-199� 11--53 FRCI "1 .LI9cLR K � T — 2.-474 P.02
La+r ofacc*
• HiLLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETRR5ON ' -
A R4ec4 A Semi..Corporamon
Sw CmUld bu"M i Zl Set"tw"=
Sea*Wbtnswn ss1Q14M
(Zos)sz3-i7a5 P.o — tZOG)OD-7789
Apol26,1995
David M. Dam ;rfa Faasfiwe
Assigmat Cry AtboMy
City of R tm
P.4.Box 626
Reffft, WA 98057
RW LW Wan Rya Realty. Inc. Y. CIO,o.fRento,% King C40W* S''rFQ�
CM41 Na 92-2-2956"
Dear TMvid:
I flt2l enclosing a o0py of your proposed Setde=ent Aft,with some
MW9estad cbangw based tupan my disevWk=with Phil Lombardi Emd Bn=Dodds. I
Iook forward to di=ussi09 the Wecm=l with you at ow meeting Phis moan at 3:00
pm. Sea you'then.
Vay truly YUUM,
Sarah E.Mack
<W/jS0ul.)r, Phil Lombardi
Brume Dodds
fish t4a9Si2 of u.rc�c
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.002
APR-26-95 WED 14:22 WiqRRdb KELLOGG FAX No. 120055474 P. 03
1 L=54 FR0M7MvHILLISCLFW TO ;n!5 74 P.87
.01
oil the beit"iterr-Ridge peepe*Uy. l.t �ri ll-C� .
>a>jffir
2.A The City of Renton a stoma water code
modification ragardfng the proposed drainage system designed for
the Lexington Ridge sYtei �sek th a
66ilthtss#r��----g3•.��3.L'eJd-----�'�--rt3x. - �.�,�"���ers• —ia-�----L e
by Section 4-22-16a of
the Storm and Surface Water Drainage Code of the City of Renton.
Gk.Lk a �t-M� 4#9a
The the Ott modification •�'- _•^._ .��_ _ �a _
Mart...
for the Lexington Ridge site��-�
6064 as follows:
(1) The performance goal for the
Lexington Ridge drainage system, will be to minimize or reduce the
rate or surface water flowing into the Bronson Way conveyance
system west and south (immediately downstream) of the point of
co=ection of the Lexington tem.
(2) Water quality wet vaults shall be incorporated into the
ALa
design of the detention vaults. The
to ueto shall
SO i O�d./•i�+
be a the active storage vvoimn of the detention
vaults, -i 6 QIJ-Qk -k (h,,
(3) The existing 8-inch diameter storm Grain in Bronson Way
of
at the izitersection to N.E. 3rd will be replaced. The
determination of the final pipe size will be based on methods
descri.bQdIMAIIA - is Seytion 4.3. 4 of the 1990 gg�
(4) The pos%-development outflows from the Lexingtcn.0te for
the 2-year through 100-yeas design events will not exceed the
values given in the table below:
SETTLEMENT AGRLEMENT - S
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.003
A R-26-95 WED 14:23 WARR KELLOGG FAX No' 120 55474 R04
_ .. �.. L • ,� r ILLISCt.F C To 2555474 P.08
Rotusa IntarVAI HUB Calculs VUH Calctuatto
eveloped ow {CFS) t Develo
�► (CF
2 Car 0,44
10 yens 0.44 .e
25 your Q.89 0.50 1.1.3
104 ear 0.88 0.50 1.39
y4
This table i5 based an increases not exceeding 0.5 cts for .
`th augh the 100--yearTbs K�,b4�D categorically exempts
dlatsa4U& which, after development, do not increase
offsite flows more than 0.5 cts for 100,year events, Therefore,
of [AM i4iwq p"- te s
f* ppcaaf�devr cep # ;tests +o a. b dev g4+
adhering to tf3is csiter�,aA will produce a site whose Autflow�
characteristics would otherwise classify it as exemp rr�
(5) No vol.true safety -factor will1 be added to detention c°
.. .�..�,�`-.. is 1� -r"'- �e:."a Y v u 1`-v
Wh ewe—
(6) No biofiltration will be required. W°-Vv-,�M W a
r —_ s S �,J 'CL-( Cr L )1e
v- y'r
31e. The cit Yfu�he agrees to A g pxoces' any new site plan for
AAA b4
the ngton Ridge site in a reasonably timely manner
attached
to this agreement as Exhibit S.
�. The CitY14�resTnts that the applicable Zoning designation
for the Lexington Ridge site iB Xulti-Family Infill Distsict;�
SETTLEMENT AGRR: ` T - 6
r�
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.004
APR-26-95 WED 14:23 WARR. KELLOGG FAX N0. 120W5474 P. 05
r Hit-LISCLAW To 2555444 P_09
i4-k ek-
A maximum allowable dwelling unit density
Cf10
DY $ Lt,s cab &A&f, W +
to 20 units per acre
affordable hou4ing
�,�rGt.�.�{,� IS F'l��" �M1.@.�tl�.� tbi• `�rt.L Qr9�.G.. � r,
' e
o�.,f�-s- �.i �rx. l�.titsyt. ���- '�+�t�Gt.�t. his.. S����-•�.C.. t�i�
setback requirements and other
s�t�td
applicable .sections t the Cu
FX
This Agreement is the entire agreement between the
e$. Its term cannot be .modified, except by a separate
ng betwoon the parties,
V. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.Thie Agreement is intended to bind each +i�e* halre,
ssors, annd assigns.
2f. This Agreement may be exeouted in counterpart originals.
caimilc signature of any party shall be recognized as an
original signature.
�'�ipu•�.lt��Llt. Oy'��-- d-tm�uirs�'t� et.G[. /L ���
•ux&uAL4, �&y De"t
4v
R,�BG6' �,f,�.. It•4•f'Lt..�tiL �,+a�s. %�.�.ra4k,t.�(.. tie..
SETTLF.M�NT AGREEI�EN�' - 7 �dr4•E•h. � •
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.005
APR-26-95 WED 14:27 WARR*KELLOGG FAX NO. 120�55474 P. 10
a J7J s t•�m r-mJn 1 LL I SCL-FW TO 25SS474 P.14
APR--2D-95 THU 8:25 UARREN, I[Et.i.O00 PMX tau. JZU64 r,z414
1C f{ 1 B�tr Z
Li L fit
filla .
TOTAL P.14
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX NO.0653 P.010
APR-26-95 WED 14:26 WARRVKELLOGG FAX H0, 120#&55474 P. 09
- -- -v-•• ��•w rMA, l" I to dC TO 2555474 P-13
i
LEGAL =CRIPTION, continueds
thOOCO South 63410f30" west 2SO.00 feet;
thence southwesterly 9Qo teat, roams or less, to an intersection with
the north line of 3rd Avenue North extension as established by City
of Renton and existing on September 26, 1567, with the west line of
the► east 100.44 feet of the northwest cluartax of the northeast
Quarter of 'said Section; i
thence southerly along said west line to tre south line of the
aorthWoot quarter of the northeast quarter of said Suction;
thence easterly along the south line of the north half of the
northeast quarter of said section to the southwesterly line of said
Puget Sound Power & sight COX= right of era
thence north Z6649 '30M west along said southwesterly line to true
point. of begin Las; i
L CEVT that portion of the northwest lruartey of the ndrt�ssast
gwwrter of said BaaGior, lying south of the north line of a strip of
and Deedecl to City of Renton for street by Deed recorded under Recording Number 5947024, and )
EXCEPT portion 'of the n=thmast quarter of the northeast
quarter of said Section Lying between the northerly line of the more
northerly strip .of land Deeded to city of Renton for street by Deed
re=rded under Recording Number 5684198 and the southerly line of
the More southerly strip of land Deeded to City of Renton by Said
Deeds also
EXCEPT that portion thereof lying south of the northerly line of Nt, i
Olivet Cemettexy Road, as deeded to King County by peed re=riled
under Recording •Numbex 27220781 andEXCEPT
'
uarte
that
quarte portion of the south 115, 00 feet Of the northeast
V? qr of the northeast quarter of 0aid section 17, lying east of '
said road; also i
EXCEPT that portion Of the northeast quarter of the northeast
guarter of said Section, deeded to City of Renton for &treat by Deed
recorded under Recording Number 5947084 .
?OGETHRR WITH that �rtfon of Mt. Olivet Cemetery Road,. vacated
under Ordinance Number 2329 Cf the Cit csf Renton. which would
attach ro said premises by operation of law.
1
i
• i
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.009
APR-26-95 WED 14:25 WARRAKELLOGG FOX NO, 120W5474 P. 08
-- ---- -- •,. • nut ,�d i To 2-Z 474 P.12
LEGAL DWCRYPT10N. continued r
therOc& =patlnuing north 89036`4l" west, a distance of 141 .91 feet 'to'
trip easterl margin of Bronson way Northr
thence north 31049 .57a east• along said easterly margin, a distance
241. 87 feet;
thence north X90211S7" vast a distance of 2.5 .6o feet;
thence South 61'1614.0# east a djstance of 151. 62 feeci
the-ace south 31649157•' wemt, a distance Of 236 .42 feet to a po�,I1C ail
o lice w ub iv parall+�l to and zoo.o0 feet diecant to the east line
o! said suhdf�ri�ivn: ,
thence Borth 1021127" east, a dictanae of 52. 93 feet to the true i pos-nt of beginning,
"8^ CQmm=Ing at the southeast corner of the northwest the northeast quarter of Section 17, Townahi.p 23 North, RArige 5r of
Bast, . w.M. . in y4ng County, washingg��on; )
thence north 1611117N east along the east limb of said subdivisidz�,
IL distance of 42S.04 feetT
thszica north 89°36'41a west, Par'a1�,e1 to and 425.00 feet distanttrC�a the south Z o£ said subdivision, a distance of 141.91 feet
tea the easterly margin of Branson Way,North;
th*4ce alcug said margin north 31049157" east a distance of .242.87 {
feet;
theaca north 3.90211570 east a distance of 76.60 feet to the true
rio .tit of beegginAinCTT
th a6r eouutiriuing north 19-21157" east, a 8astmaOC of 72.$2 feet: i
rtherreg �douth 37A 26 f 37n east a rrtistaaae of
43 03 east,, a distance o f8138. 0 feet;
thence South 28,043420^ west 38.40 £ect;
thence earth 61Q16 '40ry west, a distance oance f 347. 00ffeet to the true
point of beginning.
That portion of the north half of the .northeast quarter of
Sdct!On 17, Township 23 berth, Range S East, W.M t
Washington, described as fol,loars: 3n Xi n9 county, .
Beginning at the intersection of the sous w
wQY Of Puget Sound FOwer & Light cry yy h e$terly line of rigght of
southcast 128th street, ai shown on�WfndSarith. the
lls so.thAddit oz ytoine of _
Plato
according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 38 of
plats, page 22, in Icing Count . Wash'
thence g¢uth 26049130w cast s ang said southwsscexly line 4SO. 0t?
feet to the true point of beginning;
i
(legal der-cripti,on, vontinued) r
04/26/95 13: 22 TX/RX NO.0653 P.008
APR-26-85 WED 14:24 WARRA KELLOGG FAK NO. 120�5474 P. 07
_ •• •.,.. a i•. r r t t!.t 5C TO 2.555474 P.11
PXKMriA .
That paxCian of the riarth040V "tarter of the northeast quarter and
the nort2ist quarter of "the.':�xo -t�3east guartgr of Section 17,
Township 23. Vorth, 'tangs S t;_'f W:.M. , In King County, Washington.
lying .aastarly of H Us ty toad xo. 174", northerly of
3s'd Avv•e�nue North ex t sion -�Iished by the city of Renton, and
w+astOrly of the following• ed lines
sagisraing at the izteraea ifi r f- (the westerly line of the 2O0 foot
Puget 9ouad Power 1, Liggh�t: s_L"oeppar�y� right -Of way, as delineated an the
Plat of Windsbr Hil].r� 9dit#dn 't:Q Renton, aecordi ng to the plat
thereof recorded in volu"W �3.9'!.cj -Plats, .page 22, is Xing CMMCy,
Washington, mind the. South exl°y�l•,•�,. of southeast 128th Street a_V'
Road No. 174" as delineatsd on Said plat;
theme southwasterly aionge, th& Bou"ark line of said street 263.70
feet to the northwest cori�ez '¢f''q�act o� lea$ cox�vc ed to the First
rtathodist.Church of Rent:oa, � f:eca -ded under pacp 5911587, to trhe true o#.rtc of heir of the line herei�escribedi
th=CO GOUth 26-49'30 eq&t 319..• 1D
thence sauthwesterly goo feet-w6i or less, to the intersectie¢3 of
the,north line of 3rd Avenue 3oxthtgn8ior► as establ3.ahed by the
City of Raatoa. and the west -line ox .th+e east 1o0 fame~ 4f the
nBrChwest ter of the northeast quarter of said seCtixM and the
terminus o said lins;
EXCEPT t;ha p�rtion canveyed 'to the City of Renton by Dated racorded
under Recaxdiri ' NuMber 4494467 desoxibed as follows s
The south 425 eet o€. the northwest quarter of the Aartbeast
Wing easterly of $ron$on way North, acrid north
Cemetery Road; of Mt. Olivet quarter
EXCEPT the east ZOO feet thereoff and
EXCEPT the fc -Owing desczibed Paramle
"A" Cammeneing at the souteati�t earner of the nortbw@at
the northeast quarter csf h"bt 17, Toe,► Quarcer of
nst, W.M. . in King County; W�Uhjo ton; s3ghip 23 NQrCht Range S
Chance north 1"11.37p east. a,rong the east line of said subdivision,
a distance of 425.04 feet,
thence earth, 4 "
$9�35 ' �
from the sout west] p irtl ;let to and 415.00 feet di.sCance
from h line of said' .st�dfvisiorr, a d�.sCance of �.04.41 feet
Go the true, poiztt of-beginfUji
{legml des 'r �tldn', continued)
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.007
RPR-2$-06 WED 14:24 NARRAh KELLOGG FAX No. 120W5474 P. 06
.. cv-ia�a ii:� ILLIG TO 2551474 P.lO
.p F. �M
Mayor Earl Clymer
1.7.1/lexi.ngt.age
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - $
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX NO.0653 P.006
APR-26-95 WED 14:21 WARRqf KELLOGG FAX NO. 120VW5474 P. 01
♦ TRANSMITTAL MEMO
WARREN, KEL LOGG, BARBER, CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED
DEAN & FOIE TE.S, P.S.
•
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(206)M-,%76 Method of Delivery r{t
POST OFFICE BOX 626.160 SOUTI I SECOND STREET ( Mail ' l•l
PENTON.WASHLNG LON 9W57 ( ) Hand Del
FAX NUMBER: 206-255--%74 ((° ` Fax No.
( ) Other
( ) lYansmiwion Completed
This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the addressee. Do not
read, copy or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received this Fax in
error,please call us (collect) immediately at(206) 255-8678, and mail the original Fax to
P.O.Box 626 Renton, Washington 96057.
TO: ZOrs ryV JZ-ry-0-1-)
FROM:
DATE.
RE: r
We have cnclosed the following document(s):
DATE DESCRIPTION
( ) FOP, YOUR LXFORMATION ( } PER YOUR REOUEST
FOR SIGNATURE AND RETURN ( ) PER OUR CONVERSATION
FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ( ) PER OUR AGREEMENT
FOR XECESSARY ACTION ( } SEE REMARKS BELOW
( ) FOR YOLK i ILEs ( )
( } FOR YOUR APPROVAL
( j APPROVED AS NOTED
FOR FAX TRANSIKIrrAL
This transmission Consists of pages, including this cover page. If for some reason
you do not receive all of the pages, or it is not legible, please contact our office immediately.
Remarks.
04/26/95 13:22 TX/RX N0.0653 P.001
.+ + .�.. ia Muni I ✓v✓✓. LI1V111LLR.7l 11l�, HL7/z
PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA FOR
LEXINGTON RIDGE SITE
1. The parties agree the performance goal for the Lexington Ridge drainage system will be to
minimize or reduce the rate of surface water flowing into the Bronson Way conveyance
system west and south (immediately downstream) of the point of connection of the Lexington
system.
2. This goal can be achieved by designing a system on the Lexington site which limits flows
accumulated in the Bronson Way system from off site lands east (upstream) of Lexington
combined with the flows from the Lexington site to equal or less than those flows experienced
currently by the Bronson conveyance system immediately downstream of Lexington.
3. In the event the Lexington system is designed to accept and treat water from the Bronson
Way-sys tern in addition to its own, the criteria will be that post-development flows calculated
by the San arbara Urban Hydrograph (SBUH) method as described in Chapter 3 of the
1990 King County Surface Water Management (KCSWM) Manual will be equal to or less
than the flows in the Bronson system existing prior to Lexington's development for the 2-year
through 100-year return events.
4. In the event the Lexington system is designed to treat on-site flows only (i.e. no off-site flows
from Bronson Way will be diverted for treatment into the Lexington System), the post
development outflows from the Lexington site for the 2-year through 100-year design events
will not exceed the values given in the table below:
Return SBUH Calculated Increment SBUH Calculated
Interval Undeveloped Flow (CFS) Post Developed Flow
CFS CFS
2 year 0.16 0.44 0.60
10 ear 0.41 0.44 0.85
25 year 0.63 0.50 1.13
100 year 0.89 0.50 1.39
This table is based on increases not exceeding 0.5 cfs for any event through the 100-year.
The KCSWM manual categorically exempts projects from detention which, after
development, do not increase offsite flows more than 0.5 cfs for 100-year events.
Therefore, adhering to this criteria will produce a site whose outflow characteristics would
otherwise classify it as exempt.
5. No volume safety factor will be added to detention volumes. KCSWM does not require a
volume safety factor where designs contemplate 100-year events.
6. No biofiltration will be required.
8707SOSD.DOC;03/2V95; Page:1
4
0 Law Offices is
H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N •
A Professional Service Corporation
500 Galland Building,1221 Second Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101-2925
(206)623-1745 Facsimile(206)623-7789
August 11, 1993 �� -*
12 1993
F,U
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
City Attorney CITY OF RENTON
City of Renton Engineering UEpc.
P. O. Box 626
Renton, Wash ngton 98017
Re: Lexington Ridge
Dear Mr. Warren:
Thank you for your letter of August 9 , 1993 . Our client,
the Trustee in Bankruptcy, is pleased that Dodds Engineers and
the City's Public Works staff have apparently been able to reach
agreement on certain critical issues involving the drainage
system for this property.
The Trustee is actively marketing the property now, in
order to involve the eventual developer in further detailed
discussions with the City regarding revisions to the site plan.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter, and we hope to be
back in touch with you soon.
Very truly yours,
Sarah E. Mack
cc: Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
Lynn Guttmann
Xr egg Zimmerman
n Straka
Grahame Ross
Bruce Dodds
3 1 8 3 6 9
illo
CITY F !RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lawrence J. Warren
August 9 , 1993
Ms . Sally H. Clarke
LU
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
500 Galland Bldg. [,,Uu 10 1993
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-2925 CITY OF RENTON
ngineering Dept.
Re: Lexington Ridge Apartments Project
Dear Ms Clarke: 1
A recent review of our records indicates that a significant period
of time has elapsed since we last heard from you regarding the
Lexington Ridge Apartment Project . Our last correspondence to you
dated March 15, 1993 (attached) provided the City ' s response to
the latest drainage system proposal presented to the City by Dodds
Engineers, Inc . Since we have not heard from you, your client, or
from Dodds Engineers since the date of the letter, we felt it
appropriate to contact you and let you know that the ball for this
project has been back in your court since the middle of March,
1993 . Please let me know if you have a different understanding
regarding the status of this project .
Ver truly yours,
Lawrence . Warren
LJW:as .
cc : Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
Lynn Guttmann
Gregg Zimmerman
;'Ron Straka
Grahame Ross, 800 Bellevue Way, Suite 400 , Bellevue, WA
98004
Bruce Dodds , Dodds Engineers, Inc. , 4205 148th Avenue NE,
Bellevue, WA 98007
A9 . 99 : 96 .
Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678
THIS PAPER CONTAINS 50%RECYCLED MAT ERIA.1-10%POST CONSUMER
• 0
�% �: CITY OF RENTON
4 ` Office of the City Attorney
Earl Clymer, Mayor
March 15, 1993 MAR 17 1993
CITY Of RENTON
Ms. Sarah E. Mack Engineering Dept
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
500 Galland Building
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-2925
Re: Lexington Ridge Proiect
Dear Ms. Mack:
The City of Renton has been reviewing information from Bruce Dodds about a drainage system for the
Lexington Ridge Project. We have been asked to give a preliminary indication on whether or not Mr.
Dodds' drainage system will be approved by the City of Renton. Preliminarily, the City of Renton is
willing to state that it will most likely approve a code modification or alteration request and approve the
drainage system. However, you should be aware that the city's approval is subject to a number of
contingencies including Mr. Dodds providing the necessary engineering details, and resolution of the other
issues surrounding this case including submittals of the modified site plan. I would anticipate that we
would sign a global agreement of some sort and submit that agreement to the city council.
In prior conversations with Sally Clarke I indicated that my preference was to take the entire matter to the
city council. Since there is on-going litigation and we are using that litigation as a means of prolonging site
plan approval and the validity of building permits, I believe it necessary to obtain the city council's
approval to settle the lawsuit. At that time, any major modifications to the site plan could also be approved
by the cit}, council (providing that staff has also approved). There was some early comment that the
density of the project would be dropped more than 10% except that there was concern that a major
modification to the site plan had to be approved, and the developer wanted to avoid that step. Since we will
already be in front of the city council, I don't see this as a major problem.
I hope that this preliminary indication of the city's intentions is sufficient for you to begin work to provide
the city with the necessary details of your proposal.
i
ly yours,
C; �Lawrence J. W
LJW:as.
cc: Mayor Earl Clymer
Jay Covington
Lvnn Guttmann
JGregg Zimmerman
Ron Straka
A8.95:38.
Post Office Box 626 - 100 S 2nd Street - Renton, Washington 98057 - (206)255-8678
W O c o�
: ... :.... . .. . .: .. vT � "... .... .... .... ....
;..... .. .... .: . ..... .. . .... . .. ... . .. �:.
:....:......... .... ... �ij. .fie... ..../ U....:...., .. .... .... � 1 . . .: ..r ... �,1... ....
.......................
............
.......
. .e .. ...........r --e...:...... 1�1. '........... .. ............ .................................
........
.. .. :Qjv/ ..
:. . .. .. . . c. ` c ..;...... ..............:....
.:. .:. .:. .:. .:. .:.
. . . . . .. . . . .
... ... ... ... .. :o...... ..
................. .................. . ............. .
:....:....:.... ......... .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• ... :::..::......................:.................................::..:...a.............................Y..'.:'..............'..�...........::::.......................:.::...0....�.......1.r.
....:�....y,...j..�.............../............:.:.'...............:..:...............:......:.�:...�.::°.
.r. ...
.d.... ...:.
.:
o
:...�..o...,...:
......P......�..:..''........./::•....�.....1....
G
.�-..s.................................................................................:....................................... . ..... ...
. . . . . .................: . . ................:........1 .......... �
.gZ.....
...
:v.1..........
.o...
.:.7.:...
....`......
....:. :.... � ..... ................... ..............
..... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .......
..
..:.........:... ... ..... ...
... . :
.. .. ... ..
.. .. ...; ..
......... 1 .........�:. ....... . .��.� �...
................... . . : .: ...
.... .. .. .. ......... % Q .
...... .... ......... . � .. ..
.... .... .... .... .
...�. ....... ..... ...
G..n..... . . . . ... ..... .
... .............................................. ... .. .
.. .. ..:......... K . ..
�......
/. ... ..a.. .... . ... .......:... .... ......... .
A
.....4�-
..l�i►...
:....(/�.►.�..1..' ...... ... . .. ... . !'.... :. .. ......... ....:.... ....(�/�!1 .dC. fig v:�...
�: / °��
i - f
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 11 , 1993
TO: Lynn Guttmann
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman G
STAFF CONTACT: Ron Straka
SUBJECT: Issue Paper - Lexington Ridge Surface Water Management
ISSUE:
Lexington Ridge development project's compliance with City Storm and Surface Water
Management Ordinance and code modification request.
BACKGROUND:
The Lexington Ridge development project cannot meet the adopted City of Renton
Surface Water Management regulations without significant site and economic impacts.
The applicant feels that the strict requirements are preventing the development of the
property.
The applicant's engineer has proposed to submit a Code Modification/Alteration
request. The request would allow the site to discharge post-developed runoff (with
detention) from the site at a slightly higher rate than the pre-developed runoff rate
which is required by the City Code. The post-developed runoff rates after detention
would not be greater than 0.50 cfs above the existing conditions (pre-developed)
runoff.
The City-adopted King County Surface Water Design Manual exempts proposed
projects from having to provide detention if the proposed project site post-developed
peak runoff rate (without detention) for the 100-year, 24-hour duration design storm
event is calculated to be less than 0.50 cfs more than the pre-developed peak runoff
rate for the proposed project sited existing runoff conditions. This is considered to be
a negligible peak runoff rate increase.
The Code Modification Request must satisfy the following requirements:
f - 7
Lynn Guttmann i
Lexington Ridge Surfacelater Management
Page 2
1 . The applicant's engineer must submit a formal code modification request for our
review and consideration which satisfies the code modification requirements and
thresholds contained in Ordinance No. 4342. In addition the code modification
request must:
A. Demonstrate that compliance with the code is impracticable due to cost,
size, site impacts and geology. The code modification request must
demonstrate the unreasonableness of controlling the post-developed 2-year,
24-hour design storm peak runoff rate to the pre-developed 2-year, 24-hour
design storm peak runoff rate of 0.16 cfs. The code modification request
must compare the size, cost and site impacts of the facility required by the
code with the facility proposed as part of the code modification request.
B. The applicant's engineer must certify that in the engineer's best professional
judgment the code modification will not significantly impact the downstream
system and associated properties.
C. If the code modification request is approved, it will only be valid for the
current approved site plan (SA-082-87), or any modifications of the site plan
approved by the City under number SA-082-87.
D. As a condition of the code modification request approval, the applicant must
improve the downstream storm system located in Bronson Way such that it
has adequate capacity to convey runoff from tributary drainage area
including the project site. This will involve upsizing 6" and 8" diameter pipe
to a larger size (probably 12") within a limited area of Bronson Way and NE
3rd Street.
JUSTIFICATION FOR APPROVING A CODE MODIFICATION REQUEST:
If we accept the premise that the strict adherence to the Surface Water Code for this
particular project is impracticable, then the justification for approving the code
modification request is:
1 . It will allow the site to be developed.
2. It may prevent a major lawsuit.
3. The WSDOT is currently performing downstream improvements which will be
increasing available capacity in the downstream system. This increase in
available capacity has not been quantified.
4. If the applicant completes the downstream improvements in Bronson Way, a
small part of the known downstream capacity problem will be resolved.
However, the major capacity limitation in the trunk line will not be improved.
JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT APPROVING A CODE MODIFICATION REQUEST:
1 . The approval of the code modification could set a bad precedent. If we grant it
for this project then why not for other projects?
2. Project will not comply with City Code.
` Lexington Ridge Surface4ater Management
Page 3
3. Potential downstream impacts may still occur even with the proposed Bronson
Way downstream improvements and the ongoing WSDOT improvements.
4. The City could appear to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in that
we approved this code modification request, but rejected the previous one back in
August, 1992. We have some real concern that such an approval might be used
against us in pending court action.
5. Potential increase in code modification requests for other projects which will
require addition staff time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff (reluctantly) recommends that we consider a code modification request for the
Lexington Ridge project provided that the applicant complies with the above
referenced code modification request requirements. This is a borderline call, and we
could certainly be convinced to go the other way.
H:\division\utilities\storm\lexridg.doc:ad
CC: Neil Watts
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 15, 1993
TO: Larry Warren
Lynn Guttmann
Jim Hanson
Ron Straka
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman C-
SUBJECT: Lexington Ridge -Letter dated February 11, 1993, from Hillis
Clark Martin & Peterson
I have received a copy of the attached letter and read through it. I have the following specific
comments:
1. Page 1, second paragraph, the statement "Gregg Zimmerman and Bruce Dodds have had
several discussions about the storm drainage issue, and have reached a consensus
regarding the design of the system for this site" is over-stated. Mr. Dodds proposed an
option which Ron Straka and I felt has promise, but we did not reach "consensus" on design
approach. We will need to review a revised drainage report which verifies peak runoff rates
in the range predicted by Mr. Dodds before we can reach any sort of consensus on design
approach.
2. Page 2., C.2.(e)., second to last sentence on page 2 should be deleted and replaced with
the sentences "Water quality wet vault(s) shall be incorporated into the design of the
detention vault(s). The volume of the wet vault(s) shall not be included in the active storage
volume of the detention vault(s)."
3. Page 3, Mitigation Fees. This issue will have to be further explored by all of us
(Planning/Building/Public Works Department and City Attorney).
I remain of the conviction that we should not agree to anything until the plaintiff removes the names
of Lynn Guttmann and Jim Hanson from their various actions against the City. Unless directed
otherwise by my superiors, I am not inclined to expend any more staff time on parties operating in
bad faith.
LEX-1/GZAf
• H I L L I S C L A R K M A R T I N & P E T E R S O N
A Professional Scrvice Corporation
7100 Gallend Building, 1221 Scaani:b:enuC
Scattic,Washington t)8I(_II-"o
(200)62 i-1 i 4� I'ai>imilc
February 11, 1993
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
City Attorney
City of Renton O
P.O.00 Box 2 S. 2nd
1 Street FEB ��' 1993
Renton, WA 98057 NZ4N
Re: Lexington Ridge Eng1r8gC��g
Dear Larry:
Thank you for arranging the meeting on January 14, 1993 to
discuss a possible settlement and some modifications to the
Lexington Ridge project. As we discussed at that meeting, before
we can finalize any design alternatives, we need to come to an
agreement with the City on the storm drainage design parameters
and other conditions applicable to the project.
As you know, since our meeting, Gregg Zimmerman and Bruce
Dodds have had several discussions about the storm drainage
issue, and have reached a consensus regarding the design of the
system for this site. The purpose of this letter is to summarize
our understanding of the engineers' agreement, and to propose
necessary modifications to the applicable conditions of the site
plan approval.
Storm Drainage
The conditions of site plan approval relating to storm
drainage are found in the ERC Report dated April 15, 1989, as
modified on May 16, 1989, and June 15, 1989. The conditions are
set forth in paragraphs C.2. (a) and (e) on page 7 of the EEC
Report. We propose that Condition C.2 . (a) be amended as follows
to delete the general reference to the Garth Cray memo and add
the specific language from the Garth Cray memo that relates to
biofiltration:
C.2. (a) . That the applicant provide a tightline storm
drainage system;-f3ee-Frf�rsj��3 Memo dram--Garb
C�ra�,-Pt�b� -f�arltg 9epare�r �} (due to concerns
of the slope of the property and project location
biofiltration will not be required) ;
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
February 11, 1993
Page 2
We also propose that Condition C. 2 . (e) be amended in its
entirety as follows to clarify the design parameters of the
system and delete the reference to the Garth Cray memo and any
requirement to analyze the downstream capacity of the system.
C. 2 . (e) . �'Ita - Ite-app� can prav e-a-e�et-errt-_an-gygt-&ft
etrb3 eel-t a- Ise-a ppra�a -a -t-Ite-PttbI4-e- erJts
Repart-x3eitt=--fNate!- t-&Rt -ta 13e
eearc��-�ra-cea�-sfi��k-- Fes►ns�regm-s�st-em-e$pse���
gtr � ei end-t-e-earr�-�-�5 wear-s t-arx�-$2rd
�.-�rearpara�.�-n�-a-t-�,�a-dear-etarxr-ti+���1�na-�nereas-e-3-n
€I-Ow-- -.€ram-t-I&-ante-€ar-tIrat--t-wa Year-gt-arm-aa-@
regtt� -9€-flzeb`e�9pale14t-.---TI3e-de ent-i-aJt t-ern
eapae �fdesrr-sltatr.-d be prav,±4e4-Raged-trpa�s
dada 19ra�3-ded-i t-gt-ttdi-ea-eandtret-ed-Irt-can Uftet-�an
�-.-b.--aha�e,--rrg�rn�-�I3e SCs�-tr�r��1r�drec�rapltfappre�ed
meIrad.---See-6f�Sf�3en�o-iErem-6arIr-trap,--Ptrb�- e
Warltg 9epar�i�err�:-}
That the applicant provide a detention system
which limits the host-development stormwater
discharge rates from the project to the existing
drainage system in Bronson Way as follows:
Design Event Discharge (cfs)
2-year 0. 60
10-year 0.85
25-year 1. 15
100-year 1.40
The discharge rates will be computed using SCS
hvdrograph methods as described in the 1990 King
County Surface Water Design Manual chapter 3
The Manual's "factor of safety" requirement
(Section 1. 2 3-3) shall not be applied to detention
facility sizing The system may provide detention
for off-site flows in addition to on-site flows
If such off-site flow detention is approved by the
Public Works Department Water quality controls
shall be provided in the detention vault(s)
directly connected to the off-site system in
Bronson Way. The existing 8-inch diameter storm
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
February 11, 1993
Page 3
drain in Bronson Way at the intersection of N.E.
3rd Street will be replaced The determination
of the final pipe size will be based on methods
described in Section 4. 3 .4 of the KCSWDM.
Puget Power Right-of-Way
If the number of dwelling units is reduced sufficiently to
eliminate the need to provide additional parking on the Puget
Power right-of-way, we also ask that Hearing Examiner Condition
No. 5 be deleted.
Mitigation Fees
Please confirm that the modified project will be subject to
the mitigation fees (e.g. , SUCC fees, TBZ fees) applicable to
the original site plan approval and building permit application,
as modified by any change in the number or type of units and/or,
in the case of TBZ fees, actual per-trip fees currently imposed
by the City (not to exceed $288.00 per trip) . ERC Condition No.
C. 6. (c) (3) should be amended to reflect any adjustment in the TBZ
mitigation fee. Please also confirm that any fee ordinance
enacted subsequent to filing of the original building permit
application will not apply to the modified project.
We appreciate the City's willingness to work with us to
achieve a good result for all parties. We hope that we can come
to an agreement on the design parameters and go forward with the
development of this site. Thank you for your help. We look
forward to hearing from you soon.
Very Cruly yours,
Sally H. Clarke
SHC:kkh
cc: Mr. Jim Hanson
Mr. Gregg Zimmerman
Canada America Associates
Dodds Engineers
Mr. Iry Sandman
2 1 5 6 9 1
DODDS ENGINEERS, INC.
CIV IL ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
FAX COVER SHEET
-5:0
TO: �fo.Am&SL*iAN
COMPANY: ClpT'%f r N it71�
FAX PHONE NUMBER:_Z3S" Z�4-1
FROM: DES
PROJECT NAME: Ligg N 6 t..3
DEY JOB NUMBER: 0 7T ��
a �
DATE: RE�TON
of
Dept.
TOTAL PAGES SENT:
(INCLUDING COVER SHEET;PLEASE CALL(206)885-7877 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES.)
MEMO:
A 9 AKAcr, il
4205 14BTH AVE-. N.E., SUITE 200-EIELLEVUE, wa 98C707 (2061 SS5-787.7 OR 454-2743
FAX:[206]8S5-75E3
f
��77 �,,��G ���
L �,,,sr�[s''
��
Ary
71
- c.v LAJ6 vC zsDorlc SL
. W/y • 'v us e-� f H P��v }
gt2 IT CON& . "
2 . cue CA Lx-s
oje\,Je
b f� ?;;C X \J OL24�4e S Z.S -t oo y 12 Cv�'S
b,t JP -
�11 ovT F-LCW fLA; .
4 , 9s v C Pffx��A sv F- ua-&-as
r
�\�1
V
V
�O
il, i✓• on Ss Si 7--
L 1�okry 2 1, A S2lic) :
t S AG. PET
�PGT uOL. 50 \ Sax i()Ox 8= 4COzzucF-
PGT. VOU NO W�L
g cdocG
r
VOL.
' = (oX toa x 8 =8cboct
�P , '6 4,oco qF-
Ohs Ver-VOL.=
a�
72,oco c,r- �
AV
r � P
IL
59 o.43>
oo-(0;) S 00. 41)
, ( , t3 ( c.S0)
l oo \/)2 - 0 ,a9 --- > . 37 (40-4b)
} p w G— ISCuSS�-s7 T �A �S
He �-NaQo-
jkTT
December 9, 1992
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: SARAH E. MACK
Lexington Ridge Appeal
File No.: AAD-92-151
LOCATION: 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA
98101-2925
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Appeal of Administrative Determination not to approve the
conceptual design of the storm drainage system, and the
determination of the expiration of the applicant's building
permit.
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the applicant's written request for a
hearing and examining available information, the Examiner
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
MINUTES
The hearing was opened on November 10, 1992, at 10:10 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton
Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. (These minutes are not
a verbatim transcription, but rather, a summary of the testimony.)
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting
and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit #2 - 10-21-92 Letter Chandler to Freeh
Exhibit #3 - 10-21-92 Letter Chandler to McCambridge
Exhibit #4 - Computer Print Out
Exhibit #5 - G. Ross Affidavit
Exhibit #6 - Examiner's Decision
Exhibit #7 - ERC Report
Exhibit #8 - Packet
Exhibit #9 - Cray Memo
Exhibit #10 - 6-27-91 Letter to Zimmerman from Olsen
Exhibit #11 - Computer Log
Sarah E. Mack .
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 2
Exhibit #12 - Olsen Affidavit
Exhibit #13 - Staff File
Exhibit #14 - 9-3-92 Memo to Hanson from Erickson
Exhibit #15 - Policy
Exhibit #16 - Application List
Exhibit #17 - 10-26-92 Letter to Mack from Hanson
Exhibit #18 - Dodds Calculations
Exhibit #19 - Dodds Affidavit
Exhibit #20 - Clarke Affidavit
Exhibit #21 - 9-10-92 Letter to Dodds from Hanson
Representing Grahame R. Ross, the Trustee in Bankruptcy, SARAH E. MACK, Hillis Clark Martin &
Peterson, 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101-2925, noted that the original
applicant, Centron, Inc., had declared bankruptcy and Hillis Clark was assisting the Trustee in
attempting to preserve the value of the asset, the Lexington Ridge property, SEPA, site plan approval,
and building permit application to enable a sale of the assets and payment of the outstanding debts of
the estate. Overtures to the City prior to this hearing to stipulate to certain facts were rebuffed. The
project was approved by the Examiner in October of 1989, and the storm drainage system was noted as
being at issue in this appeal. She referred to the June 15, 1989, Garth Cray memorandum, stating that
according to staff it, rather than the King County Storm Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) should be
what applied to the design of the storm drainage system on this site. The Trustee had applied for a
building permit September 17, 1991, had been trying since that time to obtain a permit, and had spent
a year trying to resolve the issue of a storm drainage system. Complicating matters was significant new
information about the limited downstream capacity in the City storm drainage system, and the character
of the soil on the site. This information was not available to the City or the applicant at the time the
ERC condition was imposed, when the Garth Cray memorandum was drafted, nor when the Examiner
granted site plan approval. The criteria in the Garth Cray memo were not capable of being complied
with, without an expensive reconstruction of the City's downstream drainage system, and City staff
acknowledged this criteria as being unreasonable. Up until August 7, 1992, the Trustee had offered
four conceptual storm drainage proposals to staff. The project engineer had stated that the latest
proposal met or exceeded the Garth Cray memo as modified by staffs agreement that the memo
required some modification in order to be capable of being satisfied. The project engineer was of the
opinion that the proposal met the criteria in the 1990 KCSWDM which did not apply to this project.
