Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-160November 23, 1998 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISIONS APPELLANT: Lake Terrace Mobile Home Owners Assn. Appeal of ERC's Determination for Tamaron Pointe Apartments File No.: LUA98-160,AAD APPLICANT: Trammell Crow Residential Tamaron Pointe Apartments File No.: LUA-98-123,SA-H,SM,V LOCATION: 2100 Lake Washington Blvd.N SUMMARY OF REQUEST: To develop a multi-family residential development on 10.69 acres SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Request that the applicant be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request fora hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES: APPEAL The following minutes are a summary of the October 27, 1998 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 27, 1998, at 9:05 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the appeal: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Hopkins' scale neighborhood map proof of posting and publication,and other documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Five photographs(Hopkins) Exhibit No.4: Blocked view map(Hopkins) Exhibit No.5: Diener letter Exhibit No.6: Jacobs letter Exhibit No.7: Neighborhood detail map Exhibit No.8: Site plan Exhibit No.9: Zoning map Exhibit No. 10: View section Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 2 Exhibit No. 11: Colored drawings Exhibit No. 12: Colored drawings-pool area Exhibit No. 13: Colored drawings-parking,Bldg. 8 Exhibit No. 14: Colored drawings- entry/overlook Exhibit Nos. 15& 16 : Colored story boards.. Parties present: Representing Appellant. Bill Barlow Roger Haynes 2100 Lake Wash.Blvd.#91 2100 Lake Wash.Blvd.#62 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Representing City of Renton Zanetta Fontes 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Representing Trammell Crow . John Hendrickson 777 108th Avenue NE,#1500 Bellevue, WA 98004 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. The appellant, by and through Roger Haynes,protested the lack of notification by mail to the mobile home residents who were within the 300 foot boundary of the subject site. Even though the mobile home residents pay taxes on their improvements, it was determined that they are not the real property owners to be notified. After much discussion it was determined that for all intents and purposes the residents of the mobile home park were aware of the pending action and the hearing proceeded. Bill Barlow,appellant herein, stated that the City needed more information in order to determine the impact and requested that an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS)be required. As part of his presentation,Mr.Barlow listed the items on the environmental checklist which appellant felt were incomplete or misleading on the part of the applicant. These included the types of soils on the site,the instability of the soils,the variance from the land and tree cutting ordinance requested by the applicant. Further areas that applicant felt were inadequately studied were the presence of underground springs on the site,the impact to the local wildlife, and the noise of construction. The amount of the present impervious surface and that proposed was also discussed. Mr.Barlow pointed out that the staff report in its section regarding conformance with the Comprehensive Plan does not reference any policies which are dedicated to low income families nor the advocacy for mobile home parks,and Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 3 it appeared to be a one-sided approach. Of particular concern was the displacement of the residents and the reimbursement of relocation costs. At this point only 25 sites have been located between Lynnwood and Tacoma and the majority are not large enough to handle the mobile homes. More than 50 percent of the mobile park residents were elderly and/or disabled and several had received help from the City of Renton Human Services Division. Mona Vaught,2100 Lake Washington Blvd.,#67,Renton,Washington 98056,stated that she has lived in Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park for 8 years and lives on a small pension and social security and is not able to move, even if there is a place to move. On cross-examination,Ms.Vaught responded that in 1994 she knew the property had been rezoned,but she did not remember reading anything about the rezone when she signed her lease. Mr.Barlow continued that proper consideration had not been given to the safety of the bike riders,nor had enough analysis been given to the highway traffic as impacted by I-405,or the potential for the impact of light rail to this area. He further questioned the traffic study as it pertained to projected traffic trips generated by the proposed development and those of the current use, and pointed out the discrepancies. Mr.Barlow felt that the long term impact of this project and several other pending developments on Lake Washington Boulevard should be considered as a whole,not one by one. The impact to the school district and particularly this area's elementary school is also of concern to the appellants. ' On cross-examination regarding the fill on site,Mr.Barlow responded that the concern is not that the fill is dangerous,but that it is going to be removed. Appellant stated there are natural steep slopes that should not now be altered. He was further questioned about his concerns regarding the fill material and the proposed cut by Mr.Hendrickson. It is appellant's position that the existing soils will not accommodate all the structures without moving those soils, refilling with other soils and using pilings. Roger Haynes,appellant herein,further reiterated the concerns about impact to the traffic on the I-405 corridor, problems and costs of relocation of the park residents,and the water coming off the steep slopes. Richard Hopkins,2511 Park Place N,Renton,Washington 98056, stated that he represented the neighbors to the very northeast corner of the site which is directly above,and they are very concerned about any disturbance to the steep slopes. Grace Stiller,2100 Lake Washington Blvd.,#80,Renton,Washington 98056,resident of the mobile home park, testified regarding the existing springs and water on the site. She observed that unless there is'a thorough study done on how to handle this water,that there would be problems with the unstable ground and slippage. Marc McGinnis, 13256 NE 20th Street,#16,Bellevue,Washington 98005,applicant geotech consultant herein, described the testing done to determine the soils on site,and the types and location of water on site. He also testified regarding the proposed foundations and grading to be done on site,and the efforts to stabilize the eastern slopes to protect from erosion. On cross-examination,Mr.McGinnis responded that the removal of the existing fill is so that the soil can support the foundations. The existing fill is not properly compacted Greg Diener, 130 Andover Park East, Suite 300, Seattle,Washington 98188,applicant's civil engineer,testified at length regarding the particular issues of the appeal pertaining to excavation and replacement of soils,the Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.:LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 4 change of the northern driveway,the survey and calculation of the impervious surface, and the bioswale construction and its relationship to the aquifer. John Wayland.4010 Lake Washington Blvd.,Kirkland,Washington 98033, applicant herein, addressed such issues as animals,noise, adjacent property uses,relocation assistance. He stated that a biologist was unable to locate any eagle nests on site. Regarding the adjacent land uses,to the north of the property is the Griffin Home,to the south is an apartment complex,and to the east are single family residences. Mr.Hendrickson addressed the issue of B9 housing and stated it is a legal issue. He further stated that the SEPA rules are clear that socio-economic or social policy issues are not a part of the review, and that the only relevance in a SEPA context is to identify whether or not there is high,middle or low income housing,which had been done in the checklist.. Mark Jacobs, 2101 112th Avenue NE,#100,Bellevue,Washington 98004, applicant's traffic engineer, explained their traffic study, including trip generation methodology,peak hour calculations,regional growth factors, level of service at nearby intersections. In response to cross-examination,he explained the level of service impacts from I-405 to this area. Jshbel Dickens; 1021-NE 70th Street, Seattle, Washington.98115,discussed particular policies of the Comprehensive Plan relating to affordable housing and manufactured housing standards.. Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055,explained the history of the zoning on this site,as well as the SEPA process that was followed on this project. She further explained the ERC's role in the SEPA process,and the information they used to make their decision, including the geotech reports, departmental recommendations and contact with the school district. Ms.Henning was further cross-examined regarding such issues as the parking calculations and location of the aquifer protection zone and its recharge. Closing arguments were given by the parties and their comments reiterated their previous statements. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 3:40 p.m. SEPA APPEAL FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS&DECISION 1.The appellant,Roger Haynes,President of the Lake Terrace Mobile Home Owners Association,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M) issued by the ERC. Mr. Haynes,hereinafter the appellant, filed the appeal on October 19, 1998 and the appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2.The appellant and other mobile home owners live in mobile homes located on the subject site. The appellant was assisted in the presentation of the appeal by other residents of the mobile home park and for purposes of this appeal they are all considered appellants. 3.The applicant,John Wayland for Trammell Crow Residential,proposes developing a 17-building apartment complex with recreational building and pool on the property now occupied by the appellants' Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.:LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 5 mobile homes. All of the mobile.homes,appellants' included,would have to be removed to accommodate the underlying applicant's new apartment complex: 4.For a description of the subject site,zoning and surrounding area, as well as a description of the proposal,see the Site Plan portion of this appeal included below. 5.The appellant alleged in the appeal that the Environmental Checklist prepared for the project was incomplete and misleading. 6.The following is a summary of the allegations. The alphanumeric tags at the end of each allegation are the Checklist reference numbers. a.Soils: The nature of the soils were not appropriately identified as unsuitable for foundation support but were listed as: native soils of silty sand and some gravel. (Blc) b.Soil stability: There have seen some slides but the applicant in replying to the history or evidence of unstable soils question,the response was: "No." (Bld) c.Grade and fill: The amount of grading and filling was requested and the applicant filled in 10,000 cubic yards onsite cut/fill whereas it appears that the.amount is probably closer to 40,000 cubic yards and importation and exportation may be required. (B 1 e) d.Percentage of impervious surface: The appellants contend that the numbers do not accurately reflect current conditions as water can move freely underneath mobile homes which do not have full foundation walls. The numbers stated: Pre-project: 207,582 impervious and 258,174 pervious. Post-project: 233,352 impervious and 232,404 pervious. (Blg) e. ' Water: Three springs on the site should have been included but only Lake Washington is listed. The appellant also wanted more discussion on the impact of the aquifer. (B3a1) f.Plants: Blackberries on the banks will be removed for grading and routine vegetation management permit is needed for the property. (B4) g.Animals: Raccoons and deer were omitted as were sightings of eagles. (B5b) h.Noise: The noise of construction over 15 months was not listed.(B7b2) i.Land and shoreline uses: The applicant omitted identifying adjacent land uses. (B8a) j.Housing relocation: The appellant takes issue with information provided and insufficient funds to cover actual relocation.(B8k) k.Compatibility: They claim that Friends of Youth,the adjacent use to the north is incompatible with high income rental uses. (B81) 1.Housing/Income values: Disparity between housing proposed,described as middle and high and the housing that would be lost,described as low and medium and characterization of the mobile home complex.