The Examiner said that if the KCSWDM did not apply, maybe it should not be mentioned. Ms. Mack
noted that the reference appeared in several places in documents in the file. The Trustee had waited
five weeks for Mr. Hanson's September 10, 1992, response letter to Mr. Dodds which said the proposal
was not approved, and that the building permit application would expire on September 17, 1992, with
no extensions granted. She said that the KCSWDM was used to review this proposal, and that the
September loth letter was the first notice that the City was going to terminate the building permit
application.
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 3
City Attorney, LAWRENCE J. WARREN, moved that no testimony be taken from City staff or anyone
else on the uniform building code section which was set forth in his hearing brief. There was some
evidence that the City had not enforced that section entirely in the past and the only argument that
could be made was an estoppel argument, which generally did not work against a government and
would require the City to commit an ultra vires act which it could not be compelled to do. He moved
to bar any testimony other than oral argument by counsel about how the City had handled the building
code. Ms. Mack objected, noting that the City's decision to terminate the building permit application
was arbitrary and capricious compared to its treatment of other permits under similar circumstances.
She denied making an estoppel argument, but wanted to establish evidence that the City had acted
inconsistently. The Examiner asked whether she was trying to establish that two wrongs would make a
right, and if the City did act wrongly or negligently, should that be used as justification to continue.
Ms. Mack said she was not arguing that the building code should be ignored, but rather that the City
acted correctly in the past by allowing more than 360 days if the applicant was diligently working on
obtaining a building permit. Mr. Warren stated that he couldn't see how they could get around
claiming an estoppel argument or that the City was making an interpretation of the code, which the
City did not have authority to do. It was a legislative body decision and City administration could not
legitimately have different standards. Ms. Mack said that if the City was insisting that its
interpretation of storm water detention was entitled to great weight, then the appellant was entitled to
place in evidence information about what the City had done in respect to other permit applications.
Mr. Warren said that the City was not granting interpretation of 304(d), which contained a section
allowing a building official to follow a procedure to extend another 180 days. The section of 304(d)
which was being relied upon said no application shall be extended more than once, a 360 day
maximum, and there was no authority to go beyond that. In answer to the Examiner's question
whether both sides stipulated that 360 days had passed on September 17, 1992, Mr. Warren agreed, as
did Ms. Mack. The Examiner said he did not see any leeway in the first or second 180 days. Ms.
Mack stated that the two 180-day time periods applied to action by the applicant and the City didn't
get to count the time staff spent reviewing plans or delaying, which was why the time period couldn't
be applied to a project with vested rights. She then called upon JAN CONKLIN, Development
Services Representative, who confirmed that the information shown on the Building Permit Applicant
Log was a correct copy of departmental records.
GRAHAME ROSS, 800 Bellevue Way, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98004, the court-appointed Trustee in
Bankruptcy for Canada America Associates, Limited, stated that he had attempted to negotiate a sale of
the property in the spring of 1992. A contractor was to perform excavation of the site and transport
the material to the Seattle Times project, and was willing to grade the site at no charge to the estate, a
savings of approximately $500,000. The prospect wanted to purchase a development-ready site. Mr.
Ross expected to be able to pay the outstanding debts of the bankruptcy out of the proceeds of this
sale, intended to close at summer's end. He directed the submittal of a building permit application in
September, 1991. He hoped to obtain the building permit in June of 1992, and at a meeting on May
14, 1992, he and Sally Clarke were assured by Ron Nelson, Jim Hanson, and Larry Warren, that the
City would work with him to accomplish getting the building permit under the time frame, and that
although there must be solutions to the technical issues so that City could be assured that the project
could be built, it would not be necessary to have all the drawings and mylars corrected prior to
issuance of the building permit. Once these technical issues were resolved between project engineers
and City staff, the building permit could be issued if a letter agreement was entered into with the City
regarding the final details that had to be completed and the time frame for completion. The
geotechnical engineers said in June that the soils on the site would not support the infiltration-type
storm water system designed. Once it became apparent that the building permit could not be obtained
by June, the grading contractor went elsewhere, and the potential purchaser was no longer interested.
Mr. Ross said he never intended to allow the site to be graded without a developer ready to develop the
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 4
site, as that could create potential for erosion and property damage, inconsistent with his Trustee
responsibilities. He noted that in excess of $200,000 had been spent in pursuit of this permit. Mr.
Warren said that Mr. Ross had indicated that he did not intend to have the site graded unless a
purchaser stood ready to develop the site and asked what control Mr. Ross would have had over the
grading contractor or the developer of the later project, to which Mr. Ross replied that he had a
contract with the contractor. Mr. Warren stated that there was a potential for the site to remain open
for a length of time, as Mr. Ross would have no control over the developer, to which Mr. Ross replied,
if the contract was closed, none, but if there was an open contract, there would be specific
performance. Mr. Warren asked whether at any time he had provided language to the City to indicate
that there was any later control that could be exercised over the later developer. Mr. Ross replied that
other than a suggested Purchase and Sale Agreement, no. Mr. Warren asked how long the proposal was
before the City to use a system to reintroduce the drainage water into the soil. Mr. Ross did not recall.
Mr. Warren asked whether he recalled that there was a proposal before the City to use that system and
which was rejected because of inadequate testing, and further testing showed the subsoils were
inadequate to use that system. Did Mr. Ross understand that all the technical issues needed to be
resolved prior to obtaining the building permit. Mr. Ross said that based on the May 14th meeting, not
all the technical issues, but the technical engineers knew what had to be resolved, and he recognized
that the drainage issue would have to be resolved. Ms. Mack asked whether any seller of real property
would have control over the actions of a purchaser who bought with the intention of developing. Mr.
Ross answered, none.
JAMES OLSEN, Dodds Engineers, 4205 148th AVE NE, Bellevue, WA 98007, testified to the
chronology of events in the building application process for Lexington Ridge, (Exhibit #11). Mr.
Warren asked if Mr. Olsen was aware that in June of 1992 the City had submitted a letter to Dodds or
to the Trustee setting out the technical problems that the City had with the plans and specs. Mr. Olsen
replied yes, the City did send back a letter and that corrections were never made on the Mylar in
whole but, at a meeting with Tom Kress and Gregg Zimmerman, were agreed to line by line to resolve
how each comment would be addressed. The exceptions were verifying the infiltration rate and storm
water detention, which were not resolved. Mr. Warren asked whether other agreements were likely to
be resolved. Mr. Olsen said the meeting date was 5-18-92 and most of the comments were more
cosmetic than technical. Mr. Warren stated that there was a letter that came out June 10, 1992, from
the City that had over a 100 comments concerning the plans, yet he had stated that all the problems
were resolved in May. Mr. Olsen agreed that was correct, when the plans come back from the City
there was a handwritten set from the reviewer and then the City followed up in format with the
official record, and each comment was summarized but there were no draft drawings with this letter.
The conceptual drawings were submitted later. After the June loth letter from Mr. Burnell, comments
were received from staff which required further work and raised new technical issues. The last
unresolved issue was to verify infiltration rates. Golder Associates had performed that task and
determined that soils did not perform in the manner previously indicated.
SALLY CLARKE, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle,
WA, 98101-2925, noted that she was the court-appointed Special Land Use Counsel to the Trustee, and
beginning February, 1992, at the instruction of the Trustee, she had contacted Ron Nelson to confirm
what permits, conditions, and fees would be necessary before work began on the site. She then read
her affidavit into the minutes, (Exhibit #13.) The Examiner asked if his understanding was correct
that the infiltration system was considered to be acceptable on June 10, 1992, and not acceptable on
June 14th. Ms. Clarke said apparently there were calls from the field indicating that the infiltration
tests were successful, followed a few days later by a written report that it was not successful. Mr.
Warren objected to double hearsay at Ms. Clarke's mention of her conversation with City of Bothell
staff regarding the International Conference Of Building Officials (ICBO). Ms. Mack stated that this
was information that was uniquely available to City staff as members of ICBO, and the only way to get
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 5
the information in was to offer it through Ms. Clarke's testimony. The Examiner stated that he would
decide whether he would consider it after he heard it. Ms. Clarke continued her testimony. Mr.
Warren objected to the characterization that this was an unpopular project and asked about the SUCC
fee, noting that the Trustee had not wanted to pay the fee up front as there was some indication the
Trustee would have to do. Ms. Clarke had contacted the City and that issue was worked out. He
referred to a memo from Zoning Administrator Don Erickson, and asked whether the City had at any
time adopted Mr. Erickson's position that this was a speculative fill and grade. Ms. Clarke said the
City had expressed strong concerns about the grading on site and also mentioned the September loth
letter wherein the City wanted assurance that the development would be completed in a timely manner.
When she responded to the letter and submitted all corrections, she commented that since the City did
not tell them what they wanted, they were unable to give the assurance. Mr. Warren stated that the
City never took the position that the application for the building permit would be rejected because this
was a speculative fill and grade, and then asked the location of the local office of ICBO. Ms. Clarke
stated that the City had not taken that stance officially but they got that impression. She said the
office of ICBO was in Bellevue, but she had not been able to get a direct answer from the ICBO. She
did speak to another City Attorney and other building officials in other cities about the use of the
ICBO, which cities routinely ask for advice.
Ms. Mack asked JIM HANSON, Development Services Director, about the August 16th, 17th and 18th
petition which was signed by 9 people regarding excavating the Lexington Ridge property prior to
development. Mr. Warren objected that it was not relevant and that they were making the assumption
that the fact that this was in the file somehow colored the issue. The Examiner excluded the petition
from evidence, but admitted the entire staff file. In reply to Mr. Warren's question about how the
Building Permit Application Log copies had been generated, Mr. Hanson stated that the listing was
requested by Ms. Mack after the building permit application for Lexington Ridge had expired. Mr.
Warren pointed out several examples which, because of duplication, error, or status should not be on
the list, noting that left 31 instances where a building permit was issued after the expiration date had
passed. Mr. Hanson said that amounted to about 1% of the total building permits handled over the 10
year time period. No record was maintained of cancelled building permits as it was policy to destroy
them. Ms. Mack asked what percentage of complex applications was represented on the list, excluding
the permits for residential applications, to which Mr. Hanson replied that he did not know. Ms. Mack
asked whether the list of 8 permits that she had asked Ms. Conklin about was a complete list. Mr.
Hanson replied it was not a complete list of permits cancelled after 360 days.
BRUCE J. DODDS, Dodds Engineers, Inc., 4205 148th AVE NE, Bellevue, WA 98007, read his
affidavit into the record, (Exhibit #19.) (The following comments took place during his reading of the
affidavit.) The Examiner asked for clarification on whether Mr. Dodds had said that in 1988-89 the
site could not have met the then extant requirements of the City. Mr. Dodds replied that the site was
capable of meeting the then extant rules of the City, but could not have met the rules that were in the
process of being adopted and incorporated from the KCSWDM. The Examiner said that he understood
that Mr. Dodds was saying that the City was willing to waive Garth Cray's requirements if the current
KCSWDM requirements were met, but updated to a 100 year storm. Mr. Dodds agreed that was
correct. Mr. Warren objected to the Randall Parsons letter which Mr. Dodds had referenced. Over Ms.
Mack's objection, the Examiner excluded the Randall Parsons letter. Mr. Dodds then explained the
drainage plan, noting that it was an unusual approach as it proposed to detain water from 15 acres of
upstream systems, using that to adjust on this site. He noted that the drainage system problem had
been an extremely difficult one for everyone due to the difficult site, which contained a terrible
combination of problems that needed to be solved and apparently some shifting criteria, and he saw
that the City and he had both tried to work toward a goal of finding a solution.
This matter was continued to 2:00 p.m. The hearing recessed at 12:16 p.m.
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 6
The hearing resumed at 2:06 p.m., November 10, 1992, as the Examiner asked for continuing
testimony.
Ms. Mack said she had not attempted to surprise the City with the Randall Parsons letter, but had
provided a copy to the City on October 23, 1992. Mr. Dodds continued his testimony noting that the
August 7th proposal provided for detention of all on site drainage, did not have to utilize public
property, and a vault adjacent to 4th Street would capture the drainage that would be coming down
4th. Mr. Warren asked whether he had come to the conclusion that the capacity of the downstream
pipe was inadequate to handle a two-year storm event, and did he think either of the alternatives in the
Cray memo might be impossible to meet. Mr. Dodds stated that it was very close to inadequate, and
the capacity was exceeded someplace between the 2 and 5 year event. The system as it extended from
Third Street to the Cedar River, which was where the inadequacy existed, was exceeded at the 25 year
event. At the two-year level, the flows would be around 25 to 30 CFS. If no outflows were allowed to
go from Lexington Ridge the system would still be inadequate at those levels of flow. Lexington Ridge
did not have the ability to correct the downstream system. Mr. Warren noted that the current proposal
did not detain all on-site run off to the extent originally proposed by the Cray memo and asked why
he was detaining contributory flow.
Mr. Dodds stated that he was required to analyze the site and the post-development conditions or "Type
C" soils, were so low on the hydrograph that he had to retain every drop that flowed onto the site.
What he was trying to do was to make the flow that would be going downstream something less than it
was presently. Utilizing the detention storage would have the net result going to the downstream
system less than what went in today. Mr. Warren said he understood that Mr. Dodds was compensating
for the lack of on-site storage by detaining tributary flow so that the combination of the tributary flow
and the on-site flow would be the same as the unimpeded tributary flow plus the calculated on-site
flow. Mr. Dodds said they were basically shifting a credit and utilizing that on site, which would allow
them to do a lessor amount of detention to obtain the same goal. The Examiner stated that other
private property or public right-of-way was being used, noting that the site only had limited capacity
so another place to economically detain the water had to be found. Mr. Dodds agreed that was one
way of doing it. The large storage required wouldn't fit onto the site, so off-site flows were being
dealt with as well but the result was far more advantageous to the down-stream system. The Examiner
said he understood the site had only limited capacity and if the system had to be built, the number
apartments would have to be reduced, so another way to economically do it had been found. Mr.
Dodds agreed that was one way of putting it, noting that if all the detention was put on the site it
would result in an inefficient detention system and very large on-site storage. Instead, a different
solution was being proposed whereby off-site flows were being dealt with as well and a much lessor
size of detention system was being created, but the result was far more advantageous to the downstream
system. Mr. Warren asked whether the peak discharge from the Lexington Ridge project increased due
to the proposed development. Mr. Dodds agreed that it did. Mr. Warren said the statement that peak
discharge from the subject property could not be increased due to the proposed development was a
primary characteristic of both the City's old and new storm water codes. Mr. Dodds said that depended
on how the statement was interpreted and noted that 4th Street was part of the property. Mr. Warren
repeated did the peak discharge increase due to the development within the boundaries of the property
itself and would those flows be greater. Mr. Dodds answered yes, if the flows coming from the
detention vault were strictly attributable to Lexington Ridge. Mr. Warren asked whether it was true
that the real problem with this site was that, in pre-developed condition, there was soil that was
retentive and after it was removed during development, the soil would be non-retentive. Mr. Dodds
agreed that in general, that was true. Ms. Mack said the proposal would be accomplishing a reduction
in the flows the now enter the system from the site and the upstream properties. Mr. Dodds agreed
and reviewed his calculations, noting that he was not dealing with issues of timing or time lag. He said
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 7
that at least 1 CFS reduction would be obtained after development. Two separate detention vaults
would be on the Lexington site, one for upstream flows and one for the Lexington Ridge project.
GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Utilities Systems Director, noted that he previously had been one of the plan
reviewers that reviewed this project, and reflecting back to the May meeting with Mr. Olsen, he did
not agree that essentially all of the technical details had been worked out at that meeting. There were
approximately 75 non-storm drainage comments and those were discussed and solutions determined.
There was no commitment that a mere agreement to take care of those 75 items would constitute
approval. Agreement had been reached on the direction things had to go. Mr. Warren asked what
there was in the prior code and existing storm water code about on-site detention between the pre-
developed and post-developed state. Mr. Zimmerman said the storm water code containing Ordinance
#3174 that was in effect at the time of the site plan approval predated adoption of the KCSWDM
stated that, "peak discharge from the subject property may not be increased due to the proposed
development". The current surface water code adopted part of the 1990 KCSWDM, and core
requirement #3 stated that, "proposed projects must limit run off not to exceed the pre-development
run-off rates for the design storms the codes cover". The peak discharge rate is not supposed to
increase. In response to Mr. Warren's question whether Mr. Dodds proposal met either sections of the
stormwater code, Mr. Zimmerman said he believed they did not. He had reviewed the August 7th
proposed design with Tom Kress, the principal reviewer, and staff decided not to accept the August
7th design.
Mr. Zimmerman said a letter dated September 10, 1992, had been sent to Mr. Dodds stating the design
was not approved because it would require a storm water code modification. Mr. Warren asked what
authority could approve a storm water code modification request. Mr. Zimmerman said requests of this
kind may be reviewed by the Administrator of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. Mr.
Warren asked whether the City chose to proceed under that authority. Mr. Zimmerman said we were
asked to review and provide staff comments on a conceptual drainage plan to handle peak-rate run off
that was different in substance from both the previous and the present code requirements, and which
did not comply with City drainage ordinances. Staff did not support this proposal because it was not
consistent with the City's past and present practice of requiring independent construction, but placed
the responsibility on the City. Staff felt that it was not appropriate for the City to take maintenance
responsibilities and legal liability for storm drainage systems which were designed and installed as
mitigation for a private development. It would become an essential element of the City's storm water
drainage system and maintenance would fall on the City. Placing vaults designed for private use into
the public right-of-way was felt to be a dangerous precedent. Mr. Warren stated that Mr. Dodds had
used an example of a detention system next to a road that would be developed as part of a plat and did
Mr. Zimmerman believe that applicable in this situation. Mr. Zimmerman answered that street
improvements were required for private plat development and stormwater systems were required to be
incorporated for the portion of the public street improved by the plat. In that sense, plat developers
were required to mitigate their storm drainage, but in that instance, the developer was mitigating the
impervious surface that he was installing. This plan would be mitigating existing impervious surface
rather than the impervious surface created by this development. The developer was required to
mitigate those improvements that his development created.
Mr. Warren asked when Mr. Zimmerman had heard that the time was about ready to run on the
application and whether that had any influence on the review process, to which Mr. Zimmerman
answered that he did not exactly recall the date but that it did not have any influence at all, and had
no impact on the decision itself.
Ms. Mack referred to the letter from Mr. Olsen of June 10, 1992, and asked whether Mr. Zimmerman
felt that the storm drainage issue was resolved at the August 7th meeting. Mr. Zimmerman said neither
Sarah E. Mack .
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 8
Mr. Olsen or the plan reviewer felt that the storm issue had been resolved. Regarding the Cray memo,
the City and Mr. Dodds had discussed that issue and had come to the determination that although it
was recognized that the storm water codes had changed, both parties were going to honor the Cray
memo as the established criteria for peak-rate run off control and for water quality but there was also
a condition in the ERC staff report which stated that biofiltration would be incorporated in the plan.
Ms. Mack, regarding the June 15, 1989, modified ERC decision, asked whether condition #2 required
biofiltration. Mr. Zimmerman said his copy of the report, dated April 5th, stated that the applicant
provide a storm drainage system including tight lining, aqua-recharging, and biofiltration. The revised
copy, as modified in May and June appeared to have deleted biofiltration. Ms. Mack asked whether
there were standards that applied to this project other than what was in the Cray memo, to which Mr.
Zimmerman answered no, but the Cray memo and City codes, to the extent that they are consistent
with Ordinance #3174, ruled on this project. Another overlay was the result of several clarification
discussions that Mr. Dodds had with City engineers. Ms. Mack said the criteria that applied to the
storm drainage was the Cray memo and City codes.
Mr. Zimmerman, referring to the July 7th letter to Mr. Dodds from Tom Kress, clarified that the City
was not directing the applicant to come into compliance with peak rate runoff control in the
KCSWDM, but was stating that if the applicant could not meet the design criteria, or felt that it was an
overwhelming burden to analyze the 80-acre drainage basin, that was offered as a self-elected option to
break the deadlock and to make the project feasible while not causing downstream problems for the
City. Ms. Mack said regarding criteria, there was the Cray memo, City Ordinance #3174, and the over
lay introduced as the result of Tom Kress' July 7th letter. Mr. Zimmerman said there were also early
pre-design meetings with Mr. Dodds, at which water quality provisions, downstream analysis criteria,
and standards to be used for analysis were discussed. Mr. Zimmerman said the August 7th proposal
was a first draft or a conceptual plan showing a modification or alteration of the code and had to be
evaluated on its own merits. Ms. Mack said she was trying to find out why Mr. Dodds' proposal was
denied. Mr. Zimmerman answered that staff felt he was requesting a deviation from City stormwater
codes, either the current codes or the codes in effect at the time of site plan approval for Lexington,
Section 9-b of Ordinance 4-22 of the old code. The Examiner asked whether this was the one that said
peak discharge may not be increased due to on-site development. Mr. Zimmerman said that was
correct. In addition, it was a very questionable area when an code modification request was being
made for a project that was designed under the old code, and the City had a new code. Which code
ruled? The plan violated both codes so it didn't matter.
Ms. Mack again wanted to know the reasons for not approving Dodds' proposal as set forth in the
September loth letter, asking whether it was his belief that Mr. Dodds was proposing to construct a
detention facility within the City's existing drainage system. Mr. Zimmerman agreed that was his
belief. Ms. Mack said Mr. Dodds had testified that what he was proposing was a detention facility on
the Lexington Ridge site, constructed by the developer, and not part of the public right-of-way. Mr.
Zimmerman stated that was not what he said, he said it did not have to involve construction on City
property but it was not affirmative whether it would or not. Asked if he was familiar with the
detention system approved by the City for the Sunset Gardens project, Mr. Zimmerman said he
believed the Sunset Gardens storm drainage design incorporated a flow spreader facility, but he'd have
to look at that design. Ms. Mack asked for confirmation that another reason for not approving the
proposal was that the City would have responsibility to assume legal liability for the flows that would
be detained in this upstream facility. Mr. Zimmerman understood that it would be City responsibility.
Ms. Mack asked whether the upstream flow was now part of the City's drainage system and for which
it now had responsibility, and wasn't the City now legally responsible for those flows. Mr. Zimmerman
answered yes, in an unimpeded way, and it was a different system. Ms. Mack asked if he had
understood the proposal to be that the City would be assuming ownership of this detention vault. Mr.
Zimmerman said that would be a City policy call and he noted that anything that would run through
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 9
City right-of-way and collect City waters in this fashion, would have to be taken over for liability and
maintenance purposes by the City. Ms. Mack said, the City would insist upon taking ownership, so
therefore wouldn't approve it because it wouldn't want to have the maintenance responsibility. Mr.
Zimmerman said the City couldn't afford to have the maintenance responsibility fall on a third party
that was not necessarily accountable to the upstream properties. Staff had thought over the plan for
about 5 weeks and could think of no way of providing for responsibility to the upstream properties. It
was unorthodox as there were no systems performing like that in the City. Ms. Mack asked whether,
when the proposal was being reviewed, it was his understanding that the design called for a vault in the
public right-of-way. Mr. Zimmerman stated that the proposal was for either public right-of-way or
on private property, and was accompanied by a drainage report which was evaluated by Tom Kress
who did not feel confident with the numbers, however Mr. Kress felt that it did have a good likelihood
of having some potential of doing what Mr. Dodds said it would do. Ms. Mack said she understood
that Tom Kress did not feel comfortable with the numbers, yet the September 10th letter didn't
mention any concern or lack of comfort. The Examiner asked whether the City needed a fifth reason
to say that a project was not approved. Ms. Mack said it was hearsay about Mr. Kress' impressions and
there was nothing in the letter. Mr. Zimmerman said it was in the letter after item number 4. Ms.
Mack questioned why it took 5 weeks to review the proposal. Mr. Zimmerman said he wasn't clear on
the exact date, but the first 2 weeks the item had to wait its turn. The 3rd week it underwent review
by Tom Kress, the 4th week it was discussed with staff members, including himself and with other
involved City personnel, such as the maintenance field superintendent, and Administrator Lynn
Guttmann. After fully evaluating the proposal, the September 10th response was generated. Ms. Mack
inquired if the City ever required a developer to mitigate drainage from other properties and when a
detention facility on private property was approved, who performed the maintenance, to which Mr.
Zimmerman replied that it was not required, and that the owner of the property would be responsible
for maintenance of the private portion. The public portion, discharge line from the site and any pipes
and catch basins put in along street frontage would be maintained by the City. On occasion, the City
had accepted a utility easement for a section of pipeline running through private property, but only if
it served a separate upstream property.
Mr. Warren asked Mr. Hanson what date he became aware that the building permit application was
about to expire. Mr. Hanson said he was reviewing the file early in September and discovered that the
date was coming up. Mr. Warren asked whether the upcoming date played in any way on the decision
regarding the latest storm drainage proposal. Mr. Hanson said no, it was completely independent. The
applicant was notified when we discovered that was the case. Ms. Mack asked Mr. Dodds to describe
the approach used on the approved Sunset Gardens drainage system and asked for comparison to his
proposal. Mr. Warren objected, but the Examiner said he presumed they were going to show that it
was a similar system. Mr. Dodds then reviewed the drainage plan which was approved for Sunset
Gardens, noting that it was almost the same approach as what was designed for Lexington Ridge. He
noted that it was not built that way today as a change was made prior to construction. Mr. Warren
asked whether the detention vault was sized for the development at Sunset Gardens, and not for any
tributary flow. Mr. Dodds replied no, it had to be sized for the flow from the public right-of-way.
Mr. Warren said, so it was not built like that. Mr. Dodds agreed that it was not.
During her closing arguments, Ms. Mack said Mr. Hanson's letter admitted that Mr. Dodds' proposal
would work and the City's drainage system would benefit through an overall reduction of flows within
the downstream system. The flows would be less than the existing flows from the undeveloped site,
taken with all the upstream flows. She wondered why the City did not cite the ERC conditions or the
Garth Cray memo in the letter denying the proposal. She felt that the City was basing the denial only
on the criteria found in Section 9-b of Ordinance #3174. It was clear that the project engineers had
attempted to conform to the established criteria that had been understood since the outset. There was
nothing in Mr. Olsen's testimony or his June of 1991 letter to Mr. Zimmerman that suggested that the
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 10
City was taking the position that there was an additional standard which applied to this project beyond
the Cray memo criteria. There was no basis in the conditions and requirements for disapproving this
solution. Other than Mr. Zimmerman's testimony about Ordinance #3174, the department had cited no
legal authority for disapproval. Regarding Mr. Hanson's letter about the City having to assume
maintenance responsibility and it being unorthodox, this approach had been approved by the City for
the Sunset Gardens project, and Mr. Zimmerman had testified that the City did not have to assume
maintenance responsibility, but would want to assume it, but that would be a problem. Mr.
Zimmerman testified that the City did assume maintenance and ownership of drainage facilities on
private property. With the ERC conditions and the criteria set out in the Garth Cray memo, staff was
incorrectly applying other standards, such as the KCSWDM, to the proposal and the department had
exceeded its authority in doing so. Staffs reference to Section 9-b of Ordinance #3174 did not really
solve the question because they hadn't explained why it would be inconsistent with that ordinance to
adopt an approach which would result in a decrease in flows entering the City system. Mr. Dodds had
explained how and why it would work that way.
Ms. Mack also alleged that Mr. Hanson's decision, which he claimed was based on Section 304(d) of the
uniform building code, 1988 edition, regarding the building permit expiration, was in excess of
authority. The City's interpretation of Section 304(d) was in error because it provided for expiration of
building permit applications only where the applicant failed to respond to City plan review comments.
She said there was no automatic expiration, only where the applicant did not proceed expeditiously to
procure the permit. The time the City took to review did not count. Once the City had completed the
review, then the applicant had 180 days to respond, correct, etc. Lexington Ridge had already received
an automatic extension on March 17, 1992, for the second.180 days. The ICBO staff provides opinions
on how the Uniform Building Code should be interpreted, and there was no indication that anyone
connected with the City ever consulted the ICBO prior to Mr. Hanson's decision to terminate the
building permit application. The Examiner asked whether Ms. Mack thought the City had to turn to a
third party to get an interpretation of its codes. Ms. Mack said no, she was not arguing that they were
required to do this but had they done so, they would have received contrary advice. She repeated that
time consumed by staff did not count. The Examiner asked whether the City should employ a chess
clock to keep track of all this. Ms. Mack said she was not personally familiar about how jurisdictions
handled this, although Ms. Clarke could testify that the City of Bothell followed a course where once
everything was done by the City, then the applicant had 180 days to make final corrections. She was
not uncomfortable with the City of Renton calculating the 180 days based on each time the ball was in
the applicant's court, once the time consumed by the City was subtracted out. These time periods
established in 304(d) didn't apply to time spent by the City because then the City could purposely cause
expiration of a building permit application.
Ms. Mack said that keeping a building permit alive was a significant vested right, and it was unjust to
permit the City to extinguish that right simply by sitting on the applicant's building permit application,
and the applicant had no way of forcing the City to issue a permit. The applicant had worked
diligently all through this process and had been spending a lot of time waiting on the City. She was
not making an argument that the City unreasonably delayed, however, she argued that the Trustee was
entitled to additional time equal to the time taken by the City and was not asking for another
extension, but only wanted the full 180 days the code gave. The court did not treat the building
permit application as having expired in the case of Valley View versus Redmond, due to City
processing time. In the case of Lexington Ridge, the only discretion or criteria guiding staff's review
and approval of the storm drainage proposal was set forth in the Garth Cray memo, and was subject to
some interpretation. The applicant's engineers had spent nearly a year trying to devise a drainage
detention system that would be acceptable to the City, which was apparently using several different
guidelines for discretion and it was not really clear what guided that discretion. There were no
significant issues remaining to be resolved apart from the storm drainage, as other corrections could be
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page I
made in a matter of a couple of weeks. The City had argued that its interpretation of Section 304(d)
was entitled to great weight, but did not have any kind of consistent or uniform application of the
interpretation of this policy. Section 304(d) should not have any application where a jurisdiction
possessed discretionary authority over a necessary approval. The Building Application Log showed that
84 permits issued since 1984 for 39 separate projects were issued after more than 360 days of plan
review. Two were issued after the department terminated review of the Lexington Ridge application
and after she had asked for the information. According to department records, 8 other permits were
terminated where the building permits were not issued within 360 days and, although Mr. Hanson
testified that there were other examples, that information was not provided. Of those 8, 5 had been
terminated after the Lexington expiration, many of them after more than 360 days. She felt that in
view of the City's treatment of these other applications, and in view of the City's issuance of other
building permits after 360 days, the City could not argue that it had no choice but to terminate the
Lexington application. The applicant was responding diligently to plan review comments, and at the
time the letter cancelling the building permit arrived from Mr. Hanson, the applicant was waiting to
hear back from staff on Mr. Dodds' storm drainage proposal. She alluded that the department had only
recently decided to stick to 304(d) because of the Lexington appeal. She asked the Examiner to
determine that the concept met the criteria established in the ERC decision and reverse and remand to
staff with instructions to approve the concept and proceed in good faith to review the structural design
submitted by Mr. Dodds. Ms. Mack said the decision to terminate the building permit application was
arbitrary and capricious and must be reversed by the Examiner.
Mr. Warren stated that this was a difficult situation, and the drainage situation proved to be more
difficult. The responsibility to comply with the building code rested upon the applicant, not the City.
The primary focus should be the building code section, which says that applications for which no
permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation. It doesn't
say except the time the City takes reviewing, except this or except that, it says 180 days, it shall expire.
The Examiner asked what occurred if the City sat on an application and the time was all eaten up half
by the applicant and half by the City. Mr. Warren said the City did spend time reviewing applications,
but turned the applications around in a reasonably short period of time. Meanwhile the applicant was
working on a number of things and did not lose any time except perhaps at the very end. Why did it
take so long? The applicant generally was not prepared to go forward with this project and had filed
because the site plan was about to expire. The full application came in bits and pieces. The City was
left with a situation where it said that the code section stated "it shall expire except where the building
official may extend the time for action by the applicant." The City ran up against the magic day,
March 17th, and extended the time for 180 days. That is, a period not exceeding 180 days. The City
had made a policy decision that if there was an active permit application going on it would extend for
that 180 day period. It did not say except for the time the City may use reviewing plans. Then the
code said that no application shall be extended more than once. He referred to the Roanoake Reef
where it was found that the City had to comply with the building codes. Any other course of
administrative action thereby inviting discretion might well result in a violation of equal protection of
the law. The Examiner asked what happened when it was applied a different way, and through
discretion, negligence or oversight, 360 days was not enforced. Mr. Warren said that was an estoppel
argument no matter how it was couched. If that could serve as a basis for the Examiner to tell the
department that they had to extend the time, then the Examiner was telling the department that it had
to commit an ultra vires act. The Building Permit Application Log list covered over 10 years, and
when the ones that were clearly erroneous, or for a remodel or demolition were tossed out, there were
only 29, which over a period of years, was not excessive and was a small portion of the permits. An
argument could not be made on that sampling that it pointed to any sort of City policy to extend the
time, however the City did make some mistakes. Maybe the City should not have agreed to cut some
fee decisions on behalf of the applicant, or should not have decided to make the SUCC fees payable
later in the project. There was ambiguity in the Garth Cray memo which was worked out with the
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 12
applicant. The City had been willing to tell the applicant that they did not have to have full final plan
compliance before issue of the permit. The letter from Mr. Kress was given to the applicant to offer
an option on stormwater drainage, and the City had extended the building permit application. There
were a number of instances where the City worked out problems with the applicant but it had come to
an impasse on the stormwater issue.
Mr. Warren said, examine what happened on the storm water issue. Everyone went in believing that
the Cray memo could be met, but after all the analysis, it turned out that it probably couldn't be met.
According to Mr. Dodds' testimony, there was a significant likeFhood that the system could not be
designed to meet Mr. Cray's memo. At that time, one of the decisions that the City could have made
was that the applicant couldn't meet the conditions, the application would be rejected and at that point,
the site plan would have run out and we wouldn't be here. There were statements made about the fact
that flows entering the City system would be less than that required by City code. The City objects to
that characterization. The flow coming down the tributary channel was City flow already. It would be
intercepted and then re-injected, but that did not change the fact that it was a City flow. All of the
drainage policies that the City had were pointed at on-site retention/detention. The fundamental thing
that this final proposal did was try to avoid that, which was almost like the applicant saying that they
were going to make system improvements somewhere else and then discharge all of their site's water.
It left the City with a number of difficult situations. Regarding maintenance, there would be material
in the system that would have to be taken out, and it would take the City out of the situation where it
could do its modeling. The City's position was not that discretion was being exercised concerning the
terms of the building codes. The building code states what it states.
Mr. Warren said the Cowiche Canyon case talked about great weight being given to governmental
decisions when a statute was ambiguous. That building code section was not ambiguous. The Valley
View case was not the same, as that was a situation in which there was SEPA and site plan all to be
done. That was not to be done in this case. The City was without authority under the statute to renew
the permit. The language of the code is rather plain, and the City did not have discretion to interpret
that language. The code compels the result. On the other hand, great weight had to be given to the
City's determination on the drainage code because the drainage code did involve discretion. If
anything, the City had gone too far in continuing to entertain proposals and applications on the
drainage. This last proposal was the best one seen yet, but that did not mean that it served the public
interest. Much had been made of the list of expired permits. Ms. Mack improperly characterizes the
dates the letters were sent out, which was the only date the City told them. The permits expired
according to the terms of the Code. The duty was on the applicant. The fact that there were only 6-8
permits listed was because a public records request was received and those records, according to the
building code, had been destroyed so only current records were available. The City did not have a
responsibility to go find materials from old records which had been destroyed. If there had not been
problems and time delays on both sides, this hearing would not be taking place. The fact remained
that the applicant filed on the eve of expiration of the site plan and did not have one of the major
problems on the site resolved, which was storm drainage. That problem was not now resolved.
Whether the City should have approved that particular system or not was irrelevant because the
building code caused the time to run, but Mr. Warren also asserted that it was not an error for the City
to have rejected the final design, because the City had to take into account the greater public good.
He said it was not clearly erroneous, it was not arbitrary, nor was it capricious.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to
speak, and no further comments from staff. The Examiner said he would like to take an additional
two weeks to issue the report, to which there were no objections. The hearing closed at 4:15 p.m.
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
' December 9, 1992
Page 13
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION:
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The appellant, Sarah Mack, on behalf of Grahame R. Ross, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Centron,
Inc., filed an appeal of two determinations of the Department of Planning/Building/Public
Works. The appeals were brought pursuant to Sections 4-8-10(A)(13) and 4-8-10(A)(8). The
determinations were issued in conjunction with a review of a building permit application. The
building permit application was based upon a site plan approved for an apartment complex in
the City of Renton.
2. The appeal was filed on September 16, 1992 and was filed in a timely manner.
3. The site plan was approved by the Hearing Examiner in a report dated October 13, 1989 (File
No. SA-082-087). The Examiner originally denied the proposal but an appeal of that decision
to the City Council resulted in a remand to the Examiner. The proposal was to construct a 360
unit apartment complex on approximately 13.4 acres of property located between Edmonds
Avenue NE on the east and Bronson Avenue NE on the west and between NE 3rd Street and
NE 4th Street. The site is located across from the Renton Group Health Clinic.
4. One of the current issues on appeal was based upon the indirect condition imposed in the
Examiner's Report that required compliance with an ERC (Environmental Review Committee)
condition. That condition itself was based on a June 15, 1989 memorandum written by Garth
Cray. The memorandum states:
"The project will require a detention system which will meet the
following two scenarios: i) if conveyance capacity of the existing City
storm system is determined to be sufficient in capacity to address a 25
year storm, then the requirement will be ten year detention with a ten
year existing conditions release rate, or ii) if the capacity of the existing
system is determined to be less than that necessary to address a 25 year
storm, the requirements would be for a 25 year detention system with a
release rate being computed under pre-developed conditions for the year
storm matching the capacity of the existing system (i.e. if the capacity of
the existing system is 10 years, then the release rate will be computed on
the 10 year storm).
The method utilized to compute the detention should be a SCS unit
hydrograph method or other approved methods (Santa Barbara Urban
Hydrograph, SWMM, etc). In addition, the detention design should
incorporate the 2 year storm, showing no increase in flows from site for
the 2 year storm as a result of development."
The imposition of the ERC condition regarding storm water was not appealed nor was its
adoption by the Hearing Examiner.
Sarah E. Mack • •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 14
5. The rejection of a conceptual storm drainage plan submitted by the appellant on August 7,
1992, submitted to carry out the intent of the memo provides the basis for the first appeal issue.
6. The August 7, 1992, conceptual plan was rejected in a letter issued by James C. Hanson on
September 10, 1992. The major reason for not supporting the storm drainage plan was that it
did not comply with code requirements and would require a code amendment. The record
reflects that staff believes that the conceptual plan meets neither the current code or the then
existing code. For reasons discussed below, both the current drainage code and the drainage
code extant when the application was submitted were used to review this plan. Beyond the fact
that the proposal did not meet code, the letter cited four reasons for rejecting the proposal
including: the policy requires on-site detention; maintenance responsibilities would be shifted or
created for the system that is now unimpeded; it contained difficult and unusual infrastructure;
it amounted to an inappropriate precedent.
7. In addition, in that same September 10th letter, the appellant was informed that the Building
Permit Application which had been submitted on September 17, 1991 would expire on
September 17, 1992. The City cited Section 304(d) of the 1988 Uniform Building Code which
has been adopted by the City. That provisions states:
"(d) Expiration of Plan Review. Applications for which no permit is
issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by
limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter
by returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The
building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a
period not exceeding 180 days upon request by the applicant showing that
circumstances beyond the control of the applicant have prevented action
from being taken. No application shall be extended more than once. In
order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant
shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee."