(B9a/b) Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 6 m. . Recreation: The bike trail was omitted from description and the dangerous crossing and additional traffic was not discussed. (B 12) n.Transportation: The allegation was that there was insufficient consideration of the impact on I- 405; the extra parking encouraging more travel trips;the nearby commuterr rail line was not considered;the numbers of trips under current conditions and zoning were not correct;the future plans were not projected realistically over 20 years and did not account for Bluffs, Labrador or Quendall traffic impacts; and one traffic study on June 2, 1998 is inadequate. B14) o.Public services. School capacity was not addressed. (B 15) 7.The applicant supplemented the Environmental Checklist with a series of additional reports. One item is the GeoTech Consultants Inc.report of June 18, 1998 which contains information on soils,borings and slide potential. The second item is Preliminary Technical Information Report for Tamaron Pointe Apartments. This contains information on current storm drainage and proposed conditions including information on the drainage basin in which the subject site is located. Two traffic reports also supplemented the information submitted to.the City. One traffic report was prepared for this project Transportation Planning&Engineering,Inc.,June 1998)and another prepared for the nearby Labrador Preliminary Plat(Transportation Consulting Northwest, September 1998). 8.First,the checklist asks for general soil types,but even that information is supplemented by the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report explains the nature of the excavation proposed and the amount of materials that would be moved,exported and imported. It also contains information on the nature of the native and underlying soils,why the formerly disturbed soils should be removed and methods for applying the new fill materials. Those old fill soils appear to contain disturbed soils as well as some quantities of organic materials,possible tree and or shrub constituents scraped and deposited when the "terrace"was leveled. The report has specific information on how to prepare foundations and alternative methods of developing the site if the poor soils were not removed and replaced. The report has analysis of the slopes along Lake Washington Boulevard and the east property line. The amount of materials to be imported and exported may still vary as the City has asked that the entrance drive be realigned. 9.The geotechnical report makes it clear that the site was already regraded a number of years ago with soils borrowed from the steep east slope used to level the interior of the site and create a more gentle central area upon which the current mobile home park is developed. There is also information about a shallow slide and slide potential. 10. As proposed by the applicant,the site would be restored to generally approximate the current topography with some changes to accommodate the proposed building.layout. In other words,the applicant in general is replacing unsound soils for sound buildable soils,but not doing any major topographic alterations. 11. The "drainage"technical report explains the current conditions and the post development conditions. The appellant alleges that the mobile homes do not sit directly on the ground and,therefore, storm water can percolate into the soils underneath the mobile homes that is not covered by concrete. The information uses standard methodology for calculating the current permeability including the mobile home pads. It contains information on the drainage basin and methods of conveying storm water and Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 7 any springs through and around the proposed development. Water quality, an aquifer protection concern,will be preserved by having a large bioswale located at the southwest corner.of the site: It appears that if piles are used for foundation support they will not penetrate any drinking water aquifer. 12. The applicant has applied for a variance to remove vegetation from the bank along Lake Washington Boulevard including the blackberries the applicant has noted in the appeal. A routine vegetation management permit is not required when removal occurs incident to other construction permits. In addition, it is clear that a large portion of the site will be disturbed for development and will be relandscaped. The applicant does not propose disturbing the steeper portions of the east slope. The failure to note a permit that might be required is not a large omission,and in fact,the permit is not required in any event. 13. The Checklist contains information on the general animal population and may have omitted some types of animals. No threatened or endangered species nor dens or nests of such species were found on the site. 14. All construction is subject to both City and State noise regulations. While the noise generated may be disturbing,there is no expectation that it will be unusual given the nature of the proposed development. If deeper piles are necessary for foundation work the applicant would use a boring technique. 15. The Checklist does not have information on surrounding uses but the application submitted by the applicant has that information. The ERC has that information. The two technical reports describe the vicinity in which the subject site located, as does the traffic report. The appellant believes that the projects proposed or existing should have been listed with their unit count. Labrador Preliminary Plat would generate 66 single family homes,while Marina Landing has 184 units and the Bluffs which was approved and is being re-reviewed,has 165 units. The City and ERC had this information. 16. The Checklist does contain information on the number of housing units that will be replaced and the applicant's effort at relocation assistance. It shows that the 92 mobile.homes and managers' residence housing approximately 210 people would be dislocated by the redevelopment. There is not a lot of socio-economic information in the Checklist nor other materials. 17. The Friends of Youth home is a residence for young adults who have had trouble but are considered low risk and who are being reintroduced back into the community. The appellant believes they serve an intrusive, possibly criminal, issue which should be reviewed. No one suggested that there were any extant problems in this regard. 18. The Checklist notes the income levels of the proposed residents and estimated those of the trailer park residents. 19. The bike path's omission from the Checklist does not appear to be a major oversight. The City has a Comprehensive Plan and its Park's plan notes the trail system in the City. The ERC is aware of the Comprehensive Plan. The current driveways already cross the path as does the access for the adjacent Marina Landing complex. 20. The two traffic reports prepared by different consultants bolster one another on traffic counts made on different days. The appellant_believes that the current population,a substantially older population,does not generate as much traffic as shown in the report. The report used standard transportation generation factors. In addition,there is nothing which limits the mobile home to this possibly less mobile Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 8 clientele. The current development is projected to generate approximately 4.81 trips/unit or 443 trips/day. The appellant suggests that the number of trips should be approximately 246. The new project will generate approximately 1,226 trips. The peak hour traffic numbers,those considered most important in analyzing the impacts of developments on the level of service(LOS), show that if the f appellant's alternative methodology and numbers were used,that there would be a difference of four(4) trips per peak. The LOS is anticipated to remain at A which is the best condition for intersections. The report did not analyze Port Quendall,but did project a 5%growth rate for the corridor. The City claims that the current LOS for the Lake Washington corridor does not merit widening of that street. The City wants it to stay a low traffic arterial street. 21. The Renton School District has reported that it has capacity in its system for additional students. The capacity of one school is apparently not considered critical to the system. 22. In addition to the specific allegation regarding the insufficiency of the checklist and environmental analysis,the appellants first objected that all of the residents did not receive notice as required by Code. They claim that all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site should have received mailed notice but that residents of the complex did not receive notice. It appears that the mobile home owners are not considered property owners as defined in.Code. Generally,the notice provision has been interpreted to mean real property owners,those that own land,within 300 feet of the subject site. Whether the owners of mobile homes should have received such notice or not, it appears that most, if not all of them had notice of the proposed actions. The property and vicinity was posted,there was notice in the newspaper and it appears that the information was distributed within the complex. Further,the residents had received the appropriate legal notification required by State law regarding the conversion of the mobile home park to another use requiring vacation. It does not appear that they were unfairly deprived of an opportunity to appear and present their views on either the SEPA Administrative Appeal or the underlying land use actions,the Site Plan and Variance. 23. The City and applicant both accepted the consequences of the appellants' challenge to the legal notice and agreed to proceed with the hearing. If the notice were found to be defective by a court down the line,the proposal would be delayed accordingly. This office found that the notice was more than sufficient and that the appellants and other residents of the mobile home park had sufficient notice to fairly appear and contest the proposal. 24. All Findings from the Site Plan decision are incorporated into this decision. 25. This office believes that it should also separately address, in a more detailed fashion,the appellant's allegations regarding the insufficient review of the displacement consequences. The appellants allege that the displacement of low income households is not adequately discussed and the current mitigation is insufficient. They did show that it will create hardships for residents. The applicant is voluntarily providing a consultant's assistance is determining available resources for relocation,but is not legally required to do more. SEPA is constrained in its ability to do socio-economic analysis of impacts by court decisions and legislative actions. In addition,since the applicant is not responsible economically for relocation or expenses incurred,no mitigation of such consequences can be imposed on the applicant and discussion of such factors would not disclose issues that an applicant is responsible to mitigate. The residents did sign lease agreements that contain warnings of some kind putting residents on notice the the potential exists for them to have to leave the site. Clearly,this does not change the fact that dislocation of this population or certain members of this population will have impacts. But it is also clear that the applicant is entitled to redevelop the site,and SEPA alone does not require special mitigation. This office will not attempt to underplay the impact of the dislocation of the existing Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 9. residents: It will probably be brutal for some of them to find suitable locations for their existing homes.. • or affordable replacement housing of any kind. But it is not something that can be adequately addressed by"simple" SEPA analysis. The State has intervened with legislation and guarantees,but the applicant is not responsible for further mitigation other than providing appropriate notice of impending change. The fact is the underlying property is separately owned and those owners are entitled to redevelop the subject site. This office can only join the appellants in urging the City and other agencies to provide whatever assistance is possible and for the applicant to provide as much flexibility as they can afford in timing the closure of the mobile home park. CONCLUSIONS: 1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled,to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2.The Determination of Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). 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." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier,to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document,an Environmental Impact Statement. 4.An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability.(Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway,WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. 2) Significance involves context and intensity. . .Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact. . .The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its.occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great,but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5.Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 10 Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur,....Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782) 6. •The area has been changing for a number of years,starting with expansion of Coulon Park,followed by the greater populations coming to the area due to the park, and then Marina Landing was constructed. The subject site has been rezoned for a number of years with the elimination of the Trailer Park Zoning over ten years ago. The Comprehensive Plan and new Zoning were adopted in the last five years. The Bluffs,while not developed,has been approved for a number of years and a modified version is being reviewed by the City at this time. The site was substantially regraded years ago and the soils on the site have already been disturbed. In total, it is clear that there will be changes and impacts but they do not appear to be more than moderate given the current state of the area and the site itself. 7.Impacts and changes are not all significant in terms of environmental analysis. As noted above, it depends on the proposal and the context. The grading and filling in some circumstances might have an immense impact on the environment. But in this case,there will only.be moderate changes to the actual topography. The applicant has proposed to remove unsuitable soils and replace them with soils suitable for a foundation. Moving a lot of earth alone does not necessarily demonstrate impact requiring EIS. The appellants believe that"recreating"new steep slopes after the "loose" inappropriate fill is removed is improper. That is a judgment call. It certainly is not an impact to recreate existing contours, not if engineering specifications are followed. No particular environmental impacts were identified with doing this. Would an EIS disclose more than is already contained in the information provided in the geotechnical studies? Probably not. 8.It appears that any slope or soil instability has been accounted for in the geotechnical reports. Ground water,percolation,diversion, detention and treatment of water and storm water and aquifer protection issues all appear to have been studied or noted in the checklist and supporting documents. There is a water quality swale located at the south end of the site that will be approximately 165 feet long and approximately 12 feet wide. It will be lined to prevent seepage that could either undermine the slopes or permit contaminated water from entering the aquifer. The bioswale is designed for cleansing the water. Detention is required under City regulations. Flows on to the site from the east will be collected and conveyed by pipes around and through the development. The City's aquifer specialist did not address quantity or recharge but only quality of storm water. 9.It appears from the traffic analysis,even using factors less favorable to the proposal,that the streets and critical intersections work at the best LOS and will continue to do so even with the proposed development and with other anticipated development in this corridor. The Quendall project, if approved, is still some years off,and is located a mile or so north of the subject site, immediately adjacent to an I-405 interchange. 10. Ambient noise of residents in a new development as well as the normal noise associated with construction are not unusual. Any construction project has impacts on its surroundings including temporary impacts on surrounding streets,sidewalks and bike paths. As noted,there are already crossings of the bike path by the existing complex. There was no evidence that any of these aspects of the proposal will have untoward impacts on the quality of the environment. 11. The appellants are looking for a full EIS to uncover missing facts. They believe that the current information compiled for the project is either incomplete or erroneous. That does not appear to be the Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 11 case. The application,checklist, supplemental reports and other submissions provide a wide range of information which allowed the ERC to reach the conclusions they did. 12. It is clear that the appellants have a sincere belief that the City's SEPA determination is erroneous. Unfortunately sincere beliefs have to be bolstered by factual evidence that the determination is erroneous. The appellant failed to introduce much in the way of factual evidence to show that the City's determination was erroneous. In the absence of such fact,compelling or otherwise, it is extremely difficult to agree with the appellant that a mistake was made. 13. Even using the relaxed standard that leans toward upholding a challenge to a DNS,the appellant has failed to persuade this office that the determination was based on other than a thorough analysis. 14. 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. No such conviction results from hearing this case. Therefore,the determination below must be affirmed. 15. In conclusion,the appellant's arguments and case are not convincing that the proposal will have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. In this case the preparation of an EIS that was specifically scoped to the critical geotechnical and traffic issues would probably not reveal substantially more.information than currently can be found in the existing record. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. DECISION: The determination of the Environmental Review Committee is affirmed and the appeal is denied. MINUTES: SITE PLAN and VARIANCE The following minutes are a summary of the October 27,1998 site plan hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,October 27, 1998,at 3:55 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall..Because of time.,constraints,Mr.Galvin,Mr.Hopkins and Mr. Wagner testified regarding the site plan during the appeal portion of the hearing. Their comments appear later in the minutes. The site plan hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by JENNIFER HENNING,Project Manager,Development Services,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,Washington 98055. The applicant requests site plan approval and variance in order to develop the site into 17 residential and one recreation structures. The dwelling unit structures would be three stories or three stories plus a basement and would yield 182 dwelling units. The site plan also features a swimming pool,a tot lot,detached garages and parking for 372 vehicles. The site is located on the east side of Lake Washington Boulevard across from Gene Coulon Park and is approximately 10.69 acres in size. It is presently developed as a mobile home park with 92 existing homes,all of which would be removed. Various styles of structures are proposed, and they will be 34 feet to 40 feet 10 inches in height. The total floor area of the residential structures totals approximately 305,000 square feet,and 2,550 square feet in the recreation center. The site is designed with three tiers of structures from front to back,the recreation center is located in the center,and the tot lot is placed at the north Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 12 end of the site. The access to the site is from Lake Washington Boulevard via two existing driveways. The main entrance is at the south portion of the site and will be a gated access. The second driveway at the north end of the site is for egress and emergency access only. Staff is recommending that the north driveway be realigned to either a 90 degree angle with Lake Washington Boulevard or an angle between 45 and 90 degrees that is acceptable. Extensive grading is required to support the proposed building foundations and the street improvements. This project requires a shoreline substantial development permit because a small portion at the south of the site falls within 200 feet of Lake Washington. The applicant is also seeking a modification from the parking and loading ordinance in order to provide just over two parking spaces per unit. The ERC issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, and the mitigation measures include payment of fire,traffic and parks mitigation fees,and adherence to the geotech study that was submitted. This site is zoned and designated Residential Multi-Family-Infill(RMI)in the Comprehensive Plan(CP) land use designation., and several policies were detailed which relate to the project's conformance or compliance with the CP policies and elements. In many instances the policies addressing manufactured housing cannot be applied to this proposal because the site is not designated as manufactured housing nor is it zoned for that. The zone permits a density of 10 minimum to 20 maximum net units to the acre. This proposal could accommodate a minimum of 19.4 dwelling units or a maximum of 182.8 dwelling units. Adjacent zoning is single family residential to the north and east and multi-family to the south. The required setbacks are met with this proposal,except a portion along the east and north boundaries where some development is proposed such as surface parking or circulation. Height limits in the zone are 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet;however,the applicant is permitted to request additional stories and up to 10 additional feet in height if they provide additional amenities such as pitched roofs, additional recreation facilities,underground parking,and/or additional landscaped open space areas. Applicant is requesting two parking spaces per unit and this requires a modification to the parking and loading ordinance which has not yet been granted. The applicant has also requested a variance from the land clearing and tree cutting ordinance in order to clear and grade on the western portion of the property to remove unsuitable fill material,to construct code-required street improvements and to support the building foundations. The steep slopes to the east would be avoided and existing vegetation on those slopes would not be disturbed. The view obstruction issue was addressed as well as the noise and glare,and aquifer protection area and its requirements. The landscaping plan was also detailed. Additional pedestrian access has been requested by staff from the north end of the site to Lake Washington Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the site plan and variance with the following conditions: (1)compliance with the mitigation measures of the ERC; (2)realigning the northern driveway;(3)revision of the site plan to provide the minimum 20 foot wide traffic aisle; (4)establishment of a Native Growth Protection Easement on the steep slopes of the site; (5)provision of a pedestrian access on the north portion of the site to Lake Washington Boulevard; (6)provision of a site lighting plan. Regarding the view obstruction concerns of the adjacent property owners,staff would recommend appropriate landscaping substitutions. Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.:LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 13 John Wayland.4010 Lake Washington Blvd.,Kirkland,Washington 98033,applicant herein, stated that they had no problem substituting species of trees as requested by adjacent property owners. He also outlined their revised hours of construction. Greg Diener, 130 Andover Park East, Suite 300, Seattle,Washington 98188,applicant representative herein, stated that there would be no disturbance within the 40%area of the eastern steep slopes. He also indicated the location of the rockeries on the site,and addressed the issue of slippage on the slope. Phil Rutledge, 19336 47th Avenue NE, Seattle,Washington 98155, applicant architect herein, addressed the height issue,explaining the sight line from the homes on the adjacent hill to the different buildings on site. He also discussed the heights of the various proposed buildings and displayed various colored renditions of the overall project. Richard Galvin,2407 Garden Court N,Renton,Washington 98056,an adjacent property owner to the east, addressed the problem of the current storm water runoff. He also questioned the building heights being proposed and their impact on adjacent property,and the lack of any information on the proposed lighting for the project. Richard Wagner,2411 Garden Court N,Renton,Washington 98056,addressed the issues of required parking stalls and the need for adequate on-site parking. In order to protect his views in the future,Mr. Wagner requested that the landscape plan be revised to plant trees which will not grow to a view-obscuring height. Several other issues were brought up by Mr. Wagner, including the accuracy of the height calculations,removal of aged cottonwoods from the site,hours of construction, location of dumpsters,and type and location of lighting. Gary Palmer, 2507 Park Place N,Renton,Washington 98056,an adjacent property owner, stated his concerns regarding the height of the buildings and the obstruction of his view. He was also concerned with the noise to be generated from the proposed parking lot which is just below his residence,as well as the possible trespass onto his property from this project. Richard Hopkins,2511 Park Place N,Renton,Washington 98056, entered a drawing showing the location of his property to the site. He is concerned about the excavation to be done to the northeast corner of the site to support the parking lots because of the steepness of the slope. He also expressed his concerns about the proposed landscaping as well as having the cottonwoods removed,the increase of traffic and the potential loss of view. Bill Barlow,2100 Lake Washington Boulevard,#91,Renton,Washington 98056, stated his objections to the proposal and suggested that there were things the developer could do without the variances and still accommodate a multi-family residential facility. Neil Watts,Plan Review Supervisor,City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, Washington 98055, discussed the street and bicycle lane and the required street improvements for this project. He further explained the drainage system on the site and the required water quality treatment for the proposed development. Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 14 SITE PLAN FINDINGS.CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1.The applicant,John Wayland for Trammell Crow Residential,filed a request for approval of a Site Plan for an apartment complex together with a variance to remove vegetation from a steep slope. 2.The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3.The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4.The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the.matter. 5.The subject site is located at 2100 Lake Washington Boulevard. The subject site is located on the east side of the boulevard immediately east of the north half of Gene Coulon Park. 6.The site currently houses the Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park. The mobile home park would be replaced with the proposed apartment complex. 7.The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 1791, 1800 and 1804 enacted in September 1959, October 1959 and December 1959,respectively. 8.The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of multiple family uses,but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The plan was adopted after public hearing in June 1993. 9.The subject site was reclassified to its current RM-I(Multiple Family Residential Infill)with the adoption of Ordinance 4456 enacted in June 1994. 10. As noted, a mobile home park containing 92 mobile homes would be removed to allow the site to be developed. Many of the residents of that complex either object to the conversion of the complex or are concerned about where they will relocate. It appears that assistance complying with regulations will be provided but it may not cover all expenses. The Site Plan approval process only considers the criteria found in the City's regulations and analyzes the proposed development and not the impacts of what might be replaced by a new proposal. A SEPA appeal filed by residents of the mobile home park is reviewed in a separate part of this report. 11. The site sits on a bank located above Lake Washington Boulevard. The main portion of the site is relatively level. Steep slopes ranging from approximately 40%to 70%are located at the east and west edges of the site. There is also a steep bank in the center of the site. Ignoring the steeper slopes,the majority of the site is generally highest in the northeast corner and slopes down both to the west and south. Above the eastern slopes are single family homes along Garden and Park. Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 15 12. The applicant proposes constructing a complex with 182 multiple family dwelling units. There will be 18 buildings-- 17 separate apartment buildings and one recreational building. 13. There will be six building types or floor plans. There will be two Type A buildings;Building 8 in the center of the site and Building 14 in the northeast corner of the site. These are the largest,bulk-wise, of the buildings. They will each be 3 stories over a basement and be 40 feet, 10 inches tall. They each have a footprint of 11,082 square feet and each will contain 28 normal apartments. The actual height with peak of the two tallest buildings;Buildings 8 and 14 will be approximately 47 feet tall or about 6 or 7 feet above the height calculated using code formulas. Other peaked buildings will be similarly taller than the calculated heights. 14. All of the other buildings on the site will be townhouse units. Building 4 will be a Type B building. It is located along the southern portion of the east property line. Its footprint is 7,616 square feet. It will be 3 stories or 34 feet tall. It will house 6 units. 15. There will be seven Type C building which has a footprint of 11,770 square feet. It will also be 34 feet or 3 stories tall. Six of the buildings along the Lake Washington Boulevard frontage will be Type C buildings. The seventh will be located in the north portion of the east property line. Buildings 3, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 17 will be Type C. It will house 8 units. 16. Three,3-story Type D buildings each with a footprint of 10,082 square feet will be located along the east property line and in the north central portion of the site. These buildings will be 34 feet tall. Buildings 2, 6 and 10 will be Type D and will house 8 units. 17. Buildings 1, 5 and 12 will be Type E buildings. They will each have a footprint of 14,646 square feet and be 34 feet tall. There will be two of these buildings along the Lake Washington frontage and one located in the center of the east property line. It will house 10 units. 18. The last residential building type is Type F. It contains a footprint of 12,568 square feet and will be 34 feet tall. Building 16 will be the only one of this type and it will be located in the north central portion of the site. It will house 10 units. 19. The seventeen buildings are arrayed across the site in a two and three tier pattern. There will be 8 buildings along the Lake Washington Boulevard. Seven of them are oriented with their long facades facing the street and lake. The eighth building at the northwest corner of the site will be oriented with its short dimension facing the street. Where the subject site widens in the center of the site,there will be three tiers of buildings,whereas at the north and south ends of the site there will be two tiers of buildings. 20. The buildings will generally take advantage of the terrain differences on the site and step down to the west and south. While the buildings will be stepped into the site,some of the buildings will reduce and block views the homes upslope now have. The existing mobile homes are low-rise whereas the new buildings will range up to approximately 47 feet at their peaks. 21. The proposal requires a minimum of 1.75 parking stalls per unit or 319 stalls for the 182 units. The applicant has proposed parking for 372 vehicles which is 53 additional stalls. This request is being reviewed by the Administrator as a parking modification. The tandem parking must also be approved. There would be parking for 144 vehicles in one and two-car garages. The remaining 228 stalls would be surface parking in a mix of open stalls and carports. The applicant proposed 80 stalls in a tandem Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 16 arrangement,meaning that the second of two cars would block the first car. Carport/garages would be located in the northeast corner of the site and along the center of the east side of the complex. 22. Circulation will be handled by 20 feet aisles which widen to 24 feet where 90 degree parking stalls are located. The entry driveway will have to meet Fire Department standards. The site will be served by a gated, landscaped, double aisle entrance at the south side of the site and a second access at the northern , end of the site. The applicant originally proposed that the north entrance follow the current access. Staff has determined that the access needs to be realigned to provide a more standard, approximately right angle intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard. 23. This proposal is subject to a 25 foot setback along its north and east property lines where it abuts residential uses. There is a setback intrusion near the northeast corner of the site which will need to be rectified. The property observes a 20 foot setback from Lake Washington Boulevard. Lot coverage for buildings is permitted to be 35%and the applicant proposes approximately 21%coverage. 24. The RM-I zone permits buildings of 2-1/2 stories or 35 feet. The applicant has proposed a mix of buildings that are three stories or 40 feet 10 inches tall. Taller buildings may be permitted by the Site Plan review process if the applicant provides additional amenities such as pitched roofs, additional recreation or underground parking and the height increase is compatible with adjacent residential development. 25. The buildings are designed with modulations in their facades,a series of open stairwells,terraces,and pitched roofs with offset dormers. Some of the buildings step into the slope on their uphill side. 26. There will be a one-story master recreation building and swimming pool in the center of the site and a tot lot in the north central portion of the site. A central greenspace will surround the tot lot. There will also be an overlook at the western edge of the site connected by a path to the pool area. A pedestrian path broken by parking stalls connects the site through the south driveway to the street and Coulon Park. Staff has recommended a second pathway down the north driveway to connect to the bike and walking path on Lake Washington Boulevard. The Police Department has recommended a second tot lot at the south end of the site. 27. Code requires a net density of between 10 and 20 units per acre. After subtracting the sensitive, steep slope areas of 1.55 acres,the applicant has proposed a density of 19.91 units per acre. 28. The entire site will be landscaped with a variety of trees,shrubs and ground cover. The applicant will generally not be altering the eastern steep slope. Staff has recommended a native growth protection easement to preserve these slopes. The applicant has proposed taller tree species along the eastern edge of the developed area. 29. In order to provide the appropriate frontage improvements as well as driveway realignment staff has required for the north driveway,the applicant would have to remove vegetation from steep slope areas along Lake Washington Boulevard. Such removal requires a variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance. The applicant has applied for the variance. 30. Similarly,the improvements along Lake Washington will require grading of the already existing steep slopes. In addition,the applicant has proposed to modify the old,underlying fill materials that were placed on the site years ago to provide the relatively level central areas. It appears those materials were borrowed from the steeper eastern slopes and redistributed to create the more gentle topography now Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 17 seen on the site. The geotechnical report indicates that these old fills contain some organic constituents and were not compacted well as they were moved around the site. The applicant proposes removing those materials and replacing them with sound fill,placed and compacted in a sound manner. The applicant could also redevelop the site using a different foundation method of deeper piles driven down to sound materials. The applicant proposes replacing all vegetation that is removed with landscaping materials suitable for steep slopes. 31. As noted above,staff has recommended that the eastern slopes be protected under a native growth protection easement. The applicant has proposed some modest grading work at the very western edge of the toe of the eastern slope. Some two to four foot rockeries would be created where some material would be removed to accommodate parking and stabilize these edges. The geotechnical engineer has recommended that no work be done to affect any areas over about 3 to 4 feet. 32. In addition to the concerns of the current mobile home park residents about their dislocation(discussed more fully in the appeal section of this report),the residents of the single family homes upslope from the subject site are concerned about loss of view,noise from the project and the large number of vehicles and the carports located immediately below them,the height of landscaping materials and light and glare from lighting on the site. They are also concerned about any issues affecting the stability of the steep slopes located between the subject site and their properties. CONCLUSIONS: Variance 1.It seems appropriate to address the variance first as it may affect other development issues for the subject site. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part below: a.The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size,shape, topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated; b.The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other property in the vicinity; c. •. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity;and d.The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject site. The applicant's property appears ripe for the variance requested. 2.The applicant appears to suffer undue hardship due to the existing topography and unsuitable soils coupled with the existing substandard access driveway. The site was carved out of a steep hillside years ago and this redistribution of materials left a very steep bank along Lake Washington Boulevard and uncompacted and inappropriate subsoils. Also the driveway intersects the boulevard at an unsafe angle that should be rectified whether this site is redeveloped or not. To allow reasonable redevelopment of the site and to provide a safe driveway intersection,the vegetation needs to be Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 18 removed and this appears reasonable. The removal of inappropriate soils and the redepositing of appropriate fill on the other portions also allows the applicant to reasonably redevelop the subject site as envisioned by the zoning and Comprehensive Plan. 3. 