8. The criteria used to originally define the storm drainage requirements are found in Ordinance
3174, Section IX(B):
"The peak discharge from the subject property may not be increased due
to the proposed development;"
The current requirements are found in Core 3 of the King County Design Manual. The criteria
are essentially the same. The new requirement found in Section 1.2.3 rieads:
"Proposed projects must provide peak runoff control to limit the
developed conditions peak rates of runoff from specific design storm
events not to exceed the pre-development peak rates for the proposed
project site 'existing conditions' as described below.....
Proposed project peak rate runoff control must be located on-site. An
exemption from on-site peak rate runoff control may be granted for the
special conditions specified at the end of this core requirement section."
Nothing in the record demonstrates that any exemption was applicable to the subject proposal or
the conceptual plan of August 7, 1992.
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
' December 9, 1992
Page 15
9. While it is not clear what sparked the City's resolve to terminate any unresolved building permit
applications after one year, they apparently determined that a number of such applications had
expired and sent out correspondence at one time, notifying the respective applicants. The
appellant was also notified of the limitation.
10. The record reflects that in the past, the City has issued some building permits after the
expiration of the one year limitation utilized to terminate the appellant's application. The
existing record, though, does not provide an accurate record of how many permits were issued
beyond the one year limitation, however, the record reflects that it was a small number c., the
permit total.
11. A chronology of events related to the attempts at achieving a working versus a conceptual storm
drainage system includes a number of submissions which can be best summarized as follows:
a. June 20, 1991 - A preliminary meeting was held before the appellant submitted the
building permit application. At that meeting the parties agreed that storm drainage
would be governed by the criteria in the Cray memorandum.
b. September 17, 1991 - The appellant's representatives submitted a storm water design and
supporting analysis with its building permit application.
C. November 5, 1991 through February 12, 1992 - The City required and the appellant
provided additional analysis of the proposed storm drainage system's downstream
impacts.
d. February 14, 1992 (Approximately) - It was determined that downstream capacity was
limited and a possible alternative for handling the storm water might be an infiltration
system.
e. February 24, 1992 - A conceptual design for an infiltration system was submitted and
approved as conceptual on February 27, 1992. The final design was submitted May 7,
1992.
f. May 7, 1992 - The city requested verification of the infiltration rates.
g. May 14, 1992 - The City agreed it could issue a building permit without final technical
corrections to plans as long as all technical issues were resolved and a storm drainage
plan was completed.
h. May 18, 1992 - It was agreed that everything was acceptable but that verification of
infiltration rates was needed.
i. June 1, 1992 - Golder Associates (a separate agency used to test and verify the rates)
verified the infiltration rates which were forwarded to the City on June 11, 1992.
j. June 1, 1992 - The City, via a phone call, informed the appellants that Golder's
recommendations on design and written assurances of suitability were necessary.
k. June 15, 1992 - The appellants were made aware that the infiltration rates could not be
satisfied due to some error.
Sarah E. Mack • •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 16 `
1. June 19, 1992 - The city was informed that the infiltration proposal would not work.
The appellants suggested another alternative design but wanted to use certain
assumptions of soil type to determine the pre-development holding capacity of the soils
versus post-development containment or detention. The appellant assumed soil type "B."
M. June 24, 1992 - The City was sent a letter with this new proposal.
n. July 7, 1992 - The City responded with design criteria for a 100 year storm and
assuming the soil type "A" for pre-development conditions and soil type "C" for post-
development conditions. The basis for this determination was that the appellant's plans
would remove almost all the native soils down to a less permeable layer.
o. July 13 to July 15 - The appellant attempted to have the City reconsider its soil type
assumptions.
p. July 16, 1992 - The city attorney notified the appellants that the City was waiting for
design information for the retention/detention system before proceeding.
q. August 7, 1992 - The appellants submitted an alternative proposal which the appellant
maintained met the July 7, 1992 criteria the City specified. The alternative would
detain upstream storm water thereby keeping it from entering the downstream system
and freeing capacity in the downstream system for storm water from the site.
r. August 19, 1992 - The City responded that it had to discuss the proposal with its
maintenance staff. The appellant pressed for a response to the August 7, proposal until
it received the City's response September 10, 1992.
S. September 10, 1992 - The City sends the letter which indicated the alternative was
unacceptable and, in addition, notified the appellant that the building permit application
would expire on September 17, 1992. That letter gave rise to this appeal.
12. The record reflects that the original condition under the Cray Memo would have required
detention of approximately I million gallons of water or a total volume of approximately
142,000 cubic feet. It appears that there was insufficient space available to contain such a
system and that the costs were considered prohibitive. The second alternative was to analyze
the downstream system for upgrade but that was also considered too complex and again, too
costly. The third alterative was to create an infiltration system to introduce storm water into
the underlying soils. This alternative was discarded when it was determined that original
presumptions regarding the underlying soils were inappropriate and that such a system would
not work. The fourth alternative was to discharge runoff at pre-development rates consistent
with the 1990 King County Manual if the city would permit the appellants to abandon the Cray
methodology. Again, soil assumptions were an issue and the City used conservative estimates
for the existing soils and for the remaining soils after site preparation striped those soils and
further required a 100 year storm event accommodation. The result was that, once again, a
system with sufficient capacity could not be created to serve the approved site plan. The final
alternative, Alternative 5, would detain upstream flows and in the appellants words, create a
"credit" which the appellant could use. The appellant would detain storm water originating in
other areas of the drainage basin and detain those. It would then be free to release greater than
"permitted" flows from the developed site. The net effect on the downstream system would be
the same or less than the existing flows coupled with post-development flows from the subject
site. The reason for this is that the downstream system would be receiving less of the flows
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 17
from upstream of the subject site (which would be stored when they reached the subject site)
plus storm water from the subject site. As discussed elsewhere, the City determined that this
procedure did not meet the code criteria, as it altered the City's existing system in an
unorthodox fashion.
12. Over the course of the last year the applicant has submitted a number of conceptual drainage
plans including this last one. In the interim the City adopted a new drainage ordinance. The
City agrees that the appellant's proposal would ordinarily be governed by the older ordinance
but as new plans were submitted and as it became obvious that the appellant's site limitations
made compliance with the original ERC/Hearing Examiner conditions difficult, if not actually
impossible, the City adopted a more flexible approach including reviewing the proposal under
different standards but in doing so, reviewed compliance with both the older standards and the
newer standards. The appellant acquiesced to this dual approach.
13. The subject site is located within Zone 2 of the City of Renton's Aquifer Protection Area
(APA).
14. The appellant attempted to show this project was similar to one approved by the City for a
project known as Sunset Gardens. That proposal incorporates a "flow spreader" to deal with
storm water. The appellant's proposal would intercept upstream flow that is now unimpeded
and detain it, altering the City's responsibility for maintenance. It appears the two designs are
not analogous to one another.
15. The final storm drainage alternative was processed in a normal fashion. The proposal was
awaiting its turn for approximately two weeks, it was reviewed the third week, circulated and
discussed with other staff the fourth week and with the maintenance and other staff during the
fifth week.
16. The City maintains that prior to its September 10, 1992, letter it had no legal obligation to
inform the appellant that the permit would expire on September 17, 1992, and only did so in
that letter as a courtesy for informational purposes.
17. Exhibit No. 8 contains a February 20, 1992, letter from Sally Clarke, the attorney representing
the Trustee in Bankruptcy thanking the City for its willingness to work with the trustee.
18. This office finds that the City reviewed the various proposals and bargained in good faith. This
is based on the record which demonstrates that the City reviewed a number of storm drainage
proposals including at least two which were not authorized under the approved Site Plan or ERC
conditions only to find them either impractical or inappropriate. It is also based on the
testimony of appellant's witnesses Dodds and Olsen. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Dodds both expressed
similar sentiment about the cooperative and collaborative spirit they encountered in negotiating
with the City until the dispute at the end.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the Development Services Director's decision
was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was
arbitrary and capricious (Section 4-8-11(B)(4)). The decision of the governmental agency is
entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Development Services
Director is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the
determination was in error. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 18
Development Services Director should be modified or reversed. The decision of the
Development Services Director is affirmed.
2. The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County
Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there
is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." An action is clearly erroneous when,
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d
255, 259 (1969).
3. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard
of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due
consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific
Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478
(1966).
4. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Director's decision was founded upon anything
but a fair review of the evidence. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence
that a mistake was made. There is nothing in the record that would lead one to believe that the
decision was arbitrary or capricious.
5. The code provision challenged by the appellant appears clear. It does not seem to leave any
room for interpretation nor does it appear necessary to attempt to interpret it. "Applications for
which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by
limitation ..." (Emphasis supplied). While an extension may be granted and was in this case,
"No application shall be extended more than once." (Emphasis supplied).
6. Any attempt to show that the City either purposely or negligently delayed processing the permit
is not founded upon any credible evidence. Correspondence and testimony indicated that the
negotiations were productive and cooperative. What the record shows is that the site had a
series of geotechnical constraints, including soil types, slope, location vis a vis other drainage,
and a site plan without the space to accommodate a commensurate storm drainage system. All
of this was discovered in the course of review. Therefore, there is no reason to consider the
notion that the 180 day timing clock be stopped or retroactively reset during City review.
7. The appellant argues that Section 304(d) should be viewed as a limitation on the time an
applicant has to submit its plans. This argument ignores some crucial concepts. What the
appellant suggests is that any time the City utilizes in reviewing and responding to an
applicant's submission be deducted from the total time, otherwise the City could unnecessarily
stall a project and permit the time to run out. As indicated above, there is no evidence of bad
faith.
8. In any event, if the provision were to act like a chess clock, running when the applicant had to
submit something and stopped as the City reviewed something, it would be very difficult to
figure out how to run the clock. Would the timer be stopped or rather started each time the
City made a phone call to an applicant to inquire about something? Does it stop again each
time the applicant asks a question of the City? Does the running and stopping of the clock
depend on the status of the player or will only certain players be entitled to stop and start the
clock?
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 19
9. With these types of issues surrounding the appellant's proposal on how to clock the 180 days, it
is clear that the ordinance means what it says: the time runs from when the application is
submitted and keeps running until the permit is either issued or the time limit has expired,
absent a clear demonstration of bad faith on the part of the jurisdiction. Again, there was no
showing of bad faith.
10. The provision in question does not appear to extend any discretion to the City. The "application
shall expire by limitation." It is merely a ministerial duty. As the above discussion of the clock
demonstrates, it would be nearly impossible to fairly determine if the appropriate party stopped
or started the clock even in this day and age of the computer. Also it is apparent that a lot of
actions occur simultaneously and it would be nearly impossible to determine if the clock is
running on one issue but has stopped for another issue or issues. It is also clear that while the
City was reviewing various storm drainage proposals, the appellant's team was working on other
technical details. Did the clock run or didn't it? The ordinance clearly says the clock was
running.
11. The appellant also argues that they had no prior notice or knowledge that the City would take
this rigid position on the expiration of the permit and they were taken by surprise by the
September 10, 1992, letter. This office is not in a position to rule on whether the method the
City used was either tactful or courteous. Section 304(d) does not need City action to be
enforceable. It is automatic.
12. Neither is this office prepared to rule that because the City failed to act or acted differently in
other cases implementing this provision that it should be inapplicable to the appellant. This
case is reviewed on its own merits. In its simplest terms, two wrongs don't make a right. More
formally, because of the automatic nature of the provision, any attempt to ignore the provision
would require the City to undertake an ultra vires act. The City was not arbitrary or capricious
in its enforcement of this provision.
13. The second issue on appeal was whether the City inappropriately rejected the August 7, 1992,
storm drainage proposal. First, this office will not decide whether plans that were discarded
prior to the August 7, 1992 submission were appropriate or not under the Conditions of the
ERC since those issues were not clearly presented in the appeal. Second, the applicable storm
drainage code appears to be either the original code in effect when the site plan was approved
or the new code adopted subsequent to the site plan's approval, as both the City and the
appellant acquiesced when it found that the original conditions found in the Cray memo seemed
quite impractical when applied to this site.
14. There seems little question that the criteria presented in the Cray memorandum were probably
incapable of being accomplished on the subject site. It is now irrelevant. Whether that was
because the memo's standards were imprecise, or because it was subject to misinterpretation or
because the amount of native soil disruption, coupled with building placement and resulting
impermeable surfaces results in a need for a huge detention capacity that is either very costly or
generally impractical. The approval of the site plan was predicated on managing storm water in
a fashion that would limit off-site runoff and meet code requirements. It appears that both
sides relaxed the original conditions in an attempt to provide an appropriate storm water system
that also met all code requirements.
15. Under either the original storm water provision or the new design manual, the appellant is
required to limit storm water runoff to pre-development levels after development of the site.
The August 7, 1992, proposal would not have accomplished this. The appellant instead
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 20
proposed diverting upstream flows to create a "storm water credit" which it could use to release
more than the permitted amount of storm water. In effect, the appellant would reduce the
amount of storm water in the storm water system by shunting the upstream flow into a
containment device either located on appropriate areas of the subject site or elsewhere thereby
lessening the amount of storm water that would be in the system as it passed the site. Then the
appellant would release additional flows for which there would now be capacity since storm
water upstream of the site's release point would have been diverted. Staff concluded this did
not meet the requirement to limit storm water runoff to pre-development levels after
development. In addition, staff concluded that the proposal would apparently alter the
responsibility for maintenance and potentially shift liability which the City found unacceptable.
16. The proposal is not permitted under either code provision, nor is it permitted under the
permissible exemptions. Nothing in the record demonstrates that any exemption was applicable
to the subject proposal or the conceptual plan of August 7, 1992. The reviewing body should
not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the
reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The fact that the
applicant can divert upstream flow to reduce the quantity of storm water in the system is
irrelevant. The option to divert upstream flow is not sanctioned under either the old law or the
current law. Both code provisions required that post-development run off from the site not
exceed pre-development flows. The code does not permit the August 7, 1992, storm drainage
proposal. There is no error in the City's position.
17. In conclusion, it does not appear that under any standard of review, either of the City actions
were wrong. They were founded upon a clear reading of both the codes and the evidence
presented.
DECISION:
The decisions of the Development Services Director are affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 9th day of December, 1992.
FRED J. K FMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of December, 1992, to the parties of record:
Sarah E. Mack
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
500 Galland Bldg
1221 Second Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Lawrence J. Warren
City Attorney
Sarah E. Mack •
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 21
Grahame Ross
800 Bellevue Way, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
Jan Conklin
Development Services Division
James Olsen
Dodds Engineers
4205 148th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98007
Sally H. Clarke
Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson
500 Galland Bldg
1221 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
Jim Hanson
Development Services Director
Bruce J. Dodds
Dodds Engineers, Inc.
4205 148th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98007
Gregg Zimmerman
Utilities Systems Director
TRANSMITTED THIS 9th day of December, 1992, to the following:
Mayor Earl Clymer Councilman Richard M. Stredicke
Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Lynn A. Guttmann, Administrator
Members, Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson, Development Services Manager
Gary Gotti, Fire Marshal James Chandler, Building Official
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Jay Covington, Mayor's Executive Assistant
Transportation Systems Division Valley Daily News
Utilities System Division
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed
in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. December 29, 1992. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision
of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in
judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior
hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within twenty (20) days from the
date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors
discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as
he deems proper.
Sarah E. Mack
AAD-92-151
December 9, 1992
Page 22
Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 11, which requires that such appeal be filed
with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the
Examiner's decision.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may
not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the
land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council.
All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication
permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to
openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the
request by the Court.
The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as
well as Appeals to the City Council.
• *ROM :VC SWM-1111 BLDG. TO 206 23S 2541 992, 10-19 03:27PM 4S00 P.01/02
October 19, 1992
Bruce Dodds, P.E.
Dodds Engineers, Inc.
4205 148th N.E., �✓ ( O
Suite 200 C ��
Bellevue, WA. 98007.
RE: Lexington Ridge Alternative Surface Water Management Facilitios
Dear Mr. Dodds,
As you requested, I have reviewed the storm drainage report and calculations for the
Lexington Ridge Apartments (dated Septembor 17, 1992) and have the following
comments regarding their technical accuracy. I will not be providing comments on the
policy aspects of this proposed facility versus that which would be rogUirod to meet either
King County ()r the City of Renton's applicable code or SEPA requirements.
I have reviewed the assumptions, approaches and conclusions in the calculations and they
appear to rite to be conceptually correct. i did not re-run the model or check details such
as travel time calculations, curve numbers solocted or rainfall volumes. In particular, the
final results indicating that the overall peak flows for tale range of design storms
downstream are less by detaining off-site tributary runoff along with the on-site developed
runoff rather than employing a facility to control strictly the on-site runoff is conceptually
accurate. The reason this occurs is that the percentage of peak flow reduction from
detaining the volume, of runoff represented by the upper portion of the combined
hydrographs is substantially greater than that provided when detaining the much larger
volume of runoff contained in the lower portion of the hydrograph. Note, this relationship
is very similar lo, and is illustraTod by, the discussion and hydrographs shown on pages
3.5.4-7 and 8 in the King County Surface Water Design Manual.
1 ho routing of the off-site tributary drainage Area through the proposed facility should not
foreclose any future upstream or downstream improvements to further- reduce peak runoff
rates in order to further reduce potential downstream flooding. If a standard flow control
assembly is used in the vakllt it could be easily retrofitted to re-optimize the flow control
provided with the broader sub-basin objectives.
It appears that classification of the soils on this site as S.C.S. Type "A" may be
questionable- The soils mapping prepared by S.C.S. and others is always subject to
revision by actual field testing by qualified soils engineers. Hydrologically, if the Typ{; "A"
soils only exist on the surface horizon, say 6 to 8 foot in depth over a glacial till, then the
hydrologic responso will be much more similar to a S.C.S. Type "C" soil. In Type "C" soils
the rainfall which infiltrates into the soil is blocked by the till and moves laterally down
gradient along the surface of the till as interflow. This appears likoly the case with this
site. I should also note that as I understand: the S-C.S. hydrologic analysis method
parameters used to represent the volume of rainfall that becomes runoff, the "Curve
Numbers", were developed and calibrated to include measurement of this interflow along
with the true Hortoniari surface flow.
Based on your indicating that water quality re(Juirerl)entS du not apply to this project due to
vesting, I also recommend that consideration be given to optimizing this facility strictly for
ti ROM ;VC SWM-1111 BLDG. TO 20G 235 2541 1 92, 10-19 03:20PM #800 P.02/02
Page 2: Lexington Ridge Alternative Surface Water Monogement Facilities
Bruce Dodds, October 16, 1992
maximum reduction for a single design storm event, either the 10 or 25 year. This is
based on tho fact that potential flooding on the downstream systdrn (3rd Ave.) appears to
be the most significant problem and may represent a potentially significant public safety
problem. Erosion on the system (typically mitigated by control of the 2 y(!ar design storm
even flow) is not of concern. This is due 10 the fact that the downstream system is
essentially a tightline or constructed channel all the way to the point of discharge to the
Cedar River. Considering the very large developed area and the conveyance system
composition downstream I believe that using this alternative facility's voILIIII : to control the
2 year design storm event (for erosion and water quality) is marginally beneficial when
compared to benofits of flood control for the 10 or 25 year design storm ovents. If water
quality requirements are dotermined to be necessary to treat tho on-site runoff if-jai) I
would recommond they be provided by a soparnte facility ulistroarr► of this proposed
facility.
I would recommend consideration be given to optimizing the proposed facility for contiol of
the 25 year design storm event as this is the current standard for conveyance system
capacity. Optimizing the facility for the 25 year design s1or1il event with a single startle
orifice will still result in significant attortuation of the 2,10 and 100 year design storm
event flows. Note, if this proposed facility is not employed I would still recomrrrond that
the on-site runoff control facility be designod to this optimal performanue and that
attenuation of the other year design storl-n event flows he ineidontai..
I am interested in encouraging that this proposed facility be considered because I believe
that its technical basis has merit. I base this on my opinion that we rr-ruSt adapt our
requirements where there is groator benefit to solving the real problems posed by providing
surface water management facilities on the parcels of land remaining undovelo(ied within
thr3 urban areas. I feel that we must maintain flHxihility in surfaco w''itor rnanageincnt in
order to an,�ourage the in-fill development and re-development that will be essential to
allowing us to fulfill the objortives of the Growth Management Act.
Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on your Innovative proposal. I always
learn and further refine my understanding of the "art" of surface wales management by
being posed with unique situations and altcrnativc!s. If you or others have any questions
regarding my comments please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
R all Parsons, P.E.
2727 S.W. 149th Pi.
Seattle, WA. 98166 - 1657
439 - 9261
CIT-P OF RENTON
Planning/Building/Public Works Department
Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann,Administrator
September 10, 1992
Mr. Bruce Dodds, P.E., L.S.
DODDS ENGINEERS, INC.
4205 148th Street, Suite 200
Bellevue, Washington 98007
Subject: Lexington Ridge Apartments
Dear Bruce:
In our meeting of August 7, 1992, you presented a conceptual revision to the Lexington Ridge
storm drainage design and requested that City staff evaluate your proposal before expending
the effort to revise project plans and drainage calculations incorporating the change. A
summary of our evaluation is contained herein.
The proposed design revision involves inserting a large underground concrete detention vault
with control structure into an existing storm drain line located in NE 4th Street/ Bronson Way.
Addition of this facility to the City's storm drainage system would control peak flows from
tributary areas upstream of the project site and create available capacity within the downstream
drainage system. Storm water being released from the Lexington Ridge project would then be
increased to utilize a portion of the newly created capacity and reduce the size and cost of
onsite storm water control facilities. The City's drainage system would realize a benefit by
overall reduction in flows within the downstream system which currently is subject to periodic
flooding.
The following references were consulted during evaluation of your proposal:
Renton Storm and Surface Water Drainage Ordinance, Ordinance No. 3174 approved
November 21, 1977.
King County Surface Water Design Manual, January 1990, adopted by Ordinance No.
4269 approved May 21, 1990.
Based on our understanding of the proposal, it appears this conceptual drainage scheme
deviates from both past and present drainage ordinance requirements by virtue of the
following: �,..
a. The proposal results in peak stormwater flows from the developed project that exceed
existing or predeveloped conditions.
b. Proposed facilities would be used to control offsite stormwater runoff rather than
required onsite runoff control.
200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055
• Lexington Ridge Apartments •
9/10/92
Page 2
Because the proposal does not comply with adopted City drainage ordinances, an
administrative code modification will be necessary. Procedures for submittal of an
administrative code modification.request have been established by City Ordinance No. 4342
(see attached copy). However, you should be aware that staff does not support this proposal
for the following reasons:
1. This approach to project stormwater control is not consistant with the City's past and
present practice of requiring development projects to install independent onsite
stormwater detention and runoff control facilities to mitigate increased storm runoff
created by the project. Constructing a detention facility within the City's existing
drainage system to control offsite drainage and allow the project to discharge storm
runoff of greater magnitude than is normally acceptable places a responsibility for
project stormwater detention and potential consequences of unpredicted storm events on
the City and private upstream properties.
2. Because the new detention vault along NE 4th Street/Bronson Way would collect public
drainage and become an essential element of the City's stormwater collection system,
maintenance responsibility would fall upon the City Maintenance Department which
currently does not have the resources, experience or budget allocation to effectively
maintain a facility such as this.
3. It is unorthodox for a public drainage system to incorporate a facility that is normally
used to control private drainage into the public system. Addition of detention vaults
and in-line flow restrictors will make management and planning of the system more
difficult and possibly complicate or restrict future capital improvements to the storm
drainage infrastructure.
4. It is undesirable for the City to establish a precedent for this approach to stormwater
management of private development projects.
If you wish to pursue this proposal further, please note the appeal procedures identified in the
attached administrative code modification ordinance. Your code modification request must
include a complete analysis of the drainage basin tributary to the proposed detention/control
vault with accurate mapping of the basin in its present condition along with all computer
printouts of hydrograph and level pool routing routines for a complete technical analysis.
It has become evident that your client does not intend to develop the apartment units at this
time but that some other owner will develop the site in the future. The City has not evaluated
the project as a phased development from the storm drainage or any other standpoint. The EIS
and site plan review assumed that the grading was part of the larger construction project with
no time lapse between portions of construction. The City must ask for some assurance that the `-
development will be completed in a timely manner acceptable to the City or we must ask that
review be conducted on a phased project which will require an addendum to the original EIS
and a revised site plan approval including a fill and grade permit.
Please contact Don Erickson in our Current Planning Section at 235-2550 if you wish to apply
for an addendum to the EIS or site plan approval. If you wish to proceed toward acquiring a
building permit for this project please submit some security acceptable to the City to ensure
timely completion of the project.
i
Lexington Ridge Apartments
9/10/92
Page 3
Your building permit application will expire on September 17, 1992. According to Section
304d of the 1988 Uniform Building Code, no extension beyond September 17, 1992 may be
granted. Remaining unapproved.corrections required in our June 10, 1992 letter must be made
and approved by the City prior to September 17, 1992.
We hope this information is helpful in bringing this project to a successful conclusion. Thank
you for your patience in this matter.
Sincerely,
James C. Hanson },zz,,��
Development Services DYre-/ctor
cc: WO
Wen
Gregg Zimmerman
Neil Watts
Tom Kress
Sally Clarke
JCH331mp
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 6,1992
TO: File
FROM: Gregg Zimmerman G
SUBJECT: Lexington Ridge Storm Water Chronology
o October 12, 1987: Determination of Significance issued for project.
o October, 1987 through April, 1989, EIS was produced for project. EIS proposed
conventional detention system to control peak rate runoff so as to accommodate a 25-year
storm event and a 5-year release rate, and off-site frontage improvements would
accommodate the 100-year storm event. It was estimated that a 19,000-20,000 cubic foot
capacity detention volume would be required. Oil/grease traps were proposed, along with
silt sumps. Biofiltration was not considered due to site constraints.
o April 5, 1989, ERC staff report produced by City. The staff report called for provision of
tightlining, aqua recharging and biofiltration. It also called for a plan for protection of the
aquifer through installation of oil/grease traps, silt sumps in catch basins, and risers in the
detention facility. It required a maintenance and monitoring plan. It required a detention
system coordinated with capacity of the downstream piping infrastructure, in accordance
with the Garth Cray Memo of 6/15/89.
o June 15, 1989, Garth Cray Memo calls for drainage system to meet two scenarios:
-if conveyance capacity of the existing City storm system is determined to be sufficient in
capacity to address a 25 year storm, then the requirement will be 10 year storm detention
with a 10 year storm existing condition release rate.
-If the capacity of the existing system is determined to be less than that necessary to
address a 25 year storm, the requirements would be for a 25 year detention system with a
release rate being computed under predeveloped conditions for the year storm matching the
capacity of the existing system (i.e. if the capacity of the existing system is 10 year storm,
then the release rate will be computed on the 10 year storm). The system should also be
designed to handle the 2 year storm. Calculations will be by accepted hydrograph
- methodology.
-Biofiltration will not be required (contradicts ERC report).
ORDINANCE NO. 4342
D . Appeals : Any decisions made in the administrative
process described in this ordinance may be appealed to the Board of
Public works within fifteen ( 15 ) days and filed, in writing, with
the Board Chairman or Secretary . The Board of Public works shall
give substantial weight to any discretionary decision of the City
rendered pursuant to this chapter.
SECTION II . This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication .
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 3rd day of February, 1992 .
Marilyn etersen, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 3rd of February, 1992 .
Ea Clymer, Mayor
Approv as to r
QM .
Lawrence J. wa n, City Attorney
Date of Publication: February 7 , 1992
ORD. 219 : 2/03/92 :as.
i
3
October 6, 1992
Page 2
o ADDENDUM TO THE ERC REPORT (Undated). This addendum changes the criteria for
the detention system established by the Garth Cray memo above. This addendum requires
the system to be designed to control peak rate run off for the 2, 10, 25, and 100 year storm
events, without regard to the downstream capacity issue. The system would need to limit
peak rate runoff from these design storm events to the pre-construction peak runoff rates.
This provision is the same as our current code requirements, except it is more strict in that it
adds a requirement to control the 25 and the 100 year storms. Our current code requires
control of the 2 and 10 year storms, with 30% volume capacity added to the detention sizing
needed for the 10 year storm. In most cases this ADDENDUM would be stricter and result
in a larger detention facility than our current code. The validity of this ADDENDUM as a site
plan mitigation document is somewhat questionable, since it is not referenced in the ERC or
Hearing Examiner reports. Since this ADDENDUM contradicts the Garth Cray memo,
Dodds Engineers and the City agreed to use the criteria established in the Garth Cray
memo to guide peak rate run off control design.
o October 13, 1989, Hearing Examiner Report approved site plan. Report requires
compliance with ERC conditions.
o June 20, 1991, Dodds Engineers met with City staff (Randall Parsons and Gregg
Zimmerman) to discuss design criteria for the building permit application. It was decided
mutually at this meeting to accept the ERC Staff Report and the Garth Cray memo as a
basis to design the peak rate runoff control portion of the system. The contradiction in the
ERC Staff Report and the Garth Cray memo regarding biofiltration was troubling. Again, it
was mutually agreed to not require biofiltration or baffled oil/water separators, but rather wet
vaults that would satisfy City need to provide water quality facility, but also be sensitive to
the site space constraints. This was an attempt by the City to be accommodating: we could
have asked for biofiltration according to the ERC staff report. Due to lack of clear,
comprehensive standards in our City Code regarding temporary erosion control provisions,
pipe sizing criteria, and downstream analysis methodologies at the time of site plan
approval, the City and Dodds mutually agreed to use the standards of the current storm
water code for these elements. Note that this agreement did not alter any of the site plan
conditions; rather, it established a clear methodology for accomplishing these conditions.
The possibility of incorporating infiltration into the roof and landscaping drainage design was
discussed at this meeting. Infiltration is consistent with the ERC report (termed "aqua
recharging" in report).
o September 17, 1991, acceptance of building permit application. Storm water system
incorporated wet vaults and detention vaults. Submittal did not include a level 3
downstream analysis. There were 30 storm drainage review comments. Review was
completed and returned to building department on October 18, 1991.
o October 10, 1991, site plan expires, extended through building permit application.
o April 2, 1992, resubmittal was made on the building permit application. After numerous
discussions with City staff, applicant revised approach to include an infiltration system. An
insufficient geotechnical report was submitted. This report did not adequately characterize
permeability of soil at true point of discharge (test was taken 4-feet below the surface,
whereas the vaults will discharge 25-feet and 55-feet below the surface respectively).
There were 31 storm drainage review comments. The review was completed and returned
to the building department on May 4, 1992.
o June 10, 1992, full geotechnical report from Golder submitted to plan review (not part of
formal building permit resubmittal). There were irregularities in the report. City review of
the report was complete by June 19, 1992, and review comments communicated to Dodds.
October 6, 1992
Page 3
Dodds sent a letter to the City dated June 24, 1992 stating that the infiltration tests have
provided information that indicates the soils will not permit design of a storm water system
using infiltration as the sole design option for detention and release of all runoff from the
project. It was necessary to detain water on the site and release at "the predeveloped rate",
in Dodds' words. This letter also proposed a "split the difference" design CN number
between Type "A" and Type "C" soils, and proposes to analyze only a 30 acre portion of the
system drainage basin rather than the whole 580 acre basin so as to establish downstream
system capacity, in accordance with the Garth Cray memo. The letter also proposes
upsizing of some downstream existing pipe from 8-inch to 12-inch diameter. Dodds met
with the City on June 19, 1992 to discuss these issues. The City sent out a response letter
dated July 7, 1992 stating in essence that the entire drainage basin would have to be
analyzed to adequately characterize downstream pipe capacity in order to determine
capacity available for this project, per the Garth Cray memo. The letter rejected the "split
the difference" approach to arriving at a CN number for use in the calculations, and also
proposed that Dodds, at his option, would be allowed to limit peak rate runoff from the 2, 10,
and 100 year storm events to predeveloped levels instead of performing the extensive
modeling and calculations required to determine available downstream capacity per the
Garth Cray memo. This was offered as a relief to the applicant, and was optional, not
mandatory. Essentially, this option falls back to the standards established for the project in
the ADDENDUM TO THE ERC REPORT.
o August 7, 1992, Dodds submits for City review a conceptual drainage plan which proposed
not detaining site post developed runoff to the predeveloped peak rate, but limiting it to a
more liberal discharge rate, and making up for the difference by installing a detention vault
within the City system to provide detention for previously developed upstream properties.
After full review, the City sent a letter to Dodds dated September 10, 1992 not supporting
this proposal for several reasons, including non-compliance with present and previous storm
water code. This letter also included information that the building permit application expires
on September 17, 1992.
o September 17, 1992, applicant resubmits building permit drawings. Note that this is the first
formal resubmittal of the building permit drawings since April 2, 1992, even though there
were 75 other review comments on that previous submittal other than storm water
comments.
o November 3, 1992, hearing set in front of the Hearing Examiner to appeal administrative
determinations to not approve the proposed storm water detention system and to allow the
building permit application to lapse.
H:GARTH.GZ
' Amenas u r u iv
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4342
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTION 4-22-16, OF CHAPTER 22, STORM AND WATER DRAINAGE,
OF TITLE IV (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260
ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
RENTON, WASHINGTON" RELATING TO ALTERNATES, MODIFICATIONS
AND APPEALS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS :
SECTION I . Section 4-22-16 of Chapter 22, Storm and
Surface Water Drainage, of Title IV (Building Regulations ) , of
Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City
of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows :
4-22-16: ALTERNATES, MODIFICATIONS, APPEALS.
A. Alternates : The provisions of this code are not
intended to prevent the use of any material or method of
construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided any
alternate has been approved and its use authorized by the
department Administrator or his/her designee.
The Administrator may _ approve any such alternate,
provided he/she finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and
complies with the provisions of this code and that the material,
method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the
equivalent of that prescribed in this code in suitability,
strength, effectiveness,, . durability, safety maintainability and
environmental protection.
The Administrator shall require that sufficient evidence
or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made
1 I
ORDINANCE NO. 4342
1.
regarding its use . The details of any action granting approval of
an alternate shall be written and entered in the files of the code
enforcement agency.
B. Modifications : Whenever there are practical difficulties
involved in carrying out the provisions of this ordinance, the
Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases provided
he/she shall first find that a special individual reason makes the
strict letter of this code impractical, that the modification is in
conformity with the intent and purpose of this code, and that such
modification:
1 . Will meet the objectives of safety, function,
appearance, environmental .protection and maintainability intended
by the Drainage Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgement.
2 . Will not be injurious to other property(s ) in the
vicinity.
C. Tests : Whenever there is insufficient evidence of
compliance with any of the provisions of this code or evidence that
any material or construction does not conform to the requirements
of this code, the Administrator may require tests as proof of
compliance to be made at no expense to this jurisdiction .
Test methods shall be as specified by this code or by ,
other recognized test standards . If there are no recognized and
accepted test methods for the proposed alternate, the Administrator
shall determine test procedures .
Suitable performance of the method or material may be
evidence of compliance meeting the testing requirement .
2
it •
li
Gases Say
7�
II
1
k
j 2 S'- •�.__ �/ ��
li
li �< •+ LrR Grti
Ijloor
64000",
9.
44
I
Z /� 5 9�' l�¢ Ci1 � !�-.5 1vM �1T/LcG�'✓ '� ry+.9�1 C.� 5'� � f
� �lc s-C
li
lI- Z` Z
T � •
DDDDS ENGINEERS, INC.
C IVIL ENGI NEERING SUR V E Y I N G P L A N N I N G
June 24, 1992
DEI Project No. 87075
CfiY OF RENTo;q
RECEivP
Mr. Tom Kress
City of Renton JUN 2 9 T912)
Department of Public Works DEVELOPMENT SERViCEs
Municipal Building DIVISION
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton WA 98055
Subject: Lexington Ridge Stormwater System
Dear Tom:
The infiltration tests recently performed on the site by Golder Associates have provided
us with soils information that indicates the soils will not permit us to design a storm
water system using infiltration as the sole design option for retention and release of
all runoff from the project. Based upon this information, it will now be necessary to
detain storm water on-site and release at the pre-development rate. As a result of our
meeting with you last Friday afternoon, we have determined the existing pre-development
outflows from the site and have reviewed the downstream analysis we previously submitted
to the city. A copy of the downstream analysis is enclosed with this letter for your
information and review.
Existing Outflows
Everett (Type "A") soils, described as medium to coarse sands and gravels, were
originally used to calculate the pre-development outflow from the site. As a result of
Golder's studies, we now know there are significant portions of the site which qualify as
Alderwood or Kitsap soils (Type "C", fine compact sands, silts and till). At our meeting
with you last Friday, you agreed that it would be reasonable for us to change the soil
type assumptions used to calculate the existing outflows. It seems reasonable to
calculate the existing outflows by averaging between Type "A" and Type "C" soils, which
means using Type "B" soils to compute the CN values. Because the values for Type "B"
soils are still low compared to those for Type "C" soils, they are conservative while
still being reasonable for design purposes. The calculations show the following for the
15 acre site:
(CN=62) (CN=76.3) (CN=84)
Event Type A Type B Type C
2-yr 0.15 cfs 0.50 cfs 1.45 cfs
10 0.44 1.73 3.30
25 0.65 2.63 4.44
As you can see, using Type "B" soils for CN value determination yields a 25-year
event outflow from the Lexington Ridge site of approximately 2.63 cfs.
4205 148TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 08007 1206) B85-7977 OR 454-3743
FAX:(208)B85-7963
ol
Gx`�
di �G P�h °✓ �o vG-e, o�
June 24, 1992
DEI Project No. 87075
Mr. Tom Kress
City of Renton
Subject: Lexington Ridge Stormwater System
2nd Page
Downstream Analysis
It only remains for us to evaluate the downstream system to assure that the allowable
flows from the 10- and 25 year events can be conveyed within those systems. As we
discussed last Friday afternoon, the existing storm drainage outflow from the site is
currently accommodated by the existing downstream system. Nevertheless, the King County
Surface Water Manual requires that downstream systems be described and problems disclosed
for at least 1/4 mile downstream or to a point where the site becomes less than 15% of
the contributing drainage basin.
The intersection of Bronson and Third is only a hair less than 1/4 mile from the site, as
measured along the drainage course. Crossing the line from Bronson to Third
instantaneously expands the basin from approximately 30 acres to a combined area of 580
acres. The Lexington Ridge site is only approximately 2 6% of the total combined
drainage basin and the site's flow contribution is of the same magnitude, i.e. something
less than 5%. For this reason, we believe it is reasonable to limit the enclosed
downstream analysis to the smaller 30 acre drainage basin above the intersection of
Bronson and Third. Because we intend to provide on-site detention and release at the
pre-development rate and will not be increasing the rate of outflow from the site, the
project is not anticipated to have a measurable impact on the downstream system below the
intersection at Bronson and Third. Furthermore, although there may be some inadequacies
in that downstream system, you have advised us that there have not been any reported
system failures during 25-year and greater storm events.
Proposed Design Parameters
Based upon the existing outflows from the site and the enclosed downstream analysis, we
propose to establish a lower bound design for the 2-year flow at 0.50 cfs and create
corresponding detention, and an upper bound 25-year allowable outflow of 2.63 cfs, with
detention to match that figure. We would also propose that Lexington Ridge upgrade one,
perhaps two, 8-inch diameter pipe runs near the intersection of Bronson and Third to
12-inch lines. The remainder of the Bronson system is 12-inch diameter pipe with
sufficient HW/D to maintain inlet control and flows in excess of that needed to convey
the 25-year event. We have completed rough calculations for detention using these
criteria and find the 2-vault system we have proposed will be adequate with a slight
length enlargement to the lower vault.
We would appreciate your review and consideration of the enclosed analysis and the above
explanation. If this approach and criteria are acceptable, we will proceed immediately
to make the changes to the plans. We will be pleased to meet with you and other city
representatives at your earliest convenience to discuss these criteria. I look forward
to hearing from you. /
'pe.+e.o`J�,— PQ,.C - , _- ra.vns�r'Ps
Ve ly yours, ./ "a/6 r�
ODD ENGINE XS, INC. 2 y, /a yy-) ,sVVP lob y, sfiar•�
B' dds, P.E.,
DDDDS ENGINEERS, INC.
CI VI L E NGINE E RING S U R V E Y I N G P L A N N I N G
SUPPLEMENTAL DOWNSTREAM
CALCULATIONS
FOR
LEXINGTON RIDGE
RENTON WASHINGTON
DEI Project No. 87075
Prepared By: James A. Olsen, P.E.
Approved By: Bruce J. Dodds, P.E., L.S.
June 23, 1992
4205 14BTH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200-BELLEVUE, WA 98007 (206) BB5-7B77 OR 454-3743
FAX:(206)BB5-7963
DODOS ENGINEERS, INC. JOB NO.;10
CIVIL ENGINE E R I N G S U R V E Y IN G P L A N N I N G DATE
i
4205 '14BTH AVE. N.E.. SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE. WA 98007
206J B05-7077 OR 454-3 43 B Y
l w N sT �CAic ysTr--M - —.
I F?IrSt CfiP-LCUL�T1 oNS 7A, SurIA1Ew i►•_iTAl.. 'Ro _04c`SE
'(` c�Jt�VS�.'r '� ``(� Cti� DiZ ►ti1't= LEx' �C-��N 12tUh€ lVDJ&Lr.
�� �►�1GWS��r� T�='•�?�v;���`-�' -�rZ�� h-1��' ���vx rf`•�.c.ELS
-1 Tc�
tNF-1 LT 2-A- ;':-)N S'niEr"'
SY�r'! �oNstSTs C� t2" �a�c.�c� PIV�S . t'�b��r✓vE�L �
PDV41tc-j of TIfiE nYnllFr-, IS P ►J o" CGt'ic . c rS1t�-1
e� art Ct.o"P,Gj� at t I.LL �y SC+.t Z tit �%lrC t�_
1 L n o w tQ Si-40 A tit
T,7t,c t�� `r ?c'',�• .�` - -t;= L' A ' (�j-C13 - I I S
i:)v,i c- ;e' tir -"- c L r 1 3 C IF -TP c CCUT u-Act Q cF LGX!tJ($,jZ t�
1 Idyl 4,jkU.. '4Plc= f ow IC -1 . 9 Cr-S. e L-*3 Ct`S ) .
L �� LLD .► VS' 2 -3 CFS L0v--1,L 11 lA ,> 71-t� CAeACt'r-r DF
AT 1 TA67 rt'l�('3c,-r-/,- r2.ot-q ATEe
7zUtiv
Tt-r>c fw vi 1-0 :t: 24 4 c=s 1 I?lz- 33-1 L;
7HS r'�ot_'xC -t IF 00C- C)(!Cue,S 0c)wtQsn4- A(. '
IS A rill cokdl . 'TNT NCxT STILUMILE
f)cDwNST1_C-At--i 12ECf- V E S f�71.Cw Frzor-t AS4 g" Cow( . PIiPE.
ScrA C_�Ze DF „QCI;;.� eR-� "r��o ST��v�Tt;�LEs -'Sd`F PIS
�E-�'P�uC-DES2-or--t A -t2 Il ,1� �r� �t v,ZC
(JH lGN 1 S YA`Jc1� Ct1 OrL. Dry GI-'-� Z9cC>fL05 ANC7 FtFLO "
ot3sCtzV QTtc�! P(LartDr tito Fog TttIS
T}-'C SL_oy'sS Fo4 &)Ivk Cy' - AEE g`r
Of -t4�E 5GG M iiF WTS AT o)Z uvEl d"AaI T-r
-A
SHEET OF
��\'•�`�- .! { •j`,E' 11:1: ��.•• ?tom �. .'•.`� �h•1._ -......_...�- 1-�-r +.� X —�
M '1 fit), PI:1'.. � ``-lam` ~:'mar-"�,� .• ... 't "h_1--h—F�h r.r..L--1•-F
�V'Z / �(�,�\':'. ,J„ 7 t'r•l-{S• J to c v •;.. I 1 ��/.
HD SER
�\�ZS/ �, �.i L -� ` ` 77 •-I[•i Lrl.:1 7•'1:11 -_ ♦.
• ..�.• � .. .. .. .. .. .. U Y �`` :,J Y J ry a 7• :Z -• r
* \\ •'\ /.Tt .1 .f ..j..1 L',1 i O Wr it�•,. �`\ �•'�.
n o a w o ll1 -1 J`u•.1'-1 1- D
cJ, ooaoLi� of �._ o � : C pro,
.. ST SA ^\ \ •�
///��� ;, H ro•]I r, �� U o 0 C)0•U N 3 �, !!1>/l,JTI l� ��\ l.,S,
3 l�)• [•r •'tj C' 7 0,••r Y �f •' .,_ FD \` t
• ti n x urn :u p ,..o� Y a -�;�;. ��•,
<to _
t>1:u I1 rt'•I T � J J J C .;;,,.�1� �''���`�� NC��� 1[•
po
10
_)o o
00 O N • y -V 6 a z:4 m:4;u <of
l ,. �'•'• '•.
U p b •�. Y O C 'Yu �( \ •-.�`�C1l cK, a 1/J 1 ly ��
]• Y JI
n T�Y-- 1 . ^��
K•. .. ,. . . ,, 9
o•L 0a 00 o 1:, �U��,' �O ��,+, I v�l_ �i•.r �����35 Si/�('1�'''
COND. SIi UNITS
•� e , Y V U E M a DF� b
.. ,,.� \ `/ I Id n _ .e'i< rn r " -__ r•', S, l9 � .,ItC,� �\�
17
1 4�i L In �� �(+'t
` ` I-� if 1 v '.1
' '� rn� 111� 111 ii t.i I VI1 I,��/ ��'3 l-J_ /i•.'/ Ul V/�.'���{ '/�
'YT '.1tif � 1 i, �1�ut11 ul J ) a I 1 '11,�" �tf``• Li \,1
I ,fl21 df�l`' 60 )O ,���1°I SAT.
t� LLyy(��
Ct � o -•,�, fnSol
� � �,,. '; � . .tip _ p Rj.' ••�` ,� � ��� \�L\\ .� '� `� � ,.;`L.''1 ,
,Ui t•I 1'7(1 7_Y 1:
4 r,•a•rr- r•:vh3H i
.I.r.
Ln C);u 57
47
r / l
r] ii 6005
j 1N- <.. ('j', ,�/ { I` `�o (• vt ' 'f i' I<�t 1'`.i- e
o ,.,. '< i,' Lo r r ,y'I',t \ \ f\ �, V1 �, ,r�, VT •n -
• is In •.i � t `,j��`� � `�► \J `r .v„ a` ,'e: �,rl l ) ;�1 "ll ... `T 1!�' i�'1\ r� \,:, �
n rr •V Ill � •n�, I •�;ti r� '1,V ..- < `1 f; � J d� /r)�T•IU rf�•�U r i ti T ` " /f\t,�`• -,• !'.•, ' ►Q ll, �� \ •!v�'..\%(•� �,`'
J' (�rr rn `' IV �� I, �i / t`crS1 �J•, ��(.' fCt' ' ). l)��
i o (n U n ✓ �1 �11 .'i4f t) `l f_ r/ r e�
In
ilii /3+CI `''•r• n
row om o
o
n 1- � � , l; 1, �r� L _ .Ty(I�i ;+� e,
Y 3• �) TY' 44
00
`Jdo
`�, ' ' •u, y _I' `-�J p 1,
A COI
jp
— —
/ '��� •1 •1 �1 1 L'.0•1 O
Ln
PIWINDSOR P l
! 01l - -, v v
0 1 'u,1,1 S•,,,{.,,. ,n. l/ to I,M .1v �•u- p
l / I q/1 n .0 i I i t:u:• �)�n 7• CJ � t� ��' t'-'t'f' r` � r1 S_C/ -3 1 Sc f,.
/ ]•.0:u ;n K n, J J -11 I 1JS'I ,i�1 I -'�
/ ! , �'+'D ) I I•I I i r1`�]�:,;VI CTol� .1, i •� �\ t', :) j91 U r;l 1.-. t�-1 t�• J `
/ r,�'1• �;[Y j'll Ilj•7•L11.1 -10 \/J ' -- `� ;, V (�I _� in W
1 /1/ �.1 ' 1.1I 1 'J ;!1i)I C'ij:11V ;PI .� � � � iA - 1•t U —
/ 1 to,n '-' r 1•.�:,•,')• 31 •�\ -_ ` o a• w ,.. rN A77 60 --- __
iiII- ��11, •_- r _ L. `" i'I ' r- -- - - - - ---- - _
'1 :. :. :. :. /y
Ju+ 0 ,. , Ir. :17n7
So
�o IT
,
1
'P / .. n,. .1 •-:,r•��'�]• ��� `ram �r ['\ -1,1154
to
, _ I :L bl)• _ U -� N ` .
1.. .1., -it�• '�• �� \ 1 IN ld ,M1�l,i,rl�,)•:4 'I, '• , —_
1 f� \`. V --- —14P('J__ vl u.'t,l 1 a rT kvAj
/1 (f(
n 1 1A
IN, U q
_IQI1_ 1PFo2- tq Ci S r,., D
t+ vm V I I r to z
_99Y
l` ,I A Y
�K DI,. .0 _1 Y f (r. l)
�\ rl •]r,(y,�, 1 1]';U :n -i , ,',/I � 00_ N r M w Ol J o o s
1•I . 6 1 ) 1
�^ 1141^ v M O P y O D A Ln .`!. a•` - -- -Cf��)-
D S •• `�: ,: f f ' idTT flnsiia� " v ). n i; �i �'�/�!_- 16•(�'7 Coto.. r nJ 7 n n w( �� in to 1 L0i' 1 f �, ry i1 o ry to /fdw
w �v
if 1, _U ," .o j�",,,'� �� 1 ;1 �(� �!!.�!— t,t� '•i�6p(Ur.,' m m N ,it
LAA'£1'IIWIleA
C> o ^
y11 If1t N to C q11!r CA
( n(U �!, oo ) ie ?1 1\ r /1 1 } 1• -- \ n�t n,' `-' �!^-d�fl- u � o� 1 I s.
a n
(� o N - `s j< �I , I�f I�.� _i1}f�Yr •��' a :� t,d1,,f� ' 'fY'n I i—
L e
X Cn
�'� C 1�1 :i ~ ;, •� ISdt 9a • macl ' No
co
Lot e
-,l ( N r so se/6 do Oo61 rsr
Ln
\` ..
I
Fyn r '. 1 ,. ,... r rn In � .li`Vt '1!P: P7f4---
®i- OOOOS ENGINEERS, INC. JOB NO. A O S
C I V I L ENGINEERING SURVEYING P L A N N I N G DATE
4205 146TH AVE. N.E., SUITE 200 - 6ELLEVUE. WA SaOC7
(206( 665-7677 OR 454-3743 B Y
'� � '. . ? .( Q`ii� � � ���7 Lis� •
O �1•l0 ��J � I
• � I i
'fit TPC,E
���__._�itif S%��-T'l O�..-, G l T'� ��%•:�':'� � ��rZ�J �=C�^.-tJ 1J 1'—� :;1`-�Gt:
!'�1C �j TT�J �. �n:�i� j r'(=\
S`�STcf�-1 :
6vo u? c 11'7'-A l j-4 _33�J @ l 2� (o
33IF
I2" CONG, C SrDW►�i GU1ZUEr7 q.1 G�i to r�t:S 1
--
7-1,�, U = �•� cis.
- .. I T ( Off {-
GI-r'( REcoe�s
�`T: + I8/• �t� scA-LJS
W Fc�Uc.1D N�-� � (��.�.Sc�S . (IsuL� �o►.�rz�� ���tl.i.
CoriG ) -7¢1� ? r -
v-;� I
N S I• i c�vu;,�T ►�� Tt-�ts cep
SHEET 21 OF
• !
® � D O D D S ENGINEERS, INC. JOB NO. 01
C I V I L E NGIN E E RING S U R V E Y I N G P L A N N I N G OAT E
4205 14BTH AVE. N.E.. SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE. WA 96007
� v2N6Si, Q tS zct�k\ y
-7,EP- l 1� 0 To ►vim
�r2o1JSo tJ ��rLS �- '1D �� GCD�rL (Zt�t�Z.� �S �-lL�� ►- �ZI`
CUL-T -M I-Fn r,IE- 11-E SQ° ST��T
SYSTE ti-%' IS -> ?v�Y?AX!►--{ATF UY cE54� SS'`( t-44Tc-
L �_UNoFF F14"or-A �r't-'lS �A 1S
1lJ t=STI ATr I,*i 7�+E <^PAG ITY Or 'M,4 t7p�.5 N S1t? l�r t
I . T- L SYSr 1��1el CAN
J U t-4 CTri ry f � ¢9 ) \S l_0 Q\ G, 1``t)L V W` 71
/-\OIT'Y t..t:. (Z5 `T-e Lv&�-rT
2 . -THP AVAtLA&U:-_ of SYsTE4 t c�,a tRV
15 E C"--�l'L_ TO 7- �2c t- t 1�c ►J t N G C�P�Lc.t;'f /�fTc r
+iWW Dct�ti:
�J T P.rJ�L_`�51� ���1,Y �x7�ND S 'tU f(zotil ?�, r.�
C:,CE-a O 0-6H A 7 7rf--' E�01M", Cf--
Vc- w'L'L orJ 3 k_Z9 sTfW_t-;.
�t_ow
11J ��Dr-4 P�20►J�o nl
Tk-t E 2ES uLTS �-i�� pt2EV ICI�S Art Pt.�S iS S t�+o WE.t7 �•�
s`f Si17-f-I 610f-�QGYI� RUNJ off �bw►J {-TAS CAf�ACtT'f �i-
-,^\P�)4-0YI t-4 ATF,,Y 20 CFS (SE.E EN4CLOSEO E)(P(t!::%T �iW:tit Pry C-�tovS
n-"Z S--,(STC►`'t 1-f�S p�t�►�12^X r 1.c?tiE _Y•
2(� CFS C aCt7`(. wt'ICP LeA,\AF;. T+C- Ci' ± lccf-s.
sEvc-� l'1l'rs c��T�rr�u+� f�� 10 rt�� 2ro cF� S&c-�-tC QT
(,ulktCH MA`( 109 MA`( QOT USA I�'C ANM1A2�C' CP�Ajt-r- 1K4 TN1W.
ON C— ►..-t 1G WT Ltd N CI,UD E TNC S'(STL M t N S"-D 1S P'T {Z
-coefL TT . +�av"G�cgo-) Vw�ZI NG SMYLMs (U4 IN- ,Z 1-39 I )
TNL CrT'( l% C-2,k+c%3 L e i? No FL ocoi tJU I►J
S-roZfA C S Te,,) .p MLO x( "A7—=L✓-( A sv '(6A t Z 5-�D rzA-1 EJ E l i.
(,m�kl cW 1 S I+--� &)c_CL�s 0� 25 YIZ . E-u1`tJT ' 'rzooj w 4tc14
ALE 'TNE F-u rJ OFF L-OA-V C-S �r2�tJSfl�1 ►T E�rt�tLS �1
012 C P-4 lkr4V t-o LE T s o UT-+ L-r A-1-0 1-4 G Trie EAST'
'
SoF o Z- yoS, TV-r QuNoPf- 6,0► -71tJUES SouTFtc-euLr U.J
'ram OPC-->_l P t TG 4 Fb\Z --t 700 r_f. 7 � 40�-sc� F T�`O-Q Fv4ruS'
,A sc�zte S of co N c,ee rE p nos t v,-K c H fL-0�-j
10 il-trr CL-P^4 fZ-lvE . -TH& W.S. D.C).T Al
PV_t=�1 r-t 1 t•,Afz,Y C>f-- i11+G SYST'GM At.►D TPG 2CSv l.Tr,
A1ZC ( NC.LUDED we e l4 THIS r_�t'DV-T TF '( h�_e No - C`N( I.t)S` vc-
l-1C��u t=it I T AePt2A4 S '11aE t-rA �l=7C=�-1..'' N -})J
(�O U►.� �T1zlc-r�r-t S�(5�►-1 'fD PpIckie ^_V9Pl'_1TY To
SHEET OF
G:
GI
GO 7 ,
59
Se
St \`
54
53
49 .� __ --- 2�aY_s==s""".�.--- "46
�t_._._._._> l�,E H_5•�;` C� ,,`_ -Iz
+s -- -•-- - Y - Io"�D"� 1 .\ N0K?H PotJD I * +'; �,` ♦ -%`
+2 0 >✓r.x:" - _ nm �I y�� e p-�.4X 5 5,\ _��• _ rF-v''�J'.? '1 l.._._._._41
SS11t1ET�CYC1
+O u 1 -2 - - _ - - •�\a a%s•ca--':. - - i.--• - ~ram--.-_.—`}'t�o+,• -_�_•,-�_�inm>sinin•..
>-tc
Ie .................................. --------•--- -
w V
iS lINE
g- e :._.__�---t:r.:::: ...
11 3 -.• .. ..�
"ZTo- --•------------- --------•---.�'�_-- •1, -
- $" 13 -�� �� �`' •_ _• —_ � _____. ••_____ G- _.�•_>�]E-5—eya-...-...------ 11
30 r-�74---__.. •t0.,e� _ t ...P DR6R HN -I�i
2v _
21 i f
26 ---•-•-.-. cxtrn�c
,• i
�._._._zi
,
2120
Is
11
Is
AI
I2 FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 0-1 i
II n �'-
t
10
e 0 10 Io0
:Cass fE0.A1D PflOJ.HO.
HIGHWAY DIVISION D` y
+ OCS t. Br v. S[rSM 10 rA$N Washington State O
• •'•t Er1CrE0 Dr S. SIr.SSNAM
U_.Ec•EO Br G, r(DBCN i r. SCrSIM_ — ..+• Deportment of Transportation
• PaOJ_E YGN. J, JOHMSOr
1 OIS1. aDr- R 0 erDCPSON wur—
WIT-oeif NEv1510N or + DRAINAGE PLAN
1
' s
1
1
, ,,, I n 1.✓,i 1 1 :1
J-1 v
1 1 w
°I 1 i1i1(INj
r l lL
4.
i 1 1 A iO 0� v --------------
1 r._. w
- n SUkSET-8L;0.M_E. _ .1: _ _ _ .'7 12,
- _. _ _-
.; LS_2'I�•-l "'C L'1?'-^_��_"G S^__1��� ,�-__�r -
--'--- -----' _.�L � , �c:'a- -_ --`.-•____•-.—___—.___._.>-'•--------
-------------------------
j.
7� ...................•---..._____ o•
..iQ�ONC -
/
DI tC i � o S
Ii,F4 8 l-•,K/l;�O[
- 2a�. /• i�C
ter. �p
-------------
FOR LEGEND SEE,SIKEI.Op.I-. - -J
0 SO too
SCALE IN FEET
""'ISTAII FE0.A10 PROJ.U0.
oEstcNco er v N HIGHWAY DIVISION
tNIERtO or 10 MASH Stote S Moshin ton SIRASSNAN 9
cMCA[o Rr a v1sa R J W. Nsoft Deportment of ironsportation
YROI. ENGR, J. JMpSON �~�•
OISI, AUM, R 0 AND(R$ON �.,.y,
oAli v.IE REVI$TOM or DRAINAGE PLAN
s • _
® ► DODOS ENGINEERS, INC. JOB NO. 0
C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G S U R V E Y I N G P L A N N I N G OAT E Z
4205 146TH AVE. N.E.. SUITE 200 - BELLEVUE, WA SB007
12061 BB5-7B77 OR 454-3743 B Y /1
CD tQ\J t✓Y t 29
S� U'e'-skc'_ 1.�� (i�'T � t ►J��� T1�� P r' OX 1 t—i 1�T� CA1�FCl't'r
7-HS Db vW tv-tl P►--% S'T'S TE M -Tr`C ST-71T&
T�D sYS�b�c �N
t'���+�� l.YT,C��►-� tue� � S�sr�+�-� -ro i c��fir;c►.�A�,��,
DEStGNCu A
SHEET OF
T-9-P 1-71 F3 I's
-3
(9.7 PF7 till P.L
GosJ _r7� j,�F31v:
C)(o
EXHBIT
- C 0 l Q 6n F U 0. (Fe I-I T;il AIJIIFI� > 1-3 r-11 CD Al l:- ) I W ILE-T -A,PL -k7-r
4.0 Pvj ID Mj
,,AN30 Co. w p X T-1
4 , IGUZ-6
r-1F C, PC,&C)oQT-
Co"
C.