'Approval of the variance does not appear to materially harm either the public or surrounding property. The variance will only affect the site. It will provide the applicant the opportunity to provide a safer intersection with the street and the bike path and provide standard street improvements which will make for a safer overall roadway. 4.Variances have been approved for other properties that have steep slopes which need to be breached for access or street improvements. Some of the adjacent sites were developed or redeveloped prior to the adoption of the Land Clearing Ordinance. Approving the variance will allow this applicant to develop the subject site as other properties in this vicinity have been developed. 5.The variance appears to be the minimum necessary to provide for both the street improvements and site development. All vegetation that is removed will be replaced with suitable vegetation for steep slopes. 6.In conclusion, a variance is necessary for the appropriate development of the site and the frontage along Lake Washington Boulevard. Site Plan 7.The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a.Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b.Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c.Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d.Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e.Conservation of property values; f.Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g.Provision of adequate light and air; h.Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 8.The proposed apartment complex is compatible with the Multiple Family Residential Infill designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. It is also compatible with the various goals and policies for the type of development the City is encouraging,although clearly it will not be without impacts. It will be displacing uses that have served well for low income housing,there will be additional traffic,and there will be additional noise emanating from the subject site. Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.:LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 19 9.The proposal complies with the Zoning Code in all particulars except the special setbacks in the northeast corner of the site and the basic height limits of the RM-I zone. The,applicant will have to remove any intrusions into required setbacks and provide appropriate landscaping in those areas. The height limits will be discussed below. It meets the other front yard and yard standards. Building Code compliance will be determined with the submission of a permit. The applicant will have to alter the entryways,driveways and aisleways to comply with Fire Department requirements to provide for safe access and circulation for emergency vehicles. 10. In general,with the exception of intruding into the existing open views of the upslope neighbors,there should not be a substantial impact on surrounding properties and uses. Coulon Park will be the extended "backyard" of this complex and its residents can probably be expected to frequent the park increasing its usage. At least the residents, if not their guests,will be able to walk to the park. Traffic in the area will increase but local streets have an adequate level of service and should be able to handle the increased load. The alignment of the north driveway and its intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard is unsafe and will be worse with the additional traffic. The applicant shall realign the driveway subject to the approval of the City. The topography should generally screen the site from uses north and east of the site with the exception of the views being altered,and there will probably be the additional.noise associated with the substantially increased traffic on the site and its parking located along the east bank of the site. To reduce these impacts,the applicant should provide carports with roofs along the eastern boundary of the site for all of those spaces now located between the garage in the northeast corner of the site and the two garages in the central eastern boundary. 11. The taller buildings and increased development will also bring with it more lighting on the site. The applicant shall develop a lighting plan that shall be subject to the approval of the City. Such plan shall minimize the spill of light up from the site and the applicant shall not"wash" buildings with light. 12. It does appear that proposed taller buildings create view impairment for some of the homes east of the subject site. What we have here is an example of the "law of unintended consequences." In order to make taller buildings more visually appealing the code suggests that they should be finished with peaked or pitched roofs. Peaked roofs extend the height of buildings and make them higher than a flat- roofed,uninteresting 3-story building would be. In addition,building height is measured from the average height taking into account the slope, so that the peak of the roof is usually higher than the stated value. In fact,while the two taller buildings are calculated to be 40'10"they will be between 47 and 48 feet tall. The smaller,34 foot buildings will probably approach 40 feet in height. In the instant case, all of the proposed buildings exceed the 2-1/2 story height limit and two buildings exceed the 35 foot height. The Code permits the additional height when an applicant provides amenities such as additional open space,recreation and pitched roofs. The cross-sections show that from one residence the loss would be of approximately 600 feet of lake surface. It appears that both the shorter,nominal 34 foot building and the nominal 40 foot building will both block the same amount of view. In this case,approving the additional height will adversely affect neighboring property. The amenities the applicant is proposing for being granted additional height do not help neighboring properties at all. Therefore,the applicant should regrade the site where buildings would intrude into existing views to reduce the grade by the amount that the pitched roofs are taller than the calculated heights. In some cases,this will mean that the applicant does not have to import as much material to replace the removed,old,unsuitable fill. 13. It appears that the project is well-designed internally with the buildings well spaced out and clearly maximizing the view potential of the site. The applicant should provide the additional sidewalk linkage proposed by staff from the north driveway to create a looped walking route through the site. In addition,as proposed by the Police Department,a second tot lot serving the southerly units should be Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V • November 23, 1998 Page 20 provided somewhere in the vicinity of Buildings 3,4,or 5: The police maintain it is safer for younger children to use play equipment near their residences. 14. The applicant should choose landscape materials that will not grow to harm the_view of the upslope neighbors and that will stabilize any steep slopes. Since the site is in the Aquifer Protection Area,the applicant should probably also pick landscape materials that require limited fertilizers and pesticides , for maintenance. 15. The development,particularly if the grade is reduced somewhat, should not have an adverse impact on property values. 16. The internal roadway appears to provide for safe circulation patterns for residents. The width of these roadways and turning radii need to meet Fire Department requirements for their emergency equipment. In addition,since long stretches of the internal path cross parking stalls,the applicant should provide the second path down to the street from the north portion of the site,along the second driveway. 17. There should be adequate light and air provided to the site with the way the buildings are arranged. 18. The site is served by City infrastructure, and as noted,the roads serving the site have adequate levels of service for the new residents. 19. In conclusion,with some adjustments in grade and conditions to reduce light or landscaping impacts and to provide adequate ingress and egress,the proposed plan appears to be an appropriate redevelopment of the subject site. DECISION: The Site Plan and Variance are approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation measures which were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination prior to the issuance of building permit; 2.The applicant shall modify the site plan to realign the driveway angle for the northernmost drive to either a 90-degree intersection with Lake Washington Boulevard,or an angle between 45 and 90 degrees that is acceptable to the City'.s Development Services Division and Transportation Systems Division. Approval of the revised driveway is required prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposal. 3.The applicant shall modify the site plan for the primary ingress/egress drive to provide a minimum 20 foot width in both the traffic aisle and the gate opening area. Revisions to the site plan must be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Division project manager prior to the issuance of construction or building permits for the proposal. 4.The entry driveways, internal driveway aisles and turning radii shall be approved by the Fire Department. 5.The applicant shall record a Native Growth Protection Easement for the steep slope areas 40% and greater on the east portion of the site in order to protect the slopes from future disturbance. The Native Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 21 Growth Protection Easement shall be recorded against the title for the property prior to the issuance of building permits._ ' 6.The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection from the north end of the site to Lake Washington Boulevard. The pedestrian connection shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager prior to the issuance of any construction or building permits for the proposal. 7.The applicant shall submit a site lighting plan for the review and approval of the Development Services Division project manager prior to the issuance of construction or building permits. Such plan shall minimize the spill of light up from the site and the applicant shall not"wash" buildings with light. 8.The setback intrusion near the northeast corner of the site shall be rectified. 9.The applicant shall provide a second tot lot in the vicinity of Buildings 3,4 or 5. 10. The applicant shall not disturb any of the steep easterly slopes over about 3 to 4 feet. All slope work shall be done according to City standards and done in consultation with a geotechnical engineer. 11. The applicant shall remove any intrusions into required setbacks and provide appropriate landscaping in those areas. 12. The applicant shall provide carports with roofs along the eastern boundary of the site for all of those spaces now located between the garage in the northeast corner of the site and the two garages in the central eastern boundary. 13. Where buildings would intrude into existing views,the applicant shall regrade the site to reduce the grade by the amount that the pitched roofs are taller than the calculated heights. 14. The applicant shall choose landscape materials that will not grow to harm the view of the upslope neighbors and that will stabilize any steep slopes. Since the site is in the Aquifer Protection Area,the applicant shall install landscape materials that require limited fertilizers and pesticides for maintenance. ORDERED THIS 23rd day of November, 1998. FRED J.KAUF N HEARING EXA R TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of November, 1998 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,PlanBldg/PW Administrator Members,Renton Planning Commission Jim Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy, Fire Marshal Mike Kattermann,Technical Services Director Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V November 23, 1998 Page 22 Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev. Administrator South County Journal Parties of Record(see attached) 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 7, 1998. 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 fourteen(14)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. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. PARTIES OF RECORD TAMARON POINTE APARTMENTS LUA98-160,AAD LUA98-123,SA-H,SM,V Roger Hayne$ Bill Barlow John Wayland 2100 Lk Wash. Blvd N#62 2100 Lk Wash.Blvd N#91 4010 Lk Wash. Blvd N#330 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Kirkland, WA 98033 Zanetta Fontes John Hendrickson. Jennifer Henning 1055 S Grady Way 777 108th Avenue NE, #1500 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98055 Mona Vaught Richard Hopkins Grace Stiller 2100 Lk Wash. Blvd N#67 2511 Park P1 N 2100 Lk Wash. Blvd N#80 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 . Renton, WA 98056 Richard Galvin Richard Wagner Mark Jacobs 2407 Garden Court N 2411 Garden Court N 2101 112th Ave NE#100 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98004 Marc McGinnis Greg Diener Ishbel Dickens 13256 NE 20th,#16 130 Andover Park E,#300 1021 NE 70th Bellevue, WA 98005 Seattle, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98115 Phil Rutledge Gary Palmer Neil Watts 19336 47th Avenue NE 2507 Park Place N 1055 S Grady Way • . Seattle, WA 98155 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98055 David Sager Eric& Cindy Korn Shirley and Odell Milliren 1025 N 28th Place 1211 N 28th Place 1020 N 28th Place Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Manfred and Anne Hansen Dean H. Schellert Barbara Smith 1221 N 26th Street 1013 N 28th Place 1308 N 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 LaVerne and Mary Jo Graves Patrick McDonald Song Qiao 905 N 28th Place 160 Vashon Place NE 1412 N 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Sondra Kraft Kim and Theo Brown Charles Jensen 2100 Lk Wash. Blvd N#68 1003 N 28th Place 2621 Meadow Place N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Tina and Jerry Cullers Dean& Cynthia Schumacher Donald& Patricia Rosburg 2506 Meadow Avenue N 1116 N 28th Place 1402 N 26th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Robert and Esther Miller Steve and Julie Wasson Barry Oman 1121 N 28th Place 2515 Park Place N 2500 Lk Wash. Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 James Scott M. L. Gibson Marlene Mandt 1405 N 28th 1215 N 28th Place 1408 N 26th Street Renton,WA 98056 Renton, WA _98056 Renton, WA 98056 Glyn Gardner Bill &Madeline Arrigoni J. Steve&Nancy Harar 2100 Lk Wash Blvd N#84 907 N 34th Street 11326 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98178 Norma Cugini Gerard& Barbara Shellan Alex Cugini, Jr. 611 Renton S 11-Lummi Key P.O. Box 359 Renton, WA 98055 Bellevue, WA 98006 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Stark Bill Kelly Mark Mykel 4026 133rd Avenue SE 1409 N 26th Street Bellevue, WA 98006 Renton, WA 98056. I 1 C SE`1:62TH • 21t! •ur tt l' :ii p"'s:..; . 5° -.: r# r4 I 1 ST a 1B0p Si' .rs c69ici ; u 5c, ,. ,,;. ;1'- _:- .!.j : at is tx I S. _ I ; Al s[70. - G1n st12 •- 9- gib i- •- ,.,... 1t, 2 ,9 SE?sr= 16 x l Cu ct fa!Li , f•:.• y: O ' 'sT ISM jest' •- a'• A. x S! J• ti . C.••:.:7! 1 4 I I; nanp o •_'^ ` - h SE 2 D i n - N,•. . 57,,a:;,,.'-1.J, JI' PK ,I• T.'V. •S[ ! i PL 7 41 ,f.. _'A.. h ` JJ soma I /S'1: 0 L V., of t.S`71D -, tt • AID' 2/a1 ',SQxf'•4.-,h•••,dx•!.. n•J ! a Lea fr-1k .., u a + it ti^Cly®.:c+• l':—:' i r ' 76TH 'V .ST. k - •:t.. J : r 4' ,; so7Q '< 5:,." . j V .''y sl.,n v it E s 1 e y • I _ 1 M1. HE y y 1 4,'s' tnj' O rst tslx FL ti :Se .,J. Ty_E. •E ax JrM m.r q5. c= 4'Sr 9i f 4 .',.s ue• I Sl Ala sI' •a 00, pis r $ v F J.iti. tTT NI Ir., :SE \ 80TH 1""!s1 ST s -:S ill 4,11 • 4" t,. It 'rdrv 7nMa"- r Pt. 1 1700 11600 a .I h, b 5'.r'F,S,,O W H S•'J`( J(' r, it y r Yla •v 139TH Ar N 4 7.,„''f1 KIY I A? R TO r ' ti 7 TH T 0 tat; r m,, --v yr. Nt,TsT V „eJO I s[ R'!"s1 I x F.asr dr. S'• sr r'`c. s r 7i r H...sl es'-' L.f1:E.r. fC Gs-. ? E v 4.y, I I _7r s.,•.•.N MTN ST m. Pt aT` t: a,+-Sr NUS, U,O 5T' g 1 . r - g _ . b31:jI \ y gam J 4'. sr- Ni ; Jo , 4 .. ,.n(o •. SI_MIx Sr e.. m I.,r. :. 1[ CH r I l ur, IPut76THAumuni NE 67t1 sr S[ BB1H' EF n S7 I69,„N- a ,t?4su.. J,a l) Ay WM i_ ST y vs, 'Ai a. IS[en; 1ST JQ, n•.Wc, SV - J i; 33RD PL res A( r L S€90TH SE r 2; o ,p+X4 \,i3, °.A1SE ` 91ST ST'I SE 91ST l• 1 Ie 33tm ST 1, s tto 4pir• _- r,l 1 lp I i...i .. r 1_SE bar 31ST ST 1s00 .' t.LRfA, •,ga` ErF'j S[_• 'i+.JEv. - J.-r ,i W 7• • > F r I.r_ " n ` ' c dal 1N.y.• d _lm 96• c , m,W •y< x. 7- Al[Fr 2DTH Pt- rr ,, :li ,.:-Igi..7:I. ' .^• •1 ,1,i; ... J1 7r.,. _ __>a__ l -'l RO r Nr• 28TH'_ Sr ` .k-7 nar t7, fir'• -- p1 o' 2ta,7 .., i i '....ST. 'Va • • y, st '1r r:,° ` k4V * s i/I' 7100 r i j' 17_ s-c6 t 'k`f- SISR4 i 3< - r 1 r . R ;';. "° s ",. : illy. A •_n'-s' N.I,01?S C ,, awn i f t v. 'dICEAUTr E_ I.sr 44 I In' ''KI'.tp)Tr.. .ST •Aa' = ire z,•). LIDNS sr o tx1tT Im,.' _ 7.iN . W ] psi w - fr1171'<© ' Ft \ a c S. u ' o.; I ,k, V1T`•wr ''2• y 3. i 6 E f - G NE c k?:fl, f1 Z \ry s[io s-a—T ! , ;- - . ..• = I.w c V • 22ND t, u_ - 5 ea UST ;Y vi t _ .\.d = i::- st taix I 1' Z ., r. •• uoo I.n^ Qlfl 1r 7sao r a , Ei` _ O ' T" ,1 si 1 Er: s' r iN sr g, off* _ y r • s s 1`. .A.-.•4 ' `_is( I o6Tx a pc ' ` 7 /V -s a ._. SH r S! W •rn r 11/(iN.s j ` 4 Ilr 1 S;ri'LQILYN 1' g:SmUlb 2400&+ CJ i[ ` R- Y, 1 ET r,.n p4 1 • s.I$ Cik. i i tr1l, • 7800 QP A\ < y IJ'1 M vQ 90IJ n :lei _ z I. 3 N,x ell ST N 3 NE 32N Pt L7 1D v` ., sn ss t. mI sr 7 1 J•`,\_•• GENE [RAC7 ,,, 'r',W q11 1t,'m,., pp - r I.. 9 \ — s atiprl1 it NE ' 121H - ST ® NE '' 'I - 1ZTH'' Sr 1 3 s 1.----7Nv' `":v,• Ni'I EI PARK 2103 ` OR 1s. iopr i u1x 3„>r ;= ouro,N tit. '4. . 4.: r111111:. i Q, ,1- C 71t a ...e. -0 <. hr' 4' x k! 1çiapiir!r.< 8sT 1 Z'd7i O PARR. i. FBI yI CI a a W _ Six S, I 'e i7THSTiG . .•.i. t i'r ?i _ - a 7 1f"7. .-. i. if.ME• Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS®. It Is unlawfultocopyorreproducealloranypartthereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved.' Ii VICINITY MAP FIGURE TAMARON POINTE APARTMENTS 1TRAFFICIMPACTANALYSIS k Y'.''• 3 • s...w i v>.„ 7 „ 7Z li p, U/ " 'll f I I I III y " `-? iGa,.." In Y1b.Td" 1.,ii..'S ,.•"Mvr, \ \\\\\\ ';°r_ 0.. /;H 1' ' o . . v_ s S r :5;1 `i L ,! S PJ 'j iq. ,•itign.` e-"— --\N%U, wx r s:.1ti,:v7 4.tea. I II,..c l it Y9r'Pi;y Va ALI 0\41L70/' . .--...=-1 -. e. nr<-i.1 s 1 n: rr- l':*&-/. 16,*(10 . III \-- 4-? a: q-e, 7"./jai-e•.'i'''''.‘ ZtWA'T':.-1'':/''''15"-livfir -) 11111" it4-"""" tli'.:‘ 1111 . 7.11.1 C.'". 0/-1..''.e'llitTY- A-- 7,77"---,: 2.-1111" f r) 0::,. ..______......., No K,>;;i,`. Y" W a Steep Slope Area-Density Calculations r( Nsl Adi ? ill. ,=,.--,_..„-- 1;.,-,--ii --- 11•..- - n I.W.5,9i • AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY FOR • """"••MM. TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL rma A2TAMARONPOINTEMOM.••O M..lA.lll. i_°"` RENTON,WASHINGTON Swelle•••""g0lW 'At M!`Y W3ONE 1'-50' '' Z® CRY OF PROJECT NAME I u a u. > RENT ON EHEEiApA..11 VI as AM —.6iN L tt NAMEI 1 1 7,-.,,„,„„, ,,\_..,-- ,, .,,,,,\,,„ iv„....‘ice , fiFlos,‘" wt.. 7. 0. ....-AvitilV .1.%N,4 \ A i. "VIlk\gir?k,..''. •-4,ht,„ ,,,N‘,-_,t------__-_-__•=-A, _ ....., , ‘Ni.p,„, ,,r,<oori,--..,\::\:.,,.. 4‘\ ,0\\\\ .li.f away ... 1r ... v. \\ 0 ''',.,4 4 4.f-Alt;i. N14144.°: 4, 1 'el; I'V.\.k\O VA44,01' _ -- lt.„4,,, `. ._ •-#4*,:\ \\tV-- ,\ ,. 4? i' s%\" '' " ' 441:e . . 4*4::4,0 'St*: 411%W‘ta' \\'s..a. \:\ ‘., vitii;&_,No t.:.;,..%kk"..11;‘,\i, a is I VVA> NAL.,\v.:- CIAN:7-4.'\•Nsf\n't D 114.., sa, ":'„AI \.; ,A10))*A10,1 :,0,'' ,:\ S\ .(k.:.n\I Tai#70,- \\17.-1006,4,„*.ovx.v,, :,,,,„4\ '14141Lf*Aikkkk Ict m t 1 v:ti \ 10 i ,-,, Ms\ I20Off . k:: . . rl \.. .. tM \ l •ter:: lm'• \\' \. 7.7.....\ ,..4111in11 s.e.s....n.-- \‘'W.41-01413001 \It.)', k. 1 ,:.zi.,,, 1t..*:,4,11poiriv. - s',4 <.1.. 3.%N•••\* •itiP :44416 : * s• A V \,1\\N, •? • ••1/4,10.4t r CO f- 1,-Nii \,\(<47*/$1r. 4;:\ i#,, V-=4„ -'-7- per. 1,0,„•,. v ...,..4010-.3, ,„ %.%) N a ‘10A\..<\INC ., 4 iti;• yl t*-.+:1\ 000 . , 8 1, 7 ,rid. DIz . , war,-\ it ._,,,.._ . ` 71,Iii* A0 ‘*.'''''-()' -- c Z 1((rn 1 1 >p 8 TAMARON POINTS tea. o g i ‘:--,-_.-i i p,g _ a.a,,e.n.,,,,... 177L,7,lA,.. ,, {; yap.S . _ Iron...,...w.s...07G..aw iZ.. g ` P n p A4 y,pp7 P.x.a..1•v o.o. 0 N OMA PARK GTi.AA[300 SG71LE.MA 9016E PXOHC(206)431-7070 I-7970 1 7 I 0:111; . 0..... 1112111.41C 14 dd•• leN. 10.11X10 IS 413 of, • gr x44' eamose j 11111111 11111VIVIDI I 40". 111Ater ERIN MS PP:PWIY1.11,1 IF Section 02,_ Lake Waglitngton Blvd. oxymora NIII11.1.11IU9OMPUR •••••••••• TAMARON POINTE A.___CIP----_r___131051.._. .._81CR._ i__ SIL:a_.,v_81012 f 8101 ..1, III,OR __ LS.R____ 1 1 I r . 7... II ./,•;,X ,/ '•\ . .XN. t'''. Z ..51'...71 . • 'ni it /41*‘-.. .1 . rnidpaktoftoof4_ • i‘ Z.Az-N• ZeXIII2ik•EEi laill - 1:1111 EEI - ....Eel Ea,r --- . tknry, -.... 1 Ei- ,, ...4 .,,,,,,ve..-1 . •EEI. I i,B3 - y,, 1 1,.••II. ''• 1$.•'''l. .111: lilt 71.- Einar, lrijHI!_ITIII . ---.--•-, lie.till.. ."'i. I ill .' 1141.irmaimir. ., -..=,•—. ;, 4 j'ar ;• •Lbl.,•,..6.4 I1 ? E•1011a1 1 -IEB el II.Lila/dil il Emigy:il . 1,,, A i 12,1.111L__ • it- ,0,.... i _ iiii.i.VI di Immo DI 'mow(pilartm: . • an min 1,6 i•,,,,,...,,,,1 ggico.0 . inillit Ft''.' ,.. 1 :: d'. i.! '••:.' •'II. NM ISSili i !!.,'. I- b• od. West Elevation outh levation 0, MR . BIOR 1, PICO BIOR Et1OR BIOR 4, pit stiwir 11/411 kv 0.04•Z.E. 6. , X _,..1/4„ 9.4414 2 41c. 4‘rX ,ZA • i.-• Mil —1 NM .- '1114;i1 41'• $!*.. i. • ..* •/.. • ' I83B3Ea - • 1:E3 "I"- 'mec.c.t.-, :io ... . .- ••`-'—.., . 'al .c,..!: 11,ii:-. .P"" if RE li' ,:.M 1E1 tic . , . ,,,. , .1,*11 •Pell dli R1 it.4:I .'. IR IN ...tr.• Ifill: )171; .11 : - 7-^. r-- ' 7 IllgMN , ._ ..1 ,I ••,. . l'.....'. II ... , . • .NI)'1 1 • .. ......, .:„,,,,,,i,is ! . .., iii.•iel . •-••',-r— .at III: '• ' le l 1 • — . ''•.; . f---- E.4#EleYatiOn_=__ .....______ North Dpvation ; . TUPe n_D"-E_Imption - icling.10 Type"Bi&"P"Similar7. AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY FOR . •............1.2.+.0 TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL TAMARON POINTE hoodoo Mai atialri•eli.PJ.Ira • A9 1 41181 dars.11.8. RENTON,WASHINGTON S•oirle.WA.VIM DOC COY.4.003./0 PASI 30.13/1 07.20913 i WU IMO." 94D.I 1. 1 1NW 4.-1::-'-'• is41'''\N.-7'-.-- "--'litAl'-' A top of pitatel _____is .. -. v...,.., .tIN, _.i.i.i?.. lilt I, men fi.11,1;i1 ;_ , 1,,,,:.,44: 1,1 .p.,,0.:; f; h ---- -,....- ;,..,,,...,,,.. ,_, t.-_- ,,„ - • . A:.%.Y. 10 of PiMidood i 1M;:-.. 4,-NW Email ir tali r- i:rit II §vi I I'I,111".11;--,.._-— •1 pill I fil I k- .3.lg.:-7 311 i. !,212.01111 - -.--a .--,1 • • , - r.7.1-,-. .-€.-..... IV'Ai• 11111...- •• ' 7::-.,---t NI „,-1-......, 711:.,...iiii...)11111.1111 FE 7- - f=...11 11.11.1 I 111 EMI • I,. .:-...I. 41,1,11111 -: 1 ..,.-11111111t11111 ,.A 11./.Al, .. top of plgwood aymir, ,,,. al au 33 ,11 1 • ] ! , : : ,,, . a Liti /I ma - : • . :_- NEI. • 1 ;II,L. .4 thp,„,„,d,ill• hr.,EB. . - 11 . il: :IN .,:i. ,. Ir... — - ' '' . .-- .-':.- ' sr"' IN _0 at Elevation 1951,-Cr r.cr 91ret Of CA r.ce riounpiVII 91D4 F 11 i L .1 , thtt. qj 1 1 x e ilitiral1 4ik, 4.111, Iasi ";izi IR LIN II.el II I ELI 1 N.,1 _sr . lipi ............HI •.. ilriliriRillNilli - " I Ili 11 I ell "I I 1 r d ..1 IiiiiillitilliI., icrikt---- lu Beau am.416.1 ,,sia t 0 - ..,.:: gill al Miii.,:•• ‘17,5111=2.11.:1 k 1:AMC a all101161 !;',ft.,:iii„ iial. ilial 1 Ai i' iiiigionilirliq ltilililludljtipi.1h4illiliProj.1101 wuli.2 Lk It_INC so! II lei 01.,iiiii7 411 .6 iF,, A itil:itt,..us V !, 4 iiiitIbli ,34111111 g r 1119='1 il tiLllyraLit, ! it ' 1.14.1111111;iliwi 4-arm rel. iirrilc TAM Illilfit 11—,,ITIfififia'="74:11241111111 iliiril ViViiiii'6316iiii 11,11,4„ or 1=17'no lir r_754/11 m I rHoukHiP Ell .1,. :111,1 il mi g„ NM RI -1..1k4.:• tin re 1:.: S. 0. _ i aed vle ,.. 7. " r ip 111411,, 1„ I, Iffi AEI - g 'mu' lil 1,111.. , IqPiCal Poor Plan B...ailftigpa"An- Building'? (Building 14 similar) AN APARTMENT COMMUNITY FOR Aiefd••••••Magee fwd. TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL rma A4TAMARONPOINTEWW1.*WO AnnI•Ola Pi I. Wm Va,Ma. MKRENTON.WASHINGTON t. 1 Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman 2 Hearing Date: October 27, 1998 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 8 9 In re Tamaron Pointe Apartments, Appeal of Mitigated Determination of Non 10 Significance City of Renton Project Number 11 Trammell Crow Residential LUA-98-123,SA-H,SM,ECF,V-H 12 Memoranda of Authorities: Relocation of Mobile Home Park Residents. 13 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This memorandum discusses the narrow issue of the appropriateness of analyzing under the 17 State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") the appellants' claim of potential "economic plight" 18 resulting from the closure of the Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park and the requirement that the 19 tenants relocate. The memorandum also discusses the constitutional limitations on the imposition of 20 mitigation upon a mobile home park owner who desires to convert its land to another use. l 21 22 Trammell Crow Residential ("TCR") has filed an application to develop a multifamily 23 residential development, consisting of 17 three-story buildings housing 182 apartment units, a one- 24 story recreation center, and parking for 372 vehicles. The 10.69-acre site, located at 2100 Lake 25 26 1 Lake!Terrace Home Owners Ass'n Appeal at 6. APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER E.e SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION- 1 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01 1 Washington Boulevard, is currently developed as the Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park. The mobile 2 home park has pads for 92 mobile homes. 3 All the existing mobile homes would be removed as part of the project construction. 4 Approximately 492 people will reside in the completed project. Approximately 210 people currently 5 reside in the mobile home park. TCR has contracted with a relocation consultant to assist the 6 7 existing residents who could be affected by the proposal. 8 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9 On September 30, 1998,the City of Renton issued a SEPA mitigated threshold determination 10 of non-significance ("MDNS"). The Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park Association ("LTMHA") has 11 appealed the MDNS. Among the issues the LTMHA contends should be addressed in an EIS is the 12 economic plight" of the current residents if they are required to relocate. Appeal, at 6. 