NJ
7-
SHEET OF
• 0 rjuuht 1
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
FIGURE 4.3.5C HEADWATER DEPTH FOR SMOOTH INTERIOR PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL
ISO 10,000
168 8.000 EXAMPLE (2) (3) ENTRANCE TYPE
6.
156 6,000 o•4z inches (3.5 ►net) --- _ 6_
0•t20 crs SOUARE EDGE WITH
144 5.000 5' HEADWALL
4,000 1Lw' MM 6. 5.
132 0 ha
4.
3.000 (1) 2.3 8.8 5. 4.
120 (2) 2.1 7.4 1 ,
2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4•— I t
08 3. t '
'o a feet ! 3.
96 1,000 3. PLAN
END WIT
Boo r1 i _ GROOVE EADWALL
Y� �•�84 2.
600�'�l n -- -2: '
500 =,/f� '
2.
72 400
i 300 *� p�c j = 1.5 1.5
Z N /% 0:
60 u 200 UJ 1.5 PLAN
z �2)
z / w
a
0 54 GROOVE END a PROJECTING
/ i a
.'tv 100 ,
1 j z
48 80
42In 60 W 1.0 1.0
0 50� W SCALE ENTRANCE 10
40 Q TYPE
w 36
(1) Seeere edge with a
w beedwall 3 .9
a 33 % a
0 A
2Q 12) Groovee
eese .e1.at 30 — 1 43) 6ree.e GOA 8
27 I �re(ec►iee
10
24 / 8 ' .7
6 To we stele (2) or (3) project
J
21 � 5 ItoritentUy to stele
4 nee straight inctineA line through
j 0 end 0 stele$.or resorse os .6 6
3 Illustrated. 6
18 J
2 ill
15 I 5
S
1.0 5— — ---
12 \
4.3.5-11 1/90
• 23
__ 1
e. .48z70JLop
; . . i
Zi 0� O� w o
as
000
,. ��'' •jam_. (-b �
At
• Z15 L � � I
/motz,
�I
41 . b �I.
OL
P
NS i ,
•fs Ir,E7 YN ;;w7 11
.. .rs-� ..-T r^.I.YnT 7/rr�•1Y1'.� ��-1...r�.r.l..r .1• NM�YYZ!]Y1fIlOi6�!(1�
rrrl ,."r�. 1 77 i�• �117.»rw.u,n.�. ....,
.1•.'Ira M,", . 1r[r
sn
3\
0
0'z414
�a s
i
rig
N M . N
' •�}� Q� �q I1:�"' �«�vn.► �o�n �/ J o1P/ S—� 6Z i
• a1bG,.�:,�� 11/M J�.^'7>> �/I�� ��•T:/Xa �� �yd �..�o./� .lead �0/ -
�'JJ .f� 6 •OJr ,/ �/�;�� �.�M�h'� �i�l `-r+O-�.L �! ..r .+ y� •S;.1 �`� T
rf
7 .
✓� �+in
Awe
tJ�irV/J 77vi o£ , ��. t+v�ds' T+•� ►.rf�s �•.�IYr/ may/
ml 0•4
Lp
t -
1
t
I �
i
�0z�
1
.1 /7�F_ _ __ 'ta•<st�'J��Q `}=),..�"- -`j"�•_ '! .� :'----------------
11. •�. !1 13 .l.Sf ,7
17
ZZ,
ir
._ 41 .-.,,,.` J ;r'-"-'-.-.ytF-( - -
-CMp �$ERd.Y_$..`.�.,� �• - - _ 1y N 1 li `11•/.SS
jN..po1JD n OJTFgt1 TzIflJcx
----------------
a -•-_- _ --�-_._ \ _�
la -
11 T _ _— ---______ _ _ - - _- ••� - ___ L •� . - - J
iN-L7NEL
60
z1 __.__. ..............................
FRONTAGE RO.
i. -- - _:�c��. �L�u==-------------- --S,jX� �tl� O6•Y a 1'•� 9.-----
rt /JJk IP-2
20
Is / ` .•`
IG N / •.'(:••, fit. rf`^.\• 1
1] t
.i•' FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 0-1 µSRR
1 t Oft .
)a
1
o so 100
x•EE 1■FEET
IGS Y 1� rAT FEO.AIo rRDJ No. HIGHWAY plYl$ION
OESI6MEo et v SENSOR 10 vRSN Moshtngton State JD-,3
-] [MT(RED et S. Tp• N•R Wozortnent of Transportation
^Y ECIEO of G. Y p i v. StwSOlt •+•
YROJ. ErLR. J. JOVR ON
1 DIST. •ON. R.O. AND R N rl
D.TE o.0 REvIS10N et � CIRAINAGE PLAN
�b
r-cfu
i�ftt
-crL
C-1:/[t
-+ttt
tom![ /
' � t—►It 7�►1U 1
y /LI "As r7t,Itt
M7'LI
L—►ILt ��ryy; H7t l
r
Htu F".rU
w
1-147'Ll 7-►�'LI � t
c-wu ►-crcl � I
7-cw" s-cfa
l-OIt l
LtI -C1L1 It
Ll t-CIL �,n�
2� ►-C7c
aoeL a
L-OfLi f�fL
• 1-1.741 [t ►t7tt
L �tTLI
4tl[ lilt
K s': c-Wt Yr G-c749 t-d/L
' �1 41 vim.. _ / , ►�
DISCLAIMER The inventory information for the storm drainage system was compiled from .
numerous sources and is the best information available at this time and
should be used only for General guidance. The City of Renton is not
responsible fpr errors or omissions when this is used for engineering purposes.
SHEET 17 MH AND OUTLET PIPE INVENTORY Designers are to field verify this information.
HYDRAULIC
GRATE GRATE PIPE PIPE MANNINGS OWNSTRM. PLAN PIPE PIPE AREA PIPE CAPACITY RADIUS
STRUCTURE INDEX 4 TYPE C8 ? ELEV. UPPER IE LOWER fE TYPE DIN SEP. DIAN TYPE LENGTH N STRUC. FILE SLOPE(%) (FT"2) (CFS) (FT.)
MH 17,D5-2 2 Y N 18 CMP 0.024 OUT ERR 1.7671 ERR 0.3750
MH 17,D5-3 2 Y N 12 CC 0.012 17,05-4 - ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,05-4 2 Y - N 12 CC 0.012 17,D5-5 ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,D5-5 2 Y N 12 CC 0.012 OUT ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,06-10 2 N - N 18 CC 0.012 17,D6-11 ERR 1.7671 ERR 0.37SO
MH 17,06-11 2 N - - N 18 CC 0.012 OUT ERR 1.7671 ERR 0.3750
MH 17,06-12 2 Y - N 12 CC 0.012 17,DS-1 - ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,06-2 2 Y 130.45 124.85 108.19 - N 12 CMP 125 0.024 17,06-3 16-4-4 13.328 0.7854 7.06 0.2500
MH 17,D6-3 2 Y 112.19 108.19 106.4 - N 12 CMP 33 0.024 17,D6-4 16-4-4 5.424 0.7854 4.51 0.2500
MH 17,D6-6 2 Y - - N 12 CC 0.012 17,D6-7 - ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,D6-8 2 Y - - - N 12 CC - 0.012 17,D6-9 ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,D6-9 2 Y - N 12 CC 0.012 UNKNOWN ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,E2-3 2 Y 28.23 23.5 21.79 - N 8 CC 345 0.012 17,F2-4 1-2-52 0.496 0.3491 0.92 0.1667
MH 17,E2-4 2 Y 33.6 29.13 28.81 - N 10 CC 317 0.012 17,E3-9 1-1-251 0.101 0.5454 0.76 0.2083
MH 17,E3-1 2 Y 29.48 22.49 21.78 - N 10 CC 240 0.012 17,D3-3 1-3-7 0.296 0.5454 1.29 0.2083
MH 17,E3-2 2-54 Y 41.62 35.52 35.34 - N 24 CC 57 0.012 17,E3'3 16-1-354 0.316 3.1416 13.81 0.5000
MH 17,E3-3 2-54 Y 42.0 35.34 35.1 - N 24 CC 77 0.012 17,E3-4 16-1-354 0.312 3.1416 13.72 0.5000
MH 17,E3-4 2-54 Y 42.49 35.1 - N 24 CMP 0.024 17,E3-5 16-1-354 ERR 3.1416 ERR 0.5000
MH 17,E3-5 2 Y - - N 24 CMP - 0.024 17,E3-6 16-1-354 ERR 3.1416 ERR 0.5000
MH 17,E3-6 2 Y 34.52 34.43 - N 24 CC 18 0.012 17,E3-7 16-1-355 0.500 3.1416 17.38 0.5000
MH 17,E3-7 2-54 Y 33.2 - N 24 CC 0.012 17,E3-8 16-1-355 ERR 3.1416 ERR 0.5000
MH 17,E3-8 2 Y - N 24 CC 0.012 17,F2-4 16-1-355 ERR 3.1416 ERR 0.5000
MH 17,E3-9 2 Y 35.25 28.81 28.66 - N 10 CC 31 0.012 17,E3-1 1-1-251 0.484 0.5454 1.66 0.2083
MH 17,E4-1 2 Y - - N 12 CC 0.012 17,D4-1 1-3-18 ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,E4-2 2 Y - N 8 CC 0.012 I7,D4-3 1-3-18 ERR 0.3491 ERR 0.1667
MH 17,E4-3 2 Y - - N 12 CC - 0.012 17,E5-1 - ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
- MH 17,E4-5 2 Y - - - - N 30 CC - 0.012 OUT 2-3-53 ERR 4.9087 ERR 0.6250
MH 17,E5-1 2 Y - - - N 12 CC 0.012 17,05-3 - ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,E8 4 2 Y - N 12 CC - 0.012 17,E8-5 ERR 0.1854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,E8-6 2 Y N 12 CC 0.012 OUT ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,E9-2 2 Y - N 8 CC 0.012 17,E9-3 ERR 0.3491 ERR 0.1667
MH 17,E9-3 2 Y - - N 12 CC - 0.012 17,E8-1 ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
MH 17,F2-2 GRAVITY O\Y 39.0 33.5 33.4 - Y 12 CMP 15 0.024 17,F2-3 16-1-252 223.333 0.7854 28.92 0.2500
MH 17,F2-3 2 Y 37.6 32.2 31.69 - N 18 CMP 101 0.024 17,F2-5 16-1-252 31.881 1.7671 32.21 0.3750
MH 17,F2-4 2-54 Y - 31.3 31.19 - N 24 CC 30 0.012 17,F2-5 16-1-355 0.367 3.1416 14.88 0.5000
MH 17,F2-5 2-54 Y 31.19 30.07 - N 24 CC 310 0.012 17,F2-6 16-1-355 0.361 3.1416 14.77 0.5000
MH 17,F2-6 2-54 Y 30.07 29.8 - N 24 CC 75 0.012 17,F2-7 16-1-355 0.360 3.1416 14.74 0.5000
MH 17,F2-8 2-48 Y 34.3 33.4 - N 18 CC 90 0.011 17,F2-9 16-1-355 1.000 1.7671 11.41 0.3750
MH 17,F2-9 2-48 Y 33.4 31.2 - N 18 CC 20 0.012 17,F2-10 16-1-355 1.000 1.7671 11.41 0.3750
MH 17,F3-10 2-54 Y 41.0 35.88 35.52 - N 24 CC ill 0.011 17,E3-2 16-1-354 0.324 3.1416 13.99 0.5000
�j MH 17,F3-3 2 Y - N - - 17,F3-6 2-2-103 ERR 0.0000 ERR ERR
MH 17,F3-4 2 Y - N 17,F3-5 2-2-103 ERR 0.0000 ERR ERR
- -MH 17,F3-5 2 Y - N - - - 17,F3-3 2-2-103 ERR 0.0000 ERR ERR
7 MH 17,F3-6 2 Y N 24 - i7,F3-7 2-2-103 ERR 3.1416 ERR 0.5000
G, MH 17,F3-7 2 + N 24 - - OUT 2-3-53 ERR 3.1416 ERR 0.5000
1H 17,F4-11 2 M - 4 30 CC 0.012 !7,F4-12 2-3-53 ERR 4.9087 ERR 0.6250
2,_ MH 17,F4-12 2 Y N 30 CC O.Di2 17,E4-5 2-3-53 ERR 4.9087 ERR 0.6250
r
OiCCLA1"EA
The inventory information for the Storm drainage systeA was compiled from
Shoal b ssedas and is the best information available at this time and
SHEET should be used only ;.;r Genera] guidance,
17 C8 AND OUTLET PIPE INVENTORY responsible for errors or oAissions when thiTheistused for engineering Purposes.
Y of Renton is not
Designers are to field or O
�IrtUC TUBE T.q0, • GRATE y this information. P Poses.
CB I%,8J a TYPE ELEV. UPPER IE LOWER r_ TYPE
PIPE PIPE
ce ! ' TYPE DTAM TYPE MANNINGS DWHSTRM PLAN 'ILE PIPE PIPE
t1,B8-4 1 _ LENGTH N STRUC PIPE CAPACITY HYDRAULIC
B 17 89-1 1 8 cc SLOPE(;) AREA FT'2 RADIUS
6 I7,C4 5 1 _ 0.012 17,89-1 4- ERR 0.3491 (FT.)
CB 17,C5.1 18 CC 1 146 ERR 1.7671 ERR 0.1667
1 12 CMP _ 0.011 - 4-i-146 EAR
C� t - E CC 0.C24 17,C4-3 - ERR 1.7671 0.3750
17,C5-11 0.011 11,C5 1 ERA 0.1B54 ERR 0.3750
CB 17,C5-9 1 8 ' 4-1-314 ERR
I - 8 _ 17,C5-11 1-1-58 ERR 0.3491 ERR 0.2500
ce 17,D6-1 1 - B ERR 0.3491 0.1667
17, OUT 1 1 58 ERRCB 17,D6-5 ! i10.01 106.2 105.7 - 12 - 17,C5-10 1-1-58 ERR 0.3491 ERR 0.1667
CO1 111.13 105.4 12 CMP 3-1-103 0.3491 ERR 0.1667
17,06-J I - 48 0.024 17,D6 ERR 0.785/ 0.1667
CB 17,EZ i 5 16 4 4 1.04 D.7854 ERR
CB 1 32.34 12 CC UNKNOWN 16-4_4 0.2500
1.91
CB !1,f2 2 1 24.5 ?3.5 - 10 cc 0-c12 OUT _ ERR 0.0000 ERR 0.2500 r
17,E4 4 1 _ 23.5 260 0.012 17,E2-4 ERR 0.7854 ERR
CB 1J,E8 1 8 CC 1-1-251 0.10 0.5454 ERR 0.2500
S 11 CC 325 0.012 11,E2-3 1-2-52
CB 17,Ee-2 0.012 17,F4-12 - 0.31 0.3491 0.77 0.2083
CB 17,EB-3 1 12 CC ERR 0.7654 0.73
CB lI,EB 5 1 _ 12 Cc 0.012 17,EB-2 - 0.1661
ERR
C8 1 1r 1 12 CC 0.012 17,E8-3 - ERR 0.7854 0.2500
'`9_i 0.012 17,E8-4 - ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
CB 17,f2-1 1 - _ 12 CC _ ERP,
C6 1� 1 38.65 34.85 9 CC 0.012 17,E8-6 - ERR 0.7854 0.2500
,F2-10 I _ 34 - , 0.012 17,E9-2 _ ERR 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
C3 17,F3-1 33.2 32. _ 1: CMP 0,3491 ERR 0.2500
C9 1 109.97 2 18 CC 1u(] 0.024 17,F1-2 16 1 251 2�07 0.1854 ERR
!7,F3 y 1 _ 0.012 17,F2 3 16- - 0.1667
ce 17,F3-8 - - 12 LC _ 1 355 1.00 2.79 0.2500
1 38.67 0.012 17,F3-2 2-1-52 1.7611 11.41 CB 17,F3-9 36.17 36.15 - _ - ERR 1 39,15 12 CMP 17,F3-3 2-1-52 0-7854 ERR 0.3750
CB 11 F4-1 36 i5 34.85 82 0.024 17,F3-9 ERR 0.0000 0.2500
CB 1 46.7 42 1 12 CMP 16-1-152 EAR
1?,F4 5 1 66.5 42.23 - 153 0.024 17,F2-1 0.76 0.7854 ERR
C2 17,F4-6 1 63.33 61.33 - 1? CC 49 16 1 25? 0.82 O.1B54 1.68 0.2500
ce 11,F5-1 64.5 61.33 46.5 - 12 CMP S4 0.012 11,F4-2 1e-2-125 0.96 0.7854 1.76 0.2500
1 53.02 49.77 12 CMP 0.024 17,F4-6 18-2-125 3.79
ce 17,F5-2 1 50.49 47.27 115 0.024 17,F4-4 3.70 0.7854 0.2500
C8 17,F5-3 41.24 12 CC 18-2-125 12.90 0.1854 3.72
1 49.82 442.7 - 169 0.012 17,F5-2 0.2500
CB 17,G2-1 46.57 42.1 - 12 CC 34 18-2-125 1.50 6.95 0.2500
1 212.37 209.04 12 CC 0.012 17,F5-3 18-2-125 0.7854 4.74
CB 17,G2-2 1 20B.53 204.55 12 CMP 162 0.012 17,F4-1 18- 1.97 0.7854 0.2500
C8 17,G2 3 204.63 199.75 - !03 2-125 2.39 5.43
1 203.7 12 CMP 0.024 17,G2-2 2 2 164 0.7854 0.2500
CB 11,G2-4 199,38 186.86 - 105 .C24 1J G2-3 4.36 0.7854 5.98 0.2500
CB 17,G2-5 ! 191.36 186.65 178.34 - 18 CMP 2-2-164 4.04
CB I - 18 204 0.024 17,G1-4 4.65 0.7854 0.2500
17,G3-3 CMP 134 2 2 16d 6.14 1,1671 4•17 0.2500
1 l81.09 179.56 1? CC 0.024 11,G3 3 2-2-164 14.13
e 11,G3 4 1 180.75 177.68 - 0.012 1J,G3-5 - 6.20 1.7671 0.3150
CB 17,H2-1 177 158.88 - 11 CMP 10 ERR 0.7854 14 2! 0.3150
Ce 17,H2 ? 1 26(. 3 257.66 247.85 - 12 CMP 185 0.024 17,G3-4 2-2-164 9.40 0.7854 ERR 0.2500
CB I1,H2 3 ! 251.D3 247.76 239.97 - 12 CMP 185 17,G3-1 2-3-309 9.79 0.7854 5.93 0.2500
CB 17,H3-4 1 243.06 239.9 229.86 _ 12 CMP 162 O.024 17,H2 2 2-2-164 6.21 O.1B54 6.06 0.1500
1 254.81 252.51 12 CMP 0.024 17,H2-3 2-2-164 4.82
ce 17,H3-5 251.83 206 4.81 0.1854 0.2500
CB 1 255,83 251,68 12 - 0.024 12,H9-1 2-2-164 4.24
11,i2 I 1 267.97 251.! 183 - 4.81 0.7854 0.2500
C9 I1,I2-2 264.04 257.65 - IS ' 17,H3-5 16-3-1 0.31 4.27
1 266.95 262.95 12 cMP 202 - 17,H3-6 =_ 0.7854 0.2500
259.97 12 120 1-2- 1 0.29 1.2272 ERR 0.2500
O.D24 17,H2-1 16-3-1 5.33 0.7854 ERA 160 - I1,H2-4 0.3125
!b 3 1 1.86 0.7854 4.47
500
ERR .,
0.2500