13 As is discussed below, SEPA is an environmental statute and economic impacts are not 14 15 within the zone of interests that it protects. Moreover, in the case of mobile homes, the Supreme 16 Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to require park owners to provide funds to assist residents 17 required to relocate. 18 TCR is already mitigating the relocation impact on residents by hiring a relocation consultant 19 to assist them. Further, state law (RCW 54.21) provides for public relocation assistance grants from 20 the state, when a mobile home park closes and the tenants must relocate. TCR has already taken 21 22 steps to mitigate the relocation impact on current residents by hiring a relocation consultant. Since 23 requiring monetary mitigation from a private property owner is unconstitutional, LTMHA's claim of 24 "economic plight" is not an element of the environment with a potential for probable significant 25 26 APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION-2 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01, 1 adverse impact on the environment nor is it an issue which is appropriate for additional 2 environmental study or lawfully susceptible to additional environmental mitigation. 3 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 4 A.A SEPA EIS ANALYZES A PROPOSAL'S SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL 5 IMPACTS NOT ITS SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS, WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE ZONE OF INTERESTS PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE. 6 The purposes of SEPA are (1) to declare a state policy that will encourage productive and 7 enjoyable harmony between humans and their environment; (2) to promote efforts that will prevent 8 or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3) to stimulate human health and welfare; 9 and (4) to enrich our understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the 10 state and the nation. RCW 43.21C.010. SEPA accomplishes these purposes by requiring an 11 environmental impact statement ("EIS") if the governmental decision-maker determines that the 12 project will have a"probable significant, adverse environmental impact." RCW 43.21C.031. 13 WAC 197-11-448(1) makes clear that the role of a SEPA EIS is to consider the project's 14 environmental impacts: 15 16 SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in weighing and balancing 17 alternatives and in making final decisions. However, the environmental impact statement is not required to evaluate and document all of the possible effects and considerations of a 18 decision or to contain the balancing judgments that must ultimately be made by the decision makers. Rather, an environmental impact statement analyzes environmental impacts and 19 must be used by agency decision makers, along with other relevant considerations or 20 documents, in making final decisions on a proposal. 21 (Emphasis added.) 22 WAC 197-11-448 goes on to state that the term"socio-economic" is not used in SEPA or the 23 SEPA Rules because the term does not have uniform meaning and has caused a great deal of 24 uncertainty. The provision also notes that, other than including whether housing will be low-, 25 26 APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION-3 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01 1 middle-, or high-income, an EIS is not required to discuss social policy analysis, such as fiscal and 2 welfare policies. WAC 197-11-448(2)-(3). 3 The prohibition on consideration of economic impacts was incorporated into the Washington 4 State Legislature's Commission on Environmental Policy Final Report on the 1983 SEPA 5 amendments. In that report the Commission stated: 6 7 It was not intended to require that "environmental" impact statement documents discuss every social, economic or other consideration which might relate to the general welfare. To 8 do so would substantially broaden the existing scope and_interpretation of SEPA's environmental analysis requirements. 9 Washington State Commission on Environmental Policy, Final Report,p. 47 (1983).2 10 Washington's courts have also held that economic impacts are not appropriate for 11 consideration under SEPA. In Harris v. Pierce County, 84 Wn. App. 222, 928 P.2d 1111 (1996), a 12 13 group of residents appealed the county's EIS for a proposed multi-use trail. The property owners 14 complained that their property would be condemned if the trail were built. 15 Noting that "SEPA is concerned with broad questions of environmental impact," the court 16 ruled that the citizen's group did not have standing to challenge the EIS, because the only interest it 17 had alleged was economic (condemnation of property owner's land). Id. at 231. Citing 18 RCW 43.21C.010, the court held that "economic interests are not within the zone of interests 19 protected by SEPA." Id.; see, Snohomish County Property Rights Alliance v. Snohomish County, 76 20 21 Wn. App. 44, 52, 882 P.2d 807 (1994) (SEPA is concerned with broad questions of environmental 22 impact and choices between long- and short-term environmental uses. Accordingly, economic 23 2 The pre-eminent commentator on SEPA,Professor Richard Settle explains: 24 The 1983 SEPA amendments and SEPA Rules include major efforts to limit the scope of the environment 25 because a wide-open definition would "dilute SEPA's environmental protection mandate and encourage the abuse of SEPA by using the statute for purposes for which it was not intended." 26 Richard L. Settle: § 14(b)(1) The Washington State Environmental Policy Act,p. 177(Supp. I 1990). APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION-4 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01 1 interests, including property values, property taxes, and restrictions on use of property as affecting 2 property value are not within the zone on interests protected by SEPA.). 3 Like the Harris plaintiffs, who contended that they would be harmed if their land were 4 condemned, the appellants in this case contend that they will suffer economic harm if they are 5 required to relocate their mobile homes. While relocation may in fact be a consequence of the 6 7 proposal, it is not an environmental consequence appropriate for review under SEPA. Moreover, 8 since monetary mitigation can not be lawfully imposed on TCR for converting the mobile home 9 park, preparation of an EIS on this issue would not result in any additional mitigation of the 10 residents' economic plight. 11 B.THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT 12 DISPLACEMENT OF MOBILE HOME PARK TENANTS IS A BROAD SOCIAL PROBLEM, THE BURDEN OF WHICH CAN NOT BE PLACED ON THE MOBILE 13 HOME PARK OWNER. 14 In Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993), an association of mobile home 15 park owners successfully challenged the constitutionality of a state statute (the Mobile Home 16 Relocation Assistance Act, RCW 59.21)that had required the owners to provide monetary assistance 17 18 for tenant relocation costs for tenants displaced when the park owners converted their land to other 19, uses. 20 The court began its analysis by noting that mobile home owners face difficult financial 21 burdens when a mobile home park is closed and that the State Legislature had specifically found that 22 mobile homes provide a source of private housing for low-income individuals. Id. at 591; 23 RCW 59.22.010(1)(a). 24 25 26 APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION-5 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01 1 While recognizing that relocation poses problems for mobile home park tenants, the court 2 concluded that it was unlawful to require the park owners to pay relocation costs of the displaced 3 tenants: 4 The Act represents the Legislature's recognition that the problems caused by the closure of 5 mobile home parks are serious. . . . Yet by requiring the closing park owner to pay relocation] costs, which can amount to extremely high sums of money, the State is placing6theburdenofsolvinghousingproblemsontheshouldersofafew. 7 I]n this case, the costs of relocating mobile homes owners, like the related and more 8 general problems of maintaining an adequate supply of low income housing, are more properly the burden of society as a whole than of individual property owners. While the 9 closing of a mobile home park is the immediate need for relocation assistance, it is the general unavailability of low income housing and the low income status of many of the10mobilehomeownersthatisthemorefundamentalreasonwhytherelocationassistanceis 11 necessary. An individual park owner who desires to close a park is not significantly more responsible for these general society-wide problems than is the rest of the population. 12 Requiring society as a whole to shoulder the costs of relocation assistance represents a far less oppressive solution to the problem. 13 121 Wn.2d at 610-11 (emphasis added). 14 15 Under Guimont, it is unconstitutional to require TCR to pay relocation costs to tenants who 16 might be displaced by the closure of the Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park. 17 An EIS on relocation impacts would serve no useful purpose in this case. The impact, which 18 is economic in nature, has already been well documented by both the State Legislature and the 19 courts. Thus, nothing would be gained by further study of the issue. Nor would further study lead to 20 additional mitigation. TCR is already taking reasonable mitigation steps to address the issue; 21 22 requiring monetary mitigation is unconstitutional. There is also public funding available for tenant 23 relocation which the relocation consultant hired by TCR and TCR's attorneys are assisting the 24 tenants in obtaining. TCR is under no legal obligation to conduct these activities. It is out of TCR's 25 recognition of displacement of tenants that TCR has volunteered these efforts. 26 APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION-6 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For all the reasons above, TRC requests that the Hearing Examiner deny LTMHA's request 3 for an EIS on the possible economic consequences of relocation, as well as the other issues raised in 4 the LTMHA appeal. Economic consequences are not appropriate for consideration under SEPA and 5 have already been mitigated by the applicant to the extent that may be imposed by law. 6 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of October, 1998. 7 FOSTER PEPPER& SHEFELMAN PLLC 8 9 10 tkke ick . ull ey, BA No. 21 82 L. Hendrickson, WSBA No. 5469 11 c •rneys for applicant Trammell Crow Residential 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 APPLICANT TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL'S FOSTER PEPPER E SHEFELMAN PLLC MEMORANDA OF AUTHORITIES RE RELOCATION-7 1111 THIRD AVENUE,SUITE 3400 SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-3299 206-447-4400 50052953.01 CITE 3F RENTON AN, Hearing Examiner Fred J.Kaufman Mr. Roger Haynes, President Lake Terrace Homeowners Association 2100 Lk.Washington Blvd.N#62 Renton, WA 98056 Re: Appeal of ERC's Determination re Tamaron Pointe Apartments Appeal File No. LUA98-160,AAD Dear Mr. Haynes: We received your appeal dated October 19, 19998, and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner. Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jennifer Henning,Project Manager Applicant 1055 South Grady Way- Renton,Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 63)This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF REND. OCT 1 91998 Preface RECEIVED alTY CLERK'S OFFICETheLakeTerraceHomeOwnersAssociationhascompileaaHSTorcommentsthat reflect on the poor quality of the developer's preparation of the Environmental Checklist. We apologize if the format is difficult to follow or if we fail to address it in the technical manner required. Please remember we are just residents doing this in our spare time. However,we think we have a lot of good points. In fact we question why the Planning/Building/Public Works Department Environmental Review Committee recommends a Determination Of Non-Significant Impact- mitigated' based on the incomplete and misleading Environmental Checklist;we feel the project needs a full blown environmental impact study. Moreover we recommend a study that evaluates the entire corridor because of the many changes that are proposed within the immediate vicinity between exits 5 through 7 along I-405 and Lake Washington. We the residents are the most impacted by this development,therefore we are filing this appeal to reject the Determination Of Non-Significant Impact-mitigated. It should be noted we were not individually served the notice of the Determination Of Non-Significant Impact-mitigated as required by the Environmental Review process (see attachment A). B.1 Earth Refer to item#c.The developer has pointed out the need to remove loose fill from the site which is not"natural soils consisting of silty sand with varying amounts of gravel". Yet he does not mention this loose fill when answering the question "what soils are present"B.1.c.nor does he offer information about the types of soil used as fill. For all we know this could be soil from the contaminated Port Quendall site,just down the road. Refer to item#d.the developer states that there is no history of unstable soils. Yet in the request for variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance(see attachment B)he acknowledges, "fill material contains organic matter and has shown signs of movement and settlement, and is unstable for new construction. The slope area between the North and South driveways currently shows signs of soil sliding down the slope onto Lake Washington Boulevard". Furthermore,tenants of lot space#72 and#74(back tier of trailers)recall the spring of 1997 when two very large trees were uprooted by earth slides that caused serious damage to their units. Lake Washington Blvd. has been closed in this vicinity twice since 1996 due to earth slides. The residents on Park Place North note"the hillside behind the planned development(between Park Place N. and the development, and Garden Ave. and the development)have a history of problems with instability and erosion that could be aggravated by the planned development. Refer to item#e.the developer states that 10,000 yards of soil will be cut and filled but does not specify the purpose,type of fill and grading they propose as requested. The developer is requesting a variance(see attachment B)to allow unstable fill laid on the original steep slopes to be excavated,thereafter he would refill parts of the original slope with structural fill that can accommodate the heavier structures. He intends to recreate man-made steep slopes in order to build buildings 6,7,8, and 13. The 10,000 yards of soil noted in answer B.1.e. is actually additional fill needed to prepare the site,not the more extensive cut/fill is proposed, see Earthcalc, Inc. calculations below: Revised date of application September 14, 1998.Note the City has the right to levy certain reasonable impact fees on the developer which should compensate for the negative impact the project might have on the adjacent community. region area ft2 cut volume yds3 fill volume Overexcavation 160,517 SF 43,899 cu.Yds. 0 OverEx to Desi&n(including backfill) 406,113 SF 24,564 cu. Yds. 36,085 Also note that to make the exit drive more perpendicular as recommended by Department of Public Works (change from 30°angle to between 45°and 90°)will requires major earth moving and variance from the greater than 8%grade driveway requirements. Refer to item#g.the developer states that the pre-development pervious is 258,174 SF. This is erroneous as the measurement counts the 75,161 SF covered by mobile homes as impervious,however under the trailer there are only 2 cement pads measuring 240 SF(the double wide pad is 3'X 40')the remainder of the area is covered in loose gravel which allows storm water to seep into the ground. An empirical examination will confirm this. The calculation needs corrected as it is more than 3 times the actual area of impervious surface. a corridor environmental analysis needs to be undertaken to assess the impact of the loss of impermeable surface though-out this corridor. This will help establish an equitable share for each developments' surface water SDC fee. B. 3. Water Refer to item#a.l.There are allegedly 3 springs on the property that should be reported as water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the site. Also it should also be noted that this site is in Aquifer Protection Zone 2, because of it's juxtaposition to the City of Renton deep well, used as a reserve water source. Ignoring the Aquifer Protection Zone 2 leaves the whole issue of impact on water recharge of the aquifer unanswered. Refer to item#a.4.The plan for diversion of the spring outflow should be included. B.4.Plants Refer to item#b.Black berry bushes will be uprooted during the excavation and refilling process. Because heavy machinery is involved a routine vegetation management permit is required. Other stipulations may apply. B.5.Animals Refer to item#a.Please include sightings of: raccoon, quail, eagles,deer,hawks, and wild rabbits. B.7.b.Noise Refer to item#b.2.the neighborhood should expect construction noise for 15 months 8/15/99 - 11/15/2000)between 7 am and 7 pm; (see the construction mitigation description, attachment C). This is too long of an annoyance(the City only permits a short day)!We request a new plan that allows occupancy by early 2000 (as the developer claims in his own description of the project). Furthermore the proposed construction involves closely spaced heavy re-enforced pilings to be driven under buildings 11, 13,and 15. This will cause significant noise that may require special mitigation,i.e. restricted hours of pounding or reduction in other construction during the pounding,to minimize overall noise. B.8 Land and Shoreline Use Refer to item#a.When asked to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected uses and plans,the developer fails to list adjacent land uses as requested(also requested in B.8.a.). To the north is the Friends of Youth group home for 25 juvenile boys and the site of the proposed Labrador Ve tures (66 new units)to the south is the Marina Landing apartments (184 units managed by Ta ell Crow)and the proposed Bluffs housing project 165 new units). Refer to item#k.The relocation assi. ant has not provided us with quality,relevant,nor complete information;many residents ave much better information than she does about relocation opportunities. Furthermore 'C mentions Washington State relocation assistance provides for reimbursement of actual relocation costs". In reality those funds only cover approximately half the costs of mobile homes that have already been moved. Refer to item#1. A new high income apartment complex next door to the Friends of Youth is not compatible. At present the resident al treatment center for juvenile offenders is reasonably buffered from their neighbors;the fact at there is no record of an incident in the neighborhood for the last 10 years. However,the surrounding community continues to raise concern about having juveniles offende s in the neighborhood.We feel the introduction of a densely populated rental complex will dd to the risk that the juvenile boys will have contact with neighbors. B.9. Housing Refer to item#a. & b.TRC claims th t the majority of their 182 units will be medium and high and the majority of the 92 mobile omes are medium and low. In B.9.c. TRC calls all 182 units middle income. This should be cla ' ed to reflect reality-92 mostly low income units being replaced by 182 mostly high income units according to the revised Comprehensive Plan (1993)the City has a policy to provide low and moderate income housing and therefore hould be concerned about the forced dislocation of 92 units of low income housing. Furthermo a they state a commitment to preserving mobile manufactured homes as a low and moderate option. the residents have a statutory right to ex rcise their first right of refusal to purchase the property. The City has made no attempt o assist the residents to examine how they might go about realizing this option. B.10. Aesthetics Refer to item#a.The developer can onl achieve maximum allowable density of 20 D.U.per acre if the City is willing to allow structu es larger than those specified in the Zoning Code RM-I=2.5 story and 35'height limits). owever in the spirit of Growth Management,the Site Plan Review committee should hold e developer to these limits and not permit 15 three- story buildings of 34' and 56 units of flat (2 bldgs., 3 story plus basement)of 40'10". B 12. Recreation Refer to item#a.the existing 4 foot wid at-grade regional bicycle trail,on both sides of Lake Washington was not noted on the develop rs' drawings Refer to item#b.The developer does n mention the potential disruption/danger created by increased vehicular crossings of the northbound lane of the regional bicycle trail. Furthermore the traffic study does not address the friction factor for the bicycle lane.Nor does it allow time for bicycle movements in the intersection4pacity analysis (the study calculates level of service at the intersection considering mot zed vehicles only). Likewise when asked to look at Tamaron, Labrador and Bluff traffic impa as a composite,the Public Works Department did not consider bicyclists. B.14. Transportation Refer to item#a.The developer fails to note the highway connection to the route which is less than 1 mile away. The State DOT is requesting that impact to the highways be calculated;this supports the need for a corridor study of development related traffic between exits#5-7 on I- 405. This is especially important during the construction phase when more than 1,000 trucks will be moving earth to the site. Refer to item#c.The developer should note he is requesting permission to exceed recommended parking ratio; a total of 53 spaces more than stipulated in Parking and Loading Ordinance. This is likely to increase actual trip making. A limited number of parking spaces discourages ownership of 2 -3 cars per family. Traffic studies have proven that without the extra vehicle many trips are deferred. Refer to item#e. According to the Sound Transit Plan,there is a proposal to run commuter rail on the track immediately between the property and Lake Coulon Park. Refer to item#f.In reviewing the Traffic Study we note that the consultants prefers to use trip equation over trip rate to assess the traffic impact. The conclusion was the 182 units of apartment would generate 1,226 average weekday trips while the mobile home park produces 602 trips. We can accept the methodology of the prior calculation but contest the rates used for the mobile home park. The City concludes the mobile home park will generate only 443 trips using a 4.81 trip rate per unit per day. However because of the inordinately high number of elderly and handicapped people in the park our trip rate needs to be adjusted down towards the 3.0 trip rate per unit per day(i.e. see ITE retirement community rate of 0.17 trips per day).This would generate only 246 trips and would alter the peak hour activity as well. Basically the new apartment project is going to generate 80%more traffic than we currently experience., The City claims they have no intent on widening Lake Washington Blvd. in the near future2, yet they have not performed a traffic impact analysis of the corridor using a 2010 or 2020 horizon,which includes the Bluffs, Tamaron, Labrador,and Port Quendall. We realize there is no fixed plan for Port Quendall at present,but various scenarios could be plugged into an analysis of this corridor. By considering the added demand that Port Quendall will have on Lake Washington Blvd.the City Council would be in a better position to determine if they want to approve a series of variances for the Tamaron Pointe project when their demand for multi-family housing can be met further down the road where improvements can be better accommodated. Because traffic is such a big issue we feel the traffic count done June 2, 1998, between the hours of 4-6 pm. do not allow provide adequate information to make conclusive determination of the traffic impact. We recommend a series of all day counts be undertaken,which include counts at both entrances to the existing mobile home park. B.15. Public Services. Refer to item#a. Schools -Kennydale has reached its capacity of 385 students and the Board of Education master plan calls for keeping this school small. If three portables were added they could accommodate 75 more students. The school could not accept the students from Tamaron/Labador/Bluffs combined. A corridor analysis is needed to help resolve how to accommodate new elementary pupils and who will pay. 2 The transportation mitigation fee is based on a 20 year transportation improvement program costing$134 million. attachment A-the Environmental Review process attachment B -request for variance from the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Ordinance attachment C -see the construction mitigation description Summary As concerned citizens who are directly impacted by this project we have been forced to familiarize ourselves with the environmental issues that need to be addressed for the development of this site. We are appalled that the developer made little to no effort to accurately describe the environmental issues via the Environmental Checklist. Equally disappointing was the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report which fails to bring some our points to light. Based on the circumstances we ask the hearing examiner to hear our appeal of the Determination Of Non-Significant Impact- mitigated and we request the project undertake a full EIS. Our position is: no variances or deviation from the rules and regulations that control development of this property should occur, an analysis of the entire corridor needs to be undertaken to accurately assess the impact of foreseeable development on Lake Washington Blvd. and the aquifer protection area, the bicyclist should be given more consideration in all project analysis, and finally that the economic plight of the residents of Lake Terrace Mobile Home Park be given greater consideration. Thank you for hearing our concerns, Respectfully Yo , L f LZe)° ` G Pil_ 9 o.< President of the Lake Terrace Mobile Rome Owners Association. N o N PAIN E AVyas)aag 7567 NOTES RECEIPT DATE Q °7 No. 2311 RECEIVED FROM e04er II . r el' ADDRESS 7S', o FOR f l) / ja '. e X I.PTrt.e4u,t L tl, — l! "i 3 ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF ACCOUNT CASH y ,+1"f'p AMT. CHECK OD PAID HONEYBALANCE DUE ORDER BY 8 P 6 ` r d/}1' 1998 REDIFORM®